Does Function Preclude Form?

[YongChun]

"pre·clude
To make impossible, as by action taken in advance; prevent. See Synonyms at prevent.
To exclude or prevent (someone) from a given condition or activity: Modesty precludes me from accepting the honor. "

These days there is much talk about training reality. It almost looks like forms and chi sau are out. These are just things to quickly get over with so one can get on with the real business of fighting.

So I was thinking does form preclude fighting? Does fighting have to look look like sh** to be effective. Of course it can look like sh** and be effective. If one were in the middle of a survival war then all would agree who cares. If it works that’s great. But some people are not in a war and so have extra time on their hands to sit and ponder, train and ponder, train and look in the mirror every once in awhile to admire or be disgusted at our form.

I always liked Chinese Kung Fu because there was some beauty to it that plain old brawling just didn’t have. I saw a fighting art could be both effective and beautiful at the same time. So that appealed to me. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder however. At one time I thought Karate was beautiful but then my tastes Changed for Southern Chinese Kung Fu. Later I saw a beauty in Aikido and even more so in the arts of Tai Chi and Ba Gua. This beauty went beyond structure and form into the realm of dance and energy. Form in motion and intense energy, total relaxation (not total limpness) and the sudden changes between shapes and energies. All this is difficult to describe very much appealed to my mind.

In the early 1980’s my teacher berated me for spoiling my students by concentrating too much on fighting without first having mastered the proper feeling and the proper form. But our stuff worked. Of course worked against who? In class I was better at fighting than one of my training partners. Yet there was something about his form that was better than mine. He paid attention to little details, which made so much difference to the look. To me, he was the better man. Eventually his attention to detail would pay off.

I remember once Sifu Chung Kwok Chow from New York said that he had been teaching a long long time and no matter what he did his students just didn’t have the look of his Hong Kong classmates. He couldn't put his finger on what it was? The other day I talked with a Chinese from the Hung style. He said he didn’t know what it was either but most Caucasian Kung Fu artists just didn’t have the right Kung Fu look. He said he only met one guy who did. I suppose it's the same as a white guy doing a black man's music or dance. The culture has to be absorbed to do it right.

When I learned Hung style the teacher said you need to learn about 10 years of form and then you went out to fight to learn how to apply the art in a fight. He said starting to fight too early in that art just didn’t produce a Hung style fighter. Instead he said it always resulted in another form of ugly kickboxing fighting. In his day it was form, form and more form. Then it was fight, fight and fight some more.

Because I developed an eye for beautiful Kung Fu, Chuck Norris movies just don’t do it for me in the same way that Jet Li movies do. Chinese Kung Fu to me has to have an art aspect. I think you can definitely have both fighting effectiveness and beauty hand in hand.

Cars are beautiful and they work. Food can taste good, look beautiful and be nutritious all at the same time. You might counter that both a handsome and ugly husband can earn a living and take out the garbage and so looks don't matter.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder so there is not one standard. But I think William Cheung’s waterfront demo looks very good. Augustine Fong’s Windy city demo looks very good. I think Kenneth Chung’s totally relaxed method in fighting and form looks very good. I think Gary Lam has function and good form. So different lineages all have examples of good function combined with good form.

I think the good form comes from doing lots of form. Good form cannot come from rushing through the forms quickly so we can get on to kickboxing type of reality training. Good structure takes time to develop and to ingrain into the body so that it doesn't fall apart under stress. Some good boxers also have good form. I usde to think Olympic Judo looks like garbage however I have seen some recent matches that also displayed very good technique and form.

I think good form is a prerequisite to efficient body mechanics, rootedness and powerful force delivery. It doesn’t take away from effectiveness. Relaxed functional form takes much longer to train than hard style functional form.

Again this is all open to interpretation. There is a book about Karate by Egami. In my mind I had some ideal notions about what perfect Karate form should be like. But in the book the Karate to me looked like garbage but when explained by Egami it was much more effective so the forms were deceptive. Good function meant the forms had to change. It looked to me that the new Karate was on the Tai Chi path and towards the end of that path there is again very good form.

In the 1980’s I collected every tape on Wing Chun and martial art that there was. Many Wing Chun tapes were just plain ugly. Sometimes the teacher would wobble too and fro, up and down, and call it Wing Chun. No doubt he could fight but something was missing. Form was discounted in favor of function. Form just wasn’t considered important. Maybe the art of it was missing. Maybe they weren’t really effective?

For many I know this is of no importance. One lady from China said “why does everybody in the USA dress like pigs?” To her beauty is important but here functionality in terms of comfort and warmth is much more important than looks. She said why can’t you have both?

To develop the real ART of it, a lot of attention has to be brought onto the finest of details of the art. These things take time and come through the form combined with the sticking hands. I think maximum effectiveness in fighting also comes from this detailed attention to feeling and form.

About Egami and about thinking too much about copying exact traditional Karate Form:
http://www.shotokai.com/ingles/history/style.html
http://www.shotokai.com/ingles/history/worries.html
The Heart of Karate-Do
by Shigeru Egami

Ray

[PaulH]

Ray,

A beautiful sailboat without a rudder will drift aimlessly. So is form without function and vice versa. Some boats are for rivers; others raging sea. Choose one wisely! =)

[anerlich]

Is there is a not contradiction between real beauty and a system that is designed to damage people? Are aikido, jits, and other arts where you can allegedly overcome opponents without damaging them the only beautiful martial arts?

That said, boxers (Ali, Roy Jones Jr) can also demonstrate beautiful technique. Sakuraba, JJ Machado, Genki Sudo ditto. Football players also.

David Lee Roth once said, "it's not whether you win or lose, but how good you look." Does that apply to combat sport/arts?

[OdderMensch]

What works is not pretty, what is pretty does not work. I don't merely copy that out of a book, nor do i simply recite the words of others.

I'm a student of art, its form, its histories, its role in society and its masters. If there is one thing I have learned, its that it is very simple to copy the "look" or "form" of a master, but that the work always losses something in the translation.

What important, or I might say beautiful about a piece of art, is the intent, or idea of the artist that creates it. With out that, its simply a lump of stone, a bit of paper with some colors on it, or a person in silk jammies swinging a tin sword in the air.

I think what needs to be discussed is the idea that forms(expressed body motions meant to train) are not about "form" but "function" ie fighting. I realize that "form" is the most obvious aspect of a form, it's movements must be seen and copied, but the movements then need to be trained and tested in order to remain beautiful.

In other words, If you seek beauty in your forms, train the function.

Michelangelo painted to inspire for a generation, Dali meant to illustrate the realms of the subconsciousness, and Yip Man wanted to learn how to fight.

"Lien Sil Di Dar" (the shape that attacks, defends) Hurt them so that they cannot hurt you. Now that is beautiful.

[Da_Moose]

Ray,

It seems from your post that you would do well to look up and try to experience Chi Sim Weng Chun. It has the functionality of practical combat and the grace of dancing from my experience.

[Hendrik]

shape, potential, momentum are one. Form and Function are one.

Certain Key was lost if the "look" is not the same. Certain key were coppied if the "look" is the same.



"Lien Sil Di Dar" (the shape that attacks, defends) Hurt people so that they cannot hurt you. Now that is beautiful."------


Lien Sil Dai Dar is refer not to a shape but a function directly, then it will take the shape.

[kj]

Originally posted by anerlich
Is there is a not contradiction between real beauty and a system that is designed to damage people? Are aikido, jits, and other arts where you can allegedly overcome opponents without damaging them the only beautiful martial arts?

To me it is more paradox than contradiction.

FWIW, Wing Chun grows increasingly beautiful to me, both visually and through my other senses. As my perceptions of human movement continue to develop, I can better discern and appreciate high level skills in other arts as well; both those for fighting application and those designed for something else. At a certain level, self control and self mastery appear to transcend style. In a sense, that's what it's all about.

Even if our focus is narrowed so tightly that fighting is the only thing remaining within the field of vision, it must still be about self control and self mastery in that context. Regardless of what may invade our area or disturb our energy, and no matter how fearful or angry we may be at the other guy, in a relative sense at least, it's still about managing ourselves within the context of forces surrounding us in that space and through that time.

When high level skill is involved, there is a certain breathtaking beauty no matter what the context. Perhaps as much for the effort in earning it, as for the realization itself. I guess that's why they call it kung fu.

Seems I got off on a ramble; I'll blame you for triggering it. ;)

Regards,
- kj

[kj]

Originally posted by OdderMensch
In other words, If you seek beauty in your forms, train the function.

I can agree with this. Ultimate beauty may be when form and function become one and the same, rather than at odds with each other. Maybe that's your point, I just don't want to put words in your mouth.

Of course I don't believe any mere human can resolve and optimize them 100%. When someone gets in a fight, for example, form is never 100% even if function prevails. But at least in greater or lesser degrees it can be done. That's the fun and the challenge - to find the synergy of form and function and go as far as we can with it.

Regards,
- kj

[OdderMensch]

Originally posted by Hendrik
Lien Sil Dai Dar is refer not to a shape but a function directly, then it will take the shape.

Yes, exactly what I was trying to say. I said "shape" because it is the most common simple translation I knew of. If the functionality is not there, the form is not there.

[kj]

Originally posted by Hendrik
shape, potential, momentum are one. Form and Function are one.

Oops ... you beat me to it. ;)
- kj

[anerlich]

KJ,

yeah, I guess. Supernovae are beautiful, even though they represent destruction on a truly cosmic scale.

[Hendrik]

Originally posted by kj
Oops ... you beat me to it. ;)
- kj

When KJ smile, her shape is sunny, her heart is open, her mood is happy. the environment surronding her is fun.

Who beat who? :D

beauty is about a totally of awareness. dont use your mind to think for it always changes.

[John Weiland]

Originally posted by YongChun

I remember once Sifu Chung Kwok Chow from New York said that he had been teaching a long long time and no matter what he did his students just didn’t have the look of his Hong Kong classmates. He couldn't put his finger on what it was? The other day I talked with a Chinese from the Hung style. He said he didn’t know what it was either but most Caucasian Kung Fu artists just didn’t have the right Kung Fu look.

LOL! One of Ken Chung's old students once told me over drinks that to do Wing Chun, you had to look Chinese. Not be Chinese, just look it. Maybe he was on to something. I certainly don't look Chinese, and my Wing Chun could stand improvement. :D

Regards,

[KingMonkey]

I think this comes down to what you are doing WC or any martial art for.
I personally am only interested in function.
No offence intended but I think you have an overly romanticized view of the artistic merits of Chinese fighters or the old style training routines.
Of course Jet Li looks great in a choreagraphed movie sequence, get in his face for real and start throwing a few punches, he wont be back flipping over your head and helicopter kicking you anytime soon.
If you look at some of the HK rooftop fights or clips of so called old time 'masters' fighting [one was posted on here a little while ago] you will see that when the sh*t hits the fan these guys look as ugly as the rest of us, arguably uglier.

[AmanuJRY]

Disclaimer:
The quotes in this post have been edited for space and relevant (to me) content, for complete dialog, see original post.




Originally posted by YongChun
These days there is much talk about training reality. It almost looks like forms and chi sau are out. These are just things to quickly get over with so one can get on with the real business of fighting.....So I was thinking does form preclude fighting?

Ray,
IMO, no, neither one precludes the other. Form is a training tool, to develop your skills. When someone begins training they learn forms to teach basic shapes and body structure, then drills, chi sau, lop sau, kiu sau are used to develop technique. The student then applies what he/she learns into the form, reinforcing their understanding of the technique. Forms then become a tool for bringing the thought/understanding of the technique to the forefront of the mind, therefore establishing and reinforcing the neural paths that are created in one’s mind regarding their training. Application is your end goal, and one thing I have understood about easterners’ view of westerners is that we desire immediate results, this can work against the development of form but it can reinforce understanding of structure and technique.



Originally posted by YongChun
I always liked Chinese Kung Fu because there was some beauty to it that plain old brawling just didn’t have....... I saw a fighting art could be both effective and beautiful at the same time.......At one time I thought Karate was beautiful but then my tastes Changed for Southern Chinese Kung Fu. Later I saw a beauty in Aikido and even more so in the arts of Tai Chi and Ba Gua. This beauty went beyond structure and form into the realm of dance and energy......In the early 1980’s my teacher berated me for spoiling my students by concentrating too much on fighting without first having mastered the proper feeling and the proper form...

A fighting art can be beautiful and effective, but not at the same moment. Fighting is never beautiful, regardless of style. Form can be beautiful, I enjoy watching a good Wushu form demonstration (especially weapons), and its use in movies. Think of Wong Wa Bo and Leung Yee Tai, they would have had to know the difference between what ‘looked’ good and what was effective. Their kung fu for the opera probably looked different from when they used it in combat. IMO, I’m sure they understood the difference. A good showman can make fighting arts look beautiful, and, if that person is a good fighter, effective. But you can not fool yourself by believing that your kung fu will look good in the heat of battle, it needs only to be effective.

As to your teacher’s comment in the 80’s, he’s right. You do need good understanding of structure and mechanics, too much application training without attribute development (in this case the attribute of body structure and mechanics) will lead to sloppy and in-effective application.



Originally posted by YongChun
I remember once Sifu Chung Kwok Chow from New York said that he had been teaching a long long time and no matter what he did his students just didn’t have the look of his Hong Kong classmates.... The other day I talked with a Chinese from the Hung style.Caucasian Kung Fu artists just didn’t have the right Kung Fu look.... I suppose it's the same as a white guy doing a black man's music or dance. The culture has to be absorbed to do it right..

This could just be a matter of showmanship. IMO, easterners like to present the art in a ‘showy’ way. This isn’t necessarily a bad thing, but I don’t think they understand or feel a demand to teach the showmanship (because most westerners are concerned with effectiveness).



Originally posted by YongChun
When I learned Hung style the teacher said you need to learn about 10 years of form and then you went out to fight to learn how to apply the art in a fight. He said starting to fight too early in that art just didn’t produce a Hung style fighter. Instead he said it always resulted in another form of ugly kickboxing fighting. In his day it was form, form and more form. Then it was fight, fight and fight some more....

Ask yourself which is more important, looking good or being effective. The lesser of these two is the one you want to spend years developing, the more important one is the one you want to develop ASAP.



Originally posted by YongChun
Because I developed an eye for beautiful Kung Fu, Chuck Norris movies just don’t do it for me in the same way that Jet Li movies do. Chinese Kung Fu to me has to have an art aspect. I think you can definitely have both fighting effectiveness and beauty hand in hand...

Movies are not a good source for MA in the realm of effectiveness. Jet Li’s kung fu is very beautiful, but I would bet that in a real confrontation he would use less than half of what he knows and it would not look so beautiful. Any form of theatre or film MA has been augmented to appear beautiful, why? Because people are impressed by the physical talent it takes to perform it, much like gymnastics or ballet. Again, think of the opera performers of WC’s history and what their KF would be like.



Originally posted by YongChun
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder so there is not one standard. But I think William Cheung’s waterfront demo looks very good. Augustine Fong’s Windy city demo looks very good. I think Kenneth Chung’s totally relaxed method in fighting and form looks very good. I think Gary Lam has function and good form. So different lineages all have examples of good function combined with good form...

I wonder why you didn’t include Boztepe, Leung Ting or others in your list. As I said above, beauty in MA is all about showmanship, the technique can still be effective.



Originally posted by YongChun
I think good form is a prerequisite to efficient body mechanics, rootedness and powerful force delivery. It doesn’t take away from effectiveness...

Good form is not a ‘prerequisite’ to efficient body mechanics, grounding (rootedness), and force delivery. The two go hand in hand, side by side. Good mechanics, root and power come from drills and chi sau and even sparring, and are reinforced by form training. Neither one is a prerequisite to, or precludes, the other.




Originally posted by YongChun
Relaxed functional form takes much longer to train than hard style functional form......To develop the real ART of it, a lot of attention has to be brought onto the finest of details of the art. These things take time and come through the form combined with the sticking hands. I think maximum effectiveness in fighting also comes from this detailed attention to feeling and form.


This statement bears what I am trying to express, but I reiterate, form practice is in coincidence with other attribute development. They are two sides of the same coin and neither one is necessarily more important than the other.

Ultimately, what you decide to be important is based on your reason for studying MA. If it is to look good, you will focus on showmanship, if it is to be effective you will focus on application. If you want both, you need to decide first which one will take precedence over the other.

[Hendrik]

If the sky opened up for me,
And the mountains disappeared,
If the seas run dry, turned to dust
And the sun refused to rise
I would still find my way,
By the light I see in your eyes.
The world I know fades away
But you stay......

If the years take away
Every memory that I have
I would still know the way
That would lead me back to your side.
The North star may die
But the light ....




A great song from crouching tiger hidden dragon

In the movie,
there are different training for each of the 3 group simulatneous or inseries.
Tendon, skin/muscle, and bone/structure.--- physical
Qing(essense/sinews), breathing/Qi, and Shen/awareness --- mind/body
Shape, potentia/momentum, and Jing (power issuing). --- application



In the movie, some was taught only the set.
some was taught only to relax to cultivate breathing, Some was taught to do yoga, some was taught to place the elbow in a certain way for potential, some was train to fight but will not know why and what is it about the training.


seems that the secret teaching can transform one , where without it one might study for a life time but never see the totallity, never see the inter-lock, thus creating things to links, thus create myth to wish, thus import mongolian wrestling....

some belive in the secret teaching. some dont. still secrete teaching without training is just some knowledge without life. and the secret teaching is not mythical at all, it is just a big blue print, a methodology, a lots of methods......

Well, that is a movie. But is movie and life non dual?


just a movie. hahahaha. a beautifull song and a great movie and a great story are one. however, there always a different between thinking and Seeing. thinking is about deduction based on one's memory and identity, Seeing is about attention and awareness. thus, thinking might be mistaken as the facts. and the true facts which is seen-- ignore.

is movie real, or just a continous of flipping picture with 52 screen per second? hahahaha


is there a different between what I listen and what one think while listening?

is beautiful the truth of listening or just a thought based on deduction of one's identify, memories........


who knows? hahaha



The world I know (from my thinking based on my identity and memory) fades away
But you stay......:D

[Matrix]

Originally posted by AmanuJRY
A fighting art can be beautiful and effective, but not at the same moment. Fighting is never beautiful, regardless of style. Justin,
I am curious why you would say that. An opponent efficiently and effectively dispatched is a thing of beauty, IMO. Just as a skilled surgeon uses the blade cut out a cancer is beautiful. Not to be confused with the thug or the butcher...Effectiveness and beauty are not mutally exclusive.

[I enjoy watching a good Wushu form demonstration (especially weapons), and its use in movies. Oh yes, incredible to watch what some of these people can do. How functional it may or may not be could be another issue, but when well done it is exhilerating. :)

IMO, easterners like to present the art in a ‘showy’ way. A gross generalization. IMO.

Ask yourself which is more important, looking good or being effective. Definitely being effective is more important. However, It can still look good. If you are saying that you should focus on being effective with looking good as a biproduct, then I'm with you.

I wonder why you didn’t include Boztepe, Leung Ting or others in your list. Maybe because beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

Good form is not a ‘prerequisite’ to efficient body mechanics, grounding (rootedness), and force delivery. The two go hand in hand, side by side. I see these two statements as somewhat contradictory. pardon me if I am misunderstanding. If you have the capacity to see what is truely good form then the efficient body mechanics will part of the beauty, not an add-on.

To tie showmanship up with beauty is a mistake, IMO. Showmanship can be vulgar. Clean and efficient execution is what I would consider beautiful. As always, your mileage may vary.

Best Regards,
Bill

[AmanuJRY]

Originally posted by Matrix
Justin,
I am curious why you would say that. An opponent efficiently and effectively dispatched is a thing of beauty, IMO. Just as a skilled surgeon uses the blade cut out a cancer is beautiful. Not to be confused with the thug or the butcher...Effectiveness and beauty are not mutally exclusive.

I guess this goes back to beauty being in the eye of the beholder. My statement was to say that beauty (grace) is not nessisaraly prevalant in fighting. It can be said that efficiency and power are a beautiful sight, but the flowery, dance like movements of MA are not as present in real combat.



Originally posted by Matrix
A gross generalization. IMO.

Yes, and I apologize, but it is no more (or less) of a generalization than what I was responding to.



Originally posted by Matrix
Definitely being effective is more important. However, It can still look good. If you are saying that you should focus on being effective with looking good as a biproduct, then I'm with you.

xactly. :D



Originally posted by Matrix
I see these two statements as somewhat contradictory. pardon me if I am misunderstanding. If you have the capacity to see what is truely good form then the efficient body mechanics will part of the beauty, not an add-on.

My meaning was that good form and good body mechanics develop at the same time, neither one is required to come before the other.



Originally posted by Matrix
To tie showmanship up with beauty is a mistake, IMO. Showmanship can be vulgar. Clean and efficient execution is what I would consider beautiful. As always, your mileage may vary.

By showmanship, I mean the ability to express technique in a graceful, expressive way as opposed to just direct and simple. To use the opera performers example again, IMO they knew the effectivness of technique and how to express it in a 'beautiful' way, the latter being my idea of showmanship.

[Matrix]

Originally posted by AmanuJRY
I guess this goes back to beauty being in the eye of the beholder. My statement was to say that beauty (grace) is not nessisaraly prevalant in fighting. It can be said that efficiency and power are a beautiful sight, but the flowery, dance like movements of MA are not as present in real combat. Justin,
Alrighty then...... I think we're more or less in agreement. I did not equate beauty with flowery, since Wing Chun is not flowery. I look for clean, crisp execution. Efficient lines, etc. I dream of being able to do this myself one day. :)

Peace,
Bill

[AmanuJRY]

Originally posted by Matrix
Justin,
Alrighty then...... I think we're more or less in agreement. I did not equate beauty with flowery, since Wing Chun is not flowery. I look for clean, crisp execution. Efficient lines, etc. I dream of being able to do this myself one day. :)

Peace,
Bill


From what I've seen since I joined this forum, we see things pretty much the same, we just have differences in describing them.;)

I responded by insinuating that beauty=flowery, because that is what I percieved from Ray's post. I fully agree that direct, efficient and powerful movements are a thing of beauty.

[kj]

Originally posted by AmanuJRY
I fully agree that direct, efficient and powerful movements are a thing of beauty.

Dead on.

Regards,
- kj

[Matrix]

Originally posted by AmanuJRY
From what I've seen since I joined this forum, we see things pretty much the same, we just have differences in describing them.;) Justin,
I think you are correct. ;)
I have a bad habit of getting hung up on certain key words. They have a very specific meaning for me, which is not always expressed in the same way by everyone else. My bad.

Bill

[AmanuJRY]

Originally posted by Matrix
Justin,
I think you are correct. ;)
I have a bad habit of getting hung up on certain key words. They have a very specific meaning for me, which is not always expressed in the same way by everyone else. My bad.

Bill

No need to apologize, such is the 'way' of communication.:)

p.s. I like your 'title'.:D

[Matrix]

Originally posted by AmanuJRY
p.s. I like your 'title'.:D I saw it on a bumper sticker..... :o

[YongChun]

Originally posted by AmanuJRY
From what I've seen since I joined this forum, we see things pretty much the same, we just have differences in describing them.;)

I responded by insinuating that beauty=flowery, because that is what I percieved from Ray's post. I fully agree that direct, efficient and powerful movements are a thing of beauty.

That's the wrong thing you got from my post. I never thought flowery was beautiful. Remember in the fist of legend when Jet Li punched the Karate guy who was counting 1, 2, 3, Bam. That was beautiful and efficient. The same as the Karate guy that told him to take his shoes off in the Dojo. With hardly a twitch, Jet Li dispatched him into the ground. Nice move.

When I first met Kenneth Chung in the early 90's he told a couple of us "boy you guys have flowery hands!" Then he showed us his much more efficient hands and they were much more beautiful (the actions and use of Wing Chun) than ours.

Ray

[YongChun]

Originally posted by Da_Moose
Ray,

It seems from your post that you would do well to look up and try to experience Chi Sim Weng Chun. It has the functionality of practical combat and the grace of dancing from my experience.

I used to have videos on almost every art in existence including lots of Wu Shu competitions in China. So it's not like I haven't seen anything. It is because I have seen some things and compared that I commented on trying to be particular with how one does their Wing Chun by looking in the mirror sometimes and videoing fighting results. Not that a lot of people don't do that mind you.

Of course I don't mind to see and experience Chi Sim Weng Chun!!!

[YongChun]

Originally posted by KingMonkey
I think this comes down to what you are doing WC or any martial art for.
I personally am only interested in function.
No offence intended but I think you have an overly romanticized view of the artistic merits of Chinese fighters or the old style training routines.
Of course Jet Li looks great in a choreagraphed movie sequence, get in his face for real and start throwing a few punches, he wont be back flipping over your head and helicopter kicking you anytime soon.
If you look at some of the HK rooftop fights or clips of so called old time 'masters' fighting [one was posted on here a little while ago] you will see that when the sh*t hits the fan these guys look as ugly as the rest of us, arguably uglier.

The famous fight between the Wu style Tai Chi guy and a White crane guy looked pretty bad. I also saw a brief demo of Wong Shun Leung and Tsui Shan Ting doing some chi sau and it didn't look like a Jet Li movie either (which one of the femanle non martial artists expected to see).

[YongChun]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I wonder why you didn’t include Boztepe, Leung Ting or others in your list.

No reason whatever. Just a few examples from the many good sufus were included in the text otherwise it would get too long.

Ray

[AmanuJRY]

Originally posted by YongChun
That's the wrong thing you got from my post.

Ok, in the spirit of good communication we would need to define 'flowery'.

What I meant by flowery was movements that are executed as gracefully as they are quick, with a degree of showmanship akin to dance or performance art. You know, the addition of unnecessary body mechanic to enhance the appearance of the demonstration. And, by unnecessary body mechanic, I mean any movement or aspect of structure that does not directly correlate with the effectiveness of a given technique.

Ray,

Saying you never thought flowery=beautiful after saying how you thought Jet Li's MA is beautiful is kinda a contradiction. IMO. Sure some of the moves that he uses in Fist-o-Legend are simple and direct, but for the most part his technique is what I would call 'flowery'. Like most Tai chi, IMO it is 'flowery'. That doesn't mean it can't be used effectively, but in application I'll bet Tai chi doesn't look so beautiful.