Formless Wing Chun

[r4cy]

I just want to ask the opinion of everybody about learning Wing Chun without the forms. Even though I know the forms help the student to have an orientation on where he is... I believe that at some point the concepts of wing chun could be taught without necessarily learning the forms and still be proficient in the system. Any opinions?

[UKBBC]

Some people are naturally talented and can be proficient with just the SLT, they may not need to learn all the forms. Different horses for different courses, depends on the student's focus, if they want to really explore wing chun or if they want self defence. But I would say SLT is essential.

Generally speaking, it's probably like driving a car using just your feet - it can be done but doesn't mean it's a good idea (but that's only my opinion)

[r4cy]

well,, what I meant is that a person could learn the tecniques from siu lim tao ( pak sao, tan sao, boang sao etc etc) without necessarily learning siu lim tao... they could learn how to walk,shift and enter.. etc etc without necessarily learning chum kiu and so on. I think it's possible. Not that people are going to like removing the traditional forms.... but it's possible no?

[Jeff Bussey]

Hey r4cy,
It would definitely be possible. Take boxing for example, they break down the punches, footwork, and other movements into drills and then they use it (put it together) in sparring.

You could do the same with wing chun.

J

[r4cy]

If a teacher decided to do so... you think they would be taken seriously in the wing chun community?

[Jeff Bussey]

I personally wouldn't care and don't care about any community. Saying that, you probably won't be accepted. The main thing is if the people you train can be functional.
You don't 'need' any of the forms to be practical with your wing chun.
The problem that some people will have, is that certain people want to learn the system the way it was taught years ago. They want the stories, the myths and the traditions. They have every right to want that, they just have to find a school that will provide it.

So you're definitely going to be stepping on peoples toes by doing that, the question is, does it matter?

J

[Ultimatewingchun]

Imo, it can be done - but using the forms judiciously would be even better than no forms at all. There's much to be learned from the forms. But there's no need to spend more than 10-15 minutes per class doing forms (once the forms have been memorized).

[sanjuro_ronin]

Victor and Jeff have gong sau'd the correct.

[LoneTiger108]

...I believe that at some point the concepts of wing chun could be taught without necessarily learning the forms and still be proficient in the system. Any opinions?

IMHO this is happening already, and has been since Leung Jan. Some mainland variations utilize a point system, from 12 to 22 to 40. Basically, as far as I'm aware, each point can be utilized and trained to be effective in san sau applications. All without a form in sight!

I'm not saying that they never practice the forms, but by the time they do they will already have a good foundation knowledge and the learning of the forms must be easier IMO.

Personally, IME, I've taught a small group of guys without 'all' forms, but have used forms to highlight certain principles during their time training. They benefitted greatly from NOT being exposed to the forms so early on (at least not the whole form anyway). What we need to remember is that this was the way many Wing Chun practitioners taught as the forms were more of a secret back then than they are now.

I know there are other contributors who can give you more information on systems such as 'Pien San' and 'Gulao (Kulo) Wing Chun, so I'll leave it there for now. Hope I've helped!

ps. On our site you can view what a curriculum can look like without the form as it is only 1 area of our training. Ultimately though, I believe without SLT at least there is no Wing Chun, but I am a wee bit biased.

[UKBBC]

well,, what I meant is that a person could learn the tecniques from siu lim tao ( pak sao, tan sao, boang sao etc etc) without necessarily learning siu lim tao... they could learn how to walk,shift and enter.. etc etc without necessarily learning chum kiu and so on. I think it's possible. Not that people are going to like removing the traditional forms.... but it's possible no?

Like some types of JKD? I've met one or 2 JKD practitioners with no SLT, but they can pull out some of the structures. However, I personally found the forms necessary to develop precise structure, esp with regard to elbow position. Outside of a form (sparring and freeflow), your structure may not necessarily be perfect, but if you train a good form, I think you are more likely to pull out good useful structure under pressure (whether or not that structure is appropriate for that application is another kettle of fish).

But yeah, I agree with the others, if you are going to pick and choose techniques, you probably shouldn't be calling it wing chun.

[KPM]

You might want to check out the thread "Functionalizing Wing Chun" that has now dropped back to page 2. It addresses some of the thing you bring up. Here is one of the things I said on that thread:

Here's a thought that I had.....develop a "san sik" system of "separate points" as in Ku Lo Wing Chun. Break out of the traditional forms those movements that are key to the WCK body structure as well as those movements proven to be functional in a realistic sparring situation. Develop them as short "san sik"sequences that are practiced solo, with a partner in a two-man "set" format, applied on the dummy, and in sparring. This would be similar to a boxer that works specific combos solo, against the focus mitts, on the heavy bag, and in sparring. This "san sik system" could be either a supplement to "traditional" WCK, or its own independant version of WCK. It would allow one to focus on and develop those WCK movements that are the most functional and useful. But now the question becomes....which parts of the forms would you break out as a san sik? What movements of your own would you put into a san sik? Here's an example:

Bong-Lop Da...solo...two-man version = classic Lop Da drill...practiced on the dummy...worked into sparring against a resisting opponent.

[Hendrik]

No form, one will lost the specific Power Generation training which is designed for the style.

Application without the specific power generation training is cutting down the effectiveness or paralized the style.

one cannot act as female character behave and practicing male's action.

One cannot punch as one just punch.. That is the part of the art which is fading in general....


But we think everything is the same. Nope, IMHO, in my understanding it cant be... WCK which punch like boxing is no longer WCK.


peace

[Vajramusti]

No form, one will lost the specific Power Generation training which is designed for the style.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Agree. But knowing the sequence is not knowing the form.
And- there will be other opinions.

joy chaudhuri

[dfl]

I just want to ask the opinion of everybody about learning Wing Chun without the forms. Even though I know the forms help the student to have an orientation on where he is... I believe that at some point the concepts of wing chun could be taught without necessarily learning the forms and still be proficient in the system. Any opinions?

Can one do physics without mathematics? While some physicists like Feynman and Hawking have been successful in explaining the concepts of physics to the layman with minimal use of mathematics, even they cannot make any solid prediction (which is, after all, what science is all about) without the use of mathematics.
Oops! Wrong forum. Never mind.

[r4cy]

That's just such a lame argument

[k gledhill]

http://home.earthlink.net/%7Ewslnyc/pb.html good article on that subject

[sanjuro_ronin]

You don't need forms if you are gonna train to be a fighter, you do "need" them if you train to be a martial artist.

[NgGung]

Very Well Said! The forms are a text book and allow self discovery of the proper body Mechanic's. Which then translate into a progressive understanding taken into other area's of training!


No form, one will lost the specific Power Generation training which is designed for the style.

Application without the specific power generation training is cutting down the effectiveness or paralized the style.

one cannot act as female character behave and practicing male's action.

One cannot punch as one just punch.. That is the part of the art which is fading in general....


But we think everything is the same. Nope, IMHO, in my understanding it cant be... WCK which punch like boxing is no longer WCK.


peace

[chusauli]

Having learned WCK both ways, I think it really doesn't matter if you have forms. As long as you have the proper mechanics, that already enough. And if you can remember everything and make it yours, that's even better.

In Gu Lao WCK, we have no forms, just mini-sets which are drilled over and over, adding in footwork, shifting, on the Jong, with weapons, in Chi Sao and San Sao. However, memorizing all the points can be troublesome for some.

In the Yip Man and YKS systems, you have forms. Forms are good for memorizing things you might have otherwise forgotten. Sequences are good for drilling and running through a system if you have no partners, nor even a Sifu - as they can help you grow and many hidden teaching reveal themselves throughout the years...

All WCK is good - however it must be applied with at right timing and positioning. It all becomes formless in the end - you never hit anyone within sequence, you apply it in accord with conditions.

If one wants to be good, they should just drill a core handful of moves daily. That is enough - one wins with those as they are the moves that you instinctively after drilling them for so long. What those core moves are would vary from individual to individual.

Best regards,

[sanjuro_ronin]

All WCK is good - however it must be applied with at right timing and positioning. It all becomes formless in the end - you never hit anyone within sequence, you apply it in accord with conditions.


Best WC post I have read in ages it seems.

[Lee Chiang Po]

Why would you even want to do that? The forms are not like most kung Fu forms anyway. They are just a pattern of techniques that can be practiced in precession. They are designed to help one develop these techniques. I really don't know how you would be able to develop your Chi or your technique without the forms. The knives and the pole could be tossed. They would only be for fun anyway. In todays society you would end up in trouble if you went around with a pair of big knives or a stick. You certainly could not justify their use in most cases.
I have watched many people doing these forms, and I have yet to see anyone do them the same way I do them. In fact, I think that most people have no real understanding of what they are actually doing when they perform them. In that case I guess it wouldn't make any difference if you learned them or not.

[Jeff Bussey]

Hi Lee Chiang Po

Why would you even want to do that? The forms are not like most kung Fu forms anyway. They are just a pattern of techniques that can be practiced in precession. They are designed to help one develop these techniques. I really don't know how you would be able to develop your Chi or your technique without the forms. The knives and the pole could be tossed. They would only be for fun anyway. In todays society you would end up in trouble if you went around with a pair of big knives or a stick. You certainly could not justify their use in most cases.
I have watched many people doing these forms, and I have yet to see anyone do them the same way I do them. In fact, I think that most people have no real understanding of what they are actually doing when they perform them. In that case I guess it wouldn't make any difference if you learned them or not.

You can learn and develop your techniques without a form. I can show someone a technique in a mirror and then have them apply it in different senarios. That would develop the technique faster and quicker than by sitting in the forms.

Remember that the forms are just a summary of the whole system, you can teach any technique, concept, theory, principle or energy involved without them.

Now you've said it yourself, you've seen alot of people doing pi$$ poor forms and I'm willing to bet that it's probably their best part of wing chun, otherwise they'd film themselves doing something else. So it's not practicing the forms that will give you good wing chun, you need someone with good explanations, examples and the ability to transfer that to students.

J

[kj]

They are just a pattern of techniques that can be practiced in precession. They are designed to help one develop these techniques.

I agree that they help to develop techniques. To me, however, they serve as more than techniques practiced in precession [sic], and not just or only that.

Regards,
- kj

[tjwingchun]

I have said for many years that there are two main purposes behind the forms.

First, as has already been stated, to be a reminder of the different ways we can move our body and apply energies in various directions, so the student does not forget.

Secondly, as a method by which a student can show the instructor that they have understood what they have been taught and are able to replicate and therefore for the instructor to see that the student has comprehended fully what was being shown.

Without the structure or reminder of what the forms offer it is difficult to remember every important move or concept that is held within the forms, memories tirick things and any promt to help remind you of details of moves/energies/concepts/principles are beneficial.

Why do you think that there are few brilliant boxers that have made the transition to brilliant trainers, could it be that the secret of their success in the ring stayed in the memory and methods of their teacher and though they can apply THEMSELVES they know not have the recall of how to get others gain that same ability or application.

Why do we need a dictionary and thesaurus even when we have agood understanding of English, simple, we cannot remember everything we have learned without prompts or reminders.

Teach your Wing Chun without forms and your students may well be able to reconstruct your understanding of the application of Wing Chun, but after 4 or 5 generations of teaching without forms, like ¨Chinese Whispers¨the foundations will have deviated.

[Jeff Bussey]

Hi tjwingchun



Why do we need a dictionary and thesaurus even when we have agood understanding of English, simple, we cannot remember everything we have learned without prompts or reminders.

Teach your Wing Chun without forms and your students may well be able to reconstruct your understanding of the application of Wing Chun, but after 4 or 5 generations of teaching without forms, like ¨Chinese Whispers¨the foundations will have deviated.

That's right. It could be lost and forgotten and the forms are your summary of the system. Just like you said, your instructor can see what your level of understanding is when he watches your form.

But it was asked if you can teach wing chun without the forms, and the answer in my mind is yes.

J

[tjwingchun]

Hi tjwingchun


That's right. It could be lost and forgotten and the forms are your summary of the system. Just like you said, your instructor can see what your level of understanding is when he watches your form.

But it was asked if you can teach wing chun without the forms, and the answer in my mind is yes.

J

I agree with you though there is a BIG BUT, about 18 years ago Yip Chun also thought the same and tried teaching that way, by coincidence one of my students who had his own school had the same idea at the same time, both came to the same understanding after about one year, that the students without form lacked the development of students who had forms and returned to using forms as a method of teaching.

If you wish a student to merely to be a clone of your methods then give them only the knowledge that makes you successful, but if you wish them to follow your path of understanding then let them be aware of the steps you took.

[Jeff Bussey]

Hey tjwingchun

I agree with you though there is a BIG BUT, about 18 years ago Yip Chun also thought the same and tried teaching that way, by coincidence one of my students who had his own school had the same idea at the same time, both came to the same understanding after about one year, that the students without form lacked the development of students who had forms and returned to using forms as a method of teaching.

If you wish a student to merely to be a clone of your methods then give them only the knowledge that makes you successful, but if you wish them to follow your path of understanding then let them be aware of the steps you took.

I'm not so sure. I think there is more of a clone effect from people who do more forms. It's not until you start to apply it that you start to come into your own and know what works and doesn't.

If you take boxing again as an example. there are a lot of different boxers that come from the same trainer and they don't learn forms.

J

[tjwingchun]

Hey tjwingchun


I'm not so sure. I think there is more of a clone effect from people who do more forms. It's not until you start to apply it that you start to come into your own and know what works and doesn't.

If you take boxing again as an example. there are a lot of different boxers that come from the same trainer and they don't learn forms.

J

What is taught in the early stages of boxing, theory or slugging it out in the ring?

Good teachers teach the individual, forms just remain a reminder of technique not methods carved in stone.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Forms are ok for group environements, hence they became the norm when MA became more commercialized.
In small groups and 1-on-1's forms are hardly needed, though they can still serve a useful function.

[Jeff Bussey]

Hey tjwingchun

What is taught in the early stages of boxing, theory or slugging it out in the ring?

Good teachers teach the individual, forms just remain a reminder of technique not methods carved in stone.

The early stages of boxing are learning punches, stance, movement with stance, defense, partner drills and a ton of conditioning.

The theory that they teach is like what we hear in wing chun like don't chase hands cause you'll get hit, keep your hands up (earmuffs) or you'll get hit, fill in the blank cause you'll get hit. (you get the point)

You actually don't start sparring (in a good club) until the trainer feels that you're ready.

You could teach wing chun the same way.

J

[LoneTiger108]

I have watched many people doing these forms, and I have yet to see anyone do them the same way I do them. In fact, I think that most people have no real understanding of what they are actually doing when they perform them. In that case I guess it wouldn't make any difference if you learned them or not.

I'm feeling where you're coming from here Lee Chiang Po! Nice post.

It also interests me that we are discussing times that teaching with no forms was tried and tested and failed. That the absence of forms deteriorate students progression.

This IMHO, is not so. Have a look at the Gulao (Kulo) practitioners from Fung family as an example. What they have held onto ARE the san sau (loose applications) of Leung Jan himself (if all the research lines up like I think it does). They also have a wealth of literatutre/kuen kuit that keep the theories in place (withot the need to have a form)

And so, 3 Forms must be practised? No. But to gain an overall picture of the 'style' of Wing Chun I do believe in having a knowledge of the forms. We MUST KNOW what they're for. EXACTLY. No guessing. People who have been told or shown will know what I'm saying here (I hope!)

Forms also 'change' and develop with time, they're not supposed to be so restrictive as we grow older. They do become very personal IMO.

[tjwingchun]

Fighting is fighting, knowledge is knowledge, when it is ¨form¨alised it is derided by those who have natural ability or by those who lack the skill to follow simple instruction.

PMSL, LMAO LOL

[KPM]

This IMHO, is not so. Have a look at the Gulao (Kulo) practitioners from Fung family as an example. What they have held onto ARE the san sau (loose applications) of Leung Jan himself (if all the research lines up like I think it does). They also have a wealth of literatutre/kuen kuit that keep the theories in place (withot the need to have a form)



That's not a good example. KuLo WCK may not have the 3 long linked sets like other versions of WCK, but they do have sets. Their sets are just shorter and more numerous. So KuLo WCK is NOT a style without forms. Their San Sik serve the same purpose of preserving technique, teaching structure, and developing ging as do the longer linked sets. If I understand the original poster right, what he was referring to was WCK trained like boxing or Muay Thai....just the simple techniques and combos with a heavy emphasis on application.

[Liddel]

IMHO you cant teach VT without forms. Why ?

Well its because of how i personally view the forms and how they translate into application for me.

If i was teaching someone without the standard traditional forms. SLT -CK - BJ

I would be explaining and showing them single actions at a time.

IMO there a several actions within the VT tool box that are quite different from everyday natural body habbits/behaviour. Bong comes to mind here.

Because of this i would be showing them first the way to hold the action and put it out in relation to ones body. It would be with a static horse and in a face to face situation. Just like the Bong in the third section SLT.

Then once they had shown some understanding of what im showing, then i would add a moving horse and then actual application.

To me this is just isolating a part of the form. The single action is IMO a form in itself....

So your always going to have a form. Wether its for single actions or actions in a group like creating a VT version of shadow boxing.

Yes we can do without the 'traditional' forms and replace it with other ways to teach the tech's. But IMO they would be forms in themselves !

IMO its something that that must be done to learn a system that has behaviour of body mechanics and energy thats 'more' contrary to everyday natural actions than some other styles.

I personally believe for VT to evolve, we need not discard but rearrange what we have, less time learning/focusing on the forms without discarding them and more time on application, a reversal of the way most learn the system which is - Lots of time on forms/drills, less time on application.

DREW

[Jeff Bussey]

Hi Liddel,
Your looking at forms from a philosophical or academic point of view and that's cool, but by that definition you'd be saying that boxers train forms because they're training one thing at a time, like a punch.

I don't view forms that way, but hey that's what makes us different.

J

[LoneTiger108]

KuLo WCK may not have the 3 long linked sets like other versions of WCK, but they do have sets. Their sets are just shorter and more numerous. So KuLo WCK is NOT a style without forms. Their San Sik serve the same purpose of preserving technique, teaching structure, and developing ging as do the longer linked sets.

Have to disagree slightly here KFM. It is WC without forms! To confirm a 'Sup Yee Sik/Ma' etc is in no way similar to the Wing Chun SLT, CK or BJ. It is what it 'says' it is. Twelve Loose Methods/Techniques. The 'knowledge' that is similar to that of the 3 forms is within separate literature or Kuen Kuit as they are theories or principles to assist in the application of the 12 hand sets. Granted, a Kulo practitioner will benefit greatly from learning slt/CK/BJ, but so will any non Kulo practitioner benefit from learning about the SYS.

Basically, a 'form' of sorts was put together of the 12 sets into some memorable order, but the key here is that no one set takes precidence over any other. Unlike SLT, for example, where there are reasons why we sart with this set and end with that one! Reasons why SLT is followed by CK then by BJ etc. This just doesn't apply to loose hand methods, as it really doesn't matter what order you train them in IMO.

[Liddel]

Hi Liddel,
Your looking at forms from a philosophical or academic point of view and that's cool, but by that definition you'd be saying that boxers train forms because they're training one thing at a time, like a punch.

I don't view forms that way, but hey that's what makes us different.

J

:) yeah no, i understand others may not be on the same page. Thats cool.

Just to clarify i dont see single actions on thier own as 'Forms' i see the isolated learning of them as a form. (if thats how your taught)

In the case of a Boxers punch it tends to be about how one learns the punch.

If your taught in a step by step process... Your shown how to put the punch out (all arms) then told to add a turn at the waist (all upper body) then told to add a step or pivot with the legs. Now you have a finished complete action.
A punch with good body power and structure.

This process i would still consider a form or series of forms, prior to doing it in a spontaneous full contact senario.( That would be application)

The forms i learnt were step by step and were very precise in what you were told to do always being corrected for better position structure energy and timing. Then we were taught to apply it in a dynamic setting, outside the isolated world of the form.

It suits me cause i like concentrating on the driving forces behind things as i learn them rather than after im doing it. Which is why i guess some think Forms and TCMA's are a$$backwards...i understand thier POV .

Its just different approaches to learning in the end.

Whats your POV on forms then Jeff ?

DREW

[Jeff Bussey]

Hey DREW,
For the record, I like the idea of forms and I am the type of person who wants it all when I’m training. I also think it's probably the easiest way to explain different parts of the system. When you show someone something, you can always say, "you know like this section in chum kiu or SLT"

I think forms are great when done properly, and I personally feel proud to show my Sigung my forms and I do take pride in that. It shows my level of understanding, what I'm lacking and also what my Sifu has passed onto me.

But, as for the question, I still believe that forms are not necessary. The forms are just the summary of the system. If you focus only on the fighting, then the forms never need to be practiced.

J