Biu Gee differences from one lineage to the next (Augustine Fong)

[SAAMAG]

So I was looking at one of those old tapes from the 80's that you can buy in the back of the kung fu magazines -- you know -- the panther ones?

It was a tape going over the Biu gee section. In looking at his form...the sections were done in a different order than the way I originally was taught. Additionally, there are things like steps added in like the 3 elbows, another grab and turning motion where one hand is open towards the end, and also two kicks at the end.

Can anyone who practices Fong's line give some insight to this? Were some of these things elements that Fong himself added in because he wanted to make sure people gained further skill in some areas? Or was this something that was there with Ho Kam Ming?

Why do you guys think that the different sections are done in different orders? Like the jaam gaan sao section, the three biu sao's to chan jeung, etc, etc??

I suppose this question could be broadened as well as to the fast differences in biu jee from one lineage to the next as well. Most of the SLT and the CK that I see is for the most part the same. But it's BJ where I see the most vast of differences.

[Vajramusti]

So I was looking at one of those old tapes from the 80's that you can buy in the back of the kung fu magazines -- you know -- the panther ones?

((I didn't learn from tapes and I don't look at tapes much))

It was a tape going over the Biu gee section. In looking at his form...the sections were done in a different order than the way I originally was taught. Additionally, there are things like steps added in like the 3 elbows, another grab and turning motion where one hand is open towards the end, and also two kicks at the end.

((I dont know what you learned and who taught you. Many folks who do biu jee didn't learn from Ip man. Ho Kam Ming did and Augustine Fong learned from Ho Kam Ming, The principles are the same-there are differences in details. I speak only for myself- not for lineage or sifu. Stepping in with flying elbows is an important drill. In Fong sifu's forms some drills were thought to be important enough to be put into the forms, specially for folks who may not otherwise learn the drills. The double punch put in slt in a particular section is an early example.It helps develop even power on both sides and is in a section with double biu, han and ding etc.)))

Can anyone who practices Fong's line give some insight to this? Were some of these things elements that Fong himself added in because he wanted to make sure people gained further skill in some areas? Or was this something that was there with Ho Kam Ming?

((See above))

Why do you guys think that the different sections are done in different orders? Like the jaam gaan sao section, the three biu sao's to chan jeung, etc, etc??

(I can't speak for what others do))

I suppose this question could be broadened as well as to the fast differences in biu jee from one lineage to the next as well. Most of the SLT and the CK that I see is for the most part the same. But it's BJ where I see the most vast of differences.

((See above))

joy chaudhuri

[SAAMAG]

((I didn't learn from tapes and I don't look at tapes much))

((I dont know what you learned and who taught you. Many folks who do biu jee didn't learn from Ip man. Ho Kam Ming did and Augustine Fong learned from Ho Kam Ming, The principles are the same-there are differences in details. I speak only for myself- not for lineage or sifu. Stepping in with flying elbows is an important drill. In Fong sifu's forms some drills were thought to be important enough to be put into the forms, specially for folks who may not otherwise learn the drills. The double punch put in slt in a particular section is an early example.It helps develop even power on both sides and is in a section with double biu, han and ding etc.)))


Thanks for posting Joy. But it doesn't matter where you learned from or whether or not you've seen tapes. That was an irrelevant part of the original post which exists just set the catalyst for the question of why the form set different from others? Why are there movements in the set that aren't in others of the same lineage? The WSL line for example doesn't have some the same movements nor is the form set done in the same order or manner. This isn't an "attack" on the line, just a general question. There's nothing wrong with adding in kicks or forward steps or another throw or grappling method, just wanted to see the reasons for doing it. You know...sharing knowledge...that kind of thing? So you're saying that some things were added in because either HKM or AF felt it would be beneficial to have those drills in there? What about the kicks at the end? Was that something that you think was present when it was taught to HKM?

The final question was a general one not for YOU to expound on other lines but for people to discuss and learn about the varying ways that biu jee is done. I was hoping for general conversation as to how each of us was taught biu jee and subsequently the differences in application.

[Vajramusti]

HKM and AF- principles are the same...variations in teaching methods.

I can't comment on WSL's biu jee and it is upto others to comment on what they do.


I forget or didn't know - who did you learn from?

joy chaudhuri

[SAAMAG]

I'll shoot you a PM

[Vajramusti]

I'll shoot you a PM

THX. Joy C

[LoneTiger108]

I suppose this question could be broadened as well as to the fast differences in biu jee from one lineage to the next as well. Most of the SLT and the CK that I see is for the most part the same. But it's BJ where I see the most vast of differences.

Personally, I think that Biu Jee is something of a 'personal' form. Meaning that it will differ from person to person depending on how they implement their understanding of SLT & CK. Maybe this is what was meant in the past when it was mostly referred to as the 'secret form'.

FWIW I also heard that Ip Man taught very few people this form, but I couldn't say for sure exactly who (and I don't believe anyone else can either!)

[chusauli]

Personal form? Secret? Advanced?

I don't think so. The 3 forms can be practiced as one long set. If we look at Yik Kam's WCK, we already see the seed elements of the 3 sets in one long set. WCK's entire curriculum is just for beginners. Application is for the "advanced".

All the hearsay stories of the 2nd and 3rd generation are funny, especially when they only have pieces of the complete system.

The order doesn't matter. Nor do signature moves.

[SAAMAG]

Personal form? Secret? Advanced?

I don't think so. The 3 forms can be practiced as one long set. If we look at Yik Kam's WCK, we already see the seed elements of the 3 sets in one long set. WCK's entire curriculum is just for beginners. Application is for the "advanced".

All the hearsay stories of the 2nd and 3rd generation are funny, especially when they only have pieces of the complete system.

The order doesn't matter. Nor do signature moves.

That's funny you mention this, as that's how I practice them...as one long form set.

I agree as well that there's nothing secret about the form, hell most of the moves are the same basic Hand techniques just grouped together. The only thing in the form that's in the form that isn't part of the basic techniques is tw grabbing moves and the ending sequence.

[Ironmike]

Wing Chun is a system of principles, as long as the principles of the form are covered it really doesn't matter what order they come in, as long as they are expressed. The end result is " can you fight? I believe in my Sifu, if I didn't then I would fined another. Worrying about what someone else is doing is not a principle of little idea. Instead of worrying what my Wing Chun brothers are doing, I'm going to go work on my punching.

[bennyvt]

yeh you can even see wsl in different videos doing different sequences and doing more or less of some moves, i tend to practice each move twenty times. So you are only using the order to remember the next move. But most vt bj forms are the same moves but people do more of some moves then others. I have noticed lun gai does a kwan sao in his which is a little different.

[SAAMAG]

Gwun sao huh? That's interesting. Usually you don't see that until the dummy form. how does he teach the application of gwun sao?

I like the movement, but it's generally it's not a primary type of movement for me

[chusauli]

In Yip Man/Ng Chan's version of BJ, they do Kwun Sao in the set. It follows Gaun Sao section.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Gwun sao huh? That's interesting. Usually you don't see that until the dummy form. how does he teach the application of gwun sao?

I like the movement, but it's generally it's not a primary type of movement for me

Kwan sao ( however you spell it) is used ( in a variation) by the Dog Brothers in their empty hand VS the knife curriculum.

[SAAMAG]

I've always wished that more of the wing chun kicks were prevelant in the forms. Hence one of the reasons why I was intriqued with the fact that A.Fong added them into his forms both with the CK and the BT sets.

I think that while wing chun as a whole mainly capitalizes on the hands that the foot development could have been more prevelant in the boxing forms. I've heard some people talk about SLT having "footwork" in it, and that it indirectly teaches the proper kicking stucture, which I can see.

Chum Kiu obviously has the front and side kick in it. The biu gee form set I've seen with and without kicks. I learned the bowing movement w/ prayer palm overhead as the final movement in the form, but I liked how Fong ended it with the jing and wang gurk. It seemed to fit.

But with the myriad of available gurk fot, I'd think there'd be more there. I mean we've got jing, wang, bong, jut, sut, tiu, and even circling (heun) kicks available...and yet we see very few explicite examples in the boxing sets. I've been comptemplating making my own "lin wai gurk" set to practice them in a prearranged manner. Hmmm...

[sanjuro_ronin]

I've always wished that more of the wing chun kicks were prevelant in the forms. Hence one of the reasons why I was intriqued with the fact that A.Fong added them into his forms both with the CK and the BT sets.

I think that while wing chun as a whole mainly capitalizes on the hands that the foot development could have been more prevelant in the boxing forms. I've heard some people talk about SLT having "footwork" in it, and that it indirectly teaches the proper kicking stucture, which I can see.

Chum Kiu obviously has the front and side kick in it. The biu gee form set I've seen with and without kicks. I learned the bowing movement w/ prayer palm overhead as the final movement in the form, but I liked how Fong ended it with the jing and wang gurk. It seemed to fit.

IF WC was a "form based" system or a system that is supposed to have forms as the core of the teaching then yes, that makes sense.
The fact that not all the techniques of WC are in the forms means a lot.

[SAAMAG]

IF WC was a "form based" system or a system that is supposed to have forms as the core of the teaching then yes, that makes sense.
The fact that not all the techniques of WC are in the forms means a lot.

Well I'm not saying that they "have to" be in the forms, but since the forms are the "blueprint" of the system's core mechanics then one would think that kicking mechanics would be more prevelant.

Obviously one can learn to utilize techniques without forms at all...as that is the way I've trained just about all other fight methods...just making an observation is all.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Well I'm not saying that they "have to" be in the forms, but since the forms are the "blueprint" of the system's core mechanics then one would think that kicking mechanics would be more prevelant.

Obviously one can learn to utilize techniques without forms at all...as that is the way I've trained just about all other fight methods...just making an observation is all.

But are forms the blue print of WC? I know they are NOW, for some, but was that always the case?

[sihing]

But are forms the blue print of WC? I know they are NOW, for some, but was that always the case?


That's an interesting question. When on my 1st trip to LA, Gary Lam showed me all the hand forms within 3 days, I then realized that they cannot be that important if he showed them to me that fast, it made me take another look at it. I think the forms are the basic foundation, along with the drills. We have SNT level drills, CK level drills and so forth, as the drills/chi sau bring the forms alive. The drills and chi sau are the blueprint IMO, as you need a partner that is learning the samething to gain the skills. The forms can help you in a way to fine tune certain individual mechanics and structures that fail when doing the drills. For e.g. when doing the laap sau drill I was told I had a lazy wu sau, so I concentrated on the wu/bong combo in the 1st section of Chum Kiu, low & beyold soon the wu was fixed and not so lazy in the drill, now when gor sau'g it's right where it should be, ready to fire.

James

[sanjuro_ronin]

Forms serve a purpose, of that there is no doubt and forms can be even used to train fighting, though not by the vast majority.
I think that, and history tells us this, forms were never a major part of MA training, but they were A PART.
It's a given that one can learn ANY MA without forms but I have noticed that our MA becomes "better" with forms training.
Its a given that one can learn how to fight with ANY MA without forms, but forms can help one become a better fighter ( the best fighters I know all have great form).
I think that forms change as we progress through our MA life, from a thing we "had to do" to one we choose to do and enjoy, one we use to unlock the more profound things of our MA.
I don't think that there is a set way for forms to be done after they are taught, I think that forms can be changed and done differently for different reasons.
The problem with forms is when someone things A is right and B is wrong when A and B may be two different things that happen to share some of the ame moves.
No MA should be so complicated that it can't be learned quickly, I mean, after all, of what use is a MA that needs years to be effective?

[LoneTiger108]

Personal form? Secret? Advanced? I don't think so. The 3 forms can be practiced as one long set. If we look at Yik Kam's WCK, we already see the seed elements of the 3 sets in one long set. WCK's entire curriculum is just for beginners. Application is for the "advanced".

To reiterate Robert, I personally feel Biu Jee is a personal form to me, and the stories of the past I mentioned which have commented on it being a secret (well over 30 years ago now!) is not what I believe today. Although I do not find the stories funny. ;)

As for the 'one set' idea I too have practised the same, as I too was taught that idea. What I was trying to do was keep in line with what I thought the tread was about (basically variations in Ip Mans Biu Jee) and Ip Man divided the sets for a reason IMHO. And it wasn't JUST to make money!


All the hearsay stories of the 2nd and 3rd generation are funny, especially when they only have pieces of the complete system.

Again I feel you looking down on us mere admirers of Ip Man! Nevermind. You have your complete system.


The order doesn't matter. Nor do signature moves.

I would HAVE to disagree. :D Especially for new students.

I ask everyone to consider that if the forms ARE a blueprint, if you like, of Wing Chun, would you go to page two or three first?

Personally, I KNOW you could, but what I'm trying to get at here is that you will ultimately create a different student. And, as has been tested generations before, some will never even get to know SLT, or disregard it as inferior.

Truth is, without SLT there is no CK. No CK no BJ. Basically there is no Wing Chun. THAT IMHO is what should bind us all together.

[LoneTiger108]

I've always wished that more of the wing chun kicks were prevelant in the forms. Hence one of the reasons why I was intriqued with the fact that A.Fong added them into his forms both with the CK and the BT sets.

I think that while wing chun as a whole mainly capitalizes on the hands that the foot development could have been more prevelant in the boxing forms. I've heard some people talk about SLT having "footwork" in it, and that it indirectly teaches the proper kicking stucture, which I can see.

Adding 'kicking' ideas to the forms would be fine IMO, as long as nothing is taken away and you're honest with your students.

Out of interest, what family have you heard of kicking being 'in' the SLT form?

[SAAMAG]

Adding 'kicking' ideas to the forms would be fine IMO, as long as nothing is taken away and you're honest with your students.

I wouldn't be adding it to one of the preexisting forms, but rather just making another set for myself to be able to practice the kicks in a standalone fashion.



Out of interest, what family have you heard of kicking being 'in' the SLT form?

I read it somewhere...don't remember where. But from what I recall the idea was that the stance of YGKYM set the mechanic of the kick...i.e...the stance was how the kick was to be done if one leg was raised doing the kick.

[SAAMAG]

But are forms the blue print of WC? I know they are NOW, for some, but was that always the case?


Forms serve a purpose, of that there is no doubt and forms can be even used to train fighting, though not by the vast majority.
I think that, and history tells us this, forms were never a major part of MA training, but they were A PART.
It's a given that one can learn ANY MA without forms but I have noticed that our MA becomes "better" with forms training.
Its a given that one can learn how to fight with ANY MA without forms, but forms can help one become a better fighter ( the best fighters I know all have great form).
I think that forms change as we progress through our MA life, from a thing we "had to do" to one we choose to do and enjoy, one we use to unlock the more profound things of our MA.
I don't think that there is a set way for forms to be done after they are taught, I think that forms can be changed and done differently for different reasons.
The problem with forms is when someone things A is right and B is wrong when A and B may be two different things that happen to share some of the ame moves.
No MA should be so complicated that it can't be learned quickly, I mean, after all, of what use is a MA that needs years to be effective?

I use the term blueprint to signify something that lays the groundwork for which the rest of the process is based upon. I.E. the forms comprise of the system's core techniques and teach us from a proprioceptive sense. The application of course is learnt with partners through drills and the like. The ability to use the system successfully is a byproduct of all the elements of training.

Does that make more sense? So while I'm not saying that forms show you everything, I look at them like my toolbox. Yes, we learn other techniques like the tai sut for example in drills and applications, but since they are one of the tools why not stick it in the toolbox?

Of course we're in agreeance on whether forms are necessary to fight--they are not, but are valuable in the a number of other ways when talking about gung fu.

[chusauli]

I would HAVE to disagree. :D Especially for new students.

I ask everyone to consider that if the forms ARE a blueprint, if you like, of Wing Chun, would you go to page two or three first?

Personally, I KNOW you could, but what I'm trying to get at here is that you will ultimately create a different student. And, as has been tested generations before, some will never even get to know SLT, or disregard it as inferior.

Truth is, without SLT there is no CK. No CK no BJ. Basically there is no Wing Chun. THAT IMHO is what should bind us all together.


Spencer, I was referring to the one set, Biu Jee, the order of the set varies from student to student of Yip Man. I am not speaking of the 3 forms.

But to bring it up, personally, I think it might be wise to teach SNT, BJ, then CK, as opposed to the way it is currently taught.

[TenTigers]

Vankuen-didn't you learn WCK and Hung-Ga from Sifu Michael Manganiello?
I seem to remember you..or perhaps it was someone who reminded me of you!
Forgive my memory...I'm gettin' on in years!:D

[SAAMAG]

No no, wrong guy. I learned WCK originally from my stepbrother who trained in Hawaii. Later I trained in qingang quan and wu xing quan. I traded with a lot of other wing chun guys until recent. I'm currently working with another sifu to try and find a softer side to my wing chun.

[TenTigers]

oy-vey! I was confusing you with HuangKaiVun! :eek:
Dyslexics
of the World,
Untie!
:D

[LoneTiger108]

Spencer, I was referring to the one set, Biu Jee, the order of the set varies from student to student of Yip Man. I am not speaking of the 3 forms.

I must have got confused here...


The 3 forms can be practiced as one long set.

I also find it intriguing that you would change the order of the forms, any reason/s?


I wouldn't be adding it to one of the preexisting forms, but rather just making another set for myself to be able to practice the kicks in a standalone fashion.

Sounds similar to what some people have already done to be honest. Have a search on Wing Chun Kicking Forms, as I believe they're quite popular! Here's my Uncles version (personally I do not know if he 'created' this or inherited it)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SR0d0Q3iRws


But from what I recall the idea was that the stance of YGKYM set the mechanic of the kick...i.e...the stance was how the kick was to be done if one leg was raised doing the kick.

I'd say yes and no.

There is an old method called single leg SLT which I believe you're talking about here. It's something I looked at alot as I was definitely a legwork type of guy. But that's just it, we always referred to legwork as legwork, kicking was something else.

[LoneTiger108]

Here's Uncle Gohs Biu Jee, which is a fair representation of Lee Shing family, although still there are differences

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6lZVW51VHYU&feature=related

[chusauli]

I must have got confused here...

I think so.


I also find it intriguing that you would change the order of the forms, any reason/s?

Biu Jee is very similar to SNT in small body movement and extension. So I reason to follow SNT with BJ, then CK and MYJ have bigger body movement.



Sounds similar to what some people have already done to be honest. Have a search on Wing Chun Kicking Forms, as I believe they're quite popular! Here's my Uncles version (personally I do not know if he 'created' this or inherited it)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SR0d0Q3iRws

Looks like an extrapolation of the Jong and Chum Kiu, then with some fancy kicking combinations. Looks like a redundant set or a demo form. Its hardly brilliant or original. Everything is already in the WCK 3 sets and Jong.

[k gledhill]

Bil Gee is a way to recover aka save your ar&e....its not meant to go "out the door" because your showing all the guys you want to fight how to escape or mess with your thinking...:D

doing a form is one thing knowing what they are for another...if people think its all finger darting out fine :D let them...deadly fingers from hell ....:D stay back or i unleash the fingers :D take that !! poke poke poke ..oh yeah !! I counter poke you with delayed death thumb ...:D:D:D:D

[SAAMAG]

That's how I understand it to be as well. Emergency techniques for when "real life" happens and you're stuff doesn't go exactly as planned.

For example, one of the "escapes" that I extrapolated from the form to regain the center was if someone pressed your elbow in at the tricep, you could biu gee from underneath the elbow to control the pressing arm--perhaps going into a lap or gam or whatever.

Of course people have shown applications of the gwai jarn / jang to be also a way to smash into someone's guard, attack the limb, attack the body at extreme close range, or to escape a lapel grab using the jarn with the chor ma.

So there's a lot of things that can be taken from the form. At the same time though, I've seen some crazy interpretations that look nothing like the form sequence that it is claimed to come from.

[Phil Redmond]

. . . . .
Truth is, without SLT there is no CK. No CK no BJ. Basically there is no Wing Chun. THAT IMHO is what should bind us all together.

Not necessarily. The Famous Leung Jan made Gu Lo Wing Chun with no SLT, CK, BJ and it's still WC.

[Phil Redmond]

All real fights are an emergency. ;)

[chusauli]

Yup, there is no need for sets, perhaps only the movements in between them are necessary and how they are used.

[YungChun]

Yup, there is no need for sets, perhaps only the movements in between them are necessary and how they are used.

Do you teach the sets?

[LoneTiger108]

Not necessarily. The Famous Leung Jan made Gu Lo Wing Chun with no SLT, CK, BJ and it's still WC.

Exactly my point! He MADE (what we know now) Gulao WCK for the rich merchants in the area at that time.

He made his point system from something, I wouldn't think it came from thin air or another style for that matter.

[SAAMAG]

Do you teach the sets?

I thought he said he does teach them, but with the order being SLT, BJ, CK. The point is that while you don't need them, there's nothing wrong with using them to ingrain the techniques and core movements, get some basic exercise, and make it a bit easier for someone to remember the various movements without having to practice them individually and accidently "forget" one.

[YungChun]

I thought he said he does teach them, but with the order being SLT, BJ, CK. The point is that while you don't need them, there's nothing wrong with using them to ingrain the movements, get some basic exercise, and make it a bit easier for someone to remember the various movements without having to practice them individually and accidently "forget" one.

I think the forms are underrated.. I actually hate form work but in my own experience I found that they do help lay a foundation for later skill building. Could that be done without a form, sure but it would be more tedious IMO having to say, ok now we're going to cover point 37 of chapter 2...and all those little details in the forms..

On the other hand.. I think folks take the forms too literally..and try to look like some abstract idea the form teaches and then try and fight like that... Folks do this at different levels, but think more obviously folks would never stand in YGKYM with a Tan sticking out from SLT and fight like that right?

But folks still get caught up trying to look like a form...and not just be loose and relax and move the way you need to instead of how you think you're suppose to... By that time all attributes will be second nature and anything that isn't is irrelevant. Folks need better coaching for sparring or fighting to de-form them and focus on tactics and natural movement-which is where the WCK will fit in.

[chusauli]

Do you teach the sets?

I teach both the Yip Man sets and Gu Lao WCK.

You should try an experiment of teaching WCK with and without sets with a few students.

Many times, depending on the practitioner, I may teach the 3 forms slowly as they can catch it, as they are secondary to the application. For some who are forms oriented, I can show the the sets in relatively short time. But in both cases, I stress the application more.

Advanced practitioners from other systems often come to visit me - the last thing they want to learn or see is SNT. They want to see the attributes and training from WCK, then they go back to the fundamental training.

Most of what is wrong in WCK these days is a lack of important basics - I see way too much locked stance with toes in, no movement of the pelvis, buttocks, hips, "S" shaped posture, slouching, hunchback, sway back, overemphasis on shoulder development...etc. Correcting these mistakes is what is more important than form.

[chusauli]

I thought he said he does teach them, but with the order being SLT, BJ, CK. The point is that while you don't need them, there's nothing wrong with using them to ingrain the techniques and core movements, get some basic exercise, and make it a bit easier for someone to remember the various movements without having to practice them individually and accidently "forget" one.



I do teach them in the traditional order, but I speculate that perhaps teaching BJ second would be better in some ways.

Chinese like to teach dialogue and poems. Forms are a reflection of that, but neither helps your conversation.

[YungChun]

Correcting these mistakes is what is more important than form.

If the form mechanics are wrong then why teach them that way? "Form" should mean the mechanic/tool you are going to use.



I do teach them in the traditional order, but I speculate that perhaps teaching BJ second would be better in some ways.


So recovery and elbow cheats sans footwork first? Yikes..

CK is SLT in motion.. They share the same ideas.. BJ departs and extends from the idea in the first two..

[SAAMAG]

I think the forms are underrated.. I actually hate form work but in my own experience I found that they do help lay a foundation for later skill building. Could that be done without a form, sure but it would be more tedious IMO having to say, ok now we're going to cover point 37 of chapter 2...and all those little details in the forms..

On the other hand.. I think folks take the forms too literally..and try to look like some abstract idea the form teaches and then try and fight like that... Folks do this at different levels, but think more obviously folks would never stand in YGKYM with a Tan sticking out from SLT and fight like that right?

But folks still get caught up trying to look like a form...and not just be loose and relax and move the way you need to instead of how you think you're suppose to... By that time all attributes will be second nature and anything that isn't is irrelevant. Folks need better coaching for sparring or fighting to de-form them and focus on tactics and natural movement-which is where the WCK will fit in.

I get what you're saying. The forms aren't meant to be done "exactly"--especially since they're just grouped together in a pattern. Fighting doesn't happen that way as you stated.

I just made another thread discussing the things that can be learnt from the three seeds...somewhat relevant since I'm using the forms to cite various movements and how I ended up with those applications.

I practice my forms several times a day. They don't take up much room, and they don't take too long (unless I'm doing them in a more relaxed and "internal" way). So I get up, go through the three boxing sets. Do them a few times throughout the day (even at work). I'll do pieces of them throughout the day as well. At night I do them several times in their entirety before bed. I have to agree that it does help tremendously compared to when I didn't do them as often.

[chusauli]

If the form mechanics are wrong then why teach them that way? "Form" should mean the mechanic/tool you are going to use.

So recovery and elbow cheats sans footwork first? Yikes..

CK is SLT in motion.. They share the same ideas.. BJ departs and extends from the idea in the first two..



I agree, why should the proper mechanics not be taught first? That would make WCK better. I don't teach the forms mechanics without correct body connection and alignment, but youtube is filled with many that do.

Form is the proper mechanic and tool, but so few have it. Their chest is sunken, shoulders rounded, profile looks like an "S", posture poor. Its lame.

Jim, footwork should be taught on day one, so I don't see your point. You don't learn these from the forms do you? You train them separately and in partner and line drills. Why do you need a form to teach that for?? So your comment of "So recovery and elbow cheats sans footwork first? Yikes.." is irrelevant.

I say try it - try a long set with SNT, CK, BJ, then switch the order of SNT, BJ, CK. You'll see what I mean. BJ is not more advanced than CK...you were just taught that way.

[sanjuro_ronin]

My TKD instructor had this view of forms:
You can get a lot out of them, but nothing that you can;t get without them.
SO why have them?
Nothing allows a teacher to judge a students technical progression against itself, then forms.

He used it as a tool to judge how well a student was progressing in the system.

[LoneTiger108]

If the form mechanics are wrong then why teach them that way? "Form" should mean the mechanic/tool you are going to use.

If your form mechanics in Wing Chun are wrong, then you may have never learnt the forms!

Wing Chun forms are also not 'katas', they are not designed to be imagining what to do when someone does 'whatever'! They are precise tools that assist the body in memorising everything else that's also being practised at the same time. Simple sets brought together with the aim of 'knowing more through practising less'.

If I really wanted to spend my lifetime throwing shapes in forms I would have stuck with Karate or gone on to Hung Kuen! Having just three hand sets is enough for me, and the weapons and wooden man is just a perfect complement and bonus imho :D

[YungChun]

You should try an experiment of teaching WCK with and without sets with a few students.

How do you "teach" all that is in the form without teaching the forms? Do you on a daily basis cover every single detail that would normally be done in the forms?



Advanced practitioners from other systems often come to visit me - the last thing they want to learn or see is SNT. They want to see the attributes and training from WCK, then they go back to the fundamental training.

And how do you "show them" the attributes of WCK?



Most of what is wrong in WCK these days is a lack of important basics - I see way too much locked stance with toes in, no movement of the pelvis, buttocks, hips, "S" shaped posture, slouching, hunchback, sway back, overemphasis on shoulder development...etc. Correcting these mistakes is what is more important than form.


That IS the form.. Correct the form and there should be little need for correcting their form.

[YungChun]

Jim, footwork should be taught on day one, so I don't see your point.

The point was that SLT and CK are one and the same thing, CK being SLT in motion..

I use the classical progression..and add things here and there...



You don't learn these from the forms do you? You train them separately and in partner and line drills. Why do you need a form to teach that for?? So your comment of "So recovery and elbow cheats sans footwork first? Yikes.." is irrelevant.

The forms teach many things.. The forms are part of the classical art.. The classical art has stages and steps.. Your way is not my way. I could easily say ways other than mine are irrelevant and often bass ackwards..

SLT and CK use the same idea.. BJ extends and departs from the first idea.. Teaching one idea, the main idea first IMO is the correct way...

[LoneTiger108]

The point was that SLT and CK are one and the same thing, CK being SLT in motion...

... SLT and CK use the same idea.. BJ extends and departs from the first idea.. Teaching one idea, the main idea first IMO is the correct way...

An interesting viewpoint, but I would ask why you feel CK is 'SLT in motion'?

There are core differences between the three forms, all have their distinct purpose imo.

[chusauli]

How do you "teach" all that is in the form without teaching the forms? Do you on a daily basis cover every single detail that would normally be done in the forms?

Because many have gone through this forms approach, they think it is the only way. One learns application primary and form secondary. Form should reflect application, not application reflect form. WCK has 4 important basics: body structure, which is physical alignment; balance, which is rooted in footwork; the use of pushing, pulling, and wedging, and finally, coordination and passing of hand to hand, hand/body, body hand, body/body. If every lesson reflects those 4 major elements, then you will have "taught" all the lessons of form and more.



And how do you "show them" the attributes of WCK?

One needs a solid ability in the 4 basics I mentioned above. Without it, one has little skill. One doesn't need a segmented approach in teaching. You teach immediate application in every move. Everything is "Mai Sang Jong" - to borrow a classical term - you don't need the forms.


That IS the form.. Correct the form and there should be little need for correcting their form.

I'm not sure what you mean? Do you mean hunchback, shoulder strength, locked knees is the form? SNT eventually should be played like what you learned in the Jong...

[chusauli]

The point was that SLT and CK are one and the same thing, CK being SLT in motion..

I use the classical progression..and add things here and there...

Yes, but I'm sure you have to teach punches, palm strikes, kicks, footwork separately and coordinated together? How would the form improve?



The forms teach many things.. The forms are part of the classical art.. The classical art has stages and steps.. Your way is not my way. I could easily say ways other than mine are irrelevant and often bass ackwards..

SLT and CK use the same idea.. BJ extends and departs from the first idea.. Teaching one idea, the main idea first IMO is the correct way...

OK, but this tells me nothing. I certainly teach the forms and I certainly teach a San Sik version. I teach them usually together, but I can also teach them separately. All that counts is that I can have the student understand how to apply them.