For the Wah Lum people

I haven't trained in Wah Lum since 2005, but I've studied various CMA styles since then.
I was recently going over many forms and styles that I have learned over the years, and I come to the conclusion that Wah Lum's first basic form "8 Chain Punch" may actually be the most practical and efficient form I've ever learn (weapons or open hands) inside and outside the Wah Lum system. The form is simple and straight to the point. I remember being a very impatient student at the time and rushing to learn any and every form as fast as I could. I hated 8 chain punch. I thought it was so boring. There was nothing fancy about it. Yet, whenever I spar, the majority of the time the techniques from 8 chain punch are what I use. When I began to study other systems, I was always amazed how impractical many of their beginning forms were despite how cool they might have looked.
What do you Wah Lum guys think?

Well, it should be. There's not really anything more efficient than a simple 1-2 combo, as far as unarmed combat is concerned. WL's 8 chain punches (which as some point they started calling Exercise #1), is a simplified version of a similar drill done in other mantis systems. Tainan Mantis has an article on his website about it, I think. He can correct me if I'm wrong. If you do a search, you can find an old discussion here on that topic.

But anyway, forms aren't meant to be about efficiency really. And that's part of the problem in using them to teach people martial arts. In any given form you may have moves for any combination of the following purposes: physical fitness (1st half of gung ji, for example), coordination/balance, symbolism or even religious reasons, public demonstration (not a new thing, kung fu street performers are not a western invention), and then, lastly, fighting concepts. Dropping all the other reasons for sake of discussion and only focusing on fighting concepts, even then its not about being efficient, all encompassing or whatever. A form is like a chapter in a text book. It presents a topic and then gives you 1 or 2 examples of that topic. It does not teach techniques. The techniques are illustrative only. Understand the topic, and the actual structure becomes irrelevant. This is the other half of the argument as to why kung fu people don't fight like their forms (the 1st half being unrealistic training), it was never the purpose to fight "like your form" in the sense of looking like the form. 2nd, If a form is meant simply as a method of information transferal and reference, does it make a lot of sense to have the basics in every single form? It should be no surprise to people that 80-90% of what you use in an actual fight is not 80-90% of any given form. Why have a form where 8 out of 10 strikes is some combination of jab and cross? That would be like having a calculus textbook in which 80% of the problem sets are simple arithmetic. That's not the purpose of that book, its assuming you already know that stuff.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SoCo KungFu

But anyway, forms aren't meant to be about efficiency really. And that's part of the problem in using them to teach people martial arts. In any given form you may have moves for any combination of the following purposes: physical fitness (1st half of gung ji, for example), coordination/balance, symbolism or even religious reasons, public demonstration (not a new thing, kung fu street performers are not a western invention), and then, lastly, fighting concepts. Dropping all the other reasons for sake of discussion and only focusing on fighting concepts, even then its not about being efficient, all encompassing or whatever. A form is like a chapter in a text book. It presents a topic and then gives you 1 or 2 examples of that topic. It does not teach techniques. The techniques are illustrative only. Understand the topic, and the actual structure becomes irrelevant. This is the other half of the argument as to why kung fu people don't fight like their forms (the 1st half being unrealistic training), it was never the purpose to fight "like your form" in the sense of looking like the form. 2nd, If a form is meant simply as a method of information transferal and reference, does it make a lot of sense to have the basics in every single form?

---

I'm glad someone said this.

SoCo Kungfu,

I understand what you are saying, but at the same time I find myself a bit torn over your argument. I completely understand that there are many examples of techniques in forms that were never intended for real life application but instead were intended for personal improvement of strength, balance, and/or flexibility, etc. Furthermore, I understand that no one in a fight is going to sink into a low horse stance and start mindlessly throwing combos straight from their forms and expect to win. However, I feel that you may be underestimating the intended purpose of many technique applications in forms. Nowadays, NO ONE is using any techniques from their form in a fight or sparring match aside from than the same 4 or 5 standard universal kickboxing moves which makes every individual's style indistinguishable. Was it always like that around the MA world since the beginning? I think that maybe the argument for individual techniques in forms were not meant to be a reflection of an individual's fighting style in a given situation may be a relatively new concept in light of many traditional MA practitioners coming to terms with the success of modernization of sports fighting over the last 100 years. For example, Watch any youtube sparring match, regardless of what style or system an individual studied, when the time comes to fight or spar, EVERYONE around the world immediately goes into western boxing stance and hop around the entire match throwing the same 4 or 5 kicks and punches, as if every fighter around the world studied the same style and ignoring unique techniques they learned from forms. Please correct me if Im wrong, but it raises the question, before the invention of mass media, did MA masters around the world centuries ago share the same stances and techniques of modernized sport fighting we see today? It just feels to me that back when these styles and forms were created and that physical conflict had a higher chance of ending in death, that it would be a waste of time to have all these forms with so many techniques and combos and simply say most of it do not have any real life applications other than self cultivation.

Think about what you just said in your first post.

Quote:

---

Wah Lum's first basic form "8 Chain Punch" may actually be the most practical and efficient form I've ever learn

---

Now compare to this:

Quote:

---

NO ONE is using any techniques from their form in a fight or sparring match aside from than the same 4 or 5 standard universal kickboxing moves

---

Do you not see the connection? Every martial art has some concept of the lead and rear straight, the hook, the uppercut. Why are they universal? Because its effective. Its effective because they're quick to learn (though long to master) and you're not compromising your defense by playing grabby hand. That's entirely the point. Think about a volume boxer, like Pac. How many different ways does he attack in a fight? Quite a few, especially mixing up hooks and such off his footwork. But it still goes back to the volume of his punches being overwhelmingly 2 or 3 punches. How many different combos can be strung simply off a jab? Think of it like a business, 80% of your business comes from 20% of your customers. Its all about reliability. There are thousands of ways to set up a submission, and a fair number of subs to choose from, in BJJ. Yet in UFC, the majority of sub wins are through 3 moves; RNC, armbar, kimura. Low risk, high success rate. Its simple math.

Quote:

---

It just feels to me that back when these styles and forms were created and that physical conflict had a higher chance of ending in death

---

With the exception of armed combat, what makes you think a fight was anymore lethal in old days than present? People need to get over this myth that martial arts like kung fu were created for fighting to the death and every engagement was a defense of ones existence. Drunks fighting over women is not a new occurrence. China is not, nor was, a lawless country. Most (I'd say 95-99%) of what you learn in martial arts (of any flavor) are civilian self defense (at practical best).

Quote:

---

that it would be a waste of time to have all these forms with so many techniques and combos and simply say most of it do not have any real life applications other than self cultivation.

---

Hate to break it to you, but most forms were created within the last 100 to 150 years. WL being a perfect example. Well off scholars and upper class businessmen going through life crises and ego trips, wanting to find their "primal" selves to fend off mundane lives are not new things. And illiterate laborers figuring out they could market to those people to make a better living than killing their backs through farm work are nothing new either (and one reason the competition to be THE school in town was as it was). Most forms were created as a business ploy to keep a student around for a steady paycheck. Again, WL is a perfect example. How many forms do you think Lee Kwan Shan actually taught before Chan Poi? And how much fighting do you think Chan Poi picked up from LKS as a 7 year old?

Quote:

---

it would be a waste of time to have all these forms

---

It is a waste. Carrying around a ton of forms is like having a bunch of debt.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wuxia007

Wah Lum's first basic form "8 Chain Punch" may actually be the most practical and efficient form I've ever learn (weapons or open hands) inside and outside the Wah Lum system.

---

Yes, it is one of the most important parts of the style. It is not just in Wah Lum, but in all Mantis styles. It looks different in other styles, but applied the same in application.

Heaven-Ascended Daoist calls it 十字步 Figure Ten Stepping. In Taiji Mantis, I recall it is called 打四門。This type of footwork is combined with straight punches or palms. Or chops.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SoCo KungFu

But anyway, forms aren't meant to be about efficiency really. And that's part of the problem in using them to teach people martial arts.

---

Look at it from the way it used to be taught to the military(and it should be clear that mantis directly descends from Ming military curriculum).
General Tang tells us that "Within pugilism are the fixed maneuvers-shi 勢, but during their application they are no longer fixed."
They were not learning long forms, but a few maneuvers which are taught as a static posture and then a moving posture. Then, its application with soldiers.

Even old Mantis is made of a very small number of techniques, not these collections of forms that most styles have become today.

From an old article

The concept of shi is the essence of martial arts. To master martial arts is to master the ability of 'taking maneuvers.' For this reason masters of pugilism were often called 'maneuver taking masters' or 'ba shi jiang' in Northern China.

To get a deeper understanding of shi the best place to start is from a well known master of the Ming(1368-1644) dynasty known as Tang Xun. During his lifetime he penned a book known as Wu Bian. He tells us that maneuvers can be fixed, as in the postures we learn when we first begin our martial arts journey, or they are in constant motion. He explains the requirements for the understanding of 'taking maneuvers' or 'ba shi.'

"The maneuvers of pugilism are what enable us to produce its changes.
Regardless of whether you move horizontally, diagonally, sideways, upwards, forwards or downwards there exists walls and doors for defending and attacking.
This is the meaning of maneuvers.
Within pugilism are the fixed maneuvers, but during their application they are no longer fixed.
And when using them their changes also have no fixed maneuvers, yet the maneuvers are still there.
This is what is known as ba shi."