Applications of the forms

[kungfu cowboy]

I have seen a few websites and books with examples of applications of the forms. As I understand it, the forms are more encyclopedic in nature and training in function. In other words, they have no imagined choreographed combat. While I can see how the movements that make up the form can be each individually demonstrated as an entity in itself, I don't see how (especially SLT) they can be performed as a string of prearranged segments against an opponent, and demonstrated as such. Whaddya think?

[kungfu cowboy]

By jove, I think you're right!

[tnwingtsun]

Its like trying to learn to speak
Chinese or Spanish or English.
SLT is just the first step in learing how to speak.
You learn the letters first then the words,
then you can put senences together,
after a while you can have conversations(chi sau)
Any help??

[kungfu cowboy]

What I meant was that the forms themselves are being shown as choreographed fighting.

[old jong]

Hi again Cowboy.
Well,the forms are not there to teach how to fight in wing chun!They are like a catalogue of the motions and a study of the use of energy(chi kung?)The motions are putted in a convenient order to be practiced but this order is not a prearranged sequence in any way.In wing chun ,we learn to use the motions in two men drills and chi sao and with times and lots of practice we can become "fluent" in the language of wing chun...We could say that"If other system teach you what to think...Wing chun teach you how to think!"
Ciao Buddy ;)

C'est la vie!

[kungfu cowboy]

Ok. I will say it again: I know the forms are supposed to be like a library of moves. But I have seen in books, magazines, and on the web, people demonstrating the forms as if they were supposed to be rehearsed moves against any imainary opponent. Isn't this incorrect?

(Please God, let me have made myself clear this time!)

[mikey]

I sympathize with your plight.where did you see
these demonstrations? was the whole form presented as a choreographed fight?if so,this is clearly wrong. I can see taking a short segment of
a form and demonstrating it's combat application.
For example,the roll from bong sau to tan sau in the first form.If what they were showing was in
the context of being able to pluck techniques from
the forms,and mate them together to suite a specific application,I believe that's one of the purposes of the forms.But if it is taken as a " one size fits all" series of techniques("if you're jumped,just do the bil jee form and you will win!"),then someone has some 'splainin to do.
can you imagine?"yeah,this is the quart of blood technique.do this,and a quart of blood will drop
out a person's body". At least when you rent a hooker you KNOW you're gonna get screwed. :D

[Falcor]

I have a question. The letter-to-word-to-senteces-to-converstion concept is very cool I think. I was just wondering if Wing Chun is the only system that uses this approach or if there are other systems out there (somewhere...) that also uses this approach. As i udneratand it, for the most part, long fist systems (both Northern and Southern) forms are really a collection of technqiues/combinatoins/applications, albeit still embodying important principles. Meaning that a section of a long fits form is in actuality a given application for a particular situation. But what about otehr short-fist systems - like Bak Mei or Wu Mei or Southern Mantis? Thanks for any info.

...don't think you are, know you are...

[Danny T]

Over the years my position on forms has changed from one of disdain to that of conditional appreciation. I once believed that if a technique in a form is not performed exactly the way it is applied in the street, then it should either be changed or discarded. I now realize, within reasonable limits, it is acceptable to see some deviation between a fighting technique in application, and how it is executed in a form. This is because the different movements in the forms do more than simply teach self-defense movements. Some build strength, others flexibility, still others use repetition to ingrain some basic movement or presentation of the "tools" into the nuromuscular memory of the practitioner. For example, visualize the movement of a rising front kick to the groin of an opponent. This same movement in a form may legitimately rise as high as the imaginary opponent's head. From a real self-defense perspective kicking to the head weakens, rather than strengthens the defender's technique: however, from a training perspective, not only is the high kick acceptable but, in many ways is desirable. When used is self-defense a technique has one and only one objective: disable the opponent. When practiced in a form, however, its purpose is broadened to serve additional functions like; teaching the proper basic movement, and, body conditioning.

Teaching the basic movement is critical for the movements are and principles they are based upon are the building blocks of techniques. In any fighting technique, a parry - any deflection - is simply a movement. A punch, an elbow, kick, or whatever is another movement. Learn any system, style, or fighting art's movements and you have what is needed to create you own techniques.

"Learning an art's movements" involves much more than simply learning to put the hand here or the foot there. It means developing a thorough understanding of a movements purpose, mechanics, and underlying principles. Understanding motion, the presentation of the proper tool, and the movement provides you with everything you need to create your own techniques. This is what you do when advancing beyond practice and into the realm of spontaneity: in a fight you spontaneously create your own techniques.

Beyound teaching practical self-defense and basic movement, body conditioning is the 3rd purpose of forms. Again for an example, I you practice kicking higher than necessary during training when warmed up then you should have little difficulty kicking the lower, more practical targets when in street clothes and not warmed up or stretched.

Beyond these basic function of forms there remains a classical mess. Many forms practiced today no longer teach relevant, practical self-defense movements. Most classical forms represent a method of combat radically different form the way we fight today. Many forms taught are from a by gone era and contain techniques and movements of evasion based on the premise that the opponent is, for example, on horseback and carrying a weapon common to that era but is unseen today. Or, the opponent is wearing some type of protective armor. Techniques designed for those circumstances might be completely inappropriate and ineffective today. These are some of the major flaws most classical forms have not addressed. Worse many of todays "modern" forms teach even less, it any, martial application. Unrealistic weapons usage and movement, backflips, splits, and moon walks now common are not martial art. As outdated and ineffective as some classical forms are they are at least based upon once-effective techniques.

Training forms are usually repetitious and often very basic. They teach what I call the movement and motion of the system. The form itself is a catalog of the tools of the system used with movement. The sequence of the forms may not and most do not constitute a practical technique, but practical techniques can be developed when the movements flow and are used in combination with each other.

Danny T
www.progressivemaclub.homestead.com

[Phil Redmond]

First you learn the alphabet(strokes in Chinese). Then you learn words/characters. Then sentences, paragraphs, and eventually, poetry.
Like music, you learn to improvise.

[Spectre]

No - they should not be shown in a fighting sequence. The forms are an exercise to develop tendon strength and/or proper form while also serving as a synopsis of some of the techniques within the system.


Continued blessings in your life and your training.

The key to understanding is to open your mind and your heart and then the eyes will follow.

[sunkuen]

good answer redmond! :rolleyes:

[chi-kwai]

I personally don't believe it is not proper to have someone in front of you during the form to give the opposite response to what you do in SLT.

That is not the purpose of the wing chun forms. There are styles which utilize two man forms, but sil nim tao, chum kiu, biu gi, bat cham dao and the pole form are all done solo.

--
chi kwai

[Juan Alvarez]

I say I would have to desagrre with everything said so far. In our lineage, we have an application forms for many basic forms, as SLT. To me, they serve the same purpose as forms in that they teach you basic counter-techniques to these forms. Now, in no way should it be thougt as a way of fighting, that would be stupid! When they are done fast and strong, they are pretty cool to perform though!
:) ,

[chi-kwai]

I was so out of it this morning. My previous post is senseless, and its too late to edit it.

To rephrase what I stumbled over, I don't think WC forms are supposed to be two man.

--
chi kwai