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.
Last edited by AmanuJRY; 08-12-2004 at 08:16 AM.
Sapere aude, Justin.
The map is not the Terrain.
"Wheather you believe you can, or you believe you can't...You're right." - Henry Ford