Formless Wing Chun

[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