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

[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

[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.