Forms training is only good for performing Forms!!!

[Iron_Eagle_76]

This is part of the problem I have with forms, the techniques in them might be valid, they might very well work, but as they have been passed on how do we know what the original intent was for the movement? if you train with 2 different sifu chances are you will see 2 different examples of what the movement was for, its not a great way to pass on a style especially in this day and age

And on the other extreme you get the form Nazis who say the hand must be this shape, at this angle and move in this path and then don’t actually use the movement in sparring anyway

If forms were a good way in the past to catalogue techniques, and introduce strength and conditioning work, are they still useful with all the advances we have made in the realm of strength and conditioning and technological advances made that allow us to capture movement ?

I can attest to this. In Pai Lum, there are so many different forms and versions of the forms there is really no way to tell who has the right one. It seems Pai would teach pretty much everyone differently, one black belt would learn a form one way while someone else learned it a different way. Considering how Pai Lum is a newer system and has so many discrepancies I can see how older systems can get mixed up as well. On a side note, many of Pai Lum's forms are Hung Gar forms, very *******ized as some Hung Gar guys have told me.

[ginosifu]

This is part of the problem I have with forms, the techniques in them might be valid, they might very well work, but as they have been passed on how do we know what the original intent was for the movement? if you train with 2 different sifu chances are you will see 2 different examples of what the movement was for, its not a great way to pass on a style especially in this day and age

Frost:

This is one of those yes and no kind of answers. Yes you are right that different teachers have different visions on what the applications should be.

However it was done that way on purpose. Every Form has a Theory behind it. The theory can not be defined by a single application. The form gives you a dictionary of techniques and a desgnated way to flow for the style. It is up to each person to devise applications according to personal flavor. Each application should follow principles and theories of the system but gives each person freedom to devise applications that suit the needs of the situation or individual.

ginosifu

[MightyB]

5 pages of discussion about TCMA methodology that for the most part stayed on-topic. Holy cr@p - that's got to be a new record!

[MightyB]

5 pages of discussion about TCMA methodology that for the most part stayed on-topic. Holy cr@p - that's got to be a new record!

The discussion has actually led me to this conclusion which I may be off base. But the answer seems to be "it depends on the student". For my own approach for when I decide to teach approximately 9 years from now (figure 45 would be a good time to stop being selfish with the MA training) I'll probably show 4 to 5 "basic" level forms to a newbie. I figure that would be enough to evaluate their strengths and then I could determine an "advanced" form that they could learn for competition. I'm still up in the air about how much the forms training effects the development of the illusory traits. While I do believe in some aspects of internal development, I don't believe forms accumulation is the answer and I definitely still feel that fight training is done outside of the realm of forms.

[KC Elbows]

In response to Frost's comment about the same form an two or more teachers seeing it as different techs.

I've got tons of footage of the one empty hand form in our system. I've actually tracked alterations in our line, plus, since there aren't a ton of people doing the style, I know the main variations. Some techs I was taught, I don't believe are correct, some are, but on the whole, there are a lot more similarities than differences.

The way I work the problem is not by reverting to "this is how our camp does it" but by testing in usage(pressure a must) over a long time the different techs, and deferring to the ones that work most reliably in the framework of the system, while still examining others. Many apps that teachers decide are what the tech is about are really things that another tech in the form does much better: in such a case, I don't use such a thing.

I think one thing that has muddied the water is the idea of form as movements vs. form as techniques. People try to find lots of uses for one move, on the idea that this aids spontaneity and is the style. It poses a problem. Response time being important, choosing from one hundred movements that each have 4 apps seems less efficient than choosing from one hundred that have specific apps, and, in all honesty, pretty much all the old training manuals I've seen relate systems that have moves that are specific applications. I can't think of one exception.

I think a style's principles are personified by its techniques, that the principles are there to give the framework for using the techniques, and that one best personifies the principles by entraining the techniques under pressure, then using those notes to adjust the form and understand the form. I posit that understanding the form this way, one tends to find that they will not often be altering the form from a tradition, and more often seeing what the tradition is, and seeing certain practitioners who know move X's core as in line with that tradition on that tech, and those who practice less applicable versions as not strong on that, but perhaps strong on other techniques and closer to the tradition.

To use a bjj example, if bjj people only trained principles such as position before submission, etc, and eschewed specific apps, they'd be far less effective on the ground. If they did the techs but did not see the framework that the principles give, they'd be the krav maga of the ground, and again, less effective. Techniques need principles as a framework for engagement, principles need techniques for decisive and effective execution, alone they are half the equation, imo.

[ginosifu]

I don't believe forms accumulation is the answer and I definitely still feel that fight training is done outside of the realm of forms.

MightyB:

There are many Maxums or statements in Kung Fu. I have my own personal statement that I follow:

If you want to be good at Running, then Run! If you want to be good at Weight Lifting, Then Lift! If you want to be good at Fighting, then Fight!

When thinking about fighting and self defense put some common sense into your training. Let's look at a Proffessional Boxer's training regime, 60%-70% of their training consists of fighting drills, sparring, ring time etc etc. the other 30%-40% is supplemental training such as; Running, jumping rope, shadow boxing etc etc.

The same is true for Kung Fu training. If you want fighting as your focus then you need to fight. Forms alone will not make you a good fighter. So look at your goals and if fighting is the most important, then make 60%-70% of your training Fighting drills, sparring, ring time etc etc. The rest should be supplemental training such as forms / solo drills / etc etc.

However, don't make the mistake of training so hard in fighting that you become a shooting star. Too much fighting all the time leads to injury and you will shorten your Martial Arts career with nagging injuries that will not let you do anything at all. Use common sense in your training and you will be able to take your Kung Fu into your golden years.

ginosifu

[YouKnowWho]

This is part of the problem I have with forms, the techniques in them might be valid, they might very well work, but as they have been passed on how do we know what the original intent was for the movement?

That's a good question. Form can give you some "principle". It's up to you to map that "abstract principle" into many "concrete techniques". A teacher can help his students on this. But students still need to have chance to test their IQ levels.

For example, the 1st solo form in SC is "斜打(Xie Dai) - diagonal strike" as shown in this clip.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9nIOI7DRs44

There is nothing fancy about it. It's just like a boxing cross except it's used as a vertical palm strike (SC form #1 can be used as a cross, SC form #2 can be used as a hook, and SC form #3 can be used as an upper cut). Here are the first 5 applications that can come out of that simple form (there are more concrete techniques than those 5).

1. To break a clinch.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jgtGzYbOgwQ

2. To set up a throw.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ERcj4KyV4Zk

3. Inner hook.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Ptr3sLWXVY

4. Front cut.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dutqbmf3xKU

5. Knee seize (single leg shooting).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tzEnT5pKvik

If a simple move such as "斜打(Xie Dai) - diagonal strike" can record so much valuable information in it, you can image that a 108 moves long form can record at least 500 useful techniques. Without forms, how will you be able to help your students to remember all those moves?

Technique 1, technique 2, technique 3, ... technique 499, technique 500, ... ?

[lkfmdc]

If a man tells you he is thirsty do you

1. Give him a drink
2. shoot a hose at him
3. Hold his head under the water in the bath
4. Throw him in the middle of a large lake

A lot of TCMA practice does not break down and isolate skills, it just throws stuff at people and many drown

[Lucas]

I teach him how to urinate into a cup, so that he may never have to be thirsty again!

[YouKnowWho]

If a man tells you he is thirsty do you

1. Give him a drink
2. shoot a hose at him
3. Hold his head under the water in the bath
4. Throw him in the middle of a large lake

A lot of TCMA practice does not break down and isolate skills, it just throws stuff at people and many drown

That's one extream. The other extream is a teacher explains everything in detail and not give his students any chance to use their brains. That won't be good either. No matter how detail that your math teacher help you to go through a math problem in the class, it's not the same as you solve you math homework all by yourself. The follow move that after a kick and puch, you bring your leg back behind you.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W81ccS0i4cY

I asked my Longfist teacher about the application for that. My Longfist teacher told me it can be used to kick someone's leg when he is behind. My question was:

- How do I know if I can hit my opponent's leg if I don't look back?
- Why the original form designer didn't add a head turn there?

That question had bothered me for many years. When I started to train the Chinese throwing art, I suddently realized if I have a "head lock" on my opponent, I don't have to look back and I'll know exactly where my opponent's legs are.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zyKObGWz6dU

Somertime it may be good to put a "question mark" in your students head and force them to figure out no matter how long that may take.

[Lucas]

do you have any active student right now YKW?

[YouKnowWho]

I only have 2 students that I teach at home. One guy also trains in MMA gym for BJJ, MT, Sambo, boxing, ... which is prefect OK with me.

[Lucas]

Oh, are they your kids? Are you open to taking new students at all?

[YouKnowWho]

Ther are not my kids. Both are adults. One guy had been with me for over 30 years. The other guy had been with me for 8 years. I had others students. They just come and go so I won't count on them. Yes, I do take new students.

[Lucas]

how long do you think you will live there?