SoCoKungFu, are you running/teaching a Kung Fu group of your own? Just wondering.
I'm generally going to side with you, though. I remember hearing that a good chunk of historical CMA training had much less emphasis on forms training (at least in the military and for those competing on lei tai). I always thought forms emphasis was more of a modern thing, or in dynastic times as just a way to make a living during peace time. So if anything, it'd be more faithful toward TCMA to spar more than focus on form work, assuming that you are not into Hua Fa Wu Yi
Last edited by Krottyman; 07-29-2015 at 10:14 PM.
I knew a few acquaintance who were part of the Wah Lum organization about 10-15 years ago but they seemed to have dried up as I have not heard anything from them!
They seem to have had their success but I am guessing the wushu craze has overshadowed alot of groups like these. Just guessing..........
Don’t listen to these Johnny come lately, just a bunch of watered down MMA wannabes .forms have lots of values, and if you don’t like forms why on earth would you be doing kung fu,I mean let’s get real here.
Well, that's the thing. I mentioned to SoCo that forms weren't really such an important part of Kung Fu until relatively recently, at least not for fighting. Yes, it was always a part of training but it shouldn't be the majority of class time training.
Greetings,
While I cannot say as to what is going on now, I remember two Wah Lum people from the Boston area who could fight: Jason Yee and Javonne Holmes. They trained under Yao Li. Jason Yee participated in Sanda and did very well. At the Houston Nationals, Javonne Holmes competed in both forms and fighting on at least one occasion. I saw footage of him doing so and he did not appear at all timid about throwing down. These guys may be a reflection of how things were transmitted during Wah Lum's Boston phase, as opposed to what was/is happening in Florida. Another hint that fighting was trained is their Iron Palm training. There is no point in learning that if you are going to flop around back and forth doing forms.
mickey
Last edited by mickey; 08-01-2015 at 07:57 AM.
e (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_martial_arts I will grant you that Wikipedia is not considered an ideal source, but given their recent standards increase (I had along with a group tried to write a page for a school project, it got rejected twice and was a candidate for deletion) I thought it was a good place to start. skip to "forms."
I've lurked on Bullshido as well, specifically the CMA subforum. The general consensus there (the attitude) is that forms have their context but they shouldn't replace sparring. In fact, there is a link in the "progressive martial artists" sticky that talks about the lei tai in the 1920s where a guy who sparred more often beat a much stronger opponent who overemphasized his iron palm training. There was also a quote from the book Qin Na Fa by Liu Jinsheng. (I'm using my touch screen so I didn't copy/paste, I'll paraphrase): He basically said that a lot of practitioners in his day (the 30s) were training in CMA but weren't doing it for practical reasons. So, when a guy goes up to fight someone who say, crosstrained in another art like boxing or wrestling, would've gotten his butt kicked. This was mostly because the former was only doing his forms and wasn't practicing the way his ancestors would. He also mentioned famous military figures like Qi Jiguang who did whatever they could to keep things on the practical side, specifically to address things like this.
I'm sure you're famlilar with the Cultural Revolution as well. Funny thing is at first they actually encouraged martial arts practice, but come Cultural Revolution time completely discounted the value of self-defense (never want to give the martial artists too much power, according to them) and we get the closing or burning down of lots of martial arts schools <- This I found from following NYSanda and Ben Judkins's Kung Fu Tea blogs. I forget which articles exactly. In fact, it was Zhou Enlai who encouraged combat sports again, I believe. (history of Chinese boxing in the olympics).
I'll grant you that many did end up emphasizing form over function- There's also a phrase to describe performance-only arts derived from older martial arts styles: "Hua Fa Wu Yi", arts specifically used to tell stories. These were usually soldiers or performers finding alternate ways to make money. Supposedly it had a negative influence on training in the military. But they were clearly not designed for fighting anymore at those points.
There's more but those were the eye openers.
There were other times throughout history where some CMA devolved into more performance or forms-oriented practice, such as during the Song or Ming Dynasties. Not only during the early 20th century. Then the practical methods would once again be brought to the forefront to counter those trends. Much of the problem with CMA becoming classified as "hua chuan xiu tui" (flowery fist, embroidery leg) during the 20th century had much to do with what happened during and after the Boxer Rebellion. Kung fu was then seen as impractical in the modern world, so many emphasized training it to strengthen the health of the people first, and as a fighting method secondly (or thirdly).
Many of the best CMAists of the period (at least in the north) remained practitioners who trained Shuai Jiao, either by itself or in conjunction with a "boxing" art.
Last edited by Jimbo; 08-03-2015 at 02:57 PM.
kung fu became flowery in periods of history when there was money to be made.
Honorary African American
grandmaster instructor of Wombat Combat The Lost Art of Anal Destruction™®LLC .
Senior Business Director at TEAM ASSHAMMER consulting services ™®LLC
Yep, that's where I found the term "hua fa wu yi" as well.
Judging by drawings of lei tai fights from earlier dynasties, I'll bet this remained the case for longer tan just the last century.Many of the best CMAists of the period (at least in the north) remained practitioners who trained Shuai Jiao, either by itself or in conjunction with a "boxing" art.