Is the knowledge of many forms important for you?

[GeneChing]

Exactly I think a style should have maximum 5 or 6 forms.

That's not very many weapons. If you practice weapons, forms are more important. And you got to figure at least one from for each weapon. The magnitude and diversity of the Chinese arsenal of weapons is truly one of its greatest treasures. By reducing it down to just 5 or 6, we might as well just practice the Okinawan weapons.

[Bacon]

That's not very many weapons. If you practice weapons, forms are more important. And you got to figure at least one from for each weapon. The magnitude and diversity of the Chinese arsenal of weapons is truly one of its greatest treasures. By reducing it down to just 5 or 6, we might as well just practice the Okinawan weapons.

Sorry I was talking empty hand. For weapons I think one or two forms apiece should do.

[Syn7]

That's not very many weapons. If you practice weapons, forms are more important. And you got to figure at least one from for each weapon. The magnitude and diversity of the Chinese arsenal of weapons is truly one of its greatest treasures. By reducing it down to just 5 or 6, we might as well just practice the Okinawan weapons.

Yeah but if you want to get good at any of them you may want to select a few and stay within that realm. Know what I mean? You can't learn it all, trying is a waste of your time. Very inefficient. If you really want to learn more, maybe learn weapons that are similar to the other you train with.

It's like with Physics, you gotta choose a field and just roll with it. Otherwise you just end up a jack of all, master of none. That limits your potential to mediocrity.

[Jimbo]

That's not very many weapons. If you practice weapons, forms are more important. And you got to figure at least one from for each weapon. The magnitude and diversity of the Chinese arsenal of weapons is truly one of its greatest treasures. By reducing it down to just 5 or 6, we might as well just practice the Okinawan weapons.

IMO, it's better to become good in a few weapons than try to learn a bunch. My personal favorites were the long staff, then the spear. Then the saber. Maybe even better to really know one weapon very well. I never liked the special weapons like 3-section staff, chain whip, rope dart, etc., etc. But if they're practiced for interest or preservation, then I suppose more is perfectly fine.

With the staff, it's easy to practice sparring with padded staffs. With many weapons, that's more difficult to implement.

[GeneChing]

...it's hard to get great at one.

But to get a basic proficiency in a wide array of weapons is a viable strategy too. That's the foundation of the Shaolin notion of the 18 weapons. If you've got 18 weapon forms, assuming they are all diverse enough, you could pick up any inanimate object and go all Jackie Chan on someone. It's a jack of all trades method. Perhaps I should say 'Jackie of all trades'...

With open hand fighting, most practitioners lean towards a reductionist curriculum, but for weapons, being competent with a wide range of different weapons can be very useful. And it's not as hard as it sounds. Once you get the fundamentals of the basic four, then twin weapons and some flexibles, that covers a lot of ground. The rest is just variation.

Weapon sparring with some of the more exotic ones can be challenging because of safety concerns, but there's always working with live blades, cutting practice and target practice.

[Orion Paximus]

I think it's important to be exposed to a wide variety of empty hand forms in a system so you can then settle on the 5 or 6 you really connect with. I agree that you need a working knowledge of at least the 18 classic weapons forms if you're going to consider yourself a CMA practitioner. Empty hand forms really just help us refine our natural tools so a smaller number is okay, but with weapons, you need the forms to open your eyes to ideas your body wouldn't naturally produce.

[sanjuro_ronin]

I would think that 1 basic, 1 intermediate and 1 advanced empty hand form is more than enough.
Add to that 1 form for every weapon you choose to train with.

[Orion Paximus]

I guess it really depends on your purpose then. Are you training to:

1. Just learn how to fight
2. Say you know Kung Fu
3. Actually learn a system

It seems to me that a lot of people that comment on this board aren't really interested in learning a system to carry it on to the next generation. When I started learning Kung Fu, being chosen or allowed to inherit the system seemed like the only goal... and really it's still what I care about most.

[YouKnowWho]

I guess it really depends on your purpose then. Are you training to:

1. Just learn how to fight
2. Say you know Kung Fu
3. Actually learn a system

It seems to me that a lot of people that comment on this board aren't really interested in learning a system to carry it on to the next generation. When I started learning Kung Fu, being chosen or allowed to inherit the system seemed like the only goal... and really it's still what I care about most.

When a teacher teaches a student, he will ask that student whether he wants to be a fighter on the mat (in the ring), or a teacher who can pass down his linkage. The training pathes will be different. It's better to make that decision as early as possible so both teacher and student won't waste time on each other.

[sanjuro_ronin]

I guess it really depends on your purpose then. Are you training to:

1. Just learn how to fight
2. Say you know Kung Fu
3. Actually learn a system

It seems to me that a lot of people that comment on this board aren't really interested in learning a system to carry it on to the next generation. When I started learning Kung Fu, being chosen or allowed to inherit the system seemed like the only goal... and really it's still what I care about most.

A valid point.
Traditionally, systems either had a few sets or a bunch.
Depending on the current GM inclination towards forms.
Those that had limited forms were more inclined to be "hands on" and "combat oriented' in their mode of succession - best fighter passed it on ( exceptions did happen of course).
Systems that had many forms had them because they believed that different people need different skills to fight, to the GM would teach the right form to thr right person.
Typically only a small group would have ALL the forms and these would be the ones to pass it on.
Of course those that only learned some of the forms passed them on as well ( hence we get silly lineage wars about who has the real whatever).

There was no "best method", it is not a case of either/ or but simply a case of which method best suited the GM of the time of that particular branch/style/pai, etc..
'

[YouKnowWho]

The following conversation did happened during one of my TCMA goodwell tours in China.

A: How many forms do you teach to your students?
B: Only 3. How about you?
A: I teach 15 forms to my students.
B: Why do you need to teach that many forms?
A: How long can you keep your students with only 3 forms?
B: ...

[Orion Paximus]

@YouKnowWho: I agree, the training methods should definitely be different depending on your path. I was fortunate to know what I wanted to do early on. Luckily, IMO, becoming a good fighter also comes with the more extensive training of learning a complete system so it's the best of both worlds, it just requires a larger commitment.

@sanjuro: I wish more teachers thought of CMA as a gift to pass on than a trophy to display.

[Jimbo]

When I learned CLF, I had to learn and practice everything up to the level to become a teacher myself, whether I liked it or not. And there is a LOT of material; CLF is a vast system. And I did teach for several years, but not anymore, and I don't intend to again. Now I only train for myself. I train the parts that I feel are important for me, and put the rest 'on the shelf'. The other material is still in my head and body, I just don't spend much or any time on it anymore. Since I'm training for my own benefit, I want to concentrate on the quality of what I'm doing rather than the quantity.

A practitioner isn't necessarily selfish or lesser to not want to pass on the art to the next generation, if that isn't their goal. It was a goal of mine once, but priorities can change. I fully respect those who make it a priority to pass on their art; otherwise, how would I have learned it, right? There are other qualified people from my art who are passing it on.

[Orion Paximus]

The following conversation did happened during one of my TCMA goodwell tours in China.

A: How many forms do you teach to your students?
B: Only 3. How about you?
A: I teach 15 forms to my students.
B: Why do you need to teach that many forms?
A: How long can you keep your students with only 3 forms?
B: ...

I mean if you're teaching 15 Tiger forms then yeah, that's a bit much, how many unique techniques could you possibly be passing on? But if those 15 forms teach 3 different systems of fighting, then it's not about retention for money's sake, but about passing on a true system. FWIW, I'm sure someone could validate 15 tiger forms, I'm just using it as an example.

[sanjuro_ronin]

@YouKnowWho: I agree, the training methods should definitely be different depending on your path. I was fortunate to know what I wanted to do early on. Luckily, IMO, becoming a good fighter also comes with the more extensive training of learning a complete system so it's the best of both worlds, it just requires a larger commitment.

@sanjuro: I wish more teachers thought of CMA as a gift to pass on than a trophy to display.

I don't think it is fair to judge others because they don't have the same POV as we do.
Not ever MA is a teacher and not every teacher is a good one and most certainly, not every teacher should be teaching.
Passing on a MA was never something done "just because it has to be passed on", many teacher were quite happy to die and take their MA with them.
There is no reason to think that passing on a MA is a "great accomplishment".