No Style

[Kellen Bassette]

Everyone. It's only natural. Imagine if you will, you're sitting back to back with someone, who is describing a picture to you, and you're trying to draw that picture. You work hard, you do the best you can....and then you do the same with your picture and someone else...and then the next person does the same, and the next and the next.......we wind up with a picture that may have very little to do with what was originally there. Doesn't mean it wasn't carefully drawn, just that we don't have contact with what was originally there.

All I'm saying is, I'd be happy to accept this as a possibility - the application was what was originally there and perhaps all there was. Then we decided to practise. As David says - finding someone to practice with isn't easy - so we develop ways to practise alone as best we can. This gets transmitted to others. It doesn't take that many degrees of separation to lose all sense of meaning in what you're doing.

Then you get people trying to reverse engineer stuff or retro-fit forms to function, when perhaps they don't have any way of knowing what the original function was.

This is all true and that is why its so important to practice apps with a partner...but, as far as "reverse engineering" forms, that's not necessarily a bad thing. I always liked it when a teacher asked a student what do you think that application is. If they come up with something practical then train it and make it work. It gets them to think for themselves on how to apply the art.

We all know there can be several applications for any given move in a form..some may work better for you than others...Certainly a lot of apps are hidden and need to be explained, but a lot of stuff can be discerned just by looking at it and two people can come up with two different apps as their first choice. The apps you recognizance on your own may work naturally for you.

[YouKnowWho]

If you are a teacher and you have learned 20 forms in your lifetime. You can

1. teach those 20 forms to your students the same way as you had learned.
2. remove redundency and combine your 20 forms into 1 form and teach your students that 1 form.
3. take 50 combos out of your 20 forms and teach your student those 50 combos. You then allow your students to link those 50 combos into as many forms (or just 1 form) as they like.

Which approach is better?

[daiyoshida]

I don't quite get this conversation.

I've never been taught a form without being taught the function. (often in an extremely painful demonstration) It was followed by a half hour humorous anecdotal account of when he used this particular technique in the war (or the prison, whichever it may be). I couldn't get him to shut up. Maybe I just had different kind of teachers. It may have taken a year to learn a single form with a whole lot of tea consumption in between but not knowing the function was never my problem.

Even if your teacher isn't very talkative, how hard is it to ask, "How do you use this?"

[YouKnowWho]

Even if your teacher isn't very talkative, how hard is it to ask, "How do you use this?"

Even if you may ask that question, your question is still limited by the boundary of that form. When your teacher teaches you a Taiji form, will you ask him how to do a "flying knee"?

[daiyoshida]

Even if you may ask that question, your question is still limited by the boundary of that form. When your teacher teaches you a Taiji form, will you ask him how to do a "flying knee"?

Say, what?

I don't know, maybe I'm getting too old for this. You kids speak a different language.

[YouKnowWho]

Say, what?

I don't know, maybe I'm getting too old for this. You kids speak a different language.

To be old doesn't mean you should lose your sense of humor. I may jump ahead a bit too fast. Here is the difference:

method 1: form -> application

A: Today we work on Taiji. This is Taiji "golden rooster stand on one leg".
B: What's the application for this?
A: You use one palm to push on your opponent's chin and strike your knee into his groin.
B: If the distance is too far, can I use my back leg to jump in and strke with my front knee?
A: If you do that, it will no longer be Taiji. The Taiji "golden rooster stand on one leg" doesn't have that jump.
B: If my opponent use that on me, what should I do to counter him?
A: Just wait when I teach you another form that has that counter. You should not have to worry about it when you work on this form.

method 2: application

A: Today we work on "knee strike". You can strike your knee straight up, 45 degree upward, 90 degree horizontal. If the distance is far, you can use your back leg to jump in and strke with you front knee. Also if your opponent use it on you, you can counter him by ...
B: What style are you teaching me?
A: I'm teaching you how to use "knee strike". It has nothing to do with style.

[-N-]

A: Today we work on Taiji. This is Taiji "golden rooster stand on one leg".
B: What's the application for this?
A: You use one palm to push on your opponent's chin and strike your knee into his groin.
B: If the distance is too far, can I use my back leg to jump in and strke with my front knee?
A: If you do that, it will no longer be Taiji. The Taiji "golden rooster stand on one leg" doesn't have that jump.

Is Tai Chi really that literal in their forms?

I'm not a Tai Chi guy, but I'm told that they do extrapolate the generic motion to include the broad range of entire class of methods.

One person told me his teacher explained a single backfist as representative of every possible backfist. And what about the whole body being the fist?

The explanation of single leg stance in Mantis include stepping with knee attack, jumping knee attack, leg hooking attack, kicking, jump kicking...

We are not so literal to exclude those.

[xinyidizi]

Even if you may ask that question, your question is still limited by the boundary of that form. When your teacher teaches you a Taiji form, will you ask him how to do a "flying knee"?

Is it so difficult to see 踢二起 can also be a knee attack?

[YouKnowWho]

- The "form -> applications approach" center around "TCMA forms".
- The "direct application approach" center around "human body".

Our body parts can perform many different functions:

1. hand - 50,
2. arm - 10,
3. shoulder - 4,
4. elbow - 6,
5. chest - 6,
6. leg - 20,
7. foot - 20,
8. waist - 10,
9. head - 10,
10. hip - 5.

We should try to understand what our body can do and not just what TCMA forms can teach us.

[xinyidizi]

- The "form -> applications approach" center around "TCMA forms".
- The "direct application approach" center around "human body".

Our body parts can perform many different functions:

1. hand - 50,
2. arm - 10,
3. shoulder - 4,
4. elbow - 6,
5. chest - 6,
6. leg - 20,
7. foot - 20,
8. waist - 10,
9. head - 10,
10. hip - 5.

We should try to understand what our body can do and not just what TCMA forms can teach us.

So if you want to teach someone using this method it basically means that you want to reorganize parts of different styles that are in your understanding useful and make a new "style". Probably all the styles have been created and developed in this way.

[bawang]

To be old doesn't mean you should lose your sense of humor. I may jump ahead a bit too fast. Here is the difference:

method 1: form -> application

A: Today we work on Taiji. This is Taiji "golden rooster stand on one leg".
B: What's the application for this?
A: You use one palm to push on your opponent's chin and strike your knee into his groin.
B: If the distance is too far, can I use my back leg to jump in and strke with my front knee?
A: If you do that, it will no longer be Taiji. The Taiji "golden rooster stand on one leg" doesn't have that jump.
B: If my opponent use that on me, what should I do to counter him?
A: Just wait when I teach you another form that has that counter. You should not have to worry about it when you work on this form.

method 2: application

A: Today we work on "knee strike". You can strike your knee straight up, 45 degree upward, 90 degree horizontal. If the distance is far, you can use your back leg to jump in and strke with you front knee. Also if your opponent use it on you, you can counter him by ...
B: What style are you teaching me?
A: I'm teaching you how to use "knee strike". It has nothing to do with style.

kung fu is not complete without combining method 1 and 2.

[EarthDragon]

YKW

If you are a teacher and you have learned 20 forms in your lifetime. You can

1. teach those 20 forms to your students the same way as you had learned.
2. remove redundency and combine your 20 forms into 1 form and teach your students that 1 form.
3. take 50 combos out of your 20 forms and teach your student those 50 combos. You then allow your students to link those 50 combos into as many forms (or just 1 form) as they like.

As a teacher 1 and 3 are correct. (considering you learned properly from a good teacher) I teach as how I have been taught adding my own flavor and finesse, ie. #1

#3. I wil also allow my students to understand and apply as many techniques as they can learn properly with execution.

HOWEVER, as a teacher I DO NOT have the right to remove anything from my system as I was not the creator. out of resepect for the masters whom passed down the information to me I may choose to not spend lots of time or practice things that are redundant, but I will always uphold my traditional path.

some techniques I learned in Go Ju vback in the 80's were blocking application from your opponent on horse back..................... I dont think I will ever use them living in NY. LOL but i dont have the right to remove this app from the style based on my personal thoughts...

[pateticorecords]

Why can we train like this - no style? Your thought?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YsLkqwQrCS8

Because if you do that, no matter the years of experience and your expertise, your lineage will be questioned... and without lineage you are not a martial artist

Just kidding...

[daiyoshida]

To be old doesn't mean you should lose your sense of humor. I may jump ahead a bit too fast. Here is the difference:

method 1: form -> application

A: Today we work on Taiji. This is Taiji "golden rooster stand on one leg".
B: What's the application for this?
A: You use one palm to push on your opponent's chin and strike your knee into his groin.
B: If the distance is too far, can I use my back leg to jump in and strke with my front knee?
A: If you do that, it will no longer be Taiji. The Taiji "golden rooster stand on one leg" doesn't have that jump.
B: If my opponent use that on me, what should I do to counter him?
A: Just wait when I teach you another form that has that counter. You should not have to worry about it when you work on this form.

method 2: application

A: Today we work on "knee strike". You can strike your knee straight up, 45 degree upward, 90 degree horizontal. If the distance is far, you can use your back leg to jump in and strke with you front knee. Also if your opponent use it on you, you can counter him by ...
B: What style are you teaching me?
A: I'm teaching you how to use "knee strike". It has nothing to do with style.

I've never studied Taiji but we were surrounded by Taiji players in the park where I was taught. There were basically 2 types of Taiji instructors that I saw.

There were those who taught the forms exclusively and made no mention of applications. Their execution were flawless and dignified. I knew one of these teachers personally and given a situation she can be very lethal but she prefer to just teach forms, which is fine.

The other kind were pretty brutal. I've seen a poor chap get his face shoved into the concrete floor and came up rather bloody. Looking back I'm surprised nobody got arrested, considering the place was right behind the police station.

I can't say I know any teacher that taught like your method #1. I'd venture to say that that's more like a caricature. But then who know, I've met walking caricatures too.

[YouKnowWho]

So if you want to teach someone using this method it basically means that you want to reorganize parts of different styles that are in your understanding useful and make a new "style". Probably all the styles have been created and developed in this way.

Of course, if a teacher has to teach with "no style", he has to "cross train" 1st. This way he can understand all different ranges and achieve a true integration.

There is no need to create a new style. The following tools are all needed in combat:

1. jab, cross, upper cut, hook punch, hammer punch, back fist, side punch, ...
2. front kick, side kick, roundhouse kick, spin kick, ...
3. figer lock, wrist lock, elbow lock, shoulder lock, head lock, ankle lock, ...
4. hip throw, leg twist, leg lift, leg block, single leg, double legs, ...
5. side mount, full mount, arm bar, choke, leg bar, ...

We can come up logical combos in each areas 1st such as:

- hook punch, back fist, upper cut, ...
- front kick, roundhouse kick, side kick, ...
- elbow lock, shoulder lock, ...
- leg twist, leg lift, leg block, front cut, ...
- side mount, arm bar, ...

We can then come up integration combos such as:

- front kick, foot sweep, jab, leg block, ...
- front kick, hook punch, underhook, hip throw, ...
- ...

The word "style" still plays no part so far. Again, if you link your combos, you will get your forms. The "no style approach" can still have forms if people are interested.