har har har
really??? what happens when you practice them with no pre-arranged pattern, but let the body follow the intention?? surely you are not denying the absence of set patterns in the higher elcheons of the martial masters...Originally Posted by David Jamieson
Moo Moo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l5izW...eature=related
for working out
repetition of a single move would give you some cardio, too.
circling hand or quan shou
splitting mountain or pi shan.
usually, we hit our thigh, the teacher added some difficulties in this clip.
they hit near ankle with a raised leg. that would force you to bend your back and extend your shoulder. this is the most important practice in tong bei or extended back or thru the back.
Resigned
agreed! but what is the ground out of which that "intention" arises? what precedes that intention?
the highest master is one without any precondition; if one looks, where can one find this person?
Itinerant practitioner
children must learn to speak, then they learn the construct of language, then they learn to read and write and then, much later, they can express themselves with words that are formed with their own intention.
Forms are the alphabet and sentence writing exercises in respect to fighting technique sets.
To take the principles of combat, and set them to a prearranged pattern is nothing new.
Expressing into empty air has no intention and only the flavour of it.
Expressing combat with correct intention requires that you be in combat.
Forms are training tools. They are not required to learn or to know how to fight and quite often can conceal that reality from the practitioner who gets wrapped up in the finger and misses the heavenry grory that is the moon!
Kung Fu is good for you.
凸 囧 凸
Child language acquisition is a poor analogy for martial arts practice.
No one teaches children how to speak a language. Language is acquired by virtue of exposure.
Adult language acquisition maybe, but even that is a bit of a stretch.
Forms are just another tool.
Forms aren't the problem. ****ty martial artists are.
Resigned
careful now, you two; you never know who may be watching...
凸 囧 凸
Ha!careful now, you two; you never know who may be watching...
He's too busy drawing X-bar diagrams trying to parse Hardwork108's posts.
Itinerant practitioner
I disagree, I think the point is not martial arts but it is about learning from the void.
That's right and everything we are taught, we learn by doing. Language is learned and is taught, but the mechanisms for these are not formal and are about nourishment and cultivation in an organic way. BUt, nevertheless, the child is later instructed on how to properly read and write and when i learned, we also were taught grammar and root languages. I understand these are forgone now and many learn through phonics type teaching methods.No one teaches children how to speak a language. Language is acquired by virtue of exposure.
Not at all, the refinements and nuances of language are learned through higher study. Many who have had higher education have a far greater command and understanding of the language they used to acquire said education.Adult language acquisition maybe, but even that is a bit of a stretch.
Yes, they can be. Tool for what? I believe that's the big question. I view them more as a style's language really. lolForms are just another tool.
Sh1tty martial artists are never a problem. They just are what they are. lolForms aren't the problem. ****ty martial artists are.
Kung Fu is good for you.
Registered User
The opening post in this thread said in passing; "yet practicing forms has been established and continued for thousands of years even still to this day". That actually raises an interesting historical point. And let me define my terms at the outset; to me a "form" is a preset series of techniques, usually done solo, with more than 4 or 5 moves. If it is under 5 moves than I view it more as a "combo" than a full blown "form".
The oldest documented evidence we have for forms practice in Chinese martial arts is from the very late 1890s. The older Qing and Ming manuals do not (at least as far as I have seen) make an reference to forms. What the Ming manuals show are "combos" of techniques but not forms.
Forms practice as we know it may well be a pretty modern thing. I do not know that for a fact, but I kind of suspect it.
take care,
Brian
凸 囧 凸
You don't know $hit about linguistics.
Learning from the void?
This vague pseudo-mystical gibberish is part of the reason for the sorry state of Chinese martial arts in the west.
Itinerant practitioner
reads like misplaced anger directed at me...ok, whatever. my knowledge of language and linguistics is fine for all intents and purposes thank you very much.
coming in from the void = coming in from a place where you do not know.
Perhaps the sorry state isn't sorry at all but rather has to do with cultural expression which is viewed with prejudicial eyes that determine that because they do not immediately savvy, it must therefore be mystical gibberish?
Again, I disagree with your assessment. But you are certainly entitled to it.
Kung Fu is good for you.
凸 囧 凸
Thanks!
The lack of extant documentation does not necessarily preclude the existence of forms practice as you defined it, but it's hard to argue with easily verifiable historical documentation.
凸 囧 凸
Projecting emotion onto my admittedly vulgar criticism is a roundabout way of belittling me. Thats cool.reads like misplaced anger directed at me...ok, whatever. my knowledge of language and linguistics is fine for all intents and purposes thank you very much.
What the what?coming in from the void = coming in from a place where you do not know.
Perhaps the sorry state isn't sorry at all but rather has to do with cultural expression which is viewed with prejudicial eyes that determine that because they do not immediately savvy, it must therefore be mystical gibberish?
Itinerant practitioner
I believe you made a remark inferring that my education was lacking. You used an epithet and when you say "x's" "y" is "sh1tty" then it's probably safe to assume you are having an emotional reaction to that which was stated as opposed to you know, debating the point with a counterpoint.
NO one is here to teach you how to comprehend. That is up to you.What the what?
Kung Fu is good for you.
Ninja Vanish!!
What I find interesting is the concept that just because something is old, it is good. This couldn't be further from the truth. As time passes, intellect and thought processes grow and expand, making technologies of all sorts greater. If you look throughout history you will see time periods marked by great leaps in technology, intelligence, and and overall cultural shift towards abstract thought.
I believe forms have their place in martial arts. What that place is is determined by the practioner and how he/she develops from these forms. Forms are generally just basics done in a pre-set manner. There are skills one can gain by this practice, but there are other training methods that produce skill at a more beneficial level and rate. Since I'm sure I will be bombarded with people saying that is my opinion, yes, it is. But it also the opinion of those who fight professionally for a living. I'll take their opinion over someone who has never fought in their life.
But in the end, do what you want. Why do we care so much if somone does forms or not, if someone fights or not, if someone has "teh real" Kung Fu or not. Jesus, this sh**it gets old.
"The hero and the coward both feel the same thing, but the hero projects his fear onto his opponent while the coward runs. 'Fear'. It's the same thing, but it's what you do with it that matters". -Cus D'Amato
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote