time capsule; forms 200 years ago...

[lkfmdc]

(hey, hey, this should be fun)

Do you think that forms existed in CMA as we now know them 150 to 200 years ago?

It has been suggested by many who are respected in TCMA that in fact, forms are a recent development. More precisely, that the rise of open, public schools about 120 years ago created the need for forms....

Hop Ga for example, didn't have forms until recent memory. It's training instead was centered on doing the basics, then doing the drills, then fighting with them....

You've got some old systems that have forms, but have very few. Some systems are literally one or two forms.... plus of course the supplementary drills

Apparently, people freak out at the idea of CMA without forms, but why? Perhaps 200 years ago they never existed. So why hold onto them like they came to us from heaven on stone tablets?

[MasterKiller]

I had read that perhaps the opening of public schools brought about the need for a large curriculum of forms in order to maintain a long-term student base, but ALL forms? I dunno. You're the scholar. Is that a valid line of thinking?

What about family and folk styles that weren't looking for large numbers of students to occupy?

[EarthDragon]

I would have to say yes as far as mantis is considered.

Praying mantis dates back to the Ming Dynasty (1368-1644). So while lipi, bung bo, da fan che, and lanjie are realitivley considered newer additions these are still old forms even if they or more primitive versions came late in the ming say 1630's they would still be over 300 years old.

However you posed a loaded question, in your wording you said as we "now" know them.
So that would definatly depend on if they have been watered down, taught incorrectly of the very basis has been lost in translation either oral or written.

[Indestructible]

I thought that some indian arts had records of forms from perhaps thousands of years ago.
http://www.kalaripayattu.org/
Kalaripayittu originated in ancient South India in the present day state of Kerala. Crafted in ancient South India drawing inspiration from the raw power and sinuous strength of the majestic animal forms � lion, tiger, elephant, wild boar, snake, and crocodile ...

I came across some chi kung forms that were definitely more than 200 years old.
http://www.egreenway.com/taichichuan/five.htm

[SPJ]

I do not have my history book with me.

But the form or routine has been with us long and long time ago.

There are sword sets with 2 people or one against several and even fighting sets single or one against many or duel.

There were training sets in the Army.

The sword sets and fighting sequences were also shown as entertainments for the kings and the generals.

As long as there is an Army, there are always a free sparring and sets of preplanned sequences for training and entertaininig.

The fighting and sword sets abound in Peking opera as the stories dictated.

Before the radio, movies, the sword dance or fighting dance is popular on the streets and in the palace.

The oldest form documented is called Horn Butting set or dance. It was used to train Qiyou tribe of eastern China. It may be over 5000 years old. It is a sequence of fighting moves or dance.

Is it a form or not?

:cool:

[Royal Dragon]

In Tai Tzu Chang Chuan, the Long form has been around at least since the Ming dynasty, and the 32 move form that founded the style was developed about 960 AD.

From what I see, styes have maybe 3 sets, as short fundemental set, an intermediate set, and a long set that was basically everything all put into one long form to catlog the style. The Long form probably had all the material covered in the small ones I'm sure.

[gfx]

Originally posted by Royal Dragon
In Tai Tzu Chang Chuan, the Long form has been around at least since the Ming dynasty, and the 32 move form that founded the style was developed about 960 AD.

From what I see, styes have maybe 3 sets, as short fundemental set, an intermediate set, and a long set that was basically everything all put into one long form to catlog the style. The Long form probably had all the material covered in the small ones I'm sure.

gotta watch out there. The 32 move form you are talking about is actually called "quan fa 32 shi", or "fist method 32 moves/technques." Notice that they were a collection of techniques, just as most long traditional forms that came after it are. i.e the first chen taiji form consists of 83 shi, tai zu have over 100 shi, etc. (btw, "shi" means move/technique). The individual techniques themselves were broken down and taught to soldiers at the time.

So I agree that forms are records of moves or combos. In that sense, it would be a pity to abandon forms altogether, since they consist of (arguably) effecient moves and combos that generations of practitioners had put together, usually at the cost of human lives. Of course, the effeciency of the techniques have to be constantly questioned.

I also agree that practicing only forms over and over again is totally useless. I especially liked the math textbook analogy. We can memorize all the fancy steps to solving a problem all we like, but if we can't understand the steps, we will have no way to solve problems in real life. But it doesn't mean the fancy steps are useless, as they offer a way of thinking that is only found out by experimentations of generations of mathematicians.

The usage of forms is that, once basic techniques / combos are mastered, they are a good source of reference.

[Indestructible]

Part of "Qigong Practice" slik
painting unearthed from Han
Dynasty (206 - 24 B. C.) tombs at
Mawangdui.

http://www.geocities.com/ycgf/images/styles/qigong2.jpg

http://www.geocities.com/ycgf/qigong.htm

[Water Dragon]

I'm pretty sure that forms have been around for a long time. I doubt they were practiced the same way though. My 'idea' of an authentic training form is more along the lines of the short, one move Shuai Chiao forms I train, or the Zeeman and Kuntao footwork drills. Short, repetetive, and to the point.

These types of 'forms' also exist in the MMA I train. We train 'forms' in BJJ and Muay Thai. In Boxing, bobbing and weaving under the clothesline is more or less line walking. In fact, working the same combo on a pad for 3 minutes is the same 'concept' that is used in short forms.

Long forms are beautiful, and may 'contain' valuable info. I just don't training long forms can 'put' that valuable info into your body.

[David Jamieson]

mimicry and inculcation as a method of teaching and learning has been around for ages.

I am uncertain as to why there is so much frustration about forms.

I personally don't think they are practiced the way they used to be. I think that from speaking with a few people that forms in the old way of practice were done much differently than they are now.

Some schools practiced fluidly, moving from one combonation of techniques to the next in a logical sequence through the form that imparted not only the techniques, but through repitition and refinement that is form, effectively developed the practitioners understanding of the style.

Other schools did postures statically. In fact, even as recently as the 50's and 60's many schools were very segmented in their presentation of the form. As in, techniuqe/stop/tech/stop/tech stop etc etc.

By all indications, form as a teaching and learning instrument have been around for a long time.

[SiuHung]

{Do you think that forms existed in CMA as we now know them 150 to 200 years ago?}

No. I that there were forms, but much shorter, more like sequenced solo drills for working on structure and the finer parts of movement.

{It has been suggested by many who are respected in TCMA that in fact, forms are a recent development. More precisely, that the rise of open, public schools about 120 years ago created the need for forms....}

Agreed. When teaching commercially became a way of making a living, $$ became an important factor in the development of TCMA.

{Hop Ga for example, didn't have forms until recent memory. It's training instead was centered on doing the basics, then doing the drills, then fighting with them....}

Sounds like a military training stratetgy. This is what I've believed was the method of training before commercialism, and before guns became the ultimate weapon in Asia.

{You've got some old systems that have forms, but have very few. Some systems are literally one or two forms.... plus of course the supplementary drills}

Many of these older systems have one to three "foundational" forms that comprise all of the core methods used by those systems. Looking historically at most of them, I'm willing to bet that the majority of the forms beyond those original few are much more recent.

{Apparently, people freak out at the idea of CMA without forms, but why? Perhaps 200 years ago they never existed. So why hold onto them like they came to us from heaven on stone tablets?}

People freak out over them because that is what they have been taught, and the message has been "this is kung fu". The probelem here is manyfold. For one, the most recent generations of masters are or were relatively inexperienced in fighting. Of course thier are exceptions, but there are exceptional people in every fighting system. Second and most important, students have refused to think for themselves. The key root of the word "student" is "to study", not to repeat or imitate. Third, the vast majority (although who's going to own up to it?) of TCMA students simply don't take the effort, the kung fu to on a regular basis drill with training partners with the intent of being able to use thier system of fighting. In addition, since the 1970's or perhaps earlier, the emphasis of TCMA has shifted as much from fighting skills to self defense (as in breaking holds and reacting after being attacked), and granola bar health exercises. Self defense skills and health benefits are certainly a benefit, but not the point of training in TCMA. Of course, this is only my opinion.

Mike

[red5angel]

forms are all about memory, muscle memory and technique memory.

[MasterKiller]

That's not all they are about. They are also for conditioning (have you ever done a long-fist form? How about 10 in a row?).

[Royal Dragon]

Long forms are beautiful, and may 'contain' valuable info. I just don't training long forms can 'put' that valuable info into your body.

Reply]
Training the forms has it's value, but I feel they should be broken down into smaller segments also. Those segments should also be done as two man work.



{You've got some old systems that have forms, but have very few. Some systems are literally one or two forms.... plus of course the supplementary drills}

Reply]
Yes, THIS is how I think it originally was. ONE set, maybe two plus the qigong and supplementary stuff.

gotta watch out there. The 32 move form you are talking about is actually called "quan fa 32 shi", or "fist method 32 moves/technques." Notice that they were a collection of techniques, just as most long traditional forms that came after it are. i.e the first chen taiji form consists of 83 shi, tai zu have over 100 shi, etc. (btw, "shi" means move/technique). The individual techniques themselves were broken down and taught to soldiers at the time.

Reply]
Hmm, my research goes back and forth on this. I have a "Form" that is supposed to be the "Original" 32 move form, AND I have a chart of the 32 as techniques that are not linked up into one long form at all. My guess, is that the emperor created an actual "Form" to remeber his favorite applications, like a text book, but it was "Taught" as individual techniques to those who needed to use it.

My personal take on forms is that there are two techincally correct methods of teaching, and forms play thier part.

In the first method, you teach the form itself first, and then decipher it's movements for practical application and work them into free sparring. In this, each section of the form is borken down into drills that best suit the moment. Nothing is static, the drills are created, and forgotten on the fly as needed.

The second is to teach the techniques one at a time first, concentrighting on application and two man work. Later after all the skills are mastered, you put them together into a set to help you remember the curriculem. In this school of thought, the form is more for those looking to teach, than anyone learning to fight or use the art. They are for the Master who is beyond the fighting days, and prefers to practice alone out in the park somewhere without interuption. He maintians his fighting skill when he plays with his students anyway. Forms become more of a long moving Qi Gong geared to help the master retain his body condition along the lines of his arts movement.

[Ai Lek Ou Seun]

Old Chinese proverb say:

"Form without skill is empty."

However, without the form it is a longer road to developing the skill.

It's not rocket science.

;)

[Royal Dragon]

Not so sure about that. The form is not allways anythig more than a text of techniques. BJJ works just fine, and they just record thier system on the Gracie CD rom.

[gfx]

gotta watch out there. The 32 move form you are talking about is actually called "quan fa 32 shi", or "fist method 32 moves/technques." Notice that they were a collection of techniques, just as most long traditional forms that came after it are. i.e the first chen taiji form consists of 83 shi, tai zu have over 100 shi, etc. (btw, "shi" means move/technique). The individual techniques themselves were broken down and taught to soldiers at the time.

Reply]
Hmm, my research goes back and forth on this. I have a "Form" that is supposed to be the "Original" 32 move form, AND I have a chart of the 32 as techniques that are not linked up into one long form at all. My guess, is that the emperor created an actual "Form" to remeber his favorite applications, like a text book, but it was "Taught" as individual techniques to those who needed to use it.

The "quan fa 32 shi" is created by the famous Ming general Qi Ji Guang(戚继光 )(1528-1578). The form was originally included in the 14th chapter of his book "Ji Jiao Xin Shu" (纪较新书 ), which recorded the training method he adopted to counter the Japanese pirates at the end of the Ming dynasty.

The earliest copy of the book dates back to 1595, but the last 8 techniques are missing. So many later versions and derivatives of the book all miss the last 8 techniques.

It was later discovered that in many other books, all 32 techniques were either recorded, but with no illustrations, or the orders of the techniques were different. Namely these were "Gu Jin Tu Chu Ji Cheng . Yi Shu Pian . Quan Bo"(古今图书集成 . 艺术篇 . 拳博 ), "Wu Bei Zhi"(武备志 ), "San Cai Tu Hui"(三才图绘 )and "Ren Shi Tu Hui"(人试图绘 ).

This information can be found in the book "Tai Ji Quan Shu"(太极拳术 ) 2nd edition, published by Shanghai education publishing. My version was printed in 1987

I can list out the corrected order of the 32 techniques according to this book if anyone's interested.

[Water Dragon]

Oh Lord, there's two of 'em.

[EarthDragon]

and to think water dragon only two people on the board use it for what it is , to discuss kung fu.

[Water Dragon]

You must have been extremely annoying as a child, ED.

[EarthDragon]

Maybe, but unlike you I grew up. Your still annoying

[Knifefighter]

Originally posted by Water Dragon
These types of 'forms' also exist in the MMA I train. We train 'forms' in BJJ and Muay Thai. In Boxing, bobbing and weaving under the clothesline is more or less line walking. In fact, working the same combo on a pad for 3 minutes is the same 'concept' that is used in short forms.

Long forms are beautiful, and may 'contain' valuable info. I just don't training long forms can 'put' that valuable info into your body. Nothing wrong with "short forms" or doing techniques in sequences ofone, two, three or four movements against an opponent or some type of training apparatus. Doing long forms ingrains incorrect neuromuscular movements.

[Ai Lek Ou Seun]

Doing long forms ingrains incorrect neuromuscular movements.

How do you figure?

[Ai Lek Ou Seun]

Originally posted by Royal Dragon
Not so sure about that. The form is not allways anythig more than a text of techniques. BJJ works just fine, and they just record thier system on the Gracie CD rom.

Is that directed to me?

[Royal Dragon]

Yes

[Ai Lek Ou Seun]

Originally posted by Royal Dragon
Not so sure about that. The form is not allways anythig more than a text of techniques. BJJ works just fine, and they just record thier system on the Gracie CD rom.

Then I would disagree. The form should reflect the movement principles of the style.

And, why, studying one of the oldest styles of kung fu around would you hold up the gracies as an example?:confused:

[Knifefighter]

Originally posted by Ai Lek Ou Seun
How do you figure? Long forms teach you a large number of techniques, one following the other. After memorizing and practicing these forms till they are ingrained, your neuromuscular system has trouble changing the order of techniques when outside stimuli (the constantly changing variables of a fight) require you to do so. If you are familiar with the OODA loop, it lengthens it.. and that is not a good thing in a fight.

[Reggie1]

Couldn't you just take the long forms you've learned and 'teach' yourself to break them off into their shorter building blocks when you spar? Couldn't that help shorten the OODA loop?

I'm not saying that's the #1 way to train, but it seems like it makes sense.

And what happens when you spend 20% of your time training forms and 35% free sparring against active resistance without having to use forms? What would show up more in a fight? Long form #7 or the memory of you jacking some guy up in sparring?

[joedoe]

I train forms, but then select certain sequences from the forms that I think I can use and practice those 3 or 4 move sequences until I think I can use them. Then I try them out in sparring.

[David Jamieson]

forms are meant to be extrapolated upon.

combinations within a form are broken down and seperated clearly to the student. So, ooda loop or not, single techniques consisting of one two to three moves doesn't mean the student is locked into finishing up a sequence because he's failed or landed his stuff.

free flow fighting is not beyond a person who practices forms to refine his techs. It's more of an unusual variety of shadow boxing in a purist sense.

[Water Dragon]

Originally posted by Knifefighter
Nothing wrong with "short forms" or doing techniques in sequences ofone, two, three or four movements against an opponent or some type of training apparatus. Doing long forms ingrains incorrect neuromuscular movements.

In all honesty, my MMA coach has shown me a few "flow drills" from BJJ that were basically 10-15 move forms. He picked them up in Brazil. And my coach is one person whose fighting ability even you can not question. 32-1-0 is a pretty decent record.

But I was thinking more in terms of Shrimpiing, Upa, etc. I don't know how much he 'trains' those. We just got on the subject of forms one day and he was pretty surprised that I was not much of a fan.

[mantis108]

There are a few good reason why forms are important to martial arts but not martial sports.

1) forms often express inner most feeling of the artist and the worldview that the system based on. (building the individual)

2) forms promotes devoution which is the glue to the community that practice them. In turn, it will allow other communities that practice froms to appreciate each other. (building the community)

3) forms with artistic licensing can serve as camouflage martial intent to preserve the arts should tough condition such government bans and financial difficulty. Many martial artist performed on the street for a living.

4) forms is an excellent way of proving the "identity" of the practitioner and help identify each other's background (re: lineage). Salutation moves or just the salute alone can give a good hint of where the person came from. (kind of like the Masonary)

5) poliferation of the forms is a good prove that martial arts is not a finite entity and definitely not monolithic in nature.

forms are multifunctional which fit the Chinese physche perfectly. Of course, no one needs to think like the Chinese to be a good martial artist. But TCMA offers a viable means of self defense and more. That IMHO is a big bonus.

Mantis108

PS it is true that older systems often only have individual moves or short sequences but not long forms over 30 or 40 moves.

[Ai Lek Ou Seun]

You're wasting your breath.

There's no comprehension on this board beyond......

:mad: "Argghh...me hit you now!" :mad:


:D ;) :cool:

[SimonM]

Originally posted by MasterKiller
That's not all they are about. They are also for conditioning (have you ever done a long-fist form? How about 10 in a row?).

Yes! (Although so far the most arduous set I have learned was a Lohan Kung Fu form, doing that one 10 times in a row had me sprawled on my back catching my breath for a few minutes afterwards).

[Royal Dragon]

Then I would disagree. The form should reflect the movement principles of the style.

Reply]
Yes, but that still does not mean many forms are anything more than moving documentation of technique. The movement princials would of course be documented,as they are inseperable from the technque.

I see several types of forms, those that docment the techniques of a style, those that document the Qi Gong of a style, and those that are combinations of both.



And, why, studying one of the oldest styles of kung fu around would you hold up the gracies as an example

Reply]
Because I don't see why the age of a style is relevant. Fighting is fighting. Yes, what I study is really, really old (Although who really knows how old the actual sets I have even are).

I don't see why my system cannot be taught the same way BJJ is. Just teach the techs. out of the form in order, Single, two man, and resisting against an opponent, one at a time until the whole set is learned.

I don't really believe that forms themselves are good, or bad. To me it's "How" they are taught, or more importantly how they are used in training.

I have had some early Kung Fu experiances where we learned one form after another, but come sparring time I oculd not even remotely pick the techs we were taught out of the forms I knew. Basically, I was taught a number of forms, then side by side in a different curriculem I learned various series of tehcs. and sparring Like the first was the 18 basic techs, then the 36, then the 72, and finnally the 108. The forms I learned had nothing to do with the techniques, and nothing was coheisive.

I hate to say it, but even though I learned alot of my Tai Tzu by video, what I now have is a cohesive system that is vastly superior to how I was originally introduced to the martial arts.

I can take the techs out of the forms, work them with a partner and get quite alot out of them. In fact when I was doing this with a freind a few years ago, it was the best learning experiance of my little Kung Fu life. No teacher could ever have replaced that. Not saying teachers are bad, because they are needed, just that at some pont you should be able to walk the path alone. Deciphering the forms as individual fighting techniques, and short combo's is the only way to grasp certian aspects of the art. BJJ goes directly into this phase, and seems to skip the forms alltogether.

I see two ways forms are used in learning

1. learn the set for your level first so you can do it properly in it's entirety, and then break it up into single, and two man work followed by coaching in sparring against resisting opponents.

2. learn the techniques as your teacher breaks them up into single, and two man work followed by coaching in sparring against resisting opponents first, and assemble them into a form at the end mostly so you can remember the curriculem and make it easier if you ever decide to teach.

I prefer to use the first, as I feel it promotes more self study and experimentation. The second however would probably build a strong fighter faster. I use the second method when working with my daugter, because she's 14, and needs to have useable fight skills now & she has no patience for forms. She likes to fight. She thinks it's fun, and that keeps her doing it, even if it's just "Play" on many occasions and not "Official training".

Right now I am teaching her the form "4 Doors", but she does not know it. She only sees good tactical apps, as I only taught that aspect to her. I never taught her the form I'm getting them from. When she is good at that, I'll start teaching apps from "Cutting strike". "IF" she ever decideds she would like to pass on the fruits of all my reasearch, then I will teach her the actually sets of the Tai tzu system I have compiled over the last 6 years or so. If she's NOT going to teach (the likely case), she really does not need the forms, just apps. that work for her.

I put much thought into forms over the years, I've concluded there are two major "Correct" traditional ways of useing them in the teaching and learning process, and which is right depends on the situation, and the circumstances that are unique to each teacher, school and student.