Authenticity of styles & forms.

Wai Jia: The Kung Fu Forum Kung Fu Forum
1

Hi All.

I have been thinking since on many MA-boards Forms and Styles are often questioned as to their authenticity.

Look at TJQ:
Every man and his dog wants to learn the original YLC, CFK, SLT or similar form.

I see those forms more as a snapshot of what the style was at the time in it’s History.

I don’t think that any form is more authentic or accurate than any other, if you can’t see beyond the form and it’s expression by the practicioner than I think you have failed to grasp the essence of your style.

Forms and how they were practiced and trained across the ages and between styles can and will help in gaining a greater understanding of the art.

Having seen traditional TJQ and modern esoteric forms, from each I walked away with a new bit of knowledge and understanding.

So rather than trying to look for the authentic/original, true form rather try to see why the form was done as it was and why it was changed.

Back to TJQ I can see and have learned why there are some difference in the execution of the forms between Yang & Chen, it has to do with the opponent that the practicioner was facing and not with the effectivness of the art/style.

I think we should be glad that each style/system has sub-systems as each, IMHO, preserved a different snapshot and essence of the whole picture/knowledge.

Short explanation as to why I feel this way:
A friend went to Japan to help with her studies about ancient chinese.
Why, Japan imported the Chinese writing system in 3 waves and has preserved the meaning/readings/pronounciations of some characters that are lost in modern day China.

So by going to Japanese she could study the Chinese language as it existed at different points in History.

Sorry, for the long post.

Flames and replies are welcome.

2

No flames. I tend to agree that forms are snapshots in time. I have often talked aobut how forms have changed over time and how two styles have divergent forms while claiming the same heritage.

Whether the evolution makes a style more or less effective for tis purposes is another question.

3

True, some forms are snapshots in time, but other forms get made up simply to string students along, and have no value whatsoever. To simply assume all forms are equal is not realistic. I’ve dropped more forms from my practice than I’ve kept, because of precisely this. I have known forms that had zero value either martially or as exercise. I’ve known forms that were great workouts, but not usefuly martially. The reality is, there’s a lot of stuff out there that isn’t useful. This is true of any field of study.

People like to say it’s the practitioner, not the style, but that’s just a maxim, a cliche. The style plays its part as well.

4

I don’t think that any form is more authentic or accurate than any other, if you can’t see beyond the form and it’s expression by the practicioner than I think you have failed to grasp the essence of your style.

I agree to the extent that we are speaking of established forms that clearly benefit a student in the training of his/her styles. On the other hand, a form that is just fabricated by an individual without a clear understanding of how said form will be useful in learning/applying/practicing/demonstrating techniques and concepts may not be worth the time required to learn it.

5

Evolution and adaptation is only natural. However, what seems to happen all too often these days is the attempt to create a new way of doing things with limited understanding of the old way AND limited understanding of what needs to be done in the first place.

If a person practices a northern art, an evolution for them would undoubtedly have a northern flavor. It may focus on one aspect of the northern roots but the roots are still or should still be there.

If a person is tall and practices Shuai Jiao, it would be very common for the evolution to take techniques and methods that work well for a tall person and develop them further (not that unlike what Helio Gracie did with emphasizing groundwork from the Jiujitsu he learned).

If a person learns a short range art, a long range art, and then a grappling art, it would not be unusual for them to synthesize the three approaches into one. This synthesis would then have to resolve any conflicts in approaches and come up with a common approach that fit all three styles. This is similar to what supposedly happened with Choy Li Fut and a number of other styles (the Ching Wu sets and even the Nanjing Central Guoshu Guan).

Where problems come in : First if you try to combine styles or approaches that are contradictory. For example, if you take a northern long fist style with the full body extension, full waist turning, whipping power, etc… and then try to combine this with a southern style with squared shoulders, southern power generation, etc… you will find that at some point you have to make a choice as to which set of characteristics you employ. When this choice is made, you then have to go through and apply this to every part of the style that was not chosen. What you end up with may simply be Style 1 - the sequel…and not really new.

The second problem is with the fast food approach. There are loads of people that study this style for 2 years, that one for 1 year, etc… and then mix it all together and call it a new style. While it IS possible for a truly talented person to create something great - this is highly unlikely. What typically ends up being done is to good martial art what a Jack in the Box Taco is to GOOD Mexican food…

Then you have people that begin learning this and - of course they are proud of their style/teacher…but they will argue and even fight to prove that what they do is good…even though they admittedly knew NOTHING about martial arts when they started and they picked their school out of the yellow pages.

There is evolution and then there is evolution…

6

Monkey:

Dang good post. Thought provoking. Up till now, change based on singular reasons, as opposed to generalized “this doesn’t work” idealism, had not entered my mind.

Good stuff.

ATA patterns still suck ass, though.

7

Guys.

Thanks, for the replies and great points everyone.
Yes, naturally I am talking about the well-established forms.

I also agree that these days we got too many styles that were flung together randomly without any underlying principles or concepts.

To a certain degree I think it is good for a student to create his own forms and let them be examined & validated by his peers
But this is a learning tool and those forms should not become part of the standard curriculum.

Just some additional thoughts.

8

Quoted by GLW

Evolution and adaptation is only natural. However, what seems to happen all too often these days is the attempt to create a new way of doing things with limited understanding of the old way AND limited understanding of what needs to be done in the first place

i agree with this statement whole heartedly. and to expand on that i will say that in my 17 years of doing martial arts,aikido,mantis,SD,hsingi,pakua,taichi etc. i have come to move my own way with these forms that i have learned, to me this is the evolutionary or as i like to call “evolving” yourself and the forms you have learned. each will have his/her own characteristic when practicing a form and when they do it enough times and over the years they begin to develope thier own way of doing the form. some might feel this is correct others might feel that the form should not change. but i seriously DOUBT that whatever form any of you have learned from your teacher is the SAME form as it was first taught all those generations ago. you might have certain basic principles in the form that have not changed in all those years but the flavor quality and aspects of the form have definately changed.
as for GLW statement: if you are a practitioner and you have studied say for a few years and you are making up forms? then i think that you need to get back in to the school you are in and not tell anyone that you have been doing this and continue to learn what is being taught to you. i feel that if you havent at least spent 10 years learning martial arts, you should not be trying to figure out a new form or system, just stick with the stuff you are learning and eventually you will start really creating yourself with these forms and systems. i mean bruce lee did it and he didnt start doing this until his late 20’s and he was doing kung fu at the age of 7 or 8.

This is a good thread(we NEED more of these threads)
                                                                       TWS
9

Originally posted by The Willow Sword
[B]

This is a good thread(we NEED more of these threads)
                                                                       TWS [/B]

I agree, but flan and Ross v. Abel are entertaining too.

Evolution should improve on the original. If it does not, then the adaptation will die out, right? If one changes a form’s techniques because it is more applicable to their own body mechanics, then it is an improvement for them. Of course, I’m not talking about inventing your own form or style, I’m just talking about subtely adapting what was taught to you by your sifu.

The question is are you adapting the form because it is more applicable to you or are you adapting the form because your too lazy to put the time in to do the form correctly?

10

I don’t think that any form is more authentic or accurate than any other, if you can’t see beyond the form and it’s expression by the practicioner than I think you have failed to grasp the essence of your style.

Though I have only studied two arts, and both are what most would call a conglomerate of styles, I see much wisdom in this. It goes back to the old argument of techincal proficiency and intent. If you do it perfect but with no concept of what it means, are you still better than the guy who was a bit loose with stances but made it look good by expressing the concept well? You can program a robot to move exacly as you want it, but will it be as good as a person who makes mistakes?

When asked the name of the 4 new sefl-defences he had taught us at this year’s summer camp, my Sifu’s Sifu replied,“There is good technique and there is bad technique. This is good technique.”

11

why change the original forms? evolve? i dont believe that. forms are the basis of the style we choose. the evolution should be in the practitioner. keep changing the forms, then we get tothe point in 300-400 yrs of not even recognizing where we began. forms are forms, fighting is fighting. forms are the alphabet, and eventually full sentences, that teach ius the philosophy of the style. you fight using the philosophy, i believe, not preconceived techniques. thats too slow. so the philosophy is the essence and that is taught through the forms, among other training. i dont know, im tired, and ready for food. good thread guys. :slight_smile:

Hotels In Mexico

12

Evolution of self vs Evolution of forms.

I also think that the evolution should be within the practicioner, You can see it often if you look at 2 students of a teacher that studied under him at different times.

I got Videos of my Sifu that were taken at different times and here you can see clearly the evolution happening.

OTOH, there might be a time when the forms also need to evolve.
Example:
A Form was created to fight against Caravan robbers who wore armour, some time later the same forms needs to be adjusted for bodyguards who fight in different dress and have non-armoured opponents.

While the principles remain the same the techniques might need to be adjusted and this should be reflected in the forms.

Anyhuh just rambling.

13

Some arts are more open/allowing about difference than others, perhaps. Sometimes this has to do with an over-arching theory of the types of changes allowed and their place in the art.

For example: in Karate dojos, I’ve noticed that an instructor may introduce some trainings that aren’t a part of the karate curriculum [say, grappling..?] but there’s not any notion of this being ‘karate’ per se, just useful knowledge to train in, even if the instructor wants to include it or not for a new belt…

…in Wing Chun, there’s an attitude that ‘if the forms are to change, they should change towards the more simple and efficient’. Then they argue about who should or shouldn’t be allowed to do that because changes ARE to become part of the official, passed-down inheritance. Who has authority to decide what is both simple and improved in this seemingly faulty if/then loop?

…in arts like Choy Lee Fut and Ba Gua [which I am not too familiar with, so I may very well be in error!] it seems that forms get added in by many different masters as time goes by, thus increasing the ‘workload’ of a newbie. Eventually, a given sifu might “have to” vett some form work in order to find the essence- and some have, IIRC, like the I Chuan founder… but I don’t think that its done because any of it is useless, just an attempt to get to the heart of the matter…

…and last, you got arts like JKD, where change is constant, official and often personal.

Evolution is OK, but to me there’s got to be an over-arching place for it, a method to the madness.

14

quoted by Mantiskilla
[QUOTE]forms are forms, fighting is fighting. forms are the alphabet, and eventually full sentences, that teach ius the philosophy of the style. [/QUOTE

:wink: would YOU use the same sentence over and over again to express what you are and what you do and how you do it?

just someting to think about.

    TWS
15

TWS, i understand what you are saying, but how many forms do you need to be a good martial artist 5? or 50? more forms does not = a better martial artist. there are a great many variations on movements in a style when it comes to using it, not showing it. there are so many variables in a fighting situation that the movements will change, but if you dont have a set group of movements in the forms, then you might as well just start swinging your arms and legs, because there will be no thought process behind it. i know some people who are very good fighters, they have studied different styles, but when they use it, it is not any style at all, its not mantis, wingchun, bak mei etc, its a conglomeration of all of those. nothing wrong with that. but it isnt a style. to me, i think that in the long run it is limiting. just my opinion. but, if we start changing forms in a style, then it is lost. keep the forms, adapt the fighting. :slight_smile:

9C1

16

Originally posted by mantiskilla
i know some people who are very good fighters, they have studied different styles, but when they use it, it is not any style at all, its not mantis, wingchun, bak mei etc, its a conglomeration of all of those. nothing wrong with that. but it isnt a style. to me, i think that in the long run it is limiting.

I don’t think it’s accurate to say that, in your example, the fighter isn’t showing a style when he fights. It’s just his style based on experience. It’s just not purely the expression of one style.

17

jp. ok. their showing a style which only one person pracices, themselves. it is not an established system. like i said before, i dont think there is anything wrong with that, but it cannot be passed down as wingchun, or pak mei, or whatever. anyway, i forgot what this was about.

DIGITAL VAPORIZERS

18

my sifu has always taken the approach "techniques first forms second."and wants us to understand and be able to use all techniques within a form before attempting to string them together. i like this approach and find that my forms mean something and are personalised without losing their essence.

19

Sounds like a dang good instructor.

20

Originally posted by Vash
Sounds like a dang good instructor.

Only if it is a technique orientated art.

My style is principle orientated and we don’t do all that much form work.
:wink: