[QUOTE=YungChun;1001030]Do you teach the sets?[/QUOTE]
I teach both the Yip Man sets and Gu Lao WCK.
You should try an experiment of teaching WCK with and without sets with a few students.
Many times, depending on the practitioner, I may teach the 3 forms slowly as they can catch it, as they are secondary to the application. For some who are forms oriented, I can show the the sets in relatively short time. But in both cases, I stress the application more.
Advanced practitioners from other systems often come to visit me - the last thing they want to learn or see is SNT. They want to see the attributes and training from WCK, then they go back to the fundamental training.
Most of what is wrong in WCK these days is a lack of important basics - I see way too much locked stance with toes in, no movement of the pelvis, buttocks, hips, “S” shaped posture, slouching, hunchback, sway back, overemphasis on shoulder development…etc. Correcting these mistakes is what is more important than form.
[QUOTE=Vankuen;1001043]I thought he said he does teach them, but with the order being SLT, BJ, CK. The point is that while you don’t need them, there’s nothing wrong with using them to ingrain the techniques and core movements, get some basic exercise, and make it a bit easier for someone to remember the various movements without having to practice them individually and accidently “forget” one.[/QUOTE]
I do teach them in the traditional order, but I speculate that perhaps teaching BJ second would be better in some ways.
Chinese like to teach dialogue and poems. Forms are a reflection of that, but neither helps your conversation.
[QUOTE=chusauli;1001057]Correcting these mistakes is what is more important than form.[/QUOTE]
If the form mechanics are wrong then why teach them that way? “Form” should mean the mechanic/tool you are going to use.
[QUOTE=chusauli;1001058]
I do teach them in the traditional order, but I speculate that perhaps teaching BJ second would be better in some ways.
[/QUOTE]
So recovery and elbow cheats sans footwork first? Yikes..
CK is SLT in motion.. They share the same ideas.. BJ departs and extends from the idea in the first two..
[QUOTE=YungChun;1001047]I think the forms are underrated.. I actually hate form work but in my own experience I found that they do help lay a foundation for later skill building. Could that be done without a form, sure but it would be more tedious IMO having to say, ok now we’re going to cover point 37 of chapter 2…and all those little details in the forms..
On the other hand.. I think folks take the forms too literally..and try to look like some abstract idea the form teaches and then try and fight like that… Folks do this at different levels, but think more obviously folks would never stand in YGKYM with a Tan sticking out from SLT and fight like that right?
But folks still get caught up trying to look like a form…and not just be loose and relax and move the way you need to instead of how you think you’re suppose to… By that time all attributes will be second nature and anything that isn’t is irrelevant. Folks need better coaching for sparring or fighting to de-form them and focus on tactics and natural movement-which is where the WCK will fit in.[/QUOTE]
I get what you’re saying. The forms aren’t meant to be done “exactly”–especially since they’re just grouped together in a pattern. Fighting doesn’t happen that way as you stated.
I just made another thread discussing the things that can be learnt from the three seeds…somewhat relevant since I’m using the forms to cite various movements and how I ended up with those applications.
I practice my forms several times a day. They don’t take up much room, and they don’t take too long (unless I’m doing them in a more relaxed and “internal” way). So I get up, go through the three boxing sets. Do them a few times throughout the day (even at work). I’ll do pieces of them throughout the day as well. At night I do them several times in their entirety before bed. I have to agree that it does help tremendously compared to when I didn’t do them as often.
[QUOTE=YungChun;1001064]If the form mechanics are wrong then why teach them that way? “Form” should mean the mechanic/tool you are going to use.
So recovery and elbow cheats sans footwork first? Yikes..
CK is SLT in motion.. They share the same ideas.. BJ departs and extends from the idea in the first two..[/QUOTE]
I agree, why should the proper mechanics not be taught first? That would make WCK better. I don’t teach the forms mechanics without correct body connection and alignment, but youtube is filled with many that do.
Form is the proper mechanic and tool, but so few have it. Their chest is sunken, shoulders rounded, profile looks like an “S”, posture poor. Its lame.
Jim, footwork should be taught on day one, so I don’t see your point. You don’t learn these from the forms do you? You train them separately and in partner and line drills. Why do you need a form to teach that for?? So your comment of “So recovery and elbow cheats sans footwork first? Yikes..” is irrelevant.
I say try it - try a long set with SNT, CK, BJ, then switch the order of SNT, BJ, CK. You’ll see what I mean. BJ is not more advanced than CK…you were just taught that way.
My TKD instructor had this view of forms:
You can get a lot out of them, but nothing that you can;t get without them.
SO why have them?
Nothing allows a teacher to judge a students technical progression against itself, then forms.
He used it as a tool to judge how well a student was progressing in the system.
[QUOTE=YungChun;1001064]If the form mechanics are wrong then why teach them that way? “Form” should mean the mechanic/tool you are going to use.[/QUOTE]
If your form mechanics in Wing Chun are wrong, then you may have never learnt the forms!
Wing Chun forms are also not ‘katas’, they are not designed to be imagining what to do when someone does ‘whatever’! They are precise tools that assist the body in memorising everything else that’s also being practised at the same time. Simple sets brought together with the aim of ‘knowing more through practising less’.
If I really wanted to spend my lifetime throwing shapes in forms I would have stuck with Karate or gone on to Hung Kuen! Having just three hand sets is enough for me, and the weapons and wooden man is just a perfect complement and bonus imho
[QUOTE=chusauli;1001057]
You should try an experiment of teaching WCK with and without sets with a few students.
[/quote]
How do you “teach” all that is in the form without teaching the forms? Do you on a daily basis cover every single detail that would normally be done in the forms?
[QUOTE=chusauli;1001057]
Advanced practitioners from other systems often come to visit me - the last thing they want to learn or see is SNT. They want to see the attributes and training from WCK, then they go back to the fundamental training.
[/quote]
And how do you “show them” the attributes of WCK?
[QUOTE=chusauli;1001057]
Most of what is wrong in WCK these days is a lack of important basics - I see way too much locked stance with toes in, no movement of the pelvis, buttocks, hips, “S” shaped posture, slouching, hunchback, sway back, overemphasis on shoulder development…etc. Correcting these mistakes is what is more important than form.
[/QUOTE]
That IS the form.. Correct the form and there should be little need for correcting their form.
[QUOTE=chusauli;1001077]
Jim, footwork should be taught on day one, so I don’t see your point.
[/quote]
The point was that SLT and CK are one and the same thing, CK being SLT in motion..
I use the classical progression..and add things here and there…
[QUOTE=chusauli;1001057]
You don’t learn these from the forms do you? You train them separately and in partner and line drills. Why do you need a form to teach that for?? So your comment of “So recovery and elbow cheats sans footwork first? Yikes..” is irrelevant.
[/quote]
The forms teach many things.. The forms are part of the classical art.. The classical art has stages and steps.. Your way is not my way. I could easily say ways other than mine are irrelevant and often bass ackwards..
SLT and CK use the same idea.. BJ extends and departs from the first idea.. Teaching one idea, the main idea first IMO is the correct way…
[QUOTE=YungChun;1001199]How do you “teach” all that is in the form without teaching the forms? Do you on a daily basis cover every single detail that would normally be done in the forms?[/QUOTE]
Because many have gone through this forms approach, they think it is the only way. One learns application primary and form secondary. Form should reflect application, not application reflect form. WCK has 4 important basics: body structure, which is physical alignment; balance, which is rooted in footwork; the use of pushing, pulling, and wedging, and finally, coordination and passing of hand to hand, hand/body, body hand, body/body. If every lesson reflects those 4 major elements, then you will have “taught” all the lessons of form and more.
[QUOTE=YungChun;1001199]And how do you “show them” the attributes of WCK?[/QUOTE]
One needs a solid ability in the 4 basics I mentioned above. Without it, one has little skill. One doesn’t need a segmented approach in teaching. You teach immediate application in every move. Everything is “Mai Sang Jong” - to borrow a classical term - you don’t need the forms.
[QUOTE=YungChun;1001199]That IS the form.. Correct the form and there should be little need for correcting their form.[/QUOTE]
I’m not sure what you mean? Do you mean hunchback, shoulder strength, locked knees is the form? SNT eventually should be played like what you learned in the Jong…
[QUOTE=YungChun;1001201]The point was that SLT and CK are one and the same thing, CK being SLT in motion..
I use the classical progression..and add things here and there…[/QUOTE]
Yes, but I’m sure you have to teach punches, palm strikes, kicks, footwork separately and coordinated together? How would the form improve?
[QUOTE=YungChun;1001201]The forms teach many things.. The forms are part of the classical art.. The classical art has stages and steps.. Your way is not my way. I could easily say ways other than mine are irrelevant and often bass ackwards..
SLT and CK use the same idea.. BJ extends and departs from the first idea.. Teaching one idea, the main idea first IMO is the correct way…[/QUOTE]
OK, but this tells me nothing. I certainly teach the forms and I certainly teach a San Sik version. I teach them usually together, but I can also teach them separately. All that counts is that I can have the student understand how to apply them.
