what I meant to say is that we have to understand the functions or functionality of a move/posture which is the trunk of the tree or the essence of the move.
apps are just leaves or branches of a tree or derivatives from the main function/trunk.
–
knife-
forms are built from fighting concepts. They are built up, then broken down. Drills are extrapolated from form, or sure, you could do it your way too, but that would be making forms. 
xia- I’m lucky to have been shown to the right doors I guess. I know there is crap out there, but it doesn’t concern me in the least. I’m not involved with it.
[QUOTE=Knifefighter;723476]One reason that much of kung fu doesn’t work very well is because of the emphasis on forms. Drills should come from fighting, not from forms.[/QUOTE]
Drills created from forms are fine provided the forms aren’t defective. Unfortunately I think there’s a lot of defective forms out there that have morphed over the years due to insufficient translation to drills and fighting.
Forms are created based on realistic and effective fighting moves so it’s safe to assume the process can be reversed and effective moves can be extracted from the forms. If this process fails to occur then minor adjustments to the form over time will blur the application and all is lost.
[QUOTE=David Jamieson;723532]xia- I’m lucky to have been shown to the right doors I guess. I know there is crap out there, but it doesn’t concern me in the least. I’m not involved with it.[/QUOTE]
I think you are in a minority here David.
[QUOTE=Knifefighter;723487]Fighting is what matters and techniques come directly from this.[/QUOTE]
If this assumption is true then why in UFC (#8 ?) Tank Arbot lost because his BJJ opponent kept kicking on his leg? Did he learn from fighting that how to:
- Bend his knee and allow the low round house kick to pass under his leg (conservative approach)?
- Turn his shin into the coming low round house kick (aggressive approach)?
Not all MA skill can be learned from fighting.
If you put a boy
- In water for 3 years then I doubt that he can swim as “effective” as any professional swimmer does.
- On wrestling mat for 3 years then I doubt that he can wrestle as “effective” as any professional wrestler does.
[QUOTE=The Xia;723556]I think you are in a minority here David.[/QUOTE]
Personally I’m still waiting to run into the little old 
chinese master in a park that will teach me the real deal for free.
[QUOTE=Yao Sing;723562]Personally I’m still waiting to run into the little old chinese master in a park that will teach me the real feal for free.[/QUOTE]
you want a little old man to feel you up for free? :eek:
Dang my typing is getting worse.
Um, er, I’m talking sensitivity and listening skills, yeah, that’s the ticket. :o
The above KniFi inspired posts chime in on something relevant to the thread, for once.
People are too obsessed with forms in an absolute sort of way. Its not either or.
Yes, you need to have contact fighting to be able to develop an understanding of how one flows and reacts to an opponent. (this horse is deader than Elvis)
Is this dependant on whether or not you do forms? No. Form work is just another conditioning tool. Those who do forms exclusively and don’t do any contact work will obviously fail in something they don’t do. (this Elvis is deader than the horse)
To assume that everyone that does a form doesn’t fight is fauty logic. The two are not mutually exclusive.
[QUOTE=YouKnowWho;723561]If this assumption is true then why in UFC (#8 ?) Tank Arbot lost because his BJJ opponent kept kicking on his leg? Did he learn from fighting that how to:
- Bend his knee and allow the low round house kick to pass under his leg (conservative approach)?
- Turn his shin into the coming low round house kick (aggressive approach)?[/QUOTE]
That’s exactly what he should have learned.
Those techniques, and whether or not they are valid, come from fighting and are proven to be valid or invalid in the fighting arena.
[QUOTE=YouKnowWho;723561]
- In water for 3 years then I doubt that he can swim as “effective” as any professional swimmer does.
- On wrestling mat for 3 years then I doubt that he can wrestle as “effective” as any professional wrestler does.[/QUOTE]
The professional swimmer is good because he swims. All his swimming techniques are informed by how he does as a swimmer.
Same with the wreslter.
Techniques and doing are inexorably linked to each other and techniques that are valid come directly from the doing.
[QUOTE=SifuAbel;723601]
To assume that everyone that does a form doesn’t fight is fauty logic. The two are not mutually exclusive.[/QUOTE]
Forms would be OK if they were just used for conditioning and were used in a more improvisational method, like shadowboxing.
The problem with forms is when people start “extrapolating” from them, finding “hidden” techniques in them and worrying about whether or not they are made up (as a matter of fact, the more valid a form is for fighting, the more likely it has been “made up” by the practitioner from his fighting experiences).
Fighting, what a concept…
Thats another fault in your logic. The assumption that forms were created in some fanciful dream then put out in a “lets see if this works” type of condition.
The creation of a set (form is individual movement a set is the routine) came about quite in reverse. Its more of a logical procession that sets were created by those that fight and want to pass what works for them on to the next generation.
“As part of a balanced diet”. They were by no means the sole “food group”. Conditioning, drill, et al, were very much part of the equation.
You can’t escape the use of a “form” or “shape” in teaching. You were taught the form of everything you know BEFORE you actually fought. How to thow a punch, kick, grab, etc, etc, etc.
[QUOTE=Knifefighter;723603]The problem with forms is when people start “extrapolating” from them, finding “hidden” techniques in them and worrying about whether or not they are made up (as a matter of fact, the more valid a form is for fighting, the more likely it has been “made up” by the practitioner from his fighting experiences).[/QUOTE]
But forms were “made up” by the practitioner from his fighting experiences.
SifuAbel called it exactly. I get the impression that you think forms and their content have no relation whatsoever to fighting. The truth is that forms are a compilation if fighting techniques assembled by the creator from his fighting experiences.
I would seriously question the recent crop of forms since the priority these days is Performance Fu.
With that said though there are traditional forms that the sole purpose is to drill moves and not meant to present them in an application setting. I already know you don’t believe in this form of training so you can skip that rant.
Forms originally had to be made up by someone, they certainly didn’t come to us on stone tablets from G’d
The better forms come from times and/or places where people actually used their skills to fight. IE the form made up by a fighter is a lot better than a form made up by his student’s student who learned some techniques but has never had to fight with said techniques
Still, a form is just one particular collection of techniques. Jab, cross, hook is a valid string. So is jab, hook, cross. So is jab, same hand uppercut, overhand…
Yet how often in CMA do you hear arguments about “Real” forms? The sequence is the same until movement 28, then instead of turning left and doing technique X he goes into technique N…
Heck, what if all the techniques are correct but NONE of the sequences look like your sequences… is that “fake” and is that teacher a “fraud”?
Forms have become an unnatural obsession in CMA…
[QUOTE=Knifefighter;723603]
The problem with forms is when people start “extrapolating” from them, finding “hidden” techniques in them and worrying about whether or not they are made up (as a matter of fact, the more valid a form is, the more likely it has been “made up” by the practitioner).[/QUOTE]
People do tend to go over board trying to find “the hidden” in their work. But thats the basic difference between someone who is “hunting and pecking” through the set instead just understanding it as a whole. To me a set is a base ripe with improvisational potential. Not because I found “the hidden” in it. But because I see it like a muscian sees a piece of music. To the musician the piece is written to conform to a certain rythm, notes, style etc. It is the base material, either written by the musician or not. The musician can very easily change and flow with the playing because his over all understanding of music allows him to do so. He is not bound to the notes.
To me, a form is just a potential. Lines of force, eb and flow of movement. I can see pretty much any form and see whats going on. Its not a great mystery to me. To me its just a story.
The main diffenece in concept between a whole set and individual drilling of techniques is simple. Both are necessary componets in teaching. The drill teaches the individual form of the technique. The set teaches how these individual forms can come together in a possible flow.
When I fight I am not thinking of the specific sequences of the forms I know. It is after all just the base material, a foundation. The actual fight fluidly ebbs and flows. I draw upon my foundation to feed and support the fluidity. No sea is bottomless.
[QUOTE=SifuAbel;723604]Thats another fault in your logic. The assumption that forms were created in some fanciful dream then put out in a “lets see if this works” type of condition. [/QUOTE]
All you have to do is read the posts of people who “find” techniques in forms that they have never actually used in fighting or sparring to see how common this approach is.
The creation of a set (form is individual movement a set is the routine) came about quite in reverse. Its more of a logical procession that sets were created by those that fight and want to pass what works for them on to the next generation.
That would be fine if they were taught as individual techniques and not strung together one after another into sets.
“As part of a balanced diet”. They were by no means the sole “food group”. Conditioning, drill, et al, were very much part of the equation.
Again, all you have to do is read the posts here to see that a large percentage of CMA practitioners probably spend at least 50% of their time doing forms.
You can’t escape the use of a “form” or “shape” in teaching. You were taught the form of everything you know BEFORE you actually fought. How to thow a punch, kick, grab, etc, etc, etc.
Yes, individual techniques are learned and maybe three or four of them are learned in combinations by the beginner in an alive environment. However, it isn’t long before he begins to put combinations together on his own… and never more than five or six combinations at the most.
[QUOTE=lkfmdc;723607]
Yet how often in CMA do you hear arguments about “Real” forms? The sequence is the same until movement 28, then instead of turning left and doing technique X he goes into technique N…
Heck, what if all the techniques are correct but NONE of the sequences look like your sequences… is that “fake” and is that teacher a “fraud”?[/QUOTE]
Exactly… If anything, forms should be constantly changing based on a practitioner’s fighting experience.
[QUOTE=Yao Sing;723605]But forms were “made up” by the practitioner from his fighting experiences. [/QUOTE]
The problem is that most forms are at least three generations old.
[QUOTE=lkfmdc;723607]
Yet how often in CMA do you hear arguments about “Real” forms? The sequence is the same until movement 28, then instead of turning left and doing technique X he goes into technique N…
Heck, what if all the techniques are correct but NONE of the sequences look like your sequences… is that “fake” and is that teacher a “fraud”?
Forms have become an unnatural obsession in CMA…[/QUOTE]
I agree, it is the rediculous aspect of the politics in CMA that screws the pooch.
[QUOTE=SifuAbel;723608]To me a set is a base ripe with improvisational potential. Not because I found “the hidden” in it. But because I see it like a muscian sees a piece of music. To the musician the piece is written to conform to a certain rythm, notes, style etc. It is the base material, either written by the musician or not. The musician can very easily change and flow with the playing because his over all understanding of music allows him to do so. He is not bound to the notes.
To me, a form is just a potential. Lines of force, eb and flow of movement. I can see pretty much any form and see whats going on. [/QUOTE]
Thats just another problem with forms. You look at it and “see” all these things about it. There is nothing to “see” without an oppoent in the equation.