[QUOTE=Knifefighter;723609]That would be fine if they were taught as individual techniques and not strung together one after another into sets.[/QUOTE]
I’m not following you here. What exactly is the problem with multiple techniques strung together? Just because they’re in a certain order in the forms does not mean they always have stay in that order or progression.
Of course I’m an advocate of mix and match and creating your own forms. Once you get a handle on a system you should be able put them together as needed depending on the situation. Some combos are best left together since sometimes the initial move is a set up for teh following moves.
Most of the CMA Masters can put sequences together with smooth transitions on the spot. Quite a few do just that whenever tehy perform. Isn’t that what you do when you fight, string moves together depending on what the situation (your opponent) call for?
[QUOTE=Knifefighter;723612]The problem is that most forms are at least three generations old.[/QUOTE]
Again, I’m not following. Do you think newer forms would have more value? As I mentioned I think the newer ones would be suspect since a lot of focus is on Performance Fu these days.
Most likely the older stuff would have more realistic fighting combos and apps since they come from they days when they were used more often.
I know you’re extremely anti-forms but in all your posts I still haven’t figured out what it is that you think is wrong, other than thinking that time could be spent on something you feel is more productive. In that case you’re right. You should do what you feel is productive for yourself. To each his own.
[QUOTE=Yao Sing;723655]
Most of the CMA Masters can put sequences together with smooth transitions on the spot. Quite a few do just that whenever tehy perform. Isn’t that what you do when you fight, string moves together depending on what the situation (your opponent) call for?
[/QUOTE]
Right, Like a musician that knows his instrument. One should be able to know what works in what range and what are the outcomes of their movement.
ALA youknowwho’s side kick and elbow example. The elbow wouldn’t work since you’d be out of range after the side kick. This is evident to anyone who is keen to all the mechanics of their techniques.
[QUOTE=Ravenshaw;723629]Some traditional teachers have this sort of “I show you the door, you walk through it” teaching method. This kind of teacher may show his students some applications, but expect them to find others by themselves and to drill and spar with them. Wing Lam used to avoid answering my questions outright. Usually, he just said “you tell me.” From his point of view, once we had shown some basic facility, we should figure out what works and what doesn’t on our own; he wouldn’t hold our hands. If we showed the initiative to try to figure things out on our own, then he’d offer his own insight and tweak stuff for us. Similarly, Lai Hung has never offered to teach me anything other than forms. It’s up to me to practice the drills and spar and then he’ll come over to correct and teach me. He doesn’t speak much English though, so usually he mimes something, hits me with it, and then asks if I understand.
[/QUOTE]
Very good post. I can see why this is. Frankly, its not that hard. At a certain point the student needs to bridge that gap between mindless movement and understanding. Whe he says “you tell me” that is a test. To me it would show where the student understanding is. Is the student fighting way out at his fingertips? Or is he deep in it? Its not that hard. Its just a potential. A potential deflection, strike, kick, lock, throw, footwork, evasion, etc. What else could it be? What else is it for?
The applications aren’t always what they appear to be.
In the form it may look like a strike combo, simple.
But when shown the application it’s a grab, break, throw. WTF?
It’s like looking at a painting, and trying to guess what the artist was trying to express. You know what you feel when you see it, but is that what they intended. Only the artist knows.
The movements in the form represent a principal of movement, abstract like an artist painting. And from that Ideal, that concept, many interpretations of application can be seen.
Everyone sees the painting different. The only one who can tell you the way it was intended, is the artist, or the holder of his knowledge, Your Teacher.
If you have to find you own interpretation look to others arts for inspiration, but don’t be surprised when your art starts looking like something else.
There is harm that comes from a bad martial arts scene.
[QUOTE=David Jamieson;723652]Good martial arts are rare. That’s why they are good.
Where there is a void of information, people will do their utmost to fill it, even if it means not having completeness or even correctness. It’s human nature to do so.
Due dilligence is required in the western buy and sell market of everything. Heck, it’s required anywhere. If you don’t know, it’s best to know that you don’t know.
Or you may very well end up with rex kwon do. (that rhymed!)
You can’t legislate against stupidity anymore than you can blame a hawk for killing a rat.
there’s a two way street. If it’s acceptable for people to remain gullible, then it has to be expected that they will be preyed upon by all sorts of people.
Not that I support fraudulent martial arts dissemination, I think the act of doing that is dubious, but at the same time, i can’t be bothered with pointing it out all the time. More often than not it’s self evident at this point.[/QUOTE]
If someone wants, and knows how to stop, good martial arts, yet lives in a martial arts-sterile area, thats a bad time for that person. Especially if travel isn’t practical because of other things in life. There’s also the factor of those who place their trust in mcdojos. A mcdojo blackbelt is like having beer muscles 24/7. That’s dangerous and it affects many people, including kids. Then there’s also the issue of martial arts cults. Those are bad for obvious reasons.
[QUOTE=YouKnowWho;723637]If that form was created when the form creater was in his old age than that may be possible. For example, a combo such as a side kick followed by an elbow strike may look good in form demo but may not be effective in combat.[/QUOTE]
it is usually followed by a backfist or hammer fist (Fan Za or Za Quan) with your lead hand.
[QUOTE=SanHeChuan;723669]Even the simple block strike isn’t always easy to see, and some times you have to see the application before you can even do the movement right.
How deep am I suppose to dig? The block or the throw?[/QUOTE]
I think you are missing the point. This goes back to the essence thread. What is the essence of your style?
How deep? All the way. The block or the throw? Both if you can wrap your head around it.
Follow the lines, your opponent only has 4 limbs. its not that hard.
A better exercise is to give an example. What did you think was just a block and punch that turned into a break and throw? And, what did you think the simple block and punch you didn’t see was?
This goes way deeper than trying to decipher a form. Its an understanding of movement. To go back to the muscial anology, You are either playing chopsticks, learning "stairway"in the garage or jamming on stage.
[QUOTE=SanHeChuan;723669]Even the simple block strike isn’t always easy to see, and some times you have to see the application before you can even do the movement right.
How deep am I suppose to dig? The block or the throw?[/QUOTE]
I think you are missing the point. This goes back to the essence thread. What is the essence of your style?
How deep? All the way. The block or the throw? Both if you can wrap your head around it.
Follow the lines, your opponent only has 4 limbs. Its not that hard.
A better exercise is to give an example. What did you think was just a block and punch that turned into a break and throw? And, what did you think the simple block and punch you didn’t see was?
This goes way deeper than trying to decipher a form. Its an understanding of movement. To go back to the muscial anology, You are either playing chopsticks, learning "stairway"in the garage or jamming on stage.
[QUOTE=SanHeChuan;723665]The applications aren’t always what they appear to be. In the form it may look like a strike combo, simple. But when shown the application it’s a grab, break, throw. WTF?[/QUOTE]
I have heard this theory from many people before but none of them could convince me on this. The principles applied in throwing and striking are complete different. Throwing usually require
2 points to 3 points contact, along with
Body bending, raising, or spinning (this also require maximum head twisting which end with you are looking away from your opponent), and
Usually end with single leg balance.
which is quite different from the striking requirement. There is no way that a form creator could create any throwing combo without following these guide lines. A friend of mine tried to interpret most of the moves in his forms as throwing moves and later found out it just didn’t work on the wrestling map because the intent extreme body commitment on body bending, or spinning was missing in the form. If you spin your body and you are still look at your opponent then you are not doing your maximum spinning. By examing where your eyes focus on should be the easiest way to judge whether a move is a throw or a strike.
No intent -> no maximum rotation power -> throwing won’t work.
If we use our
“Common sense” to interpret the forms then the truth should not be too far away.
“Imagination” to interpret the forms then we may lead ourselves into a world that’s far away from reality.
The forms don’t look exactly like the application. The movements have been slightly modified, either A) to hide the true application from the casual observer, or B) to make the form more ascetically pleasing.
In the form it may look like you block and strike one guy then turn to face a new direction and block a new guy.
But you could have grabbed, broke the first guy, and the threw him with the turn and block.
Their are plenty of throws in forms, but not every movement is a throw. And they certainly don’t look like wrestling throws, like double legs. The tend to rely of joint locks, etc… and require less leverage to execute them.
[QUOTE=SanHeChuan;723720]The forms don’t look exactly like the application. The movements have been slightly modified, either A) to hide the true application from the casual observer, or B) to make the form more ascetically pleasing.[/QUOTE]
I’m not so sure I buy into that. It has always bugged me when the app doesn’t look like the form. Either the app is wrong or the form is wrong. I don’t think forms were purposely modified to hide the apps.
Maybe for public performance but certainly not when teaching your students.
[QUOTE=SanHeChuan;723720]The forms don’t look exactly like the application. [/QUOTE]
In another forum people argue whether Taiji has the same kind of “shoulder throw” as Judo does. Because Taiji is so abstract and can be intepreted in many different ways. To me, it’s the transition that define Shenfa. It’s the Shenfa thaining that make a move work and not the ending posture.
[QUOTE=Yao Sing;723725]I’m not so sure I buy into that. It has always bugged me when the app doesn’t look like the form. Either the app is wrong or the form is wrong. I don’t think forms were purposely modified to hide the apps.
Maybe for public performance but certainly not when teaching your students.[/QUOTE]
This is somewhat true with PM, but not really true for LF. PM forms generally don’t try to hide the applications, though there are sometimes extra applications hidden within them that may take some thought or guidance to find. LF forms on the other hand are usually performed in a very extended fashion that isn’t very realistic. They also will include high-flying kick combinations designed to increase strength, agility and coordination, but which you wouldn’t likely use as-is in a fight. This serves a training purpose (train long, use short) and also is designed to hide the applications from casual observers. Longfist forms are full of qinna and throws, but unless you’ve got a lot of experience (as Youknowwho does), they look mostly like a bunch of striking and pretty poses.
PM doesn’t really hide apps like this, which is why LF people often learn PM in order to understand how to use their LF. LF can be formidable on its own, but you either have to be very smart or have a generous and patient teacher to show you everything. Does that make PM “better” than LF? That’s a value judgement depending on your priorities in studying martial arts.
[QUOTE=SifuAbel;723615]You are assuming whole forms fight just one guy. Thats not the way.[/QUOTE]
Forms for fighting mutliple opponents are even more ridiculous than forms for fighting a single person.
[QUOTE=lkfmdc;723616]I’ve said it before, the strength of CMA is also it’s weakness in many ways… forms DO present the techniques so that there are more than one option. [/QUOTE]
… and, hence, another problem with forms. Without an opponent in the equation, there are no options. A technique practiced in the air is just a technique done in the air. There is no application until you put an opponent into the equation.
(that rhymed!)
