flowery performance forms were low level and for making money. today theyre called advanced forms. ESPECIALLY weapon forms. in “advanced” weapon forms its normal to have up to 50 or 70% of the moves flower twirling.
for example most of the tiger fork forms in southern kung fu have only 5 to 6 real techniques in the entire form.
[QUOTE=David Jamieson;1065395]I never said it was practical and I was speaking to it in context to what is in forms, what is advanced and why advanced sets are not taught to beginners.
there’s plenty of material that I cannot effectively or have not had opportunity to try. I think that’s less important than pondering whether or not I need it or can count on it.
I just posted a video of a guy in an mma fight who cartwheeled a KO to illustrate my point. If the only validity you will give my point is based on what I do, then when is the last time you landed on the moon and took pictures of your fellow astronaut?
It takes body balance to be good at any athletics whatsoever. there are many “gymnastic” moves in martial arts from all cultures.
Anyway, I’m just pointing out that it is there.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=MightyB;1065390]I have no way of proving this, but I believe that once you get passed the “carrot” that Ross was talking about…
…that “Showing Off” is the true purpose of the high-level forms of historical TCMA.[/QUOTE]
yes this maybe true??? However, I do not portray them as such nor do do I teach them as such. They are just training tools to me. If someone wants strictly to compete or they want only forms to show off, I usually point them in the direction of one of those McDojos.
ginosifu
[QUOTE=ginosifu;1065406]yes this maybe true??? However, I do not portray them as such nor do do I teach them as such. They are just training tools to me. If someone wants strictly to compete or they want only forms to show off, I usually point them in the direction of one of those McDojos.
ginosifu[/QUOTE]
Why on earth would you do that?
That’s misplaced Wude - why chase away over achievers? Type A personalities with a penchance for flair. Winners, Jocks, Athletes. These are the people you should want. Take their enthusiasm and use it…
and then shape them into an army of un killable cybornetic kungfu assassins…
[QUOTE=Iron_Eagle_76;1065398][/QUOTE]
clearly a hoax!
[QUOTE=Lucas;1065410]and then shape them into an army of un killable cybornetic kungfu assassins…[/QUOTE]
F**K Yeah! http://www.kennypowers.com/
[QUOTE=MightyB;1065409]That’s misplaced Wude - why chase away over achievers? Type A personalities with a penchance for flair. Winners, Jocks, Athletes. These are the people you should want. Take their enthusiasm and use it…[/QUOTE]
Don’t get wrong … I have competed and some of my students like to compete. However, this a once in a while thing. Our main focus is self defense and health. There is nothing wrong with it, just not my gig.
To compete or not compete does not change my martial code.
ginosifu
when I first started learning Hung-Ga, we learned all the pillar sets (Gung Ji Fook Fu, Fu Hok Seurng Ying, Ng Ying, Tiet Sien) for Black Sash. For many years, I taught the same way. I now “reserve” Ng Ying Kuen and for second Black.
Not because I’m dangling a carrott, but I found that I was following and creating the “forms collector’s” mentality. The reality is, none of those people really had a firm grasp on the forms they did. There are techniques and movements in FHSYK (the softer, short bridging and spiraling )that really require more time and drilling to “get.”
I would rather my students focused on getting the forms and the associated technique more solid before heaping more forms on them.
[QUOTE=TenTigers;1065415]when I first started learning Hung-Ga, we learned all the pillar sets (Gung Ji Fook Fu, Fu Hok Seurng Ying, Ng Ying, Tiet Sien) for Black Sash. For many years, I taught the same way. I now “reserve” Ng Ying Kuen and for second Black.
Not because I’m dangling a carrott, but I found that I was following and creating the “forms collector’s” mentality. The reality is, none of those people really had a firm grasp on the forms they did. There are techniques and movements in FHSYK (the softer, short bridging and spiraling )that really require more time and drilling to “get.”
I would rather my students focused on getting the forms and the associated technique more solid before heaping more forms on them.[/QUOTE]
would you be able to get someone ready for the second sash sets with solo and partner drills, sparring, and application work? not saying that should be done, im just curious. if yes what do you feel the difference in time frame it would take to be ‘ready’?
[QUOTE=TenTigers;1065415]when I first started learning Hung-Ga, we learned all the pillar sets (Gung Ji Fook Fu, Fu Hok Seurng Ying, Ng Ying, Tiet Sien) for Black Sash. For many years, I taught the same way. I now “reserve” Ng Ying Kuen and for second Black.
Not because I’m dangling a carrott, but I found that I was following and creating the “forms collector’s” mentality. The reality is, none of those people really had a firm grasp on the forms they did. There are techniques and movements in FHSYK (the softer, short bridging and spiraling )that really require more time and drilling to “get.”
I would rather my students focused on getting the forms and the associated technique more solid before heaping more forms on them.[/QUOTE]
FHSYK is a system unto itself.
[QUOTE=sanjuro_ronin;1065422]FHSYK is a system unto itself.[/QUOTE]
what would a glorified, kickboxing knucklehead who never even stu…
…
oh never mind; it’s nowhere nearly as fun as it used to be…:mad:
[QUOTE=taai gihk yahn;1065426]what would a glorified, kickboxing knucklehead who never even stu…
…
oh never mind; it’s nowhere nearly as fun as it used to be…:mad:[/QUOTE]
BWWAHHHH !!!
*****.
Fact is, I teach 3 forms ( yes for those that want to learn I still do teach them).
A beginner form, intermediate and advanced.
Not because the move are so hard or complicate or special or hidden, but because it takes some experience and self-knowledge to get the most of of them.
[QUOTE=Lucas;1065421]would you be able to get someone ready for the second sash sets with solo and partner drills, sparring, and application work? not saying that should be done, im just curious. if yes what do you feel the difference in time frame it would take to be ‘ready’?[/QUOTE]
absolutely.
That’s the beauty of styles like Hung-Ga. On it’s most basic level, punching, smashing grabbing and breaking, it is an effective fighting art. You can take just that stuff and go on your way. In fact, many never went beyond that level, and that’s fine. But, it also has more refined movement and techniques that one can develop, if one wanted to invest the time. It’s not like it takes ten years to learn how to fight.
I happen to teach textbook sets because I intend to pass the system on. Each person I teach is a potential teacher, perhaps not in my schools, maybe just through their own family, or whatever. The forms allow the system to be passed down from one generation to the next, intact.
oh yeah, and I enjoy forms!
“the sword polisher’s record” pg.90-104.
oh yeah, and I enjoy forms!
I enjoy form too
[QUOTE=sanjuro_ronin;1065441]I enjoy form too
[/QUOTE]
I could watch that all day.
lkfmdc 12-09-2010 06:21 PM
Forms are also a mixture of
actual combat techniques
conditioning , flexibility, balance, and yogic like exercises
performance including street performance
Again, with time, people have forgotten that some of the things in sets are not/were never designed to be fighting applicable
This is part of the problem I have with forms, the techniques in them might be valid, they might very well work, but as they have been passed on how do we know what the original intent was for the movement? if you train with 2 different sifu chances are you will see 2 different examples of what the movement was for, its not a great way to pass on a style especially in this day and age
And on the other extreme you get the form Nazis who say the hand must be this shape, at this angle and move in this path and then don’t actually use the movement in sparring anyway
If forms were a good way in the past to catalogue techniques, and introduce strength and conditioning work, are they still useful with all the advances we have made in the realm of strength and conditioning and technological advances made that allow us to capture movement ?