how much can one learn from practice a set

Wai Jia: The Kung Fu Forum Wing Chun
41

[QUOTE=CFT;985087]Good response Terence, but can one not just replace “air” with a resistance mechanism rather than a live training partner, e.g. wooden dummy, heavy bag, resistance bands?
[/QUOTE]

See below.

My thoughts on the WCK forms are that they formally record the WCK actions and the applicable ranges: hieght, width, depth. Developing the “gung” and other attributes come via other exercises/drills.

Just my opinion.

I agree with you. I too think the movement/actions in the forms are the proto-typical tools of WCK, arranged thematically. My point is that practicing performing tools in that air cannot in any way teach us how to use the tools or what the tools can be used for because the tool isn’t doing anything in the air (except going through the motions). Show a nonWCK person the forms and ask them to decipher/interpret the movements/action and they would have no idea. And that’s because the “idea” comes from our practice, from trying to use those actions/movements and not any form.

So there are no “concepts” in the form – the “concepts” come from our using the tools.

Or, from being told what to believe.

42

[QUOTE=t_niehoff;985061]OK, let’s say you or I or Kevin have some “idea” what the form is “for” – how do we know whether our “idea” is valid or not? How do I know, for example, that I am not just projecting my idea/theory onto the form?

Why is it that you can have one idea of what the form is for, Kevin a different idea, and me yet another?

When you practice a movement in the air – how can anyone say what that movement is really for?

Perhaps, all it is meant to do is teach you the movement itself and nothing more. And that through our practice (application), we give it meaning.[/QUOTE]

A disturb and confuse mind which seems smart but totally chaotic and going no where. sad and trap way of living.

Why is it that you can have one idea of what the form is for, Kevin a different idea, and me yet another?

because some one doesnt know and made up his own.

When you practice a movement in the air – how can anyone say what that movement is really for?

ask the person you learn from.

43

[QUOTE=t_niehoff;985140]

Show a nonWCK person the forms and ask them to decipher/interpret the movements/action and they would have no idea. And that’s because the “idea” comes from our practice, from trying to use those actions/movements and not any form.

So there are no “concepts” in the form – the “concepts” come from our using the tools.

Or, from being told what to believe.[/QUOTE]

in chinese, this is the evident of an art which has gone with the wind and up for interpretation.

44

Hendrik

[QUOTE=Hendrik;985168]in chinese, this is the evident of an art which has gone with the wind and up for interpretation.[/QUOTE]

Not necessarily true Hendrik.Here and there the art is doing well. There is wing chun outside of KFO and internet forums. And many frequent posters are not really doing wing chun.

joy chaudhuri

45

[QUOTE=Vajramusti;985229]-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And many frequent posters are not really doing wing chun.

joy chaudhuri[/QUOTE]

You know, I would agree. Because wing chun was designed as a fighting art, and the vast majority of people practicing it do zero fighting or training for fighting.

46

[QUOTE=bawang;985081]most of the concepts isnt in the form its in the fist poem taught alongside every technique
any martial art family that was rich has a detailed fist manual

if your styles family doesnt publicly release the fist manual something is wrong

forms can only teach u so much, especially a obscure esoteric form that looks nothing like actual fighting with no explanation of the movements[/QUOTE]

Very True but most would not like to admit the fist manual is lost.

47

[QUOTE=t_niehoff;985069]You didn’t get the point. It has nothing to do with mountains.[/QUOTE]
great comeback…typically you have left the point and now try to talk mountains …how is it that deep well froggy ?:smiley:

48

[QUOTE=Wayfaring;985127]This is such a typical TMA mindset. “Go do your forms until you understand them”.
Many sifus teach this way. It promotes the cluelessness we see today regarding martial arts and the huge gap we see today between arts that train for sports-like competition and those that don’t.

I still practice WC forms. I use them to doublecheck different structural alignments during technique. They also have a meditative value. They also have internals value.

But again, the question remains, and it is not becuase “I” don’t understand it.

Why aren’t forms anything remotely like fighting?[/QUOTE]

I teach fighting along with other drills, iow you learn to fight first …novel eh? show a guy how to move the objectives…weapons , tactics on the first day !
explanations with action , fighting…hitting and kicking like fighting :smiley: ever seen that? when you asked what is VT ? or did you get the tan da , pak da crap …or BONG LOP CHOP :smiley: aka how to be slower than you would normally :D:D:D

because you havent had them explained as you learn to fight…you have probably been shown a form alone and told to get on with it ..many get this way…abstract information due to LACK OF UNDERSTANDING :smiley:
how many years have you wasted trying to understand from doing a form alone ?:smiley:

Im only trying to help you, if you want to carry on banging your head against the wall of ‘forms’ and how they dont work ..I wont stop you

in fact this whole forum is kind of laughable, terence runs riot , guys *****ing about each others posts…

im out a’ here
have a good climb

49

[QUOTE=k gledhill;985319]I teach fighting . . . [/QUOTE]

No you don’t. From your posts it is clear you don’t fight. You wouldn’t be spewing the nonsense you do if you fought. And if your students fought, they would see for themselves what you are teaching is nonsense since it wouldn’t work.

You might fool the people who don’t fight, but you won’t fool the people who do with your nonsense.

50

Very True but most would not like to admit the fist manual is lost.

I wouldn’t admit to having a fisting manual in the first place. :stuck_out_tongue:

And that’s pretty much where this thread, like too many others, has ended up.

51

[QUOTE=anerlich;985324]I wouldn’t admit to having a fisting manual in the first place. :stuck_out_tongue:

And that’s pretty much where this thread, like too many others, has ended up.[/QUOTE]

Definitely don’t want to hear about where it was lost!

52

i was learning wing chun for a while several years ago, just kind of taste testing you know. anyhow, i ended up learning 3 forms, from what i noticed the wing chun forms are pretty different from, say long fist, or many other CMA routines.

those of you that are on this thread, is your form experience soley from wing chun? if not what other cma styles have you experimented with / trained in, and what was your over all comparison between wing chun and other methods of form usage/development?

work day over, peace out!

53

I’ve learned forms from xingyi, bagua, taiji, CLF, Northern Sil Lum.

WC forms to me seem to me more set in structure, and, well, formalised, than many others. In that way (though not really any other) they are similar to xingyi. Bagua is also formalised, though is also almost competely different in most other respects. The other forms in general are much more free in structure and work on a wide range of angles and directions.

54

[QUOTE=k gledhill;985319]because you havent had them explained as you learn to fight…you have probably been shown a form alone and told to get on with it ..many get this way…abstract information due to LACK OF UNDERSTANDING :smiley:
how many years have you wasted trying to understand from doing a form alone ?:smiley:

Im only trying to help you, if you want to carry on banging your head against the wall of ‘forms’ and how they dont work ..I wont stop you
[/QUOTE]

This post is a bunch of mindless drivel. You absolutely will not ever even look at forms from a different perspective to question them.

The WCK forms I studied are HFY. In that system, the forms are part of an overall system that is VERY WELL EXPLAINED. Not only that, there are drills, exercises, structure and energy tests all that go along with a particular form. I certainly did not have teachers that said “go do your forms” until you learn them.

You are about as far off base in your assumptions about me as you could be.

In fact, after further reflection upon it, my current viewpoint is that the forms I learned in HFY are more about preserving the overall system then they are about teaching fighting skills. Like a chapter in a book - the form, exercises, challenges all package something up together for preservation.

The fact that you can’t critically look at forms and explain anything like that is quite an indicator that you train in a way that is part of the problem. Just drink the kool-aid and never figure out the difference between what you use forms for and training fighting.

That approach produces people like Asbel Cancio - completely deluded about what will really work in a real live encounter.

55

hey wayfarring i don’t get yous arguement. You have both said it shouldn’t just be go and do it. Each bit of the form comes with exercise, drills, ways to test it etc. But they can’t be solely relied on. Seems like you said the same things.

56

[QUOTE=Wayfaring;985371]
In fact, after further reflection upon it, my current viewpoint is that the forms I learned in HFY are more about preserving the overall system then they are about teaching fighting skills. Like a chapter in a book - the form, exercises, challenges all package something up together for preservation.
[/QUOTE]

That’s a sound POV.

I think to really appreciate the question- how much can you learn from a set – we need to START not with what we want or hope or have been told we can learn from a set, but to look at the question from the standpoint of how we, as human beings, acquire and develop physical skills. Once we appreciate how that is done, the process involved in developing overall fighting skill, then we can look at various aspects of our classical curriculum and see how those things fit into that process. It’s like asking what a particular cog does in a old watch – without first knowing how the overall watch works, you can’t really say what a particular cog does to make the watch work.

57

Wow-another messy KFO thread.

[QUOTE=Wayfaring;985371]This post is a bunch of mindless drivel. You absolutely will not ever even look at forms from a different perspective to question them.

The WCK forms I studied are HFY. In that system, the forms are part of an overall system that is VERY WELL EXPLAINED. Not only that, there are drills, exercises, structure and energy tests all that go along with a particular form. I certainly did not have teachers that said “go do your forms” until you learn them.

I don’t do HFY and I am not commenting on the forms of that style.Those first generation students of Ip Man who had substantial exposure to Ip Man’s teaching corrected the student’s forms in detail. Each section of the slt form as well as the chum kiu and the biu jee among other things have specific developmental purposes- for fighting skills. Simply knowing the sequences is not learning a form IMO. Sections of each form can be further developed separately. The form motions can show up in chi sao. Good eyes can see how much of what forms have been taught and learned well. Good teachers can show fighting applications of the forms and the experienced student discovers additional applications specially those that work for that individual. And forms have to be supplemented with contact and application.

No one is forced to learn wing chun. There are different approaches to fighting. When there are gaps in one’s learning folks understandably try to import various things from elsewhere -not always seamlessly.

Gledhill can be lengthy and wordy- and I don’t always agree with him-but you(W) are being unfair to him.He has been exposed to decent wing chun and he does have actual fighting experience.
So has bennyvt, Phil R , Chusali and several others.The list is incomplete. Hendrik knows much but is not always clear or correct IMO and has his own views but is mistaken in thinking that behavior can be redirected by posts on this
increasingly silly forum which does little to explain wc or to have reasonable ego subdued discussion of the differences in POV or of wc.

I just ignore some frequent posters who just repeat the same old things.Even a broken clock
can be right twice a day- why watch it repeatedly? .Reacting to these frequent posters has derailed so many threads.Hendrik started this thread inviting a predictable disaster- I hope that he closes/removes this thread.

joy chaudhuri

58

[QUOTE=Vajramusti;985412]
Those first generation students of Ip Man who had substantial exposure to Ip Man’s teaching corrected the student’s forms in detail.
[/QUOTE]

Yes, that’s very true – it is the chinese way of teaching. Rene used to refer to the example of teaching calligraphy, that the student would exactly copy his teacher’s strokes for 10 or 20 years to master calligraphy.

The problem is that while this is a great way to develop closed skills (closed skills are skills where the environment doesn’t change and skill is in how closely you can mimic an idealized model) we know today that this is an extremely poor way to learn or develop open skills (where the environment is continually changing and you need to adjust what you do continually) like those in fighting.

So, while Yip and others taught that way, that doesn’t make it good or sound. And, the argument that’s-how-they-used-to-do-it is never a valid reason.

Each section of the slt form as well as the chum kiu and the biu jee among other things have specific developmental purposes- for fighting skills. Simply knowing the sequences is not learning a form IMO. Sections of each form can be further developed separately. The form motions can show up in chi sao. Good eyes can see how much of what forms have been taught and learned well. Good teachers can show fighting applications of the forms and the experienced student discovers additional applications specially those that work for that individual. And forms have to be supplemented with contact and application.

People can learn WCK without forms --some branches of WCK have done away with forms. In fact, the functional martial arts of today, boxing, wrestling, etc. don’t have sets. Yet, many of the people practicing those arts have developed well beyond the level of any WCK person. So, if these sets contain “specific developmental purposes” as you say, it’s clear we don’t need those developmental purposes.

59

In fact, after further reflection upon it, my current viewpoint is that the forms I learned in HFY are more about preserving the overall system then they are about teaching fighting skills. Like a chapter in a book - the form, exercises, challenges all package something up together for preservation.

It can be argued that is the case from most, if not all, systems that have solo forms.

60

[QUOTE=Vajramusti;985412]
I don’t do HFY and I am not commenting on the forms of that style.Those first generation students of Ip Man who had substantial exposure to Ip Man’s teaching corrected the student’s forms in detail. Each section of the slt form as well as the chum kiu and the biu jee among other things have specific developmental purposes- for fighting skills. Simply knowing the sequences is not learning a form IMO. Sections of each form can be further developed separately. The form motions can show up in chi sao. Good eyes can see how much of what forms have been taught and learned well. Good teachers can show fighting applications of the forms and the experienced student discovers additional applications specially those that work for that individual. And forms have to be supplemented with contact and application.
[/QUOTE]
Undoubtedly forms can be corrected, perfected, etc. In some of the kung fu tournaments I participated in the wushu dancers would clean up the forms divisions with beautiful intricate forms with and without weapons. There is a whole organization of martial arts called ironically enough “Extreme Martial Arts” - XMA which has developed the forms aspects of martial arts to an unparalleled acrobatic height. Here’s an example:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZUh8S_i82wk

And yet there is a huge disparity between the movements that a martial artist performs in forms and the movmenents that are performed in a fighting environment.

I’ve been shown the “hidden fighting application” technique in forms dating back to TKD forms as a teenager. That doesn’t change the disparity or bridge the gap between forms skillsets and fighting skillsets.

This argument is not new. It was a major one of Bruce Lee, who many WCK people still use as an incentive to attract people to train WCK.

No one is forced to learn wing chun. There are different approaches to fighting. When there are gaps in one’s learning folks understandably try to import various things from elsewhere -not always seamlessly.

This actually is one of the major problems with popular wing chun and how it is trained. There are “different approaches to fighting”. There are “different approaches to training to fight”. Some of them are effective. Some of them are ineffective. Many times gaps are there due to the huge disparity in what is trained and what is fought.

Gledhill can be lengthy and wordy- and I don’t always agree with him-but you(W) are being unfair to him.He has been exposed to decent wing chun and he does have actual fighting experience.
So has bennyvt, Phil R , Chusali and several others.The list is incomplete. Hendrik knows much but is not always clear or correct IMO and has his own views but is mistaken in thinking that behavior can be redirected by posts on this
increasingly silly forum which does little to explain wc or to have reasonable ego subdued discussion of the differences in POV or of wc.

Why don’t you read gledhill’s comments to me again that I quoted and tell me how “unfair” I’m being to him. If someone wants to have an intelligent conversation with me I’m more than willing. If they want to patronize me while making huge inaccurate assumptions, then the response might be “unfair”.

I also have no problem being “unfair” if it can get someone to take an honest look at the disparity between what they are training and what they are fighting and do something about it.

I just ignore some frequent posters who just repeat the same old things.Even a broken clock
can be right twice a day- why watch it repeatedly? .Reacting to these frequent posters has derailed so many threads.Hendrik started this thread inviting a predictable disaster- I hope that he closes/removes this thread.

joy chaudhuri

Sure there is repetition here. There is also value here. It has to be extracted from among that which is of no value. No different than anything else in life. Hendrik as well. It’s a good question - how much can you learn from a set?