Hmmm, Good point.
I think I was leaning more towards the maintenance and final refinement aspect though. I am sure Chen Xiao Wang still does his form. You have to ask, what is he working on when he does it?
[QUOTE=Sal Canzonieri;794398]
But if you have not perfected the techniques, what good is learning a form that you do all wrong?[/QUOTE]
To muddy the waters a bit, if one has not learned the transitions the style espouses, can one perfect the techniques that depend on those transitions?
In my experience, good forms are often about good transitions as much as good technique.
Yeah, but you learn those transitions in the drills,not the forms.
[QUOTE=RD’S Alias - 1A;794474]Yeah, but you learn those transitions in the drills,not the forms.[/QUOTE]
That depends on the form. A good form pairs moves with their logical complements. One can then drill this.
Also, a good internal form drills the necessary dan tien work as well.
I agree that the form is best for those who know, but I am currently leaning toward a view of forms as a continuation of detail work, not merely as documentation.
That is my current view. I like to say they are for final refinement of the mechanics. They are the last step for when you are ready to walk the path alone, along with the things mentioned by Sal.
[QUOTE=KC Elbows;794470]To muddy the waters a bit, if one has not learned the transitions the style espouses, can one perfect the techniques that depend on those transitions?
In my experience, good forms are often about good transitions as much as good technique.[/QUOTE]
True, for how forms are done today, but the techniques were done in sequences, variable sequences. Eventually certain combos became forms.
Different lineages do the combos in different order, and hence you have variation in forms from one linage to another in certain styles.
[QUOTE=KC Elbows;794476]That depends on the form. A good form pairs moves with their logical complements. One can then drill this.
Also, a good internal form drills the necessary dan tien work as well.
I agree that the form is best for those who know, but I am currently leaning toward a view of forms as a continuation of detail work, not merely as documentation.[/QUOTE]
Agreed, forms become a tool in the long run.
I think that is more a modern thing (post Ming dynasty).
But, if you haven’t learned the body mechanics details and so on of the techniques, all you are doing when practicing forms is reinforcing bad habits.
And, this is obvious when you see most forms done today, lousy body mechanics.
What is the evidence forms training traditionally was done at the very end of a curriculum?
[QUOTE=MasterKiller;794505]What is the evidence forms training traditionally was done at the very end of a curriculum?[/QUOTE]
From the people who did them, way back when.
Shaolin forms during the early Song were created because there were false people claiming they were trained in Shaolin so that they could get bodyguard jobs, etc. and they were beaten and people laughed at Shaolin. SO, the head military monk developed a series of sets so that people who left Shaolin could be readily identified and would have high standards, since they had to pass a test.
All the various styles that developed around the Ming dynasty and Qing have a forms book that was passed to the next in line each generation. Most style lineage holders have these books in their possession.
[QUOTE=Sal Canzonieri;794507]From the people who did them, way back when.
Shaolin forms during the early Song were created because there were false people claiming they were trained in Shaolin so that they could get bodyguard jobs, etc. and they were beaten and people laughed at Shaolin. SO, the head military monk developed a series of sets so that people who left Shaolin could be readily identified and would have high standards, since they had to pass a test.[/QUOTE]
OK…I’m not doubting it. But other than anectdotal legends, I’m just curious if there is any actual proof or if this is just your best educated guess.
So the evidence is contained in the books that were passed down?
omg tyson does spm, chuck does long fist.
a punch is a punch. if the fighter uses a punch and it comes form a style, who said he studies that style. he might just like the punch and have no clue on the style. **** this is funny categorizing this stuff.
does anybody realise as mr punch has
that RD keeps making completely contradictory statements ? 
What is contradictory? My premiss is that forms are the last thing, for the teachers and senior most people. Where have I contradicted myself, and said they were not?
[QUOTE=RD’S Alias - 1A;794539]What is contradictory? My premiss is that forms are the last thing, for the teachers and senior most people. Where have I contradicted myself, and said they were not?[/QUOTE]
http://ezine.kungfumagazine.com/forum/showpost.php?p=794372&postcount=151
I don’t see the contradiction there. He does Kempo, Modern Kempo has a Chinese influence, and Lidell fights with a lot of chinese principals and uses chinese techniques.
So, since EVERYONE denies he has any Chinese influence, then one must conclude this comes to him through the Chinese influences from his Kempo.
Again, what contradictions have I posted? Seems I am just saying the same thing over, and over in a variety of ways rather than contradicting myself.
[QUOTE=RD’S Alias - 1A;794542]I don’t see the contradiction there. He does Kempo, Modern Kempo has a Chinese influence, and Lidell fights with a lot of chinese principals and uses chinese techniques.
So, since EVERYONE denies he has any Chinese influence, then one must conclude this comes to him through the Chinese influences from his Kempo.
Again, what contradictions have I posted? Seems I am just saying the same thing over, and over in a variety of ways rather than contradicting myself.[/QUOTE]
ask him where he got it from
write him a letter he’s not like such a mega celebrity that he wont write u back
he isnt using kung fu he is using mma regardless of where the technique originally come from (and it probably came from everywhere as human bodies can only do x amount of things) its still MIXED martial arts
saying kung fu works i the cage because one technique that isnt specifically chinese was used
ive found jabs in cma that doesnt mean that kung fu works all over
its also found everywhere
[QUOTE=golden arhat;794544]
he isnt using kung fu he is using mma regardless of where the technique originally come from (and it probably came from everywhere as human bodies can only do x amount of things) its still MIXED martial arts [/QUOTE]
MMA is not a style, it’s a format, nothing more, the moves found in it are attributable, in pretty much every case, to a specific style that is not called mma. Since the issue being nitpicked is related to what title and what style it is attributable to or came from, and what styles may have influenced that, mma really is not an answer.
If he got it from kenpo, meaningless as this may be, there is a documented link to cma. More research than anyone on this thread is ever going to put into this MIGHT answer whether that move came from cma, but no one is going to take this that far, so it stands as a possibility and nothing more, but it is a far greater possibility that it came from kenpo OR a style of kung fu than from a competition format.
And, if you’re going to say “human bodies can only do x amount of things”, you may as well say “human bodies can do more things than I could potentially count”.
[QUOTE=MasterKiller;794552]This is where Chuck’s techniques come from:
School > style.[/QUOTE]
technique>school
Where does the technique come from?
Style.
So the proper chain, as proven by mma, is technique>steroids>school>conditioning>style
paralleled by
shaven head with goatee and prison tat=japanese guy in gi