[QUOTE=GeneChing;1205213]Or perhaps for real masters, there is just no distinction. [/QUOTE]
I think you hit on something here Gene. I like that. I think in a great many things form and function peak together.
Thanks RenDaHai. That’s just me being Buddhist.
[QUOTE=Syn7;1205215]Define "master? then we can talk about who is and isn’t and what it takes to get there.
I always thought of it as resting on your laurels. Otherwise when others call you master you will say “No, no. I am forever a student”. No?[/QUOTE] That’s a fair question as ‘master’ is even harder to define than ‘haymaker’. I can see where you might draw the ‘resting on your laurels’ conclusion, given how some self-proclaimed masters behave (ironically, ‘resting on your laurels’ comes from ancient Greece - former champions were allowed to do so, but only for one year following their victory, not for the rest of their lives). To master something means to have complete knowledge, which of course, begs another question, what defines ‘complete’? But take this quote from the Venerable Chan Grandmaster Hua into consideration. He once said, “Education has neither a beginning nor an end. School is wherever we go.” Personally, I’ve always sought out masters that maintained a vital practice, and you can’t do that while resting on laurel leaves.
A form is just a pre arranged set of movements designed to build coordination along with body conditioning, to be able to control your body could lead to better application of beginning martial arts training at body level mechanics.
Most forms also contain efficient application of martial techniques or movements all strung together in one continuous set of movement’s which leads to meaningless application of said movements for practical application, but can be referenced in future learning of proper application of that style, from that form.
[QUOTE=GeneChing;1205213]Actually, I only have contention with this sentence. Form and fighting can be completely different activities, but they can be one and the same too. Dare I say that the real masters master both? Or perhaps for real masters, there is just no distinction.
I suck at both, but maybe sanjuro_ronin can chime in again, as he says he’s had success at both.[/QUOTE]
Actually, let me clarify.
I liken forms to a series of pre-set paragraphs, or better yet, to monologues, as you will sometimes find in audition material for actors. Whereas free-sparring would be like an actual debate with another person. The pre-set paragraphs can definitely aid in laying a foundation for debates. They can help with memory, diction, expression, etc., in a specific language in a predictable, idealized manner that you can practice alone, and make it uniquely your own. Although there can be carry-over, practicing monologues isn’t the same as debating.
Using acting again as an analogy, some people excel at performing monologues, but they aren’t playing off of or reacting to another actor. In that sense, it’s not “alive”, regardless of how well-done it is.
So perhaps I was off by saying ‘completely different’, as in totally unrelated, but I feel that the differences are considerable. I hope that came across in the right way. 
Of course, if you’re a MAist, you may prefer one aspect over the other, but IMO, ideally, you would work to understand as many aspects of your art as you can. Many forms do contain important concepts that can be extracted, drilled hard with partners, and applied, as well as enhancing overall movement, coordination, etc.
[QUOTE=GeneChing;1205218]That’s a fair question as ‘master’ is even harder to define than ‘haymaker’. I can see where you might draw the ‘resting on your laurels’ conclusion, given how some self-proclaimed masters behave (ironically, ‘resting on your laurels’ comes from ancient Greece - former champions were allowed to do so, but only for one year following their victory, not for the rest of their lives). To master something means to have complete knowledge, which of course, begs another question, what defines ‘complete’? But take this quote from the Venerable Chan Grandmaster Hua into consideration. He once said, “Education has neither a beginning nor an end. School is wherever we go.” Personally, I’ve always sought out masters that maintained a vital practice, and you can’t do that while resting on laurel leaves.[/QUOTE]
Word to your moms…!!!
Another thoughtful Gene Ching installment.
I have had people come up to me and say I’m so good at something. I never just take the compliment, I can’t help it. The more I learn anything, the more I realize one lifetime simply isn’t enough. I mean I still gotta make money get laid and raise babies somewhere in there too.
The only way you will see revolutionary beside my name is maybe long after I’m dead or if I was standing on a pile of bodies!
Honestly, I’m so content to do me and just enjoy life with my fam. No time for any of this master shit.
[QUOTE=GeneChing;1205213]Actually, I only have contention with this sentence. Form and fighting can be completely different activities, but they can be one and the same too. Dare I say that the real masters master both? Or perhaps for real masters, there is just no distinction.
I suck at both, but maybe sanjuro_ronin can chime in again, as he says he’s had success at both.[/QUOTE]
I should have qualififed that I was referring to TMA of course.
Systems that don’t do forms are different of course.
But, look at an elite boxer, more often than not, his shadowboxing will have picture perfect form, but that isn’t really the same thing.
What I meant was that, in the TMA that use both forms and fighting, I have found that the best fighters were also very good at forms and that didn’t always translate in the reverse.
Maybe it was just me…
I got first place in BB forms in the N.American ITF TKD championships back in the late 80’s.
I got first place in BB forms in a couple of Kyokushin competitions.
Just to name a couple.
My instructors tended to advocate forms though, they believed that good form = good fighting skills, of course they never taught flashy forms so…
[QUOTE=sanjuro_ronin;1205255]
But, look at an elite boxer, more often than not, his shadowboxing will have picture perfect form, but that isn’t really the same thing.
[/QUOTE]
I agree, but I think it IS the same thing.
The difference between throwing a punch at a face, or a bag, or the air exists only in your mind. Your body should follow the same script.
Watch a K.O in any pro fight. Watch the form, do you have the ability to do the same move? Of course. I have rarely seen a move in a fight that I am incapable of performing just as well. But could I USE it? Not necessarily. Because once you are past the hurdle of physical skill, function exists only in the mind. In its ability to determine when to use a technique and how and most importantly to do it without doubt or hesitation.
But this element of the mind is somewhat intangible… It comes part from experience sure, but there are so many factors that effect the mind and are dependant on the situation. And a difficult situation is quite by definition one that we are not experienced with, otherwise it would be routine.
SO how do we train for this difficult situation? Well, for some things we can never prepare. And sometimes the time spent trying is wasted. Time spent on form and condition however, is never wasted. That is the trainable element. The tangible element. The predictable element.
The disciple will train his body through hard work and strengthen his mind through contemplation. As a weapon the two are only useful together like a gun and a bullet.
So I think someone who trains Kung Fu should strive for mastery of form and of function. But once he has mastered his own mind he will no longer need to distinguish between the two, like Gene observed.
In Short Fist Boxing, the forms are done just as the fighting is done. The way the moves are used correspond with combinations that come out under pressure. To me that is how martial arts should be done.
[QUOTE=RenDaHai;1205256]I agree, but I think it IS the same thing.
The difference between throwing a punch at a face, or a bag, or the air exists only in your mind. Your body should follow the same script.
Watch a K.O in any pro fight. Watch the form, do you have the ability to do the same move? Of course. I have rarely seen a move in a fight that I am incapable of performing just as well. But could I USE it? Not necessarily. Because once you are past the hurdle of physical skill, function exists only in the mind. In its ability to determine when to use a technique and how and most importantly to do it without doubt or hesitation.
But this element of the mind is somewhat intangible… It comes part from experience sure, but there are so many factors that effect the mind and are dependant on the situation. And a difficult situation is quite by definition one that we are not experienced with, otherwise it would be routine.
SO how do we train for this difficult situation? Well, for some things we can never prepare. And sometimes the time spent trying is wasted. Time spent on form and condition however, is never wasted. That is the trainable element. The tangible element. The predictable element.
The disciple will train his body through hard work and strengthen his mind through contemplation. As a weapon the two are only useful together like a gun and a bullet.
So I think someone who trains Kung Fu should strive for mastery of form and of function. But once he has mastered his own mind he will no longer need to distinguish between the two, like Gene observed.[/QUOTE]
After reading this post, and on further reflection, this does indeed make a lot of sense. For a MAist, there are many things that are outside of your control in regards to opponents, situations, etc. But among of the factors that ARE within your control are form and conditioning.
And I do believe the mind plays a very big role. Cultivating a mind of non-attachment, etc., beyond the mere intellectual concept of it. Which is MUCH easier said than done.
Granted, I’m taking this a little out of context…
[QUOTE=RenDaHai;1205256][QUOTE=sanjuro_ronin;1205255]But, look at an elite boxer, more often than not, his shadowboxing will have picture perfect form, but that isn’t really the same thing.
[/QUOTE]I agree, but I think it IS the same thing.[/QUOTE]
I agree with both of your explanations and clarifications, but I’m snipping these two quotes just to make a point (and not to troll, which is the more common way to snip quotes out of context, right? :rolleyes:). To use the old SAT analogy structure, shadowboxing: forms; jazz: classical. There’s a huge difference between shadowboxing and forms practice from a pedagogical standpoint, and that’s significant as ‘how to best train’ is the key question on all our minds. On the highest levels, just like with jazz and classical, it’s just music. For example, look how often the Marsalis Brothers play classical. In the martial arts, or any art for that matter, it can be the same. However, like classical, TMA forms are a laborious process, laden with the cultural baggage we call tradition. In today’s fast food nation, tradition is becoming more devalued, but there in lies the root of our culture, the logic that underpins our thinking.
Aww shoot. I just got interrupted by work and forgot where I was going with that. :o
[QUOTE=sanjuro_ronin;1205255]the best fighters were also very good at forms and that didn’t always translate in the reverse…[/QUOTE]
If your hip throw doesn’t have perfect form, most of the time, it just won’t work in combat. On the other hand, to have a perfect hip throw form doesn’t mean that you know how to create an opportunity to execute your hip throw against your opponent.
[QUOTE=GeneChing;1205293]There’s a huge difference between shadowboxing and forms practice from a pedagogical standpoint, and that’s significant as ‘how to best train’ is the key question on all our minds. On the highest levels, just like with jazz and classical, it’s just music. For example, look how often the Marsalis Brothers play classical. In the martial arts, or any art for that matter, it can be the same. However, like classical, TMA forms are a laborious process, laden with the cultural baggage we call tradition. In today’s fast food nation, tradition is becoming more devalued, but there in lies the root of our culture, the logic that underpins our thinking.
Aww shoot. I just got interrupted by work and forgot where I was going with that. :o[/QUOTE]
I think I see where you were going.
Shouba are the individual units of form, we can freestyle these together and that is essential traditional training. But the extended compositions are a little different.
Pedagogy encounters the limits of science. Explaining art and learning. You see we can never ‘see’ inside our subconscious minds. As soon as we bring thought into the conscious we change it. It would take the greatest advancement of science to lift the veil and understand the thought process, but even when we do, you cannot possibly do it in realtime for your own mind. As I say, when you bring it into logic space you change it.
Why am I saying this? Because if science and logic cannot bridge the gap between conscious and unconscious, between Xin and Yi, then what can? We need a language to communicate with our shadow selves.
Art, imagery, mythology, music. These aspects of our culture communicate directly to our instincts. They do it effortlessly. When teaching a child a moral lesson, do you lecture him on ethics? No, you tell him a story. A fable which contains a moral lesson, and without conscious acceptance he understands because the imagery of mythology speaks directly to his instincts. Music can unlock an emotion without a single lyric.
As it is with aspects of our ancient culture. They convey messages forever hidden to our logical abstraction. The forms, Taolu of Kung Fu are such a thing. At the peak of your practice you play in harmony with your inner self and this communication is more valuable to you than any possession. And there are lessons to be learned from aspects of culture that cannot be distilled from their traditions. Not hidden applications nor cruel strategies, but some wordless yet undeniable wisdom.
I don’t think that was where I was going exactly…
…but seeing as my earlier post was so two hours ago and I haven’t returned to that lost thought whatever it was and I still have other things to attend to so I can’t really spare the grey matter to go back for it, we’ll go with it and just let it ride.
Thanks for the assist, RDH! 
[QUOTE=YouKnowWho;1205062]This guy’s forms is very pleasant to watch. What else do you expect from a good form?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=85tdZYkMQWI
If you still train forms, what do you think about his form?[/QUOTE]
Yan Qing leg
There are also good hand drills
and qin na 2 man drills
Great.
I watched a short clip of Zhou Bao-Fu talking about the way they train forms. I liked their take on it.
Essentially you only vaguely go through the movements for a while until you have the entire thing completely memorized and won’t be confused. A real lazy performance, really.
This is in contrast to a lot of schools that teach you a couple moves at a time and expect you to learn them completely and demonstrate them completely at full speed and power before you learn the next technique.
[QUOTE=JamesC;1205462]I watched a short clip of Zhou Bao-Fu talking about the way they train forms. I liked their take on it.
Essentially you only vaguely go through the movements for a while until you have the entire thing completely memorized and won’t be confused. A real lazy performance, really.
This is in contrast to a lot of schools that teach you a couple moves at a time and expect you to learn them completely and demonstrate them completely at full speed and power before you learn the next technique.[/QUOTE]
Interesting. I was taught to do this as an aid to memorization for some of our longer sets. The idea was to do the form quickly without completing each move or fully developing the stances in order to concentrate on the set-as-process and transitions. Then the individual moves would be practiced repeatedly with good form.
[QUOTE=JamesC;1205462]I watched a short clip of Zhou Bao-Fu talking about the way they train forms. I liked their take on it.
Essentially you only vaguely go through the movements for a while until you have the entire thing completely memorized and won’t be confused. A real lazy performance, really.
This is in contrast to a lot of schools that teach you a couple moves at a time and expect you to learn them completely and demonstrate them completely at full speed and power before you learn the next technique.[/QUOTE]
He is right, that is how you should do it, if you want to develop yourself, do it the other way and you develop the look good outside look, with empty shell. But forms are not an efficient way to develop anyway, more of a way of passing on movements.