Too many applications?

Wai Jia: The Kung Fu Forum Kung Fu Forum
41

You is making me wish I was better with my Japanese nomenclature.:o So I will blend the concept with my English-translated CMA concepts and hope some well-intentioned JMA-ist will help with the proper terms…

There is a three-stage learning curve taught by TJMA. Level one is the beginner, were you learn the basics. Level two is the novice, were you come to understand what you have learned. Level three is the student, were you go out and figure out were this teaching fits into the scheme of “things”, i.e. how practical it is and how it fits with you. this is a time of great growth and sometimes ultimate failure as an artist. Only after you have fully reconsiled all the little parts and forged a new whole can you truelly be a deciple of a style. If the new whole does not “fit”, one either quits or founds one’s own style. A person who calles themselves a master is not allways a master, because you must be a master of all, not just some. Otherwise you are just a teacher.

42

This applies to all hard physical activities icluding self-defense, street fighting, and “life and death” physical confrontations.

to a certain point I agree, you’r always going to be better in your prime, but the paradigms are different. A competitor gets into the sport to compete. He knows he has a limited amount of time before the young kids overtake him or her and they cannot compete any more on a serious level.
One who is training for self defense should know that while in his or her prime they have a better chance, the overall goal is to just be able to handle yourself in a situation taht may come up.

Trying to make several applications out of one technique in a form seems about as efficient as trying to learn a boxing hook punch from a judo hip toss.

actually, you’d be wrong. It’s highly efficient to learn how to use a technique in multiple ways. It gives you options when the situation arises wher ethe technique most likely doesn’t work quite the way you studied it if you only used it one way. Don’t let your distaste for TMA and forms get the better of you here knifefighter.

43

becca

forms contain techniques.

sometimes you gotta learn how the technique works on your own; just being it in a form.

for your family/style’s bread and butter techniques; the traditional way was to drill the individual technique and its usage first and put them together in a form later.

the first way can be confusing and inefficient; especially when you don’t have the keys to unlock the understanding (method = faht = fah and power = ging = jing).

your personal preference on the execution of the technique shouldn’t make such a huge difference; because it should still fall under the same principles, method, and power- just a different manner of expression.

i don’t know much about white dragon, so i really can’t give an example you’d be familiar with; but a lot of times the determining factors of whether a move in a form is a grab and a punch, versus a 1-2 (jab-cross) are the method, principle, and power that the technique falls under.

this is the importance of the written kuen po of the techniques in forms; the oral tradition; and the old poems for each technique that each describe how the technique works.

44

red5angel

actually, you’d be wrong. It’s highly efficient to learn how to use a technique in multiple ways. It gives you options when the situation arises wher ethe technique most likely doesn’t work quite the way you studied it if you only used it one way.

Not trying to pick on you here, but the manner in which you do this is important.

For example, if you train a crescant kick that hits with the side of the foot, or hits more like an axe kick; you train hitting with each one. If you’re wrestling and figure out how to shoot a single leg takedown with head outside the leg, as well as head inside the leg; you train being able to pull off each one. If you have a backfist that you use to bash through someone’s guard, but also develop a version that’s more of a downward pull; training to be able to execute both is important. All of these examples are good for giving you options to adjust to the situation you’re presented with.

A “not so good” example of multiple usage is say an unintuitive move in the form where you can think of 5,000 applications; but don’t work on drilling the landing a single one. At some point it just becomes cataloging for the sake of cataloging; mental monkey spankin.

If I can figure out a new usage of a jab, it don’t do me a whole lot of good if i don’t practise pulling it off.

I think the case knifefighter’s discussing is more consistant with the second group of examples; where you see some arm waving, out of context, and come up with a thousand ideas on what it could do; but don’t take the time to hone any of 'em.

45

Originally posted by cjurakpt
so, the question is, at what point does one create a new form that, while retaining the principles, reflects one’s own insight / development? where does this generative principle come from? how does one know it’s original, and not just a re-mix of someone ele’s composition?
IF one is going to create a form, each movement in it should come directly from applications that one has done during fighting.

Assuming a form is worth anything in the first place, every movement in it should have been taken from successful application in direct fighting experience.

46

Originally posted by red5angel
to a certain point I agree, you’r always going to be better in your prime, but the paradigms are different. A competitor gets into the sport to compete. He knows he has a limited amount of time before the young kids overtake him or her and they cannot compete any more on a serious level.
One who is training for self defense should know that while in his or her prime they have a better chance, the overall goal is to just be able to handle yourself in a situation taht may come up.
Not evrybody competes just for the sake of competition. Many people compete to improve their self defense abilities.

47

If we look at all martial arts as a whole, generally all of the traditional methods that have been established, were done so through many years of study, much through the process of elimination. Generation upon generation went into the entire process, this is why a master would pass everything onto one person, they spent years waiting for the right person to represent the lineage that they themselves inherited. Through all of these studies, practices, fights (competition, and life/death situations) what was developed, was developed through the means of practicallity as a whole in regards to the high point of what the entire training regeme is aimed at reaching. By this standard what is in use in a particular martial art, from any style, is what the originators have found to be effective within the entire life to death process. So by that means, it is all effective, there is no point in anyone saying “only how i train is correct” because frankly, each of us are doing the right training, what is different with each of our styles, schools, and so on, is where you will find your high point in that life to death process. One styles system of training may develop highly powerfull punches, yet lack in kicks, where another will be the opposite, while one may have a balance of both (not as strong as eithers strength, yet not as weak as eithers weakness). It is all about where you feel comfortable and what your peronality and body type will excell the most. So you see it is completely futile for anyone to argue whos style/training is best, for it is all equal, and again, it comes down to the individual. BUt you can talk all the cr@p you want about those McDojo’s. Those fools that do actually pass of the lies deserve to feel the shame of inferiority.

48

Ogoshi is a popular hip throw.

In execution it’s like a boxing hook, where the hips turn all the way through

Sorry, but I strongly disagree. it’s not even close. the kuzushi, the shoulder, the pivot of the foot., the arm, the posture of the body. very very very very different.

49

Originally posted by PangQuan
BUt you can talk all the cr@p you want about those McDojo’s. Those fools that do actually pass of the lies deserve to feel the shame of inferiority.
And how does one determine what’s a McDojo and what’s the real deal?

50

Originally posted by ShaolinTiger00
Sorry, but I strongly disagree. it’s not even close. the kuzushi, the shoulder, the pivot of the foot., the arm, the posture of the body. very very very very different.
But not to those who are pulling new applications from their forms. They think it is all the same.

51

>> IF one is going to create a form, each movement in it should come directly from applications that one has done during fighting. >>

In my experience in traditional IMA, this is not true.

Maybe this is true in karate where a kata is a “pretend fight” but in the IMA, the forms are simple movements that are NOT Supposed to be mimicing a fight.

Each form is designed to teach a feeling, a rhythm,a momentum, a certain body sense that can be used in fighting. The specific moves they use are not as important as the type of “energy” that one is utilizing.

In Chinese they call this “Jing” or “Jin” or “Ching” depending on the writing style.

The goal is to train these Jings until they are built into the body for spontaneous use. The techniques are all spontaneous and intuitive.

This makes a lot more sense to me than “I block, you kick” type of forms. It can be a lot of work to create a Jing and figure out how to use it. Thats why teachers beat you, so you learn the Jing.

Anyways, just a little something from the IMA world.

-Jess O

52

Originally posted by Rockwood
[B]>> IF one is going to create a form, each movement in it should come directly from applications that one has done during fighting. >>

In my experience in traditional IMA, this is not true.

Maybe this is true in karate where a kata is a “pretend fight” but in the IMA, the forms are simple movements that are NOT Supposed to be mimicing a fight.

Each form is designed to teach a feeling, a rhythm,a momentum, a certain body sense that can be used in fighting. The specific moves they use are not as important as the type of “energy” that one is utilizing.

In Chinese they call this “Jing” or “Jin” or “Ching” depending on the writing style.

The goal is to train these Jings until they are built into the body for spontaneous use. The techniques are all spontaneous and intuitive.

This makes a lot more sense to me than “I block, you kick” type of forms. It can be a lot of work to create a Jing and figure out how to use it. Thats why teachers beat you, so you learn the Jing.

Anyways, just a little something from the IMA world.
-Jess O [/B]

Beautifully put. And I think you can extend that idea into the EMA world as well. The gings/jin might be different but the concept is similar.

They say that when you reach a high level in Taiji when you execute any type of movement that the force comes out of all of your joints and out in all directions.

Therefore any part of your body that that the opponent comes in contact with they will be bounced off.

When one part of your body moves, all parts move.

Forms are not “prearranged fighting patterns.” Rather, they are tools to develop jin and to be able to explore the many facets of expressing that jin.

So learning many forms is not necessarily to learn MORE techniques. It is to learn more subtle or more advanced ways to express jin. To give you more flexibility of jin expression.

The form is just a tool that can take you to a higher level but at which during free fighting you must cast off in favor of free martial expression.

This is where Bruce Lee was heading with JKD. A lot of people took Bruce Lee to mean that you don’t need form at all. But Bruce Lee was a classical wing chun guy before he learned JKD. He learned to express jin through his wing chun training to which he later added parts of other arts to make up for wing chun’s deficits.

IMHO, to understand any movement in kung fu, you must be able to execute the external Form (the first step, ie when you mimic your teacher), understand/feel the internal Jin that belies the Form (which in the long run may force you to modify the external Form) and the bigger Strategy that the Form and Jin are supposed to fit into (ie what function do the Jin and Form serve in the overall strategy of the system.)

Then you’ve got to take all that and learn to apply it in real time.

Which may force you to modify all of the above. :wink:

A lot of people have Form, not many have Jin, even less understand how Form and Jin fit into Strategy. And even fewer people can take Form, Jin and Strategy and apply it in real time.

Maybe it’d just be better if we all bought boxing gloves and started hitting stuff???:smiley:

53

Originally posted by Knifefighter
And how does one determine what’s a McDojo and what’s the real deal?

Unfortunately that involves an experienced martial artist visiting said school and testing it through various methods. Then exposing it to everyone they assosiate with in the martial community.

54

Bmore Banga - we partly agree. I believe in one of my earlier posts, possibly the first one, I’m too lazy to go look, I stated that with the right amount of training having a list of options and training them is a good way to go about it. I’ve never claimed it was the most efficient, but efficiency is determined by the goal.

Not evrybody competes just for the sake of competition. Many people compete to improve their self defense abilities.

sure but I think that’s the exception and not the rule. I don’t think anyone goes into competing seriously with the sole purpose of increasing their ability to defend themselves. That ability to defend themselves is a more of an acceptable byproduct.

But not to those who are pulling new applications from their forms. They think it is all the same.

I tend to go the other direction and feel that sometimes people think about it too much. I cna’t use the example ST00 and whoever are arguing, the Ogoshi, I don’t know what that is but I’ve seen a lot of martial arts claim that their punch, which appears tobe very similar to other punches, is actually quite different. There are broad categories of difference but it only breaks down so far. more oftne in my mind what changes is only the context and how your art prefers to approach a particular technique.

This is where Bruce Lee was heading with JKD. A lot of people took Bruce Lee to mean that you don’t need form at all. But Bruce Lee was a classical wing chun guy before he learned JKD. He learned to express jin through his wing chun training to which he later added parts of other arts to make up for wing chun’s deficits.

actually he just got ****ed off cause he couldn’t get what he wanted form the traditional guys, and his ego led him to believe he had all the answers.

55

Originally posted by red5angel
Bmore Banga - we partly agree. I believe in one of my earlier posts, possibly the first one, I’m too lazy to go look, I stated that with the right amount of training having a list of options and training them is a good way to go about it. I’ve never claimed it was the most efficient, but efficiency is determined by the goal.

Originally posted by red5angel
actually, you’d be wrong. It’s highly efficient to learn how to use a technique in multiple ways. It gives you options when the situation arises wher ethe technique most likely doesn’t work quite the way you studied it if you only used it one way. Don’t let your distaste for TMA and forms get the better of you here knifefighter.

:smiley:

56

Originally posted by Knifefighter
And how does one determine what’s a McDojo and what’s the real deal?

If the student thinks you learn to fight by learning forms, it might be a McDojo. But than, you might not know if you don’t understand what forms are for. IMO, a person could advance in martial arts even in a McDojo. It just depends how well they can train themselves. Even the best teacher can’t give you skill.

This is a good discussion even if some people are commenting on something they don’t know about instead of asking questions. Personally, I didn’t enter in this for a debate. I think web777 had a valid question. In my IME, a good one which might not have one good answer. In any case, a student who asks questions and attempts to explore their practice and find there own answers, deserves encouragment. Nothing more and nothing less.

57

right :wink:

58

Originally posted by ShaolinTiger00
Sorry, but I strongly disagree. it’s not even close. the kuzushi, the shoulder, the pivot of the foot., the arm, the posture of the body. very very very very different.

By “shape” I mean “a guy with his arm bent, twisting”.

Might not be the BEST example, but shape wise they’re somewhat similar.

The kuzushi, the balance, the shoulder usage, where you put your weight, and probably even the pivot would be aspects of the method and power.

I’m not married to that example. I’m sure you could think of other techniques where if all context removed and you were looking at still photos (not video) of the individual postures; that they could kinda look similar.

My point is to say that the shape of the move doesn’t really mean anything, you need to understand the method and power to know how to use it; in the case of the hook & ogoshi the methods & powers are very different; so you end up with very different usage.

59

Physical vs Mental

Nice to see we can get some real discussion without collapsing into beating the forms vs fighting “dead mule.”

I find myself at odds with a lot of what is being said, yet finding elements that I can agree with. Granted, my style is slightly different to a lot of mainstream Kung Fu.

I can’t comment on right or wrong, I can only add my perspective to the fray.

Firstly, I am guilty as the next guy of “deconstructing” forms, however I am being taught to teach without doing that. My question was Why? I was told more or less, “because its not teaching for them, its your self indulgence - they can’t understand like you understand.”

Are forms Fighting? Are forms physical training? Both, neither? Something else? Does it matter???

Forms are about repetition, about the physical. To turn them into intellectual studies is counter productive unless you want to intellectually debate the matter, not physically. Its all to much talk when it should be physical. When the physical pieces of the puzzle gain in number, a physical understanding comes to the student OF THEIR OWN. Once you find these “treasures” they are yours forever, you don’t forget them under pressure.

The saying goes, it is a journey of 10,000 steps, not 10,000 words, in a nutshell.

The goal is that from every position you find yourself, your body automatically adjusts to familiar weight, position and application to complete the next phase of the attack. Some people call it the Listening touch, sensitivity, whatever…

Now, consider that in most styles, an attack, or an execution is not a single strike, it might involve 2 or three in a combination that cause a predictable reaction in your opponent, even a resisting opponent. ( i.e. You hit him in the face, the guard goes up, and he goes back.)

Now, things don’t always go as planned, and sometimes in the middle of a combination, you are jammed, stymied or simply blocked, good training will simply enable you to adapt and continue because there will be a physical bookmark for that situation as well, and your touch will trigger another familiar physical response. Stop to think and you lose the edge.

So, given the opportunity to intellectually discuss a move, or a combination, the same amount of time simply repeating the move or combination will add more to your fighting effectiveness, and take you closer to the 'formlessness" of instinctual reaction to any given physical circumstance found in “real world” confrontations. Likewise, every individual may not find the same techniques in the same form training, to each their own strengths and weaknesses.

I really liked the boat analogy. You need the boat, but you will eventually need to leave the boat alone.

Things you discover about forms physically are much more valuable than things you discover about forms intellectually.

Some forms have conditioning and movement fundamentals that wash across all the actual fighting techniques, beyond their application in the form. Core physical attitudes.

So, on the narrow topic of forms as a COMPONENT of training to fight, the value is not in telling a student, but in letting them discover things by themselves, and ensuring that they always continue looking deeper and deeper.

A fishing rod, not a fish.

And, if you don’t have the patience to fish, you deserve neither the rod, nor the fish. There are some plus sides to being in a non-commercial setting.

The student may wish to learn fast, but the teacher may wish for them to learn properly. Few students have the natural talent to do both, however many more can learn properly with time.

AS for making up forms…not my cup of tea. Got enough trouble handling what my Sifu gave to me. More is not the answer in my book.

Cheers

60

I’d try to reframe the whole idea of finding multiple applictions for a technique.

A “technique” to me by definition has some particular specific application. Certain moves aren’t really techniques per se. You could have a method, a technique for disrupting someone’s balance. That’s pretty general. You could also have something very specific like a right cross. But I get lost on the whole idea of multiple applications for specific moves is this:

Applications, to me are just examples of how you can do things. Ultimately your “technique” is nothing more than, “hit him in the face” or “throw him on the ground” or “dodge”.

If you try to “use a technique” to throw someone, your kind of missing the point. Every single instance, every throw, every punch, every block, is going to be just a little bit different. You learn a bunch of specific examples and maybe even drill them with your partner at varying levels of force but if you are set on ANY particular way of doing things THAT is what is “dead” training to me. “Live” training, in my world, does not have to do with how hard you hit the pads or how “fully resisting” your opponent is. It is a question of wether or not you are really dealing with a lving, breathing, ever changing, actually acting and reacting human being.

So I “punch” is “a block”? Get rid of the labels. He punches at me and I throw my arm up to stop it form hitting me. I don’t use a block. I use my arm. If your throwing out techniques like a robot then you are not being creative human being. We learn a few rules of thumb about human motion and are given some good examples of how things CAN pan out but learning techniques is really an entry level kind of training.