[QUOTE=Graham H;1077747]In my lineage everything is a precursor to sparring. Sparring with the hands, with the long pole and with the knives. This is very important!!! Without it you have a system that cannot function under pressure. Prove me otherwise!!![/QUOTE]
Yes, I practised like that too although we always refer to sparring as an ‘interaction’. Set by set in the early days and more freestyle as you gain confidence. We ‘sparred’ one against two with the pole until someone had their eyelid torn out and we realized there must be a ‘safer’ alternative.
You should put up some of this weaponry sparring for us to see what you mean. I think you’re a bit keen to come across as a competent fighter when actually you’re just playing around with sticks. Correct me if I’m wrong.
[QUOTE=LoneTiger108;1077744]
Just a difference of opinion between me and Yung Chun, who seems to approach his training with mainly sparring in mind. [/QUOTE]
Like anything else it should be about function and functionality…
This like saying so and so approaches his ping pong training with playing in mind. Yes that’s what you do if you want to be good at ping pong, you focus on playing ping pong.
Instead of the theory of ping pong, the form of ping pong how great so and so’s ping pong teacher was; how rarefied one’s training of ping pong is; how powerful one’s ping pong terms are; the best ping pong drills; how many years you should drill ping pong before actually playing it; what you would do if you actually had to play ping pong, etc..
[QUOTE=chusauli;1077904]That’s why I say, “Let function rule over form” and “Let application be your guide”.
I think its assbackwards when you learn a form and try to “interpret” it. Forms come from application, not vice versa.[/QUOTE]
I would need to disagree with this in part: The form should provide the guide or reference for the application. While the application needs to be present, you need a starting point or frame of reference for that application. This reference is found in the form. Much like each writen language has to have a common reference of letters with which to form words. While one needs the words, the alphabet and rules of grammer are necessary in order for the individual letters to be combined in an understandable format to form words, sentences and paragraphs. Our techniques are like the alphabet and our forms are like the sentences and paragraphs which allow them to make sense and be useful and understanable to others, imho.
I think that as one explores the forms and begins to understand them on a deeper level than one will be able to dsicover new and different applications. Also once one truly understands the form then one can go outside of the box, much like some writers can ignore the rules of grammer and yet compose a bestseller. They are still using the same letters, but have made the expression their own.
[QUOTE=Sihing73;1077949]I would need to disagree with this in part: The form should provide the guide or reference for the application. While the application needs to be present, you need a starting point or frame of reference for that application. This reference is found in the form. Much like each writen language has to have a common reference of letters with which to form words. While one needs the words, the alphabet and rules of grammer are necessary in order for the individual letters to be combined in an understandable format to form words, sentences and paragraphs. Our techniques are like the alphabet and our forms are like the sentences and paragraphs which allow them to make sense and be useful and understanable to others, imho.
I think that as one explores the forms and begins to understand them on a deeper level than one will be able to dsicover new and different applications. Also once one truly understands the form then one can go outside of the box, much like some writers can ignore the rules of grammer and yet compose a bestseller. They are still using the same letters, but have made the expression their own.[/QUOTE]
Not bad for an ex-cop from Philly.
I posted this clip before and someone said that we should try that at a boxing gym. Well, it is in a boxing gym with a former amateur boxer/WC Sifu throwing the punches. There’s also a PROFESSIONAL boxer in the background coaching so we keep it real. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v4dzwaBeKxs&feature=related
Notice I teach not to chase hands.
Originally Posted by chusauli
That’s why I say, “Let function rule over form” and “Let application be your guide”.
I think its assbackwards when you learn a form and try to “interpret” it. Forms come from application, not vice versa.
[QUOTE=Sihing73;1077949]I would need to disagree with this in part: The form should provide the guide or reference for the application. While the application needs to be present, you need a starting point or frame of reference for that application. This reference is found in the form. Much like each writen language has to have a common reference of letters with which to form words. While one needs the words, the alphabet and rules of grammer are necessary in order for the individual letters to be combined in an understandable format to form words, sentences and paragraphs. Our techniques are like the alphabet and our forms are like the sentences and paragraphs which allow them to make sense and be useful and understanable to others, imho.
I think that as one explores the forms and begins to understand them on a deeper level than one will be able to dsicover new and different applications. Also once one truly understands the form then one can go outside of the box, much like some writers can ignore the rules of grammer and yet compose a bestseller. They are still using the same letters, but have made the expression their own.[/QUOTE]
I agree with this entirely. You learn the forms and then you try to interpret what’s in the form through application. But forms don’t come from application. That assumes that you already know what to apply, and then you make a form out of it. Now that’s what I would call assbackwards. How could you already know? You learn the form first, you’ve probably been given some idea or explanation of how to apply what’s in the form, but then it’s up to you to try and apply what’s in the form and see for yourself what works based upon what happens.
Just about everyone says about the forms and dummy something like “you hardly use any of this the way it looks like you do.” Some of the sequences in the forms make no sense from an application POV and if taken literally (if that’s the right word) arguably violate other WC principles. And most people do SLT in a stance they say they would never use in a fight.
If WC forms came from application, IMO someone was smoking too much locoweed at the time.
IMO the best advice I was given about forms is they give you a vocabulary of techniques for solo practice. Don’t try to read too much more into them than that.
We could discuss (yet again) whether forms have any value or not, but it appears some have felt the mention of the deadly cross kick side kick quan sao knee annihilator combo has “scared off the MMA crowd” or put them all in a trance of introspective crisis, and I wouldn’t want to spoil that illusion .. :rolleyes:
We have gone over issues related to the importance of forms many times before. Not likely to change many minds by debating.
Forms over time can add layers of skills- one upon another. Of course endless varieties of applications can be operationally discovered in the forms.
In application against objects or persons motions wont exactly look like their origins in the forms, because you are adjusting the motions to the structures and timings of the person(s) you face.
Forms. applications and experience are all important in learning wing chun IMO- though wing chun
is not the only game that is possible.
[QUOTE=chusauli;1077904]That’s why I say, “Let function rule over form” and “Let application be your guide”.
I think its assbackwards when you learn a form and try to “interpret” it. Forms come from application, not vice versa.[/QUOTE]
I would agree with this in regards to other TCMA or Shaolin based forms, but not with Wing Chun imho.
I also speak and see a lot of teachers out there who use this motto “let function rule over form” & “let application be your guide” and can understand that in the right contaxt ie. you have already mastered your art and are now pursuing a competitive approach to training. But these terms again should not apply to Wing Chun, as we are not JKD or MMA.
Every form (of the commonly seen 3) is very specific in its intention and purpose. They assist us to build the foundation to our expression. Unlike the SaapYeeSik or Sansau approach many Sifu prefer to use.
And this thread really was intended for such ‘technique’ based discussion no? So let’s see some names at least of common Wing Chun techniques instead of discussing the purpose of forms
Looking at the 108, Tan Da is repeated a few times, along with gaan, jut, tok, jum and toi sau so these should be common among us all imho.
[QUOTE=anerlich;1077970]We could discuss (yet again) whether forms have any value or not, but it appears some have felt the mention of the deadly cross kick side kick quan sao knee annihilator combo has “scared off the MMA crowd” or put them all in a trance of introspective crisis, and I wouldn’t want to spoil that illusion .. :rolleyes:[/QUOTE]
Not my intention at all. Spoil all you like! I just added to a simple combo that works in any environment, like many more basic Wing Chun techniques imho. So then please share your favourites…
[QUOTE=Phil Redmond;1077960]I posted this clip before and someone said that we should try that at a boxing gym. Well, it is in a boxing gym with a former amateur boxer/WC Sifu throwing the punches. There’s also a PROFESSIONAL boxer in the background coaching so we keep it real. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v4dzwaBeKxs&feature=related
Notice I teach not to chase hands. ;)[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Sihing73;1077949]I would need to disagree with this in part: The form should provide the guide or reference for the application. While the application needs to be present, you need a starting point or frame of reference for that application. This reference is found in the form. Much like each writen language has to have a common reference of letters with which to form words.
[/QUOTE]
Yes that’s right forms are like the alphabet…
[QUOTE=Sihing73;1077949]
I think that as one explores the forms and begins to understand them on a deeper level than one will be able to dsicover new and different applications. [/QUOTE]
But this is backwards for the same reason why skilled authors don’t study the alphabet or grammar “more deeply” to learn how to write better books, they write and read to learn how to write better.
Just like one doesn’t study ping pong form to get a deeper understanding of ping pong one plays ping pong to do that.
