Everyone has their own opinions on why there should be more or less forms taught in a curriculum, but putting that aside I am curious:
Three part question: How many forms do you teach in your curriculum? What are they? Why these particular forms, ie what do they bring to your table?
forms
Although My Master, the Grandmaster Tony Yang knows over a hundred.
He teaches that you must (as a teacher) only teach the student what is needed to accomplish the goal of the student.
For a bodyguard, or a police officer/agent, i would teach a combination form such as this, http://youtube.com/watch?v=KZS3GfkwZWY
THis form combines Baji, Praying Mantis, and Bagua basics all to accomplish the goal of extreme modern effectiveness.
For a San Da fighter, i would only teach some of the 8 essentials (roads)
the ones that would not get you disqualified.
Sum up? Teach to the needs of the student, and to compliment the body and flavor of each student
I like the Traditional way
I’d say- as a student- learn as many forms as you can find- as a teacher- teach as many forms as you know.
I don’t think there’s really a good way to “teach mantis in three easy steps” so to speak. It should be a lifelong learning process- even if you’re teaching.
I don’t think there’s really a good way to quantify a this many forms means that type of structure in Mantis like there is in other styles of martial arts. That’s why it’s really difficult to create a belt or level system in mantis or other TCMAs. Some people can be really good fighters with a couple of forms- or no forms training whatsoever.
So I guess my take on it is to keep on keeping on and realize that there’s no end. So stop trying to create one.
Mighty B…back in the old days I used to think the way you do. Get as many forms as possible…I have learned ALOT of forms in my time. I was entertaining and I had great fun learning them…to me it was worth it. But, they did not make me a better fighter. The old saying is that Having alot of forms is like having alot of debt.
As a teacher I can see the value in teaching forms to keep the students interested and keep them coming to class while you focus on the more important aspects of the training. If I have a student who is not interested in forms …I dont teach them.
I have spent many hours speaking with sifu Hui about this subject over the past four years or so. As we all know you dont need forms to learn to fight in the way a particular style may fight. If you do teach forms they should directly correlate with the fighting theory, Sau Fa and drills taught in your curriculum. You should be able to explain why you teach your drills and sau fa and how they fit with the forms you are teaching. If you are looking for a school you should find a teacher who can tell you why they are teaching specific things in a certain order and where will it take you. My favorite phrase from Sifu Hui is “what story are you trying to tell”?
When your students fight you should be able to recognize what they are doing as a direct result of the techniques you are teaching them. Even if they are wearing gloves..you still should be able to recognize your fighting style. For example my students have been pulling off some fantastic throws and take downs that come straight out of the my curriculum…which includes some mantis and grappling. Its a great feeling to see it all take place.
If you are passing on a style as a martial “art” then you should learn and pass down all of the forms.
[QUOTE=CeruleanRyuujin;869967]Everyone has their own opinions on why there should be more or less forms taught in a curriculum, but putting that aside I am curious:
Three part question: How many forms do you teach in your curriculum? What are they? Why these particular forms, ie what do they bring to your table?[/QUOTE]
The point is that there aren’t any shortcuts. If you are mantis, you claim to be mantis, and you’re passing on mantis- then you are required to learn all that there is to know, and— if you are passing on the mantis lineage- then you are required to pass on all that you know.
I didn’t make the rules- but a chicken isn’t a duck— so don’t call it mantis if it ain’t mantis.
I have heard many CMA practicioners over the years justify the high number of forms in their curriculum by saying “It takes longer to learn to fight in CMA, but when they do learn they are at a higher level than other MA”
I used to quote this, especially when asked to explain the differences between two styles I teach, Kajukenbo and Mantis boxing. What I have realized over the years is that in my experiences this is simply not true.
I know a ton of forms and the number has not made me a better fighter. In fact I would say that the distraction of so many forms has caused me to rely on my Kajukenbo or MMA for my fighting and mantis as more of an art.
A few years ago this started to irk me, so I changed the way I taught Mantis. I used to teach it as I was taught, Good Basics, then Forms, then Applications…basically everything came from the forms.
I now teach it the way I learned and teach Kajukenbo. Basics, then fight theory, then forms and application.
The change in my mantis students (and my own ability) has been huge! Instead of trying to pull application and fight theory from a form, they learned it first and applied it to learning the form for solo practice. Their self defense, fighting, and even their forms have all gotten better.
So I guess it comes down to the old which came first the chicken or the egg… or in our case the form or the theory behind it. I believe in the theory came first and that the forms are simply an expression of it, or rather a tool to learn from, not the core that all of CMA comes from.
But just my 2 cents… I know many people who would swear up and down that the form is the most important aspect of CMA.
P.S: Before someone jumps the gun, I am not advocating formlessness (I think forms are the signature tool for learning CMA, kind of like shadow boxing for boxers) but rather the training order…
I look at it as anyone can shadow box (do a form) and know the movements/applicationgs, but can they fight with it? The same is true with boxing, anyone can throw punches at a bag, if however you show a boxer some combos and proper technique/theory, the shadow boxing will be more beneficial. The same is how I see teaching basics and theory before forms/their supposed application.
[QUOTE=CeruleanRyuujin;869967]Everyone has their own opinions on why there should be more or less forms taught in a curriculum, but putting that aside I am curious:
Three part question: How many forms do you teach in your curriculum? What are they? Why these particular forms, ie what do they bring to your table?[/QUOTE]
I guess this thread changed a bit from what i intended… but still a good discussion! 
something thats been occupying my mind lately…
[QUOTE=MightyB;871636]I’d say- as a student- learn as many forms as you can find- as a teacher- teach as many forms as you know.
I don’t think there’s really a good way to “teach mantis in three easy steps” so to speak. It should be a lifelong learning process- even if you’re teaching.
I don’t think there’s really a good way to quantify a this many forms means that type of structure in Mantis like there is in other styles of martial arts. That’s why it’s really difficult to create a belt or level system in mantis or other TCMAs. Some people can be really good fighters with a couple of forms- or no forms training whatsoever.
So I guess my take on it is to keep on keeping on and realize that there’s no end. So stop trying to create one.[/QUOTE]
I agree more or less, but as a student i don’t think its important to learn so many forms. I believe teachers should have a big base to draw from and be able to teach students different forms to address everyones needs, but as a student you really don’t need many. Because I want to teach I am learning a lot of forms right now, but if I wasn’t I think I would just learn 2. Granted I’m not mantis.
CeruleanRyuujin; It seems to me that there have been two distinct “arts” passed down through good lineages, one; the forms the tradition, and two; the individual teacher’s fighting experience and knowledge. The two enrich each other and with correct training they are intertwined, but as much as many CMA’s would love to believe they are not one and the same. Not everything can be drawn blind from forms, you need to keep fighting. I don’t know when it became a bad thing to teach techniques or strategy born from combat experience that may or may not be found in your “system”. It becomes part of your system, thats how arts evolve.
After all, thats all forms are, some dudes exceptional understanding of fighting. Each generation should enrich that with their own, and certainly not turn it into something sacred and perfect.
Just my two cents as a beginner
I find the main argument for changing the curriculem usually is that a person wants to be a sifu too early in their martial arts career and that they often put unrealistic expectations on learning all of the forms in a limited time span.
It’s true that you don’t need forms to fight- I never said you did-
I also agree that you don’t need to know the whole forms curriculem to begin teaching as long as you have a good master to help you to finish the system and help you to grow through the teaching process.
We could say an arbitrary number like you need these three forms as a base before I teach fighting applications and make a good case for what those forms are, but, really- if you can get out of the quantity of forms equals rank mindset- and you don’t put unrealistic expectations on learning a certain number of forms in a limited amount of time- then you have really an unlimited capacity for how many forms you can learn and practice.
Using that as a hypothesis- we know or at least have a really good idea what the generally accepted Mantis master’s curriculem for forms is- it’s published and shared- so who are we to change that?