Does SLT have any practical use without the other two if you never have a chance to learn any more?
No practical use at all
not likely
YM Siu Nim Tao - no.
HFY Siu Nim Tao - yes.
The first form learned for many of the southern systems is typically consider to be the “beginning and the end” of the system…Siu Nim Tao in Wing Chun, Som Bo Gin in Southern Mantis, Jik Bo in Pak Mei. This is because they contain the fundamentals for the system. They are the beginning because they teach the newbie the basic motions and concepts of the system. But they are also the “end” because as one matures in the system on begins to see the deeper layers within the forms. So my answer is “yes.” If someone only learned SNT along with the proper footwork, they could do pretty well without learning Chum Kiu or Biu Gee. They may be limited in how far they could go with it, but I still think it would have practical use.
[QUOTE=KungFubar;1234927]Does SLT have any practical use without the other two if you never have a chance to learn any more?[/QUOTE]
Sure, i know plenty of guys that concentrate on SLT and go fine
Agree with KPM and Glenn.
agree with glenn, KPM and Eric 
If all you did was the SLT form in YGKYM, then no.
If you only did SLT and not CK or BJ, but practised footwork, kicking, bagwork, partner drilling including chi sao, etc. like most MA students do, then yes.
[QUOTE=KungFubar;1234927]Does SLT have any practical use without the other two if you never have a chance to learn any more?[/QUOTE]
SLT alone is like being taken to a gun firing range and told to stand facing a target that won’t shoot back and then given a gun without bullets.
You can stand facing and practicing alignment of each arm alone but you won’t have the ability to add movement when someone is shooting back and you won’t have any power generation from a basic stance without pivoting hips or adding motion into the dynamics.
In slt the actions aren’t complete and many are abstractly presented in symmetrical drilling mode to focus on elbow positions.
Without chi sao you won’t develop force from structured counter structure exchanges.
Likening you to a gun in a drunks hands, dangerous if he can stay on target but not likely if you just move randomly ; )
[QUOTE=JPinAZ;1235025]agree with glenn, KPM and Eric :D[/QUOTE]
this…
[QUOTE=anerlich;1235047]If all you did was the SLT form in YGKYM, then no.
If you only did SLT and not CK or BJ, but practised footwork, kicking, bagwork, partner drilling including chi sao, etc. like most MA students do, then yes.[/QUOTE]
what is YGKYM?
[QUOTE=KungFubar;1234927]Does SLT have any practical use without the other two if you never have a chance to learn any more?[/QUOTE]
Definately 100% NO!
[QUOTE=anerlich;1235047]If all you did was the SLT form in YGKYM, then no.
If you only did SLT and not CK or BJ, but practised footwork, kicking, bagwork, partner drilling including chi sao, etc. like most MA students do, then yes.[/QUOTE]
Thanks for that Andrew, id agree with the additional stuff without the other two forms
[QUOTE=Graham H;1235112]Definately 100% NO![/QUOTE]
Ummmmmmmm… no
[QUOTE=KungFubar;1234927]Does SLT have any practical use without the other two if you never have a chance to learn any more?[/QUOTE]
From what I generally see, and if your approach is just to copy a form and repeat over and over then no, SLT will not be of any practcal use at all.
But if you are taught SLT well, and encouraged to practice it thoroughly, then it will include taking it through it’s paces and covering elements of training already mentioned here. And yes, it will serve you for the rest of your Martial Art life…
Just to offer a different perspective. I know that today there is an established sequence that most people use because that is how most were taught of snt then ck then dummy then bj and that you learn form first then drills then application. But I wonder if this is really how things were done always. I have heard that teaching was usually much more piecemeal and unstructured where you learned movements or techniques first for example stepping with punching and only later learned forms. This is how I was taught. So my perspective is not that the snt is the first form since we learn that form first first but because that form is concerned with dominating the centerline which is plan a or what we try to do first. The ck is the second form not because of the learning sequence but because it is concerned with changing and breaking the centerline which is plan b or what we do if we cannot dominate it. The bj is third because that is plan c of what we do when we cannot dominate or change or break the centerline.
[QUOTE=GlennR;1235120]Ummmmmmmm… no[/QUOTE]
Yes I agree. No.
So what do you think will work in an actual fight from SLT then peeps? That question is open to everyone.
This should be good.
Someone wrote that ( I paraphrase ) SLT plus footwork can be effective even if u dont learn CK or BJ. What does that mean? Chum kiu and biu gee contain the footwork. What footwork would one be learning if not chum kiu or biu gee? So to me the answer is no. Its not VT without CK or BG. Maybe u would be learning to fight but it would be a wholly different style from VT.