# Adam Chan - Are forms useless?



## TMA17 (Oct 2, 2017)

Probably not new to the experienced guys on here but to me it was.  He makes a lot of sense.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Oct 2, 2017)

I am Mr. Spontaneous Form, at work; so, I will have to disagree.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Oct 2, 2017)

Do you care which MA style and which form contain the "jab, cross" combo?

I don't like his approach that he tries to map an application to a move in a form such as the Taiji "blush knee". The reason is simple. If an application works in combat, you don't need to trace back to where it may come from.

There are many 2 moves combo that make perfect logic sense such as:

- jab, cross.
- groin kick, face punch.
- roundhouse kick, side kick.
- side kick, back kick.
- elbow lock, shoulder lock.
- shoulder lock, elbow lock.
- leg lift, leg break.
- single leg, hand block.
- ...

IMO, it makes sense to collect all those logical 2 moves combo in a form (for recording purpose). As far as which MA style and which form may contain those combo, you may not care about it.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Oct 2, 2017)

TMA17 said:


> Probably not new to the experienced guys on here but to me it was.  He makes a lot of sense.


This is how it works for me as well.  In the context of when my application feels similar to something I do in the form. The only difference is that I don't to a technique and then figure out what it feels like from the form.  I'm more likely to do a technique because it feels like the form.

The only time when this isn't true is when the form doesn't have a fight application.  Not all forms are made with fight applications in mind.  This is especially true for performance martial arts like TKD tricking. There have been multiple times where I was able to pull off a technique on the first try simply because it felt like the form so I just continued the movement and it worked.  Keep in mind this is not the norm.  The norm is that it helps teach the mechanics that you'll need when the time comes to apply.  It's like training a baseball swing vs actually trying to hit a ball.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Oct 2, 2017)

JowGaWolf said:


> Not all forms are made with fight applications in mind.


You can create forms with application in mind. The interest question is after you have created such forms,

- Do you still want to train your original form? or
- Do you just discard your original forms and train your own created forms?

Here is a "new created form" with fighting application in mind.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Oct 2, 2017)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> If an application works in combat, you don't need to trace back to where it may come from.


I agree.   I understood what he was trying to communicate only because I've personally experienced what he's talking about.  Not sure about his Tai Chi connection.  I tested the Tai Chi movement "brush knee" and it didn't feel the same as what is done in the Tai Chi.  The hands felt similar but not the root. 

In the context of Tai Chi, forming this position felt more like the take down counter that he was demonstrating.   It comes during the transition of the last Sparrow Grasps Tail in Yang 24







It comes during the transition into the second Grasp Sparrow Tail in Yang style 24 at 2:30  It's not the actual Grasp Sparrow's Tail technique, it's the transition that comes before it.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Oct 3, 2017)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> You can create forms with application in mind. The interest question is after you have created such forms,
> 
> - Do you still want to train your original form? or
> - Do you just discard your original forms and train your own created forms?
> ...


It wouldn't be a question for me.  I'm not an "Either or" type of person.  If I can do both then I'll do both.  I would train the original and the new.  I've been thinking of turning my staff form into an empty hand form and adding my BJJ defense stance into one of my existing forms.  Both will both be my own private form


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Oct 3, 2017)

It seems to me that sometime people may afraid to say, "I know how to do this. But I don't know where it may come from."

I find a roundhouse kick followed by a side kick can be very good combo to close in the distance. I just can't think of which MA style and which form may contain that combo.

People may say, "You made that up." So what? Who care?


----------



## KPM (Oct 3, 2017)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> You can create forms with application in mind. The interest question is after you have created such forms,
> 
> - Do you still want to train your original form? or
> - Do you just discard your original forms and train your own created forms?
> ...



The form gives you something "formal" to practice.  And the original forms often contain elements we haven't yet recognized as useful.  So no, I would not discard the original forms.  In working on "Wing Chun Boxing" I have created my own drills or San Sik to teach basic elements.  But I haven't gotten rid of my Pin Sun San SIk.  The Pin Sun San Sik are short with only 3 or 4 moves each.  But they are not necessarily meant to be done exactly as they are in the form.  Moving in one direction may be one concept or application, then the movement in the other direction may be a different concept or application.  The first movement is an application on its own, and it positions your arms/hands so that they are set up for the next application.  You would not necessarily do those movements in that combination together.  But they make a very flowing drill that also teaches a certain body mechanic or footwork pattern when done together.  There is often also a hidden Kum Na application in the San Sik if you know what to look for.  So if you discard the San Sik just because you think you have it figured out, then you might be missing something else that you would figure out later! 

 I also agree with Adam Chan in the video in the OP, as well as his "part 1" video that preceded that one.  As I am working on a version of "Wing Chun Boxing" I have found it very useful to go back to each of my Pin Sun Wing Chun San Sik and analyze them for the concepts and movements they are teaching, and then work on how they would apply from a Boxing structure/mechanic.  This has worked out very well!  And after working on the Boxing element for awhile, I go back and practice my Pin Sun sometimes with a little different insight into the system.  Just the other day I had a nice "Ah Ha!" moment when it dawned on me I was missing a key strategic element from Pin Sun that I wasn't explicitly taught, but that occurred to me after working on "Wing Chun Boxing."


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 3, 2017)

I can think of only one good reason to track an application back to a form, and that's from a teaching perspective. If I can identify a similar movement, weight shift, transition, etc. from a form, I can use that to help teach the application to students.

Of course, that doesn't mean I can't teach those that don't track back to a form - it's just a tool in my toolbox for students who struggle.


----------



## Danny T (Oct 3, 2017)

When learning form is important after just be you.
Forms are a way to have the major structures, footwork, body movements, positions etc. cataloged. 
Forms can also be utilized as a means to have a routine for practicing said movements.
Can one learn an art like wing chun without the forms...sure but one would not have the knowledge of the complete training method. Importance is on the person's reason for learning.
Said reason may change as the person journeys through the art.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 3, 2017)

Danny T said:


> When learning form is important after just be you.
> Forms are a way to have the major structures, footwork, body movements, positions etc. cataloged.
> Forms can also be utilized as a means to have a routine for practicing said movements.
> Can one learn an art like wing chun without the forms...sure but one would not have the knowledge of the complete training method. Importance is on the person's reason for learning.
> Said reason may change as the person journeys through the art.


(I'm not sure what that first sentence was supposed to say, by the way, Danny.)

I would even argue that someone could teach WC without any of the forms, using all the same tools, and probably maintain WC as it is. The forms are a tool for communicating the art, and probably maintain some consistency (which has both positive and negative effects) over generations. They are not, IMO, an inseparable part of any art. The best instructors will vary their focus on the forms by the students' needs. One student might learn reasonably well without them, so be required only to learn them to sufficient competency to continue within the system. Another student might need more repetition time to develop smooth movement, so might be given more focus on forms, more encouragement to practice them on their own, etc.


----------



## Danny T (Oct 3, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> (I'm not sure what that first sentence was supposed to say, by the way, Danny.)
> 
> I would even argue that someone could teach WC without any of the forms, using all the same tools, and probably maintain WC as it is. The forms are a tool for communicating the art, and probably maintain some consistency (which has both positive and negative effects) over generations. They are not, IMO, an inseparable part of any art. The best instructors will vary their focus on the forms by the students' needs. One student might learn reasonably well without them, so be required only to learn them to sufficient competency to continue within the system. Another student might need more repetition time to develop smooth movement, so might be given more focus on forms, more encouragement to practice them on their own, etc.


When learning something like wc...the practitioners form is important. The way the person stands, how they position themselves, their structure...their form is important. Once learned don't worry about it just be you.


----------



## Danny T (Oct 3, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> I would even argue that someone could teach WC without any of the forms, using all the same tools, and probably maintain WC as it is. The forms are a tool for communicating the art, and probably maintain some consistency (which has both positive and negative effects) over generations.


Yep.



gpseymour said:


> They are not, IMO, an inseparable part of any art. The best instructors will vary their focus on the forms by the students' needs. One student might learn reasonably well without them, so be required only to learn them to sufficient competency to continue within the system. Another student might need more repetition time to develop smooth movement, so might be given more focus on forms, more encouragement to practice them on their own, etc.


But the forms are inseparable as to being the historical pedagogy of the system. Hence, one would not have the knowledge of the complete training method. 

That doesn't mean they would not be a good instructor.


----------



## Flying Crane (Oct 3, 2017)

If you think forms are useless, then for you, forms are useless.

If you have already made up your mind about it, there is no point in discussing it further.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 3, 2017)

Danny T said:


> When learning something like wc...the practitioners form is important. The way the person stands, how they position themselves, their structure...their form is important. Once learned don't worry about it just be you.


Ah! Yes. Here we run into the two ways "form" is used in this context. One is referring to structure and stance (this instance), and the other is a series of "recorded" movements. Your comment, IMO, is apropos of both. In initial learning, learning the "right" way is usually more efficient (rather than the instructor having to evaluate each person's individual method to figure out if there are important flaws). Once competency is developed, variations are easier to evaluate (does it make it harder for them to be successful than similarly competent peers), and can be more useful to the individual.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Oct 3, 2017)

Danny T said:


> When learning something like wc...the practitioners form is important. The way the person stands, how they position themselves, their structure...their form is important. Once learned don't worry about it just be you.


If a form contains "basic training" and "combat training". After you have mastered the "basic", do you just concentrate on the "combat" after that?


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Oct 3, 2017)

KPM said:


> the original forms often contain elements we haven't yet recognized as useful.


The question is how many more years are you going to spend to continue digging out those element?

MA training should have different stages. After you have finished one stage, you go to the next stage, and move on. Going through the elementary school 6 times won't earn you a PhD degree.

IMO, the MA PhD level training is "strategy". Your forms may contain some strategies. But it won't contain all strategies.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 3, 2017)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> The question is how many more years are you going to spend to continue digging out those element?
> 
> MA training should have different stages. After you have finished one stage, you go to the next stage, and move on. Going through the elementary school 6 times won't earn you a PhD degree.
> 
> IMO, the MA PhD level training is "strategy". Your forms may contain some strategies. But it won't contain all strategies.


I don't think it's really an issue of someone at PhD level going back to elementary school. It's possible to go back to a form a few years later and look for something new to learn from it. You probably can't do that with the reading primer from early grade school (unless, of course, you're trying to learn how to teach kids to read, but that's another matter, entirely).


----------



## Danny T (Oct 3, 2017)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> If a form contains "basic training" and "combat training". After you have mastered the "basic", do you just concentrate on the "combat" after that?


..._the practitioner's form is important. The way the person stands, how they position themselves, their structure...their form is important. Once learned don't worry about it just be you._
I was talking about the individual's form. How the individual stands, how the position themselves...etc. Their actual physical form. 
I was not talking about a particular martial art Form, the set of movements.

As to a Form (the set of movements type) in my training the forms I have studied were not fighting forms. There were the catalog of the major movements and positions as I already stated. In my training and in my experience with physical combat, fighting is unpredictable and doesn't follow a script.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Oct 3, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> I don't think it's really an issue of someone at PhD level going back to elementary school. It's possible to go back to a form a few years later and look for something new to learn from it. You probably can't do that with the reading primer from early grade school (unless, of course, you're trying to learn how to teach kids to read, but that's another matter, entirely).


PhD parents still have trouble with elementary basics simply because they do not train or keep up the basics.   It's no different than professional athletes who play at a high level but still goof on some of the basics.   PhD just means that a person is specialized in a particular area.  Basics builds the foundation and like everything else in the world, basics change. 

Here's a perfect real world example.   Typing skills was not considered basics 40 years ago.  Now it's a Basic.  People who are older often have difficulty typing  where as for younger people it's almost natural.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Oct 3, 2017)

Danny T said:


> fighting is unpredictable and doesn't follow a script.


Fighting does follow certain patterns, For example,

- kick low, punch high.
- attack left, attack right.
- push, pull.
- drop guard to invite punch.
- raise guard to invite kick.
- circle toward your opponent's blind side.
- force your opponent's leading arm to jam his own back arm.
- use kick to counter punch.
- attack leading leg, attack back leg.
- ...

Here is an example that you attack the leading leg, attack the back leg, and then attack the leading leg again. As far as I know, this strategy does not exist in any form that I know.


----------



## KPM (Oct 3, 2017)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> MA training should have different stages. After you have finished one stage, you go to the next stage, and move on. Going through the elementary school 6 times won't earn you a PhD degree.
> .



I disagree.  I think studying a martial art is "circular."  Absolutely you move from one stage to another and advance in skill.  But at some point you end up circling back around to the foundational and fundamental stage again to refine it and make it that much better.  Just because you have "mastered" a stage doesn't mean you abandon what that stage taught.  You  build upon it.   Just because someone has completed the entire Wing Chun curriculum, doesn't mean they won't go back and work on their SNT fundamentals again.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 3, 2017)

JowGaWolf said:


> PhD parents still have trouble with elementary basics simply because they do not train or keep up the basics.   It's no different than professional athletes who play at a high level but still goof on some of the basics.   PhD just means that a person is specialized in a particular area.  Basics builds the foundation and like everything else in the world, basics change.
> 
> Here's a perfect real world example.   Typing skills was not considered basics 40 years ago.  Now it's a Basic.  People who are older often have difficulty typing  where as for younger people it's almost natural.


Agreed, but you won't find a PhD-level physicist who can't do basic math. They may struggle at some of the advanced math and still be good at the theoretical side, but they'd never make it to their PhD if they couldn't do basic math.


----------



## Danny T (Oct 3, 2017)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Fighting does follow certain patterns.


Ok. Yes.
High level fighting certainly does such as you listed but more for setting up the opponent.  



Kung Fu Wang said:


> Here is an example that you attack the leading leg, attack the back leg, and then attack the leading leg again. As far as I know, this strategy does not exist in any form that I know.


That is why drills are very important.


----------



## geezer (Oct 3, 2017)

KPM said:


> I disagree.  I think studying a martial art is "circular."



Thats very 2-dimensional. I think I'd prefer the analogy of _a spiral_. An _upward_ spiral, that is. So that each time you come around to "the basics" again, you will have a higher level of understanding.

Lately, I've been on a bit of a downward spiral. That's another thing altogether!


----------



## JowGaWolf (Oct 3, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> Agreed, but you won't find a PhD-level physicist who can't do basic math. They may struggle at some of the advanced math and still be good at the theoretical side, but they'd never make it to their PhD if they couldn't do basic math.


Depends on what is being considered basic math.  Basic Physics Math is not the same as my basic math.  We naturally forget things the less we use it so I don't see how that wouldn't apply to a PhD - level physicist.  A PHD - level physicist is not likely to forget everything but I bet they are just like everyone else.  Don't use it and you'll get rusty at the very least.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 3, 2017)

JowGaWolf said:


> Depends on what is being considered basic math.  Basic Physics Math is not the same as my basic math.  We naturally forget things the less we use it so I don't see how that wouldn't apply to a PhD - level physicist.  A PHD - level physicist is not likely to forget everything but I bet they are just like everyone else.  Don't use it and you'll get rusty at the very least.


Well, the analogy was elementary school. That's basic math, not basic Physics math.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Oct 3, 2017)

geezer said:


> Thats very 2-dimensional. I think I'd prefer the analogy of _a spiral_. An _upward_ spiral, that is. So that each time you come around to "the basics" again, you will have a higher level of understanding.
> 
> Lately, I've been on a bit of a downward spiral. That's another thing altogether!


This is a very good analogy.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Oct 3, 2017)

geezer said:


> Thats very 2-dimensional. I think I'd prefer the analogy of _a spiral_. An _upward_ spiral, that is. So that each time you come around to "the basics" again, you will have a higher level of understanding.
> 
> Lately, I've been on a bit of a downward spiral. That's another thing altogether!


 Just to let you know I will be taking this one lol.

Oh sorry hear your spiral is heading downward.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Oct 3, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> you won't find a PhD-level physicist who can't do basic math.


Agree! The

- quantum physics is different from the basic physics.
- differential equation is different from the high school algebra.
- ...

Should the advance MA be different from the elementary MA?

IMO

- basic MA is kick, punch, lock, throw, and ground skill.
- advance MA is how to do that integration.

Since most of the MA form are only on the kick and punch level, if you are interested in the integration, you should go beyond your form boundary.


----------



## Parky (Oct 5, 2017)

WC forms practice, at least the way I've been taught, is less about a collection of techniques, shapes, or applications and more about learning how to make the body one unit, practicing movements of the body with the least amount of tension within the movements, and how to incorporate the Center of Mass into movement, even if it's just isolated arm movements (SNT).

Certainly the forms are different things to different people and in my opinion there is no wrong or right, black or white way to practice the forms. However, I think what people perceive as applications in the forms would be better off to be considered 'possibilities'. Ultimately I think we want to develop power in our movement and we want that power to be generated with the least amount of strength and effort applied (or at least that's what I'm after). What external shape that movement takes is less important (to me).

Just another perspective. FWIW.


----------



## KPM (Oct 5, 2017)

*WC forms practice, at least the way I've been taught, is less about a collection of techniques, shapes, or applications and more about learning how to make the body one unit, practicing movements of the body with the least amount of tension within the movements, and how to incorporate the Center of Mass into movement, even if it's just isolated arm movements (SNT).*

---I agree.  The forms are teaching you the biomechanics of the system.  They are teaching "how to move" according to that style of martial art.

* Ultimately I think we want to develop power in our movement and we want that power to be generated with the least amount of strength and effort applied (or at least that's what I'm after). What external shape that movement takes is less important (to me).*

---Again I agree.   However, the question I have been asking for a long time now is this......,  if your forms are teaching the biomechanics of the system....how to move according to that system.....how to generate power efficiently according to that system.....then why wouldn't what you do in sparring/fighting look like the forms?   I'm not talking about specific techniques or sequences.  I'm talking about the structure and mechanics taught in the forms.  Why would we NOT expect someone doing Wing Chun in free-fighting or sparring to look like they are doing Wing Chun?  Too often I hear people (not you Parky) say something like.....in application Wing Chun won't look like Wing Chun....or under pressure Wing Chun won't look like Wing Chun.   And too often this is just an excuse for looking like crappy kickboxing when sparring!     So my honest question is this.....if you have learned the biomechanics of Wing Chun taught in the forms....Wing Chun structure....how to send and receive force in a "Wing Chun way"....wouldn't this be recognizable as Wing Chun when you are actually fighting/sparring?  And therefore, wouldn't it look a lot like what you are doing in your forms in general?  And if not, why not????? (general question, not directed specifically at Parky).


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 5, 2017)

KPM said:


> Why would we NOT expect someone doing Wing Chun in free-fighting or sparring to look like they are doing Wing Chun?


That depends upon what you decide WC "looks like". If the forms are what WC "looks like", that's one thing. If the application (using those principles and mechanics) are what WC "looks like", there is more likelihood a WC fighter will "look like" WC.

A simple example (which may or may not be accurate, since I don't know WC). The forms show an upright posture. There are reasons for that posture, from a mechanics/principles standpoint. But is that an absolute? Is there any reason most of the principles of WC can't be applied with a modified posture (something closer to a boxing guard, perhaps)? If not, application could sometimes use that different posture - and would look far less like the form. The same would apply with round punches (like a hook), which I don't recall seeing in WC forms. It doesn't look like the punches in the forms, but if it can be executed drawing on the principles of WC (or consistent with them), then there's no reason it's "not WC".

Does that make sense, KPM?


----------



## Parky (Oct 5, 2017)

---Again I agree.   However, the question I have been asking for a long time now is this......,  if your forms are teaching the biomechanics of the system....how to move according to that system.....how to generate power efficiently according to that system.....then why wouldn't what you do in sparring/fighting look like the forms?   I'm not talking about specific techniques or sequences.  I'm talking about the structure and mechanics taught in the forms.  Why would we NOT expect someone doing Wing Chun in free-fighting or sparring to look like they are doing Wing Chun?  Too often I hear people (not you Parky) say something like.....in application Wing Chun won't look like Wing Chun....or under pressure Wing Chun won't look like Wing Chun.   And too often this is just an excuse for looking like crappy kickboxing when sparring!     So my honest question is this.....if you have learned the biomechanics of Wing Chun taught in the forms....Wing Chun structure....how to send and receive force in a "Wing Chun way"....wouldn't this be recognizable as Wing Chun when you are actually fighting/sparring?  And therefore, wouldn't it look a lot like what you are doing in your forms in general?  And if not, why not????? (general question, not directed specifically at Parky).[/QUOTE]

One of my WC teachers from years ago, Marty, is a punching coach for an up and coming western boxer. He's been working with this young guy for a year or so teaching him to punch the wing chun way. Not with a vertical fist. Not with a centerline punch. But with using his Center of Mass to generate power. My understanding is that his coaching has been thus far 'fruitful'. One observer will watch this western boxer and say that it's obvious that he is using boxing technique. Outwardly, externally, that would be an accurate statement. It would also be accurate to say that he is using wing chun within his striking, when he uses his Center of Mass to strike. I think it depends on what is happening inside the body during movement that determines whether or not WC is being used. But that's my opinion based on my perspective of WC. I certainly understand looking for evidence of movements practiced in the forms, chisao, and sparring showing up in a fight. I think in application it may look like WC, or it may not. My teacher Marty would do the old pull downward and punch simultaneously trick. That's all he needed. You could not stop him from pulling you down because it was like trying to hold up his entire body weight with your one arm. When he punched from 3-5 inches he punched you with his Center of Mass, his entire body weight. When he did that it looked like WC. But he could do something that looked nothing like WC and give you the same disruptive result. It was because he had mastery of his Center of Mass. That's what I'm after in my personal practice is mastery of my Center. And that's what I look for when I watch a fight.

You mentioned the structure and biomechanics taught in the forms and why this often doesn't show up. I completely agree with you that we are training these things in the forms. But to me these are internal things not dependent on anything happening externally and therefore much harder to recognize and quantify.

Apologies if I misunderstood your comments. Again, just a different perspective, FWIW.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Oct 5, 2017)

Parky said:


> how to incorporate the Center of Mass into movement, even if it's just isolated arm movements (SNT).


The

1. incorporate the center of mass into movement - body push arm model,
2. isolated arm movements - body chase arm model,

contradict to each other.

Even in body chase arm model, the body should move after the arm and not just static as in the SNT form.


----------



## Parky (Oct 5, 2017)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> The
> 
> 1. incorporate the center of mass into movement - body push arm model,
> 2. isolated arm movements - body chase arm model,
> ...



Body push arm model sounds like 'Bracing Method'...which can certainly involve using the Center.

This is something different and the two are not contradictory.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Oct 5, 2017)

Parky said:


> Body push arm model sounds like 'Bracing Method'...which can certainly involve using the Center.
> 
> This is something different and the two are not contradictory.


There is a big difference between the

- front-wheel drive, and
- rear-wheel drive.

The four-wheel drive is something else.

So does SNT train front-wheel drive, rear-wheel drive, or four-wheel drive?


----------



## Parky (Oct 5, 2017)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> There is a big difference between the
> 
> - front-wheel drive, and
> - rear-wheel drive.
> ...



Sorry Mr. Wang, but I don't think of SNT training in those terms.


----------



## KPM (Oct 6, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> That depends upon what you decide WC "looks like". If the forms are what WC "looks like", that's one thing. If the application (using those principles and mechanics) are what WC "looks like", there is more likelihood a WC fighter will "look like" WC.



But again, that still begs the question!   If "using those principles and mechanics are what WC looks like".....and the mechanics are what is being taught in the forms....why wouldn't it look like Wing Chun and closely resemble what is happening in the forms?   How can one use the biomechanics of a specific martial art WITHOUT what you are doing looking like that martial art???


----------



## KPM (Oct 6, 2017)

Parky said:


> -
> 
> You mentioned the structure and biomechanics taught in the forms and why this often doesn't show up. I completely agree with you that we are training these things in the forms. But to me these are internal things not dependent on anything happening externally and therefore much harder to recognize and quantify.
> 
> .



What you say makes sense, but only to a  small extent.  Sure, if you are just talking about getting center of mass behind a punch, that is something that is subtle and can apply to many situations.  And it isn't limited to Wing Chun!  So that "internal" may not be apparent externally.  But there is far more to Wing Chun than that.  There is a biomechanic taught in the forms that includes how you step, how you align a punch, how you defend, etc.  So if I saw your teacher Marty sparring without knowing who he is, would I immediately think..."Hey!  That guy is doing Wing Chun!"....?


----------



## Parky (Oct 6, 2017)

KPM said:


> What you say makes sense, but only to a  small extent.  Sure, if you are just talking about getting center of mass behind a punch, that is something that is subtle and can apply to many situations.  And it isn't limited to Wing Chun!  So that "internal" may not be apparent externally.  But there is far more to Wing Chun than that.  There is a biomechanic taught in the forms that includes how you step, how you align a punch, how you defend, etc.  So if I saw your teacher Marty sparring without knowing who he is, would I immediately think..."Hey!  That guy is doing Wing Chun!"....?



Certainly there's more to WC than just what's going on inside the body. But (for me) the important stuff is what's happening inside because that's where it starts. When you have control of your Center it doesn't matter what is going on with your hands or feet. It doesn't matter what shape they take, or what they look like. I might argue that stepping and turning is about learning one aspect of using the Center and at some point you can get excellent power and results in a similar way without stepping and turning. Perhaps learning how to align a punch is an important part of development but at a later point it matters less. Your comment about Center use not being limited to Wing Chun is spot on. It's in a good golf swing, or swinging a baseball bat. It's in other sports and other MA. It's just that I learned it in WC. Please understand that by no means am I an expert at this stuff. I've only been playing around with it regularly for the last year, but it was initially introduced to me 12 years ago, and I just didn't fully realize the value of what I had been taught...well, frankly I didn't understand it except in terms of stepping and turning.

I'm afraid I'm in the camp that thinks at some level you might not see what appears to be WC in a fight. You might, but you might not. Regarding my teacher...he owned a bar years ago and got into a little altercation with a guy over the guy's ex-girlfriend. Heated words were exchanged and he ended up slapping the guy on the side of his face. The guy dropped to the floor in a heap, unconscious. I wasn't there but having experienced his power before I suspect what he did looked like the kind of slap to the side of someone's face you might see from anyone. It wasn't a palm strike, it was a slap. But I guarantee he was 'whole' and used his Center to hit that guy. It's just how he moved. So most observers would say he 'did not' use WC, but I would say he 'did' use WC. Different flavors for different folks. Just a couple more worthless cents. Have a great Friday...yay, I love Fridays!


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 6, 2017)

KPM said:


> But again, that still begs the question!   If "using those principles and mechanics are what WC looks like".....and the mechanics are what is being taught in the forms....why wouldn't it look like Wing Chun and closely resemble what is happening in the forms?   How can one use the biomechanics of a specific martial art WITHOUT what you are doing looking like that martial art???


That's back to the point of my post. There are multiple "looks" I can give you in a single technique - all applying the principles and mechanics of that technique, and varied only by my posture and angle. They'd look quite different, and only one of them is stored in the form for that technique (speaking to NGA now, as an example). So, if in a fight/sparring/whatever, I happen to use none of the versions that look like the forms, I won't "look like NGA" - if you are basing "looks like" on the forms. However, if you based "looks like" on the applications in drills, the forms are similar to some of the applications in those drills, and the applications in fighting/sparring are similar to those drills. The issue is that the drills/applications are in the middle. So if I use forms as the "looks like", it's entirely possible fighting won't look like NGA. If I use the drills as "looks like", then it will. It's perhaps (in my example, definitely) a matter of using an extreme or ideal (the forms) to identify what an art "looks like".


----------



## yak sao (Oct 6, 2017)

KPM said:


> But again, that still begs the question!   If "using those principles and mechanics are what WC looks like".....and the mechanics are what is being taught in the forms....why wouldn't it look like Wing Chun and closely resemble what is happening in the forms?   How can one use the biomechanics of a specific martial art WITHOUT what you are doing looking like that martial art???



I think this is an excellent question. What occurs to me is that when we perform bong sau or tan sau or any of the other structures, is that we are performing them to their fullest potential.
In a fighting situation my opponent quite possibly is not going to be giving me the type of force that I have experienced within my training with my WC brothers,
So my structures may not fully actualize. I will still disperse, I will still sink the elbow, my arms will still fold and bend as they do in training, but only enough to accomplish the task. Things are going to be happening so quickly that unless you were doing stop action photography you may not see what looks to be WC structure

Just my immediate thoughts on the question what are your ideas on it?


----------



## Parky (Oct 6, 2017)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Even in body chase arm model, the body should move after the arm and not just static as in the SNT form.



Body might look static in SNT, but it isn't. SNT isn't about just standing there moving the arms around in an isolated manner. That's part of it, but not all of it. At least not the way I've been taught. Cheers.


----------



## Parky (Oct 6, 2017)

yak sao said:


> I think this is an excellent question. What occurs to me is that when we perform bong sau or tan sau or any of the other structures, is that we are performing them to their fullest potential.
> In a fighting situation my opponent quite possibly is not going to be giving me the type of force that I have experienced within my training with my WC brothers,
> So my structures may not fully actualize. I will still disperse, I will still sink the elbow, my arms will still fold and bend as they do in training, but only enough to accomplish the task. Things are going to be happening so quickly that unless you were doing stop action photography you may not see what looks to be WC structure
> 
> Just my immediate thoughts on the question what are your ideas on it?



Yes. I know this wasn't directed at me, but I completely agree.


----------



## Danny T (Oct 6, 2017)

Parky said:


> Body might look static in SNT, but it isn't. SNT isn't about just standing there moving the arms around in an isolated manner.


Wish I could like this numerous times.
Moving the arms to the particular positions and structures are but half of what is happening in SNT in good wing chun. And why one cannot learn from videos.


----------



## yak sao (Oct 6, 2017)

SNT is taught first because on its surface it is the most simple of the forms to learn.
The beauty and genius of WC is how the first form ends up being the most advanced form.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Oct 6, 2017)

Parky said:


> Body might look static in SNT, but it isn't.


Is your body "static" or "not static" when you train SNT? You can't have both ways.

IMO, it's too abstract to say that:

- It looks static but it's not static.
- It looks straight but it's not straight.
- It looks bend but it's not bend.
- It looks slow but it's not slow.
- It looks soft but it's not soft.
- ...

For example,

His body is "static".






His body is "not static".








Danny T said:


> Moving the arms to the particular positions and structures are but half of what is happening in SNT in good wing chun.


When you are "moving your arm to the particular position", are you moving your body

1. at the same time (4-wheels drive),
2. afterward (front-wheel drive), or
3. before it (rear-wheel drive)?

1, 2, 3 are mutual exclusive.


----------



## Danny T (Oct 6, 2017)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Is your body "static" or not when you train SNT? You can't have both ways. IMO, it's too abstract to say that:
> 
> - It looks static but it's not static.
> - It looks straight but it's not straight.
> ...



No my body isn't static at all. When an part of the body moves there is a change in the center of gravity. If the body were static as the arm is moved forward and away from the body the body would pitch forward due to the change of the center of gravity. As a body part moves other parts of the body will adjust for those changes. 
All during SNT the center of gravity is being changed by the moving of the elbow and the arms away and towards the body, the diaphragm is moving causing the lungs to expand and contract again changing the center of gravity. SNT helps the practitioner feel those subtle changes. In Chum Kiu the body and arms are moved in coordination with each other. It is continued in the many drills used to develop the skills.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 6, 2017)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Is your body "static" or "not static" when you train SNT? You can't have both ways.
> 
> IMO, it's too abstract to say that:
> 
> ...


Static/not static is not entirely binary, unless we are using the physics definitions. If we use physics definitions, then the body in SNT is definitely not static. I know nothing about what they mean in those posts about it not being static, but small movements can look like "no movement".


----------



## Parky (Oct 6, 2017)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Is your body "static" or "not static" when you train SNT? You can't have both ways.
> 
> IMO, it's too abstract to say that:
> 
> ...



I'm sorry if it's too abstract. None the less there is internal movement happening within whilst outward appearances would seem to be contradictory.

It's like Yak Sao said. SNT is initially a beginner form but later becomes an advanced form. It's a really cool thing. In the beginning there is mostly standing and practicing isolated arm movements. There's also Tai Gong and tension release and head up-soft back training. But when one returns to the form at later stages something more is going on. The IDEA of wholeness and the IDEA of using the Center. I'm sure there are other things going on that I'm unaware of but I will say it again, SNT is more than just standing there moving the arms.

And like Danny T said, 'you can't learn WC from a video'. Because as he implied, you can't see what is happening inside the body.

Cheers, Mr Wang. Have a great weekend!


----------



## geezer (Oct 6, 2017)

http://accesschinese.com/images/Crack-Fortune-Cookie.png

"Forms are not useless, but usefulness_* is *_formless"


----------



## yak sao (Oct 6, 2017)

geezer said:


> http://accesschinese.com/images/Crack-Fortune-Cookie.png
> 
> "Forms are not useless, but usefulness_* is *_formless"



...in bed.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 7, 2017)

yak sao said:


> ...in bed.


One might argue quite the opposite....


----------



## JP3 (Oct 7, 2017)

I find that the use of forms, or kata, or poomse, or patterns or whatever the individual wants to call them is an important teaching tool, if for naught else but to reduce the time necessary to build muscle-memory and change reflex structures.

In our TKD/HKD, then later in my Judo/Tomiki Aikido pedagogical paradigm, forms are used to teach and enforce structure & movement principles, until those principles are internalized, i.e. made the default/reflex activity.  This is from the inside-out.  From the outside-in, watching the student perform the patterned movement, and knowing what it is "supposed" to be like, shows the practiced instructor where the student's ... present... weakness or weaknesses in principles may lie.

In other words, "Here kid, go do this basic form."

"Yo mean this thing where I just low block, reverse punch, then pivot 90 degrees, do the block & punch again, then turn again, combo again, turn again, and combo again and then I'm done?"

"Yep. That's it."

Grumbling, student goes off to do basic form 1, mumbling "I thought I was gonna learn to kick butt..."

Instructor watches body mechanics, asks student to do it again, noting small changes literally from the 1st rep to the 2nd of the pattern, then has him/her do it yet again...

Then offers up a change, to be inserted and corrected.

The above seems very natural to me from the above arts.  Let's just say that my Muay Thai time did not follow that paradigm.


----------



## geezer (Oct 7, 2017)

yak sao said:


> ...in bed.



Formless? ...you can take a pill for that.

...Actually, I was kinda serious in my earlier comment. _Form_ _is useful, and use is formless._ In use, i.e. _application, _you express concepts, structures, and kinetic linkages learned through the forms, but the outward form of your movement changes and adapts as necessary.

Ya know, _water is formless_. Didn't somebody involved in Wing Chun say something about _being like water?_ Or was that something I saw on_ Star Trek?





_


----------



## KPM (Oct 7, 2017)

geezer said:


> ...Actually, I was kinda serious in my earlier comment. _Form_ _is useful, and use is formless._ In use, i.e. _application, _you express concepts, structures, and kinetic linkages learned through the forms, but the outward form of your movement changes and adapts as necessary.


 
I agree.  But again, only to an extent.  Just what does "formless" really mean?  When you move you are still using biomechanics.  So are you using the same biomechanics from your forms or not?  We can talk abstractly about expressing concepts  and linkages, etc all day long.  But you are still moving and still using biomechanics of some sort.  Is it the biomechanics taught in your forms, or is it not?  And if it is the biomechanics taught in your forms....then why wouldn't we expect it to look like recognizable Wing Chun?

Now I realize that in a real exchange you aren't going to always be in a good position...you might stumble, you might get caught at an odd angle, or you might get rocked and loose your structure!  But within a couple of beats someone should be back on track again....in other words....snap right  back into their Wing Chun.  So at times it might not look like Wing Chun because it isn't Wing Chun!  But in a back and forth exchange of sparring or a real fight, those times should be minimal.  If nothing in the fight looks like Wing Chun, then there is a problem!

Now.....too bad Nobody Important (Dave) is not around for this discussion!  Because his premise in the past was that Wing Chun was a system that taught fine motor skills to be used to refine or add to another system's gross motor skills.  So....if this is really the case, then the sparring or fighting would look like the base system because it would be using those "gross skills".  The Wing Chun may only show up on occasion when some of the "fine" skills it teaches come into play!  I find this to be the  case with my Wing Chun Boxing!  Western Boxing is the base...the gross motor skill.  So basic sparring and fighting looks like boxing.  The Wing Chun is used to add refinements and specific useful applications.  So I have found that I HAVE been using Wing Chun in the way that Dave proposed it was intended to be used!    But we spend a lot of time training that "gross motor skill" from boxing.   For some Wing Chun guys that end up looking like crappy kickboxing when they spar it may be because they are  technically trying to use the same idea.....but they have never bothered to spend the time actually developing the "gross motor skill" that they end up using in their fighting!


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Oct 7, 2017)

KPM said:


> Just what does "formless" really mean?


The term formless can only be used in the striking art. It won't be able to use in the throwing art. In order to apply your "hip throw", you have to put your

- right leg in front of your opponent's right leg.
- left leg in front of your opponent's left leg.
- ...

There are certain requirement that you have to meet.


----------



## drop bear (Oct 7, 2017)

KPM said:


> What you say makes sense, but only to a  small extent.  Sure, if you are just talking about getting center of mass behind a punch, that is something that is subtle and can apply to many situations.  And it isn't limited to Wing Chun!  So that "internal" may not be apparent externally.  But there is far more to Wing Chun than that.  There is a biomechanic taught in the forms that includes how you step, how you align a punch, how you defend, etc.  So if I saw your teacher Marty sparring without knowing who he is, would I immediately think..."Hey!  That guy is doing Wing Chun!"....?



You should still be able to measure it empirically or at least experience it anecdotally.


----------



## drop bear (Oct 7, 2017)

KPM said:


> I agree.  But again, only to an extent.  Just what does "formless" really mean?  When you move you are still using biomechanics.  So are you using the same biomechanics from your forms or not?  We can talk abstractly about expressing concepts  and linkages, etc all day long.  But you are still moving and still using biomechanics of some sort.  Is it the biomechanics taught in your forms, or is it not?  And if it is the biomechanics taught in your forms....then why wouldn't we expect it to look like recognizable Wing Chun?
> 
> Now I realize that in a real exchange you aren't going to always be in a good position...you might stumble, you might get caught at an odd angle, or you might get rocked and loose your structure!  But within a couple of beats someone should be back on track again....in other words....snap right  back into their Wing Chun.  So at times it might not look like Wing Chun because it isn't Wing Chun!  But in a back and forth exchange of sparring or a real fight, those times should be minimal.  If nothing in the fight looks like Wing Chun, then there is a problem!
> 
> Now.....too bad Nobody Important (Dave) is not around for this discussion!  Because his premise in the past was that Wing Chun was a system that taught fine motor skills to be used to refine or add to another system's gross motor skills.  So....if this is really the case, then the sparring or fighting would look like the base system because it would be using those "gross skills".  The Wing Chun may only show up on occasion when some of the "fine" skills it teaches come into play!  I find this to be the  case with my Wing Chun Boxing!  Western Boxing is the base...the gross motor skill.  So basic sparring and fighting looks like boxing.  The Wing Chun is used to add refinements and specific useful applications.  So I have found that I HAVE been using Wing Chun in the way that Dave proposed it was intended to be used!    But we spend a lot of time training that "gross motor skill" from boxing.   For some Wing Chun guys that end up looking like crappy kickboxing when they spar it may be because they are  technically trying to use the same idea.....but they have never bothered to spend the time actually developing the "gross motor skill" that they end up using in their fighting!



You also have a whole bunch of comparatively garbage wing chun fighters.

You just don't have the maywhethers who can take a really complicated approach like counter fighting and make it work through superior skill.

I can't make that system work. So I go with the much more boring authodox boxing. 

So I look very generic due to personal skill level.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 7, 2017)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> The term formless can only be used in the striking art. It won't be able to use in the throwing art. In order to apply your "hip throw", you have to put your
> 
> - right leg in front of your opponent's right leg.
> - left leg in front of your opponent's left leg.
> ...


I'll disagree, though only somewhat. Some takedowns can lose their "form" and be used in different ways. I suppose it depends how you define a "technique", though. Some arts/styles define each variation of a thing as a separate technique, so there are at least 4 (what I could count quickly today when a student asked) "techniques" in Judo that we (in NGA) simply refer to as "leg sweep". Some don't look very much like each other. They are all recognizable by the sweeping of the leg or some similar action (obviously), but if someone was looking for NGA "forms" in them, they wouldn't see our Classical Leg Sweep in anything but osoto gari. And there are more extreme examples, but I'd have to dig up a video of the techniques, because nobody would know them by our names, I think.

So, if you identify a "technique" like NGA does, then even throws can become "formless". If you define them as Judo (and many others) do, perhaps not as much.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 7, 2017)

KPM said:


> Now.....too bad Nobody Important (Dave) is not around for this discussion! Because his premise in the past was that Wing Chun was a system that taught fine motor skills to be used to refine or add to another system's gross motor skills. So....if this is really the case, then the sparring or fighting would look like the base system because it would be using those "gross skills". The Wing Chun may only show up on occasion when some of the "fine" skills it teaches come into play!


I was talking about this with someone recently. WC has always looked like it would be an interesting fit with the relatively simple striking side of my primary art. Would it add anything useful? I don't know - I've not found anyone with experience in both. But I suspect it would, and I think if WC was trained with NGA, it's likely the structure of NGA would be more apparent (because the art requires more movement) in the combination. I know it would for me, but I'm not sure if that's a fair assessment, since I've made a long habit of bringing my cross-training into my NGA.


----------



## TMA17 (Oct 8, 2017)

drop bear said:


> You also have a whole bunch of comparatively garbage wing chun fighters.
> 
> You just don't have the maywhethers who can take a really complicated approach like counter fighting and make it work through superior skill.
> 
> ...



It does seem that way.  I've found the typical WC fighter is often less fit and less serious.  Most boxers train much harder and are in better shape.


----------



## TMA17 (Oct 8, 2017)

I grew up with boxing.  I love western boxing.  I'm very new to WC.  I've only been studying it for 2 months (Moy Yat) and have developed a strong liking to it.  I've done far more reading up on it than actually practicing it.  The forms and punches are much more rigid to me.  With boxing, it's more fluid.  However, my sifu is very fast and fluid.  So I think it can be that once you get the footwork down really well.  The forms really help and demonstrate the center line and weight distribution/taking your opponents weight.  I don't know how far you deviate from those and still maintain that.  I guess in time I'll find out lol.   

Even with only 2 months of training in it, I can see the benefits.  An early observation so far is that it really does to appear be an art that is very direct, simple and meant to end fights quickly as possible within their range.  Maybe that can be said with other arts too, but I don't see WC being an art that is meant for combat in the sense that I don't think it's designed for going 12 rounds in a ring.  My .02.


----------



## geezer (Oct 8, 2017)

TMA17 said:


> It does seem that way.  I've found the *typical WC fighter* is often less fit and less serious.  Most boxers train much harder and are in better shape.



I think you mean the _typical WC practitioner. _WC _fighters_ are not all that common or "typical".

...I mean if you want to fight, competitive arts like boxing, kickboxing, muay thai, MMA and so forth offer so many more opportunities. And if you want to fight "on the street" they get you to a point of effective competency faster.

This is not that WC can't be effective, just that most WC practitioners like to engage in chess games like chi-sau and _think_ about fighting more than actually doing it. In fact, I'd put myself in that category ...especially as I move further into my 60s and am dealing with some chronic pain from old injuries.  So, say what you will, ...at least I'm honest and not deluding myself!


----------



## TMA17 (Oct 8, 2017)

geezer said:


> I think you mean the _typical WC practitioner. _WC _fighters_ are not all that common or "typical".
> 
> ...I mean if you want to fight, competitive arts like boxing, kickboxing, muay thai, MMA and so forth offer so many more opportunities. And if you want to fight "on the street" they get you to a point of effective competency faster.
> 
> This is not that WC can't be effective, just that most WC practitioners like to engage in chess games like chi-sau and _think_ about fighting more than actually doing it. In fact, I'd put myself in that category ...especially as I move further into my 60s and am dealing with some chronic pain from old injuries.  So, say what you will, ...at least I'm honest and not deluding myself!



Good points, I agree.  Well said.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 8, 2017)

TMA17 said:


> It does seem that way.  I've found the typical WC fighter is often less fit and less serious.  Most boxers train much harder and are in better shape.


This is one of the areas where our variables get confounded. If two people have equal ability, the one with better fitness will win the vast majority of the time. If the more fit person also trained more consistently and with better intention in their practice, they will also be more skilled. That is irrespective of the style, assuming both styles are reasonably effective for fighting.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Oct 8, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> So, if you identify a "technique" like NGA does, then even throws can become "formless". If you define them as Judo (and many others) do, perhaps not as much.


For the throwing art, in order to make a throw work, the

1. rooting leg,
2. attacking leg,
3. major hand (ex, sleeve hold - control the arm),
4. minor hand (ex, lapel hold - control the body),

all have to be at the right place and at the right time. IMO, it's far from "formless".


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 8, 2017)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> For the throwing art, in order to make a throw work, the
> 
> 1. rooting leg,
> 2. attacking leg,
> ...


I guess that comes down to how you define "form". I can do an Arm Bar with the legs swapped in most variants. I can change the angle to his body. I can do it from the other side of the arm. I can do it from the top or bottom of the arm. I can do it while standing, kneeling, sitting, or laying down. For the pivot point, I can use my hand, my arm pit, my knee, my shoulder, my chest, my hip, my thigh, or my forearm. If using my hand, I can use the knife edge, the palm, or the thumb-finger web. I can do it with or without a wrist lock. To us, those are all "Arm Bar".


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Oct 8, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> I guess that comes down to how you define "form".


There are throws. There is also the most effective throw. For the most effective throw, everything has to be perfect.

For example, some throw that you can apply when your hand grab on your opponent's wrist. But it will be more effective to control that elbow joint because the distance is closer. In formless approach, you may find the throwing opportunity when you can control your opponent's wrist. But to control your opponent's elbow joint, you will need to plan it ahead of the time.

IMO,

- formless is to let a situation happen, you than take advantage on it.
- non-formless is to plan ahead of the time.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 8, 2017)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> There are throws. There is also the most effective throw. For the most effective throw, everything has to be perfect.
> 
> For example, some throw that you can apply when your hand grab on your opponent's wrist. But it will be more effective to control that elbow joint because the distance is closer. In formless approach, you may find the throwing opportunity when you can control your opponent's wrist. But to control your opponent's elbow joint, you will need to plan it ahead of the time.
> 
> ...


I like that, John. I'm probably 2/3 formless, then.


----------



## TMA17 (Oct 29, 2017)

Being new to martial arts, I find forms fun and a great exercise in using your body in a new way.  Someone on here on an older thread I was reading said their sifu said to him, if you want to be a fighter I'll show you 4 punches and 3 kicks and you can practice that to perfection....something along those lines.  That's very true LOL.  That's where boxing for me gets boring.  It really all comes down to what you're looking for. 

It's very popular today to compare everything to UFC/MMA, understandably so, but the traditional arts have their own unique value and other good attributes to offer.  Some will even say they are still very beneficial if used/trained for that environment.


----------



## DanT (Oct 29, 2017)

TMA17 said:


> Being new to martial arts, I find forms fun and a great exercise in using your body in a new way.  Someone on here on an older thread I was reading said their sifu said to him, if you want to be a fighter I'll show you 4 punches and 3 kicks and you can practice that to perfection....something along those lines.  That's very true LOL.  That's where boxing for me gets boring.  It really all comes down to what you're looking for.
> 
> It's very popular today to compare everything to UFC/MMA, understandably so, but the traditional arts have their own unique value and other good attributes to offer.  Some will even say they are still very beneficial if used/trained for that environment.


That was my Sifu, if you think about it it's true.

Straights, Hooks, Uppercuts, Overhands.

Round Kick, Front Kick, Side Kick.

Maybe a couple of blocks too.

If you're amazing at these and are an aggressive fighter you could kick the **** out of 99% of people really. Throw in some ground fighting and it becomes 99.9%. But do we really want to reduce martial arts to just fighting? Some do and that's fine. For me it's more than that.


----------



## Anarax (Oct 29, 2017)

TMA17 said:


> Probably not new to the experienced guys on here but to me it was.  He makes a lot of sense.



Useless? No. However; moving without knowing what you are doing will prevent you from gaining the full benefits of forms. "Practicing" forms without commitment, power, speed, etc, will also hinder you. Many schools today just teach sequences of movements without teaching the applications, I think that's the big problems with forms today.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Oct 29, 2017)

TMA17 said:


> I think that's the big problems with forms today.


You can spend your training time in the following areas:

1. partner training.
2. sparring/wrestling.
3. solo form.
4. weight and heavy bag training.
5. ...

Which one will give you the best reward if you only have limited amount of training time? 

IMO, 1 > 2 > 3 > 4


----------

