# the Proliferation of forms in Southern Kung Fu



## RHD (Feb 22, 2005)

Hi all,

I have this theory about Southern styles and how they developed.
It's based in the last few generations of masters.  I think that if a person was to trace back thier Southern kung fu system two four generations, that they would find one to three core forms which were very short...if any.  I think that forms were primarily added and/or added to when things like guns and foreign powers became a reality in Southern China, and it was nolonger a situation where people where valued for thier hand to hand skill outside of criminal organiztions.  This left the last few generations of masters with tow problems:  1) less hands on fighting experience   2) a need to expand curriculum to keep paying students longer in order to survive financially.

Now of course I realize that in some ways I may have just commited an act of CAM blasphemy, but I have been finding it hard to swallow the last few years that anyone can truly be that good at fighting when all they do is soooo many forms, and so little hands on.

Anyway, as a personal experiment, I have stopped practicing forms.  My method of training now consists of working on the core movements, concepts, and sequences from two of Hung Gar's "pillar forms" with the emphasis on as much partnered contact drilling and sparring whenever possible.  If anyone's interested, I'll keep ya posted on how this goes.  

Regardless, I would be interested to hear people's thoughts on my theory.

Mike


----------



## Darksoul (Feb 22, 2005)

-Thats an interesting idea...I know 7*Mantis has a lot of forms, and that means a lot of information. To simply do a few forms and practice heavily with sparring may produce a good fighter faster. Then again, that may also depend on the individual. I think it has been mentioned that its better to know 10 techniques very well then 30 techniques so-so.


A--)


----------



## clfsean (Feb 22, 2005)

I'll go along with that mostly. 

There's a few little nits here & there, but those are more school specific but dead on what you're saying.


----------



## 7starmantis (Feb 22, 2005)

I can agree mostly, but I dont think those from years back who may have practiced forms, practiced only forms. I have no problem with forms if you break them apart and take each movement and technique and drill it in live fighting and partner drills.

7sm


----------



## Black Tiger Fist (Mar 9, 2005)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> I can agree mostly, but I dont think those from years back who may have practiced forms, practiced only forms. I have no problem with forms if you break them apart and take each movement and technique and drill it in live fighting and partner drills.
> 
> 7sm


BINGO!!!!!!

That's the way it used to be ,and that's what it needs to get back to ,then CMA can BEGIN to regain some of it's lost respect.

Now a  days you have schools that don't even break down form movements ,then add to that schools that don't spar or do two man drills at all.......:idunno: 


It's sad

jeff


----------



## Black Tiger Fist (Mar 9, 2005)

RHD said:
			
		

> Hi all,
> 
> I have this theory about Southern styles and how they developed.
> It's based in the last few generations of masters. I think that if a person was to trace back thier Southern kung fu system two four generations, that they would find one to three core forms which were very short...if any. I think that forms were primarily added and/or added to when things like guns and foreign powers became a reality in Southern China, and it was nolonger a situation where people where valued for thier hand to hand skill outside of criminal organiztions. This left the last few generations of masters with tow problems: 1) less hands on fighting experience 2) a need to expand curriculum to keep paying students longer in order to survive financially.
> ...


Well,

Hak Fu Muhn for one had 7 forms total when Soo Hak Fu created it Four fist and three weapons sets ,It now has over 100 forms total. But those seven sets were long sets not short by any stretch of the imagination. 

Wong Cheung and Fung Ping-Wai added alot to the style in means of forms,drills,dummies,etc....

Black Tiger is still taught thru drills,applications, and fighting. We don't learn forms in the methods most schools learn forms today. Most schools teach you the form and breakdown techniques within the forms (if you're lucky) now and then.

We actually learn the form technique by technique application by application drill by drill before it's all put together to show it's a form. So by the time you know it's a form ,you know each technique inside out through useage.

You have to understand that Black Tiger was developed from the same Shaolin Tiger Claw system that Hung Gar came from ,but it was meant to be an advanced system ,so it was designed for ppl that already had a solid background in southern kung fu.

Wong Cheung added the first three sets taught now in Black Tiger to make it easier for a novice to grasp the skills & concepts. The first three forms are actually all made up from the four original Black Tiger sets techniques contained in the forms. There's actually another core Black Tiger set not counted within the seven ,but we don't mention it. That's do to the fact of so many other ppl claiming Black Tiger ,that really don't know Black Tiger.

Since i started posting on forums alot of info i posted has started poping up on other Black Tiger websites ,so excuse me if i don't go in depth with info sometimes. The idea was to bring a very rare clan style that many ppl were interested in to the light ,but in doing so many have used the info to mislead people for their own gain. 

jeff


----------



## Infrazael (Mar 31, 2005)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> I can agree mostly, but I dont think those from years back who may have practiced forms, practiced only forms. I have no problem with forms if you break them apart and take each movement and technique and drill it in live fighting and partner drills.
> 
> 7sm


That's what I do., ha!!! In fact, I rarely do an entire form anymore. Instead, is break it down, practice the moves like 500 times, then do another one.

RHD - I haven't stopped practicing my forms. However, I have stopped practicing a basic few, because in my later more advanced ones all the moves in the basics are included.


----------



## Drifter (Apr 27, 2005)

I think this is really true in any art. Without applications that are practical and able to be broken down into core components, a form has no content. It's the same for Kenpo, Karate, Tae Kwon Do, or any martial art. The only thing that forms do that tech's can't is drill all the components in one continuous session, and do them so that they need to flow from one to the other. 

 How's the experiment going, by the way?


----------



## NotQuiteDead (Apr 28, 2005)

This "experiment" has already proved successful in lots of other styles that have no forms at all.


----------



## Infrazael (May 2, 2005)

"Muay Thai???" 



:mp5: :jedi1: 

:asian:


----------



## NotQuiteDead (May 3, 2005)

That's one example.


----------



## RHD (May 5, 2005)

NotQuiteDead said:
			
		

> That's one example.




Update:

So far, still on the "no forms" plan.  Overall, I'd have to say that my fighting has improved.  I do in some ways miss the forms, and have been teaching them to those students who have the desire to learn them.  

Mike


----------



## Flying Crane (Oct 6, 2005)

RHD said:
			
		

> Update:
> 
> So far, still on the "no forms" plan. Overall, I'd have to say that my fighting has improved. I do in some ways miss the forms, and have been teaching them to those students who have the desire to learn them.
> 
> Mike


Forms shouldn't be completely thrown away.  In addition to acting as a catalogue of techniques in your system, they can also help you with things like fluidity of movement, and stamina.  You need to understand their value to the system.  They are not meant to be the "end-all" and stand alone.  They are only one _important_ component of many _important_ components of your training.


----------



## arnisador (Oct 18, 2005)

Wing Chun has only three forms (plus the wooden dummy and weapons forms). Apparently, Pangai-noon (that led to Uechi-ryu Karate-Do) had four, though the founder of Uechi-ryu learned only the first three. There are still some styles out there with relatively few forms!


----------



## Flying Crane (Oct 19, 2005)

arnisador said:
			
		

> Wing Chun has only three forms (plus the wooden dummy and weapons forms). Apparently, Pangai-noon (that led to Uechi-ryu Karate-Do) had four, though the founder of Uechi-ryu learned only the first three. There are still some styles out there with relatively few forms!


It's true.  Often the trend in the modern world is to collect more and more stuff, including forms.  We tend to study several arts and collect the techniques and the forms, and of course the more forms we practice, the less time we spend practicing each one.  Brings up the question: at what point do we decide that we have enough?  I believe the old saying: it is better to have three techniques that I can use well, then 100 that I know but can't use.  Thorough knowledge and skill in fewer things is more useful than broad but superficial knowledge.

I personally know about a dozen forms from Tracy's kenpo, three forms from wing chun, a dozen or so empty hand and weapons forms from Tibetan White Crane and other related Chinese arts, and about a dozen or so empty hand and sword forms from Tai Chi.  I have more than enough to practice from sunrise to sunset, every day.  If I didn't need to work a job every day, I would do so.

I understand that some of the Choy Lay Fut lineages have dozens and dozens of forms.

Obviously I have my favorites, and those get more attention, but sometimes I feel spread pretty thin.  I often ask myself when would I feel like I have enough, but at the same time, I am always hungry for more.  I am also blessed with a Sifu who has a lot to share.

I think that it is good to learn and experience a lot of different things, and at some point you focus on what you like the best, and what works best for you.  But without the wider experience, making that decision would be less well informed.  Knowing when to make that decision is difficult.  Perhaps it is made over and over, and constantly adjusted, as we learn more.  Just my thoughts...


----------



## arnisador (Oct 19, 2005)

Along those lines...a thread on the merits of large systems vs. small systems:
http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1035

More and more, I lean toward a "less is more" philosophy...within limits, of course! It's all the more so today when I can get ideas from videos and books and the Internet, so the need for my art to have its own large catalog of techs. is lessened.


----------



## Walter Wong (Mar 23, 2006)

Regardless of styles or systems of combat, I personally feel that being more principle based than technique based is much more practical.  You can spend all your life collecting techniques and still not be able to make them work or only work within limitations.  Collecting principles becoming principle based, with principles, unlimited techniques will emerge to properly respond to any given conflict.  Being principle based will lead to unlimited solutions.  Being technique based one will limit what you can do for a specific situation.

Techniques are good, but it's best to understand why they work.  Understanding their principles.  From principles, you can adapt to any given situation.  Techniques alone without principles are only limited to specific situations.  So it doesn't matter if your style has 3 forms or a hundred forms or a few techniques vs. a thousand techniques.  A thousand techniques is a thousand techniques.  You will not get 1,001 techniques.  No more no less.  Being principle based will go beyond number of techniques or forms.  Learn your style and figure how to make something work and why it works.  When you can make it work, figuring out why it works will begin your understanding of the principles that make it work.  From principles, the possibilities unlimited.  From only learning techniques without principles, you'll either fail eventually or fail right away.  If you study a classical system, understand the principles that make it effective for combat.  The ancient ones weren't concerned with which form to do or which technique to do when someone was trying to kill them.  The classical systems survived from thousand to hundred years ago to today for a reason.  If you don't figure out how to make your style combatively effective and practical, you will be allowing your art to die.  Just having forms and techniques is not gonna cut it in ensuring your style of combat will survive for future generations.


----------



## 7starmantis (Mar 23, 2006)

Very good post, I agree 100%.

7sm


----------



## Xue Sheng (Mar 24, 2006)

Well said and I agree completely.

In Tai Chi you can learn form after form after form, but if you truly understand the 13 postures you can be a very effective martial artist.


----------



## BlackTiger1 (Dec 15, 2006)

Walter Wong said:


> Regardless of styles or systems of combat, I personally feel that being more principle based than technique based is much more practical. You can spend all your life collecting techniques and still not be able to make them work or only work within limitations. Collecting principles becoming principle based, with principles, unlimited techniques will emerge to properly respond to any given conflict. Being principle based will lead to unlimited solutions. Being technique based one will limit what you can do for a specific situation.
> 
> Techniques are good, but it's best to understand why they work. Understanding their principles. From principles, you can adapt to any given situation. Techniques alone without principles are only limited to specific situations. So it doesn't matter if your style has 3 forms or a hundred forms or a few techniques vs. a thousand techniques. A thousand techniques is a thousand techniques. You will not get 1,001 techniques. No more no less. Being principle based will go beyond number of techniques or forms. Learn your style and figure how to make something work and why it works. When you can make it work, figuring out why it works will begin your understanding of the principles that make it work. From principles, the possibilities unlimited. From only learning techniques without principles, you'll either fail eventually or fail right away. If you study a classical system, understand the principles that make it effective for combat. The ancient ones weren't concerned with which form to do or which technique to do when someone was trying to kill them. The classical systems survived from thousand to hundred years ago to today for a reason. If you don't figure out how to make your style combatively effective and practical, you will be allowing your art to die. Just having forms and techniques is not gonna cut it in ensuring your style of combat will survive for future generations.


 

  Greetings and salutations Walter Wong.  Your statement is very well written and well said.  I have always try to made my students understand how important it is to master one form.  I know a lot of people think the more they learn forms the more techniques they have to work with.  I believe one form should give you all the artillery you need for combat.  For techniques are not engrave in any one movement.  You can get a lot of different techniques out of one movement.  However more importantly is the basics of the system you are studying regardless of style.  Perfections of the basics are the key to any art.  Walt Wong keep up the good words.


----------



## HarryJD (Nov 8, 2007)

Hey guys,

Firstly, thanks Walter for that great post.

Secondly, to try to follow the enlightening glow from Walter's post, I wanted to illustrate something I have found strongly across many of the subjects, posts and opinions in this whole website.

It seems to me that everyone is talking about the fighting, combat, forms, techniques, styles, which is better, etc, etc, etc.
However I haven't found anyone talking about the other main aspects of 'martial arts', being the inherant philosopical & religious beliefs, meditations, health exercise and the more non-corporial aspects to the MA's.

To me, these aspects are just as important as the punch, as one cannot be true without the other. I only started reading the posts in this website a couple of days ago, so for all I know, it could be just for the fighting, corporial side of MA's. But if not, lets realize that these martial arts, most of them I should say, were born, not on the basis of anything but necessity, long ago and were simply a part of all of life and it's parts there-of.

Thanks,

Harry J.D.

____________________________________________________________


----------



## Xue Sheng (Nov 8, 2007)

HarryJD said:


> Hey guys,
> 
> Firstly, thanks Walter for that great post.
> 
> ...


 
From My POV that is because it is intrinsic to CMA not separate from. Look at East Asian Philosophy and Religion from an and it is not separated like it is in the west. It is all the same thing.

And I don't think I ever said anyone was better, but then this is an old post and I have not taken the time to reread it.


----------



## HarryJD (Nov 8, 2007)

Yes, I totally agree there. Unification really exists in a proper way in east Asian phil's.
No, I was just saying that I have seen amongst everything else that some ppl's opinions are based on which MA's are better than others, etc. that's all.
From my own point of view as a Daoist (Taoist), this is simply all that is needed to represent the whole, big picture:
                                         :yinyang:

Harry J.D.

________________________________________________________________


----------



## Xue Sheng (Nov 8, 2007)

HarryJD said:


> Yes, I totally agree there. Unification really exists in a proper way in east Asian phil's.
> No, I was just saying that I have seen amongst everything else that some ppl's opinions are based on which MA's are better than others, etc. that's all.
> From my own point of view as a Daoist (Taoist), this is simply all that is needed to represent the whole, big picture:
> :yinyang:
> ...


 
agreed


----------

