Adam Chan - Are forms useless?

[JowGaWolf]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Fighting does follow certain patterns.

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

---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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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?

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

 

[KPM]

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???