only ___ moves

[wckf92]

wckf92

like I said, just foundation training, nothing mysterious or special.

Understood, and agreed.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Forms are teaching/learning tool. It's not a training tool. Partner drills and solo drills are training tool.

I'm not sure that distinction is entirely meaningful, nor entirely universal.

 

[Martial D]

I'm not sure that distinction is entirely meaningful, nor entirely universal.

I concur. I think forms are indeed useful as a part of training. They keep your structure sharp and 'massage the muscle memory' if you will.

I also like to do boxing 'forms', by which I mean just doing everything super slow and deliberately, focusing on each component of each movement. Even to this day I still learn new things by doing this.

 

[drop bear]

Over the years, we always hear or read about how Master or Sifu "so and so" only used about 3 or so hands or techniques or moves to win all his fights. (i.e. I've read that this was the case for Yip Man, and for WSL).

Is this the result of years of training what for some is a vast system containing forms, weapons, numerous drills, ancillary exercises, etc...?

Why is it this way? Is it necessary to train all three forms, muk yan jong, and the weapons, just to end up with "3 moves" that win all the fights?

Is it just the requisite process of having to go from A to Z; only to end up using 3 of the letters to get the job done?

Discussion is welcome! Thx!

Basics trained properly wins fights

 

[jlq]

Martial D,

using the form to develop muscle memory is an idea which can be seen from different perspectives.

If you believe that the form just teaches "concepts" which are applied in infinite variations, i.e. the moves from the forms look different in application, then using it to develop muscle memory is a silly one.

If you are not going to use the motor patterns and muscle memory developed through forms practice in your drills and fighting, what function does it serve?

There is a certain group of people who believe everything is about cultivating the punch and that the moves from the forms are not techniques to be applied. Ironically, they say that if they have problems with a certain technique in their drills and fighting, they need to go back to the forms to correct the mistake...

I find this a very odd logic and not really well thought through. But that is of course just my opinion at this time.

Another thing, doing a form builds muscle memory to do the form. If you want to develop motor skill and applicability of the various hands, you need to take out the movement and practice it a gazillion times in isolation and then with a reference (an opponent) to master it.

Consequently, as long as you know the techniques and their purpose, you can just drill them. You actually don't need to practice the forms as such...

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

If you believe that the form just teaches "concepts" which are applied in infinite variations, i.e. the moves from the forms look different in application, then using it to develop muscle memory is a silly one.

Agree! There are many different ways to train from the information that you can obtain from a form.

In

- MA, there are "principle (concept)" and "technique".
- English, there are "grammar" and "word".

A form not only contains techniques, it also contains principles. If you train both techniques and principles, your training can cover much more than what your forms can offer you. For example, if you have learned "This is a book". When you train, besides you train "This is a book", you should also train:

- This is not a book.
- This is a pen.
- That is a book.
- ...

If you have learned the front kick, straight punch combo (principle - use kick to set up punch), you should be able to figure out combos such as:

- side kick, back fist,
- roundhouse kick, hook punch,
- ...

 

[Martial D]

Martial D,

using the form to develop muscle memory is an idea which can be seen from different perspectives.

If you believe that the form just teaches "concepts" which are applied in infinite variations, i.e. the moves from the forms look different in application, then using it to develop muscle memory is a silly one.

If you are not going to use the motor patterns and muscle memory developed through forms practice in your drills and fighting, what function does it serve?

There is a certain group of people who believe everything is about cultivating the punch and that the moves from the forms are not techniques to be applied. Ironically, they say that if they have problems with a certain technique in their drills and fighting, they need to go back to the forms to correct the mistake...

I find this a very odd logic and not really well thought through. But that is of course just my opinion at this time.

Another thing, doing a form builds muscle memory to do the form. If you want to develop motor skill and applicability of the various hands, you need to take out the movement and practice it a gazillion times in isolation and then with a reference (an opponent) to master it.

Consequently, as long as you know the techniques and their purpose, you can just drill them. You actually don't need to practice the forms as such...

Eh..it's different. Of course I drill everything at speed, with resistance, with partners, and I spar for a couple hours a week minimum(I'm old now) Also, I do agree that if your form movements are not the same ones you actually use, training them is detrimental.

I can only speak for myself. The forms I practice(SLT/ck/bj) contain movements I do use live. The slow methodical way of training movements like that helps me, and I apply it to everything now.

Sometimes I will throw an upper cut that lasts 10 seconds or more. Then do it again, and again. And again. Feeling every muscle, every movement, every shift in weight, where the power is, where it is going, and how to streamline it more and more and more. Giving conscious attention to things you simply can not while training at speed.

 

[KPM]

Either way, though... Whether it is one or the other, my point remains the same.

They are structured the same way (not too many techniques, but certain concepts, etc.)

True! No long forms. But they do have short sequences of responses that show the concepts. Much like the San Sik organization in Ku Lo Wing Chun!

 

[KPM]

The Wing Chun forms, particularly the SLT is nothing short of brilliant in that regard.

Left, right, middle - high, middle, low - front, middle back - 8 angles - 7 "points" - defense line, etc.

All you need for short range fighting.

Take anything and you don't have all bases covered.

---Here you have to be specific because various versions of Wing Chun can be so different. Are you talking about Ip Man SLT? Cho Ga SLT? TWC SLT? Most people's SLT has no footwork, which is obviously an essential ingredient for fighting!



Wing Chun is not Western boxing, nor is it Muay Thai. One should remember that each of these styles are what they are because of the environment they are supposed to be used in. Thus, Western boxing is very limited because of the rules of the sport.

---Fighting is fighting. Its as much about timing, distance management, power generation, and plain grit and determination as it is about specific techniques. People say all the time that "Wing Chun is adaptable to various circumstances." So why would anyone assume that boxing wouldn't be? It is a small step from sport boxing to "dirty boxing" or "street boxing" that most fighters can make pretty instinctively. Now give them a little training experience dealing with a kicker, someone that tries to shoot in for a takedown, or someone charging in with chain punches and most are going to "adapt" pretty quickly! And they still would be using only a handful of techniques that they have learned very well in their "sport" boxing.



Wing Chun is a close range fighting style and requires skills to manipulate and control the opponent's bridges and a lot of the techniques are designed to manifest the various concepts the style (well, some anyway) espouses. F.ex. Tun Tou Fau Chaam, Yat Fung Yee, etc...

---Now imagine adding that to the "long fist" skill of western boxing with its distance management, fast punching combinations, and agile footwork!



Also, Wing Chun and the applications of its concepts do not extend to just training against other Wing Chun people. That assumption is, IMO, showing a lack of understanding what things are for and how to apply them.

----Absolutely! Many Wing Chun schools are guilty of "martial arts incest" because they only train their technique against another guy doing Wing Chun! But the emphasis on Chi Sau that we see so often encourages this! Far more time is spent on Chi Sau than on sparring in most Wing Chun schools. And you can't Chi Sau well with anyone other than a fellow Wing Chunner!




The people who think things need to be modified should consider that long fist styles are nothing new, nothing the various southern styles haven't faced before, so why does it need to be "adapted" to modern times?

---I can understand why you would refer to western boxing as a "long fist style", but don't let it obscure the fact that boxing is very different from the long fist styles Wing Chun may have faced 100 years ago. I think that some adaptation is definitely needed for modern times. I could go down the list, but that would be an entirely different topic. If this wasn't true, the typical Wing Chun student could step into a sparring situation with the typical guy from a boxing gym and hold their own. But we just don't see this happen.


In my opinion the problem is that people try to "spar" with the system, which will inevitably make you play a game you are not supposed to play as a Wing Chun stylist - and get the experience that the system doesn't hence the need to "improve"/modify it so it works in sparring or to face the modern day fighter.

---Fighting is fighting. Why should their be a difference between meeting someone on the floor in the gym wearing some protective equipment, and meeting them in a parking lot wearing none?



But you won't do well if you want to do some rounds of sparring with someone who is good at that.

---Do you mean good at using distance, timing, and footwork to avoid that pressing barrage of attacks you referred to? That's just good fighting. Something that can be isolated and developed in sparring. I fail to see why people want to separate out hard sparring from "real fighting" and say someone can be perfectly prepared for one but not the other. That just doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

In my opinion the problem is that people try to "spar" with the system, which will inevitably make you play a game you are not supposed to play as a Wing Chun stylist - and get the experience that the system doesn't hence the need to "improve"/modify it so it works in sparring or to face the modern day fighter.

---Fighting is fighting. Why should their be a difference between meeting someone on the floor in the gym wearing some protective equipment, and meeting them in a parking lot wearing none?



But you won't do well if you want to do some rounds of sparring with someone who is good at that.

---Do you mean good at using distance, timing, and footwork to avoid that pressing barrage of attacks you referred to? That's just good fighting. Something that can be isolated and developed in sparring. I fail to see why people want to separate out hard sparring from "real fighting" and say someone can be perfectly prepared for one but not the other. That just doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

There is a difference, but it's not as big as some folks think (including some folks in my own primary art). Good defensive fighting skills should be able to do okay with a similarly skilled person from another discipline, unless that other discipline hits in a gap in the style in question (like BJJ attacking boxing). Two striking styles ought to be competitive with each other, if both are well-trained. I think the issue we often have is comparing two fighters. I had a good private discussion with a member here to understand how they build fighters so quickly. In 3 months, their new fighter puts in as much training as many casual students (like those I usually teach) do in 2-3 years. And the focus a lot on fitness in that time, because they know the fights aren't likely to end in 60 seconds. And they train to extend the fight, unless they see a chance to end it. So, if someone I trained for a year gets taken down by someone they trained for 13 weeks, that shouldn't be surprising. Most of that comes down to the training level and commitment (and a bit to pre-selection - the kind of people who go for that 13-week fight prep for MMA are different). Their training to extend fights gives them an additional advantage, since we're training to end one someone is trying to end fast.

The smaller factor is the difference in techniques, but that's going to be more an issue for grapplers than strikers.