This raises an interesting question. What defines a style? Is it the techniques? Is it the underlying body mechanics? The tactical mindset? Are the training methods part of it?
In BJJ, live grappling is central enough to the art that if a given school never did live grappling I would hesitate to call it a BJJ school - even if they taught all the same technique I do.
In Aikido (other than Tomiki Aikido), live sparring is not generally part of the practice. For those who believe that sparring is important, does that mean all the instructors in the Aikikai are bad teachers?
In most CMA, solo forms are part of the style, perhaps even being seen by some as defining the art. If a given instructor of Tai Chi or Hung Gar or White Crane decides that forms are a bad training method and eliminates all of them from the curriculum, then is that school still teaching the same art as schools which teach more traditionally?
I'm curious as to your thoughts.
I wanted to comment further on this.
Specifically regarding forms, it is my opinion that, while specific forms are often identified with particular systems, they do not necessarily create the system.
Forms are training tools, and I think a mistake that a lot of people make is in viewing them as a product. Forms were never meant for performance or to be something to be done for their own sake. Being able to “do the form” was never the reason for training. If they were well designed by whoever invented them, then they are meant to train and drill the fundamental principles upon which the system is built, through sequences of movement and specific techniques and combinations that illustrate and ingrain those principles, and provide EXAMPLES of combative solutions. I highlighted the word examples because I believe that is what they are, and not solutions that MUST be mastered as part of a curriculum. What is in the forms could and should have valuable direct application, but one’s mileage will vary. Forms really ought to be helping the student develop an understanding of how to move and how to engage the body and how to maintain good technical structure while moving and changing and executing techniques. They should also help broaden a student’s perspective of what is possible, while not confining a student’s toolbox to just what is in the form.
As such, forms are just one of many tools that ought to reside in ones training toolbox, if you are training a system that includes forms. There is room for other tools as well, like interactive drills, sparring, heavybag work, basics, etc. Forms should not be the only tool in your toolbox.
Many Chinese systems contain a large number of forms, sometimes dozens. I believe the original lineage of Choy Lay Fut includes what I have seen referred to as “a blue billion” forms. The system was built upon three other systems, and I believe had new forms created as well. It’s generally far far more than a person with any other life to speak of can hope to learn, much less gain mastery from.
But you don’t have to. I believe nobody learns them all. There is another lineage of a Choy Lay Fut that has far fewer forms, and they do quite well.
As a tool, you don’t need all of them to develop your skills. And if you really grasp and understand the important concepts after only learning a smaller number of forms, then in my opinion the forms have done their job and you do not need more of them. They are superfluous. Likewise I feel that if you have learned a solid...oh...half a dozen or so and you still don’t “get it”, then learning another half dozen probably is not going to help you much. It just isn’t working for you.
I feel that if you can come up with other training methods that teach you what the forms are intended to teach, then sure, you could ditch the forms altogether and you would still be practicing the same style. You have altered the curriculum significantly and some people will object to that and some people will insist that you are NOT doing the same system, but so what? It is built on the same foundation, from the same source, it is the same system. You have just established a new lineage, I guess.
My Sifu was featured in an Inside Kung-Fu magazine from 1970 or so. I’ve read the article and noted how he was critical of people teaching the system while having only learned some of the forms. He felt they didn’t know the complete system and were unqualified to teach.
While I was training with him, one thing he would say to us was: you don’t need to learn all these forms; you don’t need them all. I guess his position on this has changed.
It is my oppinin that if you have learned them, they are valuable to have, but If you do not learn them, you are not missing anything.
So i can’t really comment for other systems and other people how they feel about the forms or other training methods defining the system, but I feel there is potentially a lot of room to alter those methods and still be training the system.
Like that other time you insisted that I had said something I hadn't!
