From form to application

[JowGaWolf]

This is one of my favorite videos because it shows the difference between the form and application. Sometimes applications are done exactly like it's done in the form and sometimes the form is the concept of an application.

In this video he is talking about how some of the Jow Ga practitioners get flowery with practical techniques from the Small Tiger Form. A lot of what he shows have multiple uses for the same technique.

This is small Tiger

it's good to see Jow Ga share more stuff these days.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

1. I don't like form -> application.
2. I like application -> form.

By using

- 1, your application is limited by your style.
- 2, your form will have no limitation.

For example, if my application is "attack my opponent from 10 feet away", my form can be:

- Karate flying side kick.
- MT flying knee.
- Gong Li system stealing step forward jump.
- ...

 

[JowGaWolf]

- 1, your application is limited by your style

To be honest if your application is limited to your style, then you aren't training your techniques correctly when you spar. It means you aren't sparring to learn.
For example, a MT flying knee can be done in close range as well as long range. If you are sparring to learn then eventually you would see openings and opportunities to use the MT flying knee withing many different ranges and with many other purposes beyond attack, such as knocking someone off balance, creating distance, or closing distance.

If you take a form and only think that there is Only 1 Use for a technique, then the student is the problem not form. It's the student who has limited himself instead or really thinking about the technique and exploring its use.

 

[skribs]

1. I don't like form -> application.
2. I like application -> form.

By using

- 1, your application is limited by your style.
- 2, your form will have no limitation.

For example, if my application is "attack my opponent from 10 feet away", my form can be:

- Karate flying side kick.
- MT flying knee.
- Gong Li system stealing step forward jump.
- ...

I think that with a lot of things, it started off as Application -> Form. But those forms were made 50 years ago or 200 years ago and you're learning from the guy who learned from the guy who learned from the guy learned from the guy who made the form. So if your style was taught with a monkey-see approach, or somewhere along the way one of the "guy who learned from the guy" either didn't understand an application, didn't agree with an application, or simply wasn't there that day, then the application can be lost.

If you're going Form -> Application on something that was made 5 years ago there's a problem. If you're going Form -> Application on something 50 years old...it's probably because you're a few graduating classes away from the person who made it. If you're going Form -> Application for a form that's existed for a few hundred years...then it's probably because the person who made the form has been dead for hundreds of years.

 

[wab25]

If you're going Form -> Application on something that was made 5 years ago there's a problem. If you're going Form -> Application on something 50 years old...it's probably because you're a few graduating classes away from the person who made it. If you're going Form -> Application for a form that's existed for a few hundred years...then it's probably because the person who made the form has been dead for hundreds of years.

Not sure what you are saying here... Are you saying that we should not be finding applications of the forms?

 

[skribs]

Not sure what you are saying here... Are you saying that we should not be finding applications of the forms?

I was going off of what Kung Fu Wang said. Basically that forms should built around an application. You shouldn't just throw a bunch of random techniques and moves together and then go "ok, how can we use this?"

From the perspective of someone learning the forms, then, if you have 0 applications for a motion, that's a problem, and you SHOULD search for that application. The problem is not that you are searching for an application. The problem is that you NEED to search for one, because you don't know it already. Similar, if you already know AN application, it makes sense that you could search for more.

 

[jobo]

Not sure what you are saying here... Are you saying that we should not be finding applications of the forms?

Id say that unless the apkication is reasonably obvious, then uts just a movement excersise and yiu should not concern yiyrself with its purpose

 

[wab25]

Basically that forms should built around an application. You shouldn't just throw a bunch of random techniques and moves together and then go "ok, how can we use this?"

I agree, one shouldn't just throw some random movements together first, and then try to figure out how they could be used. Which arts, are you claiming, took this approach?

I don't know of any martial art that was developed by throwing random movements together and then figuring out how to use them. So this really shouldn't be a concern. If you don't know the application of a move or form, it has been my experience that that is because you don't understand the context of form. Once you understand the context, then the applications become very apparent.

If you have zero grappling experience, and walked in on a BJJ class shrimping across the floor... you would have no context for what they are doing. Finding an application for that movement will be very hard. Thats a silly way to fight someone trying to kick you. But, once you understand the context of ground fighting, with a guy pinning you down, now it becomes easier to see the application. Though many people still need to see that form (shrimping) demonstrated, with a guy pinning him down, to understand the application, even after to told them it was "for ground fighting, when a guy has you in side control."

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

Not sure what you are saying here... Are you saying that we should not be finding applications of the forms?

First you have problem. You then try to find solution for it.

For example, when you try to pick up your opponent's leading leg, your opponent moves his leading leg back. Now you can't reach to his leading leg. What can you do at that moment? You try to solve this problem, you then realize that you can reach to your opponent's other leg. You can

- use hand to pull your opponent's other leg.
- use leg to hook his other leg.
- use leg to sweep his other leg.
- use leg to spring his other leg.
- use leg to lift his other leg.
- pull down his upper body.
- ...

Now you have created 6 combo drills (6 different solutions). If you link those 6 combos as a short form, you will get a 12 moves short form.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

forms should built around an application.

This is the best approach.

To be honest if your application is limited to your style, then you aren't training your techniques correctly when you spar. It means you aren't sparring to learn.

During the sparring, you find some problems. You then try to find solution for it.

IMO, the "sparring -> problem -> solution" approach is better than the "form -> application" approach.

 

[skribs]

This is the best approach.


During the sparring, you find some problems. You then try to find solution for it.

IMO, the "sparring -> problem -> solution" approach is better than the "form -> application" approach.

The problem with sparring is it requires another person. Forms allow you to work on the movements without another person present.

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

First you have problem. You then try to find solution for it.

For example, when you try to pick up your opponent's leading leg, your opponent moves his leading leg back. Now you can't reach to his leading leg. What can you do at that moment? You try to solve this problem, you then realize that you can reach to your opponent's other leg. You can

- use hand to pull your opponent's other leg.
- use leg to hook his other leg.
- use leg to sweep his other leg.
- use leg to spring his other leg.
- use leg to lift his other leg.
- pull down his upper body.
- ...

Now you have created 6 combo drills (6 different solutions). If you link those 6 combos as a short form, you will get a 12 moves short form.

So you do this, and make a 12 move form. Now I am your student, I learn the form along with the application. I teach this form to my student, because I find it useful. It is now a form, that we can verify as effective and practical, that they practice, and then learn the application to. IMO as long as the form has application and you are learning both, it matters very little whether you learn form -> application, or application -> form.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

IMO as long as the form has application and you are learning both, it matters very little whether you learn form -> application, or application -> form.

The difference is

- what you will be forced to learn, vs.
- what you want to learn.

If a form has an application that you pull out a dagger from your boots and stab it into your opponent's chest, and if you are not interested in how to use your dagger, the form -> application approach may not make your training time worthwhile.

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

The difference is

- what you will be forced to learn, vs.
- what you want to learn.

If a form has an application that you pull out a dagger from your boots and stab it into your opponent's chest, and if you are not interested in how to use your dagger, the form -> application approach may not make your training time worthwhile.

But in order to know what you wish to learn, you have to learn it? I would have no idea if I preferred hook versus straight, if I never learned both to a level. On a system level, it also helps later: the system may have dagger use, but I never cared about it so I never learned it. Now, a student of mine wishes to learn it, it is in the system, but I'm incapable of teaching it. This would be an issue.

What about the idea of form->application->form? You learn the systems form to a basic level, you learn the application, and then you can create a specialized/focused form of the applications you are concerned with/want to learn and train. You train that for yourself, but continue to teach the overall form, so each of your students can create their own specialized form?

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

What about the idea of form->application->form?

A teacher may use form->application->form method. But his students may not need to.

The interested question is if you have learned 20 forms, should your students also learn those 20 forms from you, or should they just learn the application from those forms from you?

A notebook is someone condenses the information from a book into a note.

For the freshmen English course in college, sometime you just read the 30 pages notebook (application) in stead of the 200 pages original book (form). Do you really need to read that 200 pages book, or to read the 30 pages notebook is good enough?

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

A teacher may use form->application->form method. But his students may not need to.

The interested question is if you have learned 20 forms, should your students also learn those 20 forms from you, or should they just learn the application from those forms from you?

A notebook is someone condenses the information from a book into a note.

For the freshmen English course in college, sometime you just read the 30 pages notebook (application) in stead of the 200 pages original book (form). Do you really need to read that 200 pages book, or to read the 30 pages notebook is good enough?

I think you hit the nail on the head. As the student, reading the 30 pages is probably enough to get by. If you want to enter the field and delve more deeply, you need to fully understand those 30 pages, and reading the entire book may help. If you choose to teach it though, you should understand the full 200 pages. If i am teaching a course, and a student asks me a question about something they read in the book i assigned, i cant answer them "its not in my cheat sheet so i dont know. Read the book for the answer".

 

[skribs]

I think you hit the nail on the head. As the student, reading the 30 pages is probably enough to get by. If you want to enter the field and delve more deeply, you need to fully understand those 30 pages, and reading the entire book may help. If you choose to teach it though, you should understand the full 200 pages. If i am teaching a course, and a student asks me a question about something they read in the book i assigned, i cant answer them "its not in my cheat sheet so i dont know. Read the book for the answer".

The thing about notes, though, is you usually know what's going into those notes. I come from an IT background. If I read ten pages of things I mostly understand already, I'm not going to take those notes. So I may only get a half page of notes on that subject. But that half-page of notes isn't enough to learn anything from. That's so I can reinforce specific parts of the material that I need to remember or learn.

If I were to read a book and write notes on it, and then teach a student based on my notes, I could answer any questions they have. But as I get more students, or as the students get further removed from me with generations of teaching, my notes get more and more cryptic.

 

[pdg]

From a "system" perspective, the forms (patterns/kata) are the notes. They're for revision.

A single set of applications for them (whether for practical use or as a development or conditioning exercise) are a more detailed synopsis, possibly an abridged version.

Everything else around it is the full multi volume novel.

If you want to boil down your interpretation and application of your system to your own notes, that's fine for you.

If you want to teach though, sure you can teach from the notes - but how do you know that your student can apply in the same manner as you? How do you know that your student can't find extreme value in something you've written off because you can't make it work?

For all you know, you might be concentrating on the character they hate, and be entirely missing what you thought was a bit part but could make the story cohesive for them.

 

[JowGaWolf]

IMO, the "sparring -> problem -> solution" approach is better than the "form -> application" approach.

This is my path. sparring -> problem -> analyze my understanding of the technique(what am I doing or not doing) -> study the technique -> analyze -> is timing correct, is technique being used against the right attack or defense -> try again -> analyze think out of the box -> If not successful, move to something else come back to this technique later.

From what I've seen in teaching / coaching in the sparring classes (I can only speak of Jow Ga), the majority of unsuccessful attempts were because of the student and not the technique. For example. the way that I set up technique A may not work well for the student to set up technique A. For them they may need to set up technique A differently than I do. I don't ever remember it being a "approach is better better than the form." For me the form has always been like a blue print or a guide from which to build from. I don't look at a form as "This is the only way to do this technique."

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

The problem of the form -> application approach is that you can only learn 1 application.

If your form has this combo, when your opponent blocks your side kick and spins your body to your left, you can land your kicking leg and palm strike on your opponent's neck.

What if your opponent blocks your side kick and spins your body to your right? You have to learn another form that has this combo in order to be able to deal with this situation.