Changing forms

[Martin2]

Hello everybody,

I think the effect of changing forms is seen in every part of the Taichi world.
Forms changing by the time, even in the teaching of one and the same teacher.
There are a lot of reasons to be found. I want to start with the following and hope,
we will find more:

1. In martial arts, one tries to hide one's technique, that it is not easily seen by the ooponent.
2. In teaching one tries to make techniques to be seen, so that the student can grap it.

The teacher is now in between the responsibility of the tradition of the art (not to water it down)and the responsibilty to his students to teach them (at their personal level of ability) as best as he can. So he looks for a compromise, which can also change during his life time.

What do you think, can this be a reason?
What other reasons can you imagine?

Greetings

Martin2
http://www.wu-taichi.com

[GrahamB]

Students adapt moves to suit their body types and preferences for fighting. You can put a lot of personal "flavour" into a move, and provided you are not doing it wrong according to the principles of the art, then it's still valid.

I don't think a good teacher should be trying to make cardboard cut outs of himself out of his (or her) students - so long as the inside is right, the outside can vary within certain parameters.

My 2 cents

[Josealb]

On the other hand, Saying that the outside can change as long as the inside is good, and that a good teacher doesnt want to have a student as a cardboard cut of himself, is a perfect way to justify why one just doesnt get the stuff and why one sucks so much.

How many cardboard cuts are there of Luo Dexiu or Tim Cartmell, or Su Dong Chen? I guess they would be let down if they produce one with that level of skill, right?

Thats the other side of the coin.

[GrahamB]

Yes very true.

[Bhassler]

Well put Graham.

Interesting that you should pick out Luo Dexiu, Josealb. Luo himself said at a seminar that one has to fit the art to their own body type, and he used himself as an example of someone who had a very different body type than his teacher. Luo was small, his teacher was huge, so the movement of the limbs changed, as well as certain particulars of the applications that had to be done one way for a big person and another way for a small person. He went on to say that some of his fellow students never really got it because they were too attached to looking like their teacher in the outer movements and didn't develop the necessary autonomy in their own practice to get the inside right.

People can justify anything they want. One could use the "inside right" justification for sucking just as easily as one could use the "preserving the art" justification for being lazy and avoiding the necessary thought and effort to really grasp an art for oneself. No one can make another person suck, nor can they make someone else great-- it's always up to the individual.

[Josealb]

Thats why i said its only one side of the coin.

Of course a big guy's movement is going to be different from a slender guy. A taller guy will move different from a smaller one. But, the differences will only be in stepping, quickness, explosiveness, etc, things that are directly influenced by weight. For example, Felipe is very quick in his stepping and can go in and out easily, and can flick a slap in any direction, because he's small. Im tall, and i like to train my reach and prefer relaxed swinging motions, and folding my arms to get inside and use my elbows. Du, another classmate, is a big guy, and he trains to go in and ram like a truck, and to drop his shoulders and use them to get that bear like power flowing. Each of us keep this in mind during personal training.

But the form doesnt change. The quality of it might, and the context, but never the form. Anyways, i agree that it always depends on the individual.

[Bhassler]

At what point does a form become changed? Is a change in tempo a change to a form? What about doing all the same movements but in a different order? Or doing 3 repetitions of a move instead of 5? What about changing the angle of one's foot?

What constitutes "change" to a form will depend upon the individuals experience of that form. If the "form" to someone means specific limb and torso movements in a specific pattern, then one just has to determine the acceptable parameters of what qualifies as a representation of each of those moves (which could be interpreted as precision and celerity of movement. Mmmmmmm, celery....). However, if the "form" is experiences as combinations of energy and vectors in response to an imagined stimulus (i.e. phantom ninjas), then the external representation could change very much yet still be considered the same form.

[Josealb]

I hate it when a thread goes down to defining words. (whats change? for example). But its nobody's fault.

Phantom ninja sounds as cool as an energy twin.

[Bhassler]

Well, it's hard to have any kind of a conversation when you can't even agree what the conversation is about. However, the question "at what point does a form become 'changed'?" goes beyond semantics. An honest attempt at answering the question leads to a line of inquiry about what constitutes a form-- what qualities it has, what it's purpose is, etc., and a deep understanding of that kind of inquiry provides a depth to one's practice that may in turn provide better results with less wasted time/effort. And it is at least in part a desire for efficiency of learning and practice that led to the creation of formalized arts in the first place. So I agree that semantics can be boring and a waste of time, but there has to be a balance between keeping the baby and throwing out the bathwater, so to speak.