Abstract Training vs. Concrete Training

[johnwang]

Some styles tend to hide possible applications. You can change your form and make any possible application explicit. It's up to you.

One day I was working on the SC form #1 "diagonal strike" by myself. The solo form is simple.

- You step into bow arrow stance,
- use one hand to grab, and
- use another hand to do palm strike.

My teacher was living in my house at that time. He walked toward me and asked,

A: "What are you doing?"
B: "I'm training diagonal strike".
A: "Form is for teaching and learning only. It's not for training."
B: "How should I train the form?"
A: "For diagonal striking, if you want to train front cut, you add leg move into it. If you want to train single leg, you use your hand to reach to the leg."

What the old man had just said, "Abstract form is for teaching and learning purpose (like a book) but the concrete application is for training."

[Bao]

"Form is for teaching and learning only. It's not for training."

My broadsword teacher didn't like to teach this weapon but still he taught a form. After the students had learned it he said: "Now you understand the function of the dao, so you can throw away the form." He thought that this was a pretty useless weapon, so practicing a form won't help you to do anything.

I do agree with your teacher. Form is mostly for learning. I don't practice any external form and I don't practice Tai Chi form to study fighting techniques. For fighting practice, I rather punch a bag or against a partner to practice punching. But I enjoy the internal practice. I need those moments to slow down my brain and switch it into another mode. It keeps me sane.

[johnwang]

My broadsword teacher didn't like to teach this weapon but still he taught a form. After the students had learned it he said: "Now you understand the function of the dao, so you can throw away the form." He thought that this was a pretty useless weapon, so practicing a form won't help you to do anything.

When

- I tried to learn the "崩(Beng) – crack", my teacher asked me to go to the woods, use one hand to grab on a tree branch, spin my body and drop my upper arm to break 1,000 tree branches.
- one of my students wanted to learn the broadsword. I asked him to go to the woods and chop down 1,000 tree branches. It's not that easy to cut a tree branch 45 degree upward from a bow arrow stance.

The true ancient CMA skill was not developed from the solo form.

[MaartenSFS]

Your advice to cut 1000 tree branches is good (if he has a proper sword). I think that training weapons like short sticks and the broadsword isn't very necessary. If you have trained unarmed combat well, you should be able to use them already. You will have the Gongli to wield them.

I wonder how many people will follow this advice? A XYLHQ master once said to me that the first things that a teacher teaches you are the most practical. Everything after that is to let them come back. But it is only after we have achieved that level ourselves that we realise this..

[johnwang]

I wonder how many people will follow this advice?

If you have used this move to cut down 1,000 tree branches, you will have no problem to use this move to cut your opponent's body in half.

[Trick]

"Form is for teaching and learning only. It's not for training."

My broadsword teacher didn't like to teach this weapon but still he taught a form. After the students had learned it he said: "Now you understand the function of the dao, so you can throw away the form." He thought that this was a pretty useless weapon, so practicing a form won't help you to do anything.

I do agree with your teacher. Form is mostly for learning. I don't practice any external form and I don't practice Tai Chi form to study fighting techniques. For fighting practice, I rather punch a bag or against a partner to practice punching. But I enjoy the internal practice. I need those moments to slow down my brain and switch it into another mode. It keeps me sane.

I have learned and still somewhat practice a XYDao form, but have never held or even seen a 'real' Broadsword, I mean a Dao that was used or ment to be used in combat, so I have no idea of the real size, weight and balance of the broadsword as a weapon. If the Chinese broadsword was ment to serve the same function as the 'western' sabre, as a cavalry weapon used for slashing while sitting on a horse, using not only ones arm movement but also the speed and momentum of the horse in slashing, I can see why your teacher did not like to teach the broadsword - the Chinese Dao forms are too abstract, at least the mabu should be the only stance taken while broadsword practicing

[cloudz]

Some styles tend to hide possible applications. You can change your form and make any possible application explicit. It's up to you.

One day I was working on the SC form #1 "diagonal strike" by myself. The solo form is simple.

- You step into bow arrow stance,
- use one hand to grab, and
- use another hand to do palm strike.

My teacher was living in my house at that time. He walked toward me and asked,

A: "What are you doing?"
B: "I'm training diagonal strike".
A: "Form is for teaching and learning only. It's not for training."
B: "How should I train the form?"
A: "For diagonal striking, if you want to train front cut, you add leg move into it. If you want to train single leg, you use your hand to reach to the leg."

What the old man had just said, "Abstract form is for teaching and learning purpose (like a book) but the concrete application is for training."

All about the technique. There's nothing wrong with that you know, but it's not cut and dried. That was your teachers approach to training (form(s)) and it worked for him and it can work for anyone. But don't sit there and try to suggest that's the only way, or the 'right' way, or the 'true' way. Everyone likes to use their teacher or some other authority to make a case for their ways of doing things or way of thinking. You're no different to others in that regard I guess.

One could even argue that if it's for teaching and learning technique, then why would you teach it and learn it in an abstract way, then turn around and train it in some different 'concrete' way. How is that supposed to make sense then, what's the point of that?

If it's just some memorandum to remember and pass techniques on, it seems to be a total failure. If you look around at the evidence it does a pretty poor job. If you lose the knowledge around a form, the form (in of) itself results in a sub par technical guide to technique training and practice.

On the other hand, it would be wrong of me to suggest it's not about technique at all, of course that's a part of it and can be (and is) useful.

[MaartenSFS]

Thanks, John. When I need to cut someone in half I'll know just who to talk to.

[johnwang]

Thanks, John. When I need to cut someone in half I'll know just who to talk to.

Why do you even want to train

- broadsword if you don't try to learn how to cut your opponent's head off?
- spear if you don't try to learn how to poke a hole through your opponent's chest?
- striking art if you don't try to learn how to knock your opponent's out with your punch?
- throwing art if you don't try to learn how to smash your opponent's head onto the ground?

We all like to use Wude, humble, patient, inner peace, self-cultivation, ... to hide the cruelty of the fighting. Why can't we just be honest to ourselves and tell the truth?

The following conversation did happen many years ago. It was like a chicken talked to a duck.

A: What should I do when my opponent attacks me by ...?
B: You need to have Wude, more inner peace, ...
A:

[Bao]

- broadsword if you don't try to learn how to cut your opponent's head off?
- spear if you don't try to learn how to poke a hole through your opponent's chest?
- striking art if you don't try to learn how to knock your opponent's out with your punch?
- throwing art if you don't try to learn how to smash your opponent's head onto the ground?

If abstract training could make you better to

- cut your opponent's head off
- poke a hole through your opponent's chest
- knock your opponent's out with your punch
- smash your opponent's head onto the ground

would you then consider abstract training?

[johnwang]

If abstract training could make you better to

- cut your opponent's head off
- poke a hole through your opponent's chest
- knock your opponent's out with your punch
- smash your opponent's head onto the ground

would you then consider abstract training?

Do you want to make love to an abstract girl, or to make love to a real girl? No matter how long you may stay in school to learn the abstract courses, one day you have to get into the job market and handle real work. You just can't be "abstract" all your life.

I enjoy the feeling that my sword cut through the tree branch. I have about 10 different swords. They are all sharp enough to cut any home intruder's head off.

IMO, There is a big difference between

- to be able to do it and doesn't want to do it,
- want to do it and not be able to do it.

[Bao]

No matter how long you may stay in school to learn the abstract courses, one day you have to get into the job market and handle real work. You just can't be "abstract" all your life.

No, you didn't understand my question. I don't turn it into a dichotomy, that you must choose either this or that. You do.

My question is: If you already spent ten years punching a bag 1000 times every day, but internal practice/neigong could make you punch ten times harder than you already did, would you care about studying this internal practice?

[johnwang]

My question is: If you already spent ten years punching a bag 1000 times every day, but internal practice/neigong could make you punch ten times harder than you already did, would you care about studying this internal practice?

If I can find a better training method, I'll use that new training method and throw away my old training method. I only care about to keep the best training method. I don't care about to keep many different training methods. Life is too short to do everything.

When I punch on my heavy bag, I don't think about "internal" or external. As long as I can follow the following guidelines.

1. leg - Borrow counter-force from the ground.
2. body - Transfer force from back to front.
3. arm - Use silk reeling (twisting) to send force to hand.

[Bao]

You made an assumption that "internal" punch is more powerful than external punch. Since I don't agree with your assumption, I won't be able to answer your question.

I don't make that kind of assumption. I believe that internal principle can power external technique. Breath, coordination, balance etc. No point to lable anything beyond this. But internal practice/neigong is good for learning how to control breath and balance better.

So I ask if you would be interested to study internal practice if it could power your external method.

I have trained
- Taiji punch,
- XingYi punch,
- Baji punch,
- long fist punch,

When I punch on my heavy bag, I don't think about "internal" or external. As long as I can follow the following guidelines.

1. leg - Borrow counter-force from the ground.
2. body - Transfer force from back to front.
3. arm - Use silk reeling (twisting) to send force to hand.

Maybe 6 harmonies/6 connections, liu he, would be a good term to use here? You can use it in exactly the same way on internal or external arts.

I've practiced different styles punching methods. I practiced XY punching for several years, and I like the techniques very much. But what works best for me is still Tai Chi punch. Maybe it's the whole body connection and the fact that I relax more when I do it the Tai Chi way.

[johnwang]

I believe that internal principle can power external technique.

I truly don't know who can punch harder, the Baji master, or the Chen Taiji master.