MaartenSFS wrote:I have seen a lot of people over the years, both in and out of China, that have been learning systems with a curriculum that is endless. They often feature many forms, weapon forms, Neigong sets, partner exercises etc. I don't have anything against any of these things by themselves, but it's the sheer number of them that make the systems unrealistic. I myself studied Taekwondo and Chen style Taijiquan, which also had the same problem. Usually, myself included, practitioners of these systems don't have a clue about half of what they are training. We are basically paying to learn empty forms.
nicklinjm wrote:Very insightful comments Maarten, something all of us need to think about in the way that we practice our art
LaoDan wrote:MaartenSFS wrote:I have seen a lot of people over the years, both in and out of China, that have been learning systems with a curriculum that is endless. They often feature many forms, weapon forms, Neigong sets, partner exercises etc. I don't have anything against any of these things by themselves, but it's the sheer number of them that make the systems unrealistic. I myself studied Taekwondo and Chen style Taijiquan, which also had the same problem. Usually, myself included, practitioners of these systems don't have a clue about half of what they are training. We are basically paying to learn empty forms.
The problem may be that students (and teachers?) “don’t have a clue” which makes the forms “empty”. But perhaps the forms would make sense and would be of value for those in the know? With less of an emphasis on practical usage, and more often using traditional Chinese martial arts for health and/or performance instead, the meaning of various forms can be lost, making them “empty”. But many forms have certain aspects of the art that they emphasize.
I sort of agree with where you are coming from, but also do not agree with many of the seeming conclusions that could be drawn from what you wrote. I myself value many of the lessons learned from various solo forms, although I do not practice them very much anymore. I currently prefer partner practice, although that does include two-person choreographed forms (which I see as bringing to my attention possibilities that I may not have discovered from just drills or sparring).
As a personal example, there was a recent thread on RSF about striking simultaneously with the landing of the foot. While my solo Yang style form does not do this, my Chen style fajin form (designed for competitions by selecting movements from various Chen routines) frequently does. It is also found occasionally in the choreographed Yang two-person weaponless form as I practice it, as well as several Yang style weapons forms (e.g., staff and spear). I did not post in that thread because I feel that it is a part of TJQ, but whether it is used or not is up to the individual practitioner and their specific circumstances and/or preferences. But if I did not learn those various Yang style forms that do use it, I may not have thought that it was a part of Yang style. I could not say, though, that it should or should not be used - that depends on the individual and the specific circumstances that they find themselves in.
Anyway, I just want to caution that something could be missed from what they teach to their students if one decides to eliminate “extraneous” materials in order to “streamline” a system. While OK for a personal system/practice, it could diminish the art’s comprehensiveness if some things are eliminated without careful consideration, and an understanding of, the potential contributions of those parts of the art.
You seem to be selecting things that you like and that work for you, while advocating eliminating other things that may actually work better for other people (e.g., qinna). You may succeed in creating your personal system, but at the expense of other aspects of your art’s potential for future students of yours. Even though one may have the experience to know what works for himself, this does not necessarily mean that that person has the wisdom to know what should be changed or eliminated for others.
Unless teachers are just stringing their students along in order to make money (e.g., teaching numerous meaningless forms, with the exception for students who are just looking for fun variety, or for performance routines...), teachers should look for ways to shorten the learning curve for their students. You seem to be trying to take this approach, so I have to agree with your motivations. Just be certain that you have the wisdom to “streamline” your system in a way that really benefits your students in all of their individuality (i.e., their differences from you).
MaartenSFS wrote:5) Your last point is spot on and my reason for doing this (and for myself as well, of course). I want the system to be easy to digest and that a prospective student can learn how to use it ASAP, but that there is enough depth to keep them motivated for many years to come.
MaartenSFS wrote:I don't believe so at all. As a ruleset or as a separate martial art I have no problems with it, but as a system it lacks most of the techniques, strategies, power—generating methods etc. of CMA.
windwalker wrote:MaartenSFS wrote:5) Your last point is spot on and my reason for doing this (and for myself as well, of course). I want the system to be easy to digest and that a prospective student can learn how to use it ASAP, but that there is enough depth to keep them motivated for many years to come.
Whats your business model based on.
If its something that one can learn ASAP, what would prompt them to continue to learn for many years to come...Why would one do that?
The main concern with a lot of practices is one of preserving that which was practiced before regardless whether its useful or not
in today's time.
With the other aforementioned arts there's a whole organization dedicated to promoting preserving their respective arts.
Much of the discussions here focus on methods and practices of current masters relative to past masters to see if
indeed they are still what past masters practiced. There is hardly any mention of usage compared to other threads on MMA, BJJ ect.
were the focus is on usage.
Some of the successful teachers that I knew in running their MA gyms have programs addressing the needs of each segment
insuring a stability that allows the gym to stay open for business. One has to either make their market, or prove to the market
that what they have or do is something that they should do.....
I mention this only in passing I was never really able to adapt my own training to make it commercially
viable. ..If this is ones only source of income might be a good motivator for making
the required adjustments.
Just wasn't my thing
I now focus on working with people who are experienced enough to understand and seek out what their looking for.
wish you luck on your own journey
MaartenSFS wrote:Why don't you see an issue with the power generation? That's one of the most important things. I can assure you that Sanda is nothing like most CMA except perhaps Changquan and some Shaolinquan, but even then it's missing a lot of techniques. Like I said before, I have no problems with the Sanda ruleset or even sparring with gloves.
Return to Xingyiquan - Baguazhang - Taijiquan
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests