This may begin a series of posts on an important topic. Below is part of the text of a comment I received a couple months back. I have been sitting on it awhile (apologies to the writer) but am now ready to wrestle with it.
From the comment: “I just finished learning the 42 sword form, and I must say it is nothing compared to my trad. Yang style sword. Mostly useless performance moves, with lagging principles and uncertain applications. Do you have better experiences?”
I have been working on the tai ji 42 sword form for a few years now but I have to admit it has not been a priority, as it is one of the few forms I have learned outside the classes of my regular teacher (though with his blessing – all teachers in the same group).
It was created in 1991, not even 20 years ago (shorter than my martial arts career!) and draws motions from 4 of the main tai ji styles. Like other competition forms, it was created with the purpose of an international standard in mind. That way, people from many different styles can get together and compete on the same level with each other. Otherwise, how could we compare two people doing completely different tai ji forms? (This begs the question of whether we really need to do so, but hey….)
Those who practice only the traditional forms, improved and passed down over the generations, may well find the competition forms bland. Those who practice only the competition forms may indeed may be missing out on a lot, since the competition forms are hybrids, drawing motions and inspiration from many sources. Perhaps too much has been lost in the blending. But let’s look at the commenter’s points one by one.
“useless performance moves” – there are one or two movements I would eliminate if I could, but I feel most of the motions are useful and have a grounding in reality. (I write this as someone who has practiced kendo – an art in which people wear armor and actually strike each other with their swords – more than 15 years. Then again, those who practice kenjutsu – no actual physical contact but always done with a partner, much less experience in that area myself – often belittle kendo as being “useless” and so on).
“lagging principles” – hard for me to respond to this one, as I need more specifics from the commenter. But on the whole it feels consistent with the principles I hold to be important in tai ji. What principles are being referred to? Strength in softness? Sinking the qi? These are all over the 42 sword form.
“uncertain applications” – Here again, with the exception of a small number of motions, I would have to disagree. The applications seem clear and generally solid to me (though I doubt you would find me using any of the one-knee-raised, balanced-on-one-foot techniques (poses??) the next time I am fighting on the streets with a Chinese sword).
It may not be the perfect vehicle for teaching tai ji jian, but the 42 form does give us a way to distinguish between dian and pi techniques, dai jian and jie jian, and so on. It teaches the shifting of weight, use of force in opposing directions, and so on. And it introduces beginners to the basics stances, grips, etc.
I don’t know the traditional Yang jian form, though I do know a Yang dao (broadsword) form and quite like it. In terms of traditional sword forms, I am getting more familiar with the Sha family sword forms and I like them quite a bit. Are they better vehicles for transmitting excellence in tai ji? Too early for me to answer, but I sense it is a case of two different roads leading to the same destination- and that these two roads share much in common.
In my case, I prefer the closer, more personal form of transmission of the traditional forms of the Sha family. But I wouldn’t want to do those forms only. My experience in the Japanese martial arts has shown me too many groups lost in small, insular worlds. Too many people who, in the pursuit of purity of transmission of Traditional Forms, do nothing but criticize and belittle other martial artists, especially those doing less traditional arts.
As for me, I continue going to a 32-sword class 1-2 times a week. The 32-sword form was an earlier (and still more common) version of a competition form for international contests. Its history stretches back ot 1957 – much longer than the 42-form but still rather short in the history of martial arts.
While it may be a competition form, I am learning it for myself and am taught finer principles and unrealized applications each week. Many of the motions overlap with those of the 42-form. And many of the motions, principles and applications overlap with those of the Sha family sword forms and other traditional forms.
But I would have to say, I prefer doing the Sha family forms. Going back to the commenter’s question -- “Have I had better experiences?” I can only say that I have been and continue to learn from and be challenged by my teacher. He uses the 32 form (and occasionally the 42 form) as tools to teach. Both forms are quite suitable for large groups of people and are often taught to beginners. Generally, people move into the traditional forms after gaining experience with the competition forms. I followed that pattern and I feel it has served me well.
I am most interested to hear comments from readers on this topic (including the original commenter). Also, look for future installments in this series. I will certainly have to write about Long Fist and Southern Fist in this regard.
(photo of myself and a practice partner doing the 32-sword form about 16 years ago)
3 comments:
I tend to agree with most of your post regarding the pros and cons of both insulation and cross-pollination, so I'll address another area: it seems there's a few other possibilities regarding the genesis of the commenter's text. Note that I don't know the 42 movement competition jian.
It very well have nothing to do with the form itself -- it could be the teacher, student, and/or training goals. It is very possible that "useless performance moves," "lagging principles," and "uncertain applications" perceptions -- I'll call it general lack of depth and cohesion -- is because the teacher has not taught the non-Yang-inspired portions as deeply or thoroughly as the Yang traditional forms, which he may know better or have more of an affinity for. Similarly, it could be that the this information is being taught, but the student is wearing the blinders, since it does not match completely with his previously learned Yang form(s). Or, another possibility, is that of mis-aligned goals: it could very well be the aim of the teacher to teach the Yang traditional as a practical form, and the competition form for competition purposes, and the student is looking for the wrong thing in the wrong place.
Personally, when I find a section of a form I perceive to be weak, awkward, or with minimal utility, I "do my homework" and try to figure out what it may be teaching me that different (or what I'm doing that's just plain wrong.) I take this to my instructors, and asked them an informed question or two -- this allows them to zero in on my exact issue(s). The vast majority of the time, something useful comes out of the discussion, and I end up practicing the movements with new understanding. Only very rarely does a movement fall into the "not for me" bin. Even then, such movements are useful due to this conversation: for viewing the "same" art from a different perspective.
If you don't ask, your instructor may not know that you don't have the why behind the how, and the movements will remain empty. So, if I had been asked, my short response would be: yes, I've had better experiences with competition forms, possibly because of good instructors, possibly because of my curiosity.
That said, I still prefer my traditional forms to competition forms, but that would be answering a different question. :)
I have learned a yang style saber form that I love and practice often, though I incessantly crave experience with a jian! Dammit.
I am now studying aikido, and thusly, the bokken as it relates to the aikido style. But I have been reading about bokken in more traiditional styles such as the Shinkage-ryu from the Yagyu family, and am greatly frustrated by the differences, and opinions of each from each. The style of bokken practiced in aikido is criticized as used only to fit well supplementing empty hand aikido techniques, but to me, many of the principles of traditional ryu seem way off from practical or useful. What are we to do but explore and judge according to our practice? Though it may be one of the most impractical methods of training, I find swords to be at the center of something.
Finally a reaction, thought my comment was not wellcome, thanks anyway.
Thanks also to Barclay, for your help, but it is a bit different with my situation.
I'm into ICMA for some 20 yrs. now, having trained and lived 17 of them here in Taiwan train around 10 hrs a week). My spectrum is quite big, even never asked for more forms tolearn, it just happend: 3 styles of Chen and 3 of Yang Taijiquan, some basic Xingyi, 2 styles of Baguazhang (Cheng basic, Yin more in detail), lots of Neigong stuff, 5 animals frolic, Daoyin etc., but also a bit Miaodao and some ECMA like Taizuquan.
All has been great and applicable, at least in light sparring, but I feel that modern comp. forms (don't like the fan form much either, the music, the performance oriented moves) just miss something, even my teacher tries to convince me otherwise (perform with my one principles etc.).
Weapons work, though not for a street fight (Taiwan is so save!), must be transferable into my test cutting practice on green and dry bammboo. And here is the problem: Even after some 2 years of 42 training, I cannot cut clean with most of the cuts, the power genaration is mostly different, the footwork especially, so I still prefer my traditional stuff, less flowery, but always on the point in the bamboo grave behind my house.
So I do train such modern forms mostly for the group feeling, but still cannot get into them like into my other stuff.
Grets from Taiwan
Hermann
Post a Comment