NaamKyun.com Discussion Forum

ok, so we're drilling this set for our New Year's demos-we demo the second half-more dynamic. And...many of the techniques, combinations are IMHO pretty impractical. Sure it looks cool for demos, and there are some movements that I do like, but on the whole,it seems more for deom than for teaching fighting.
Often, the form is just a basic stepping stone for beginners. Many things such as stepping back three times and defending is a bozo no-no in my book, and develops poor habits. I feel you should shut him down on the first beat. My experience in the SPM Sam Bo Gin two man set-once the student learns the set, he takes the moves and rather than continuing with the set-responds naturally, trying to shut him down, and it goes into brief sparring, before going onto the next move, meaning you jump off from there.
So.. it brings up some questions:
When was this created?
By whom?
For demo, or for training?
At which stage in the student's development is this taught?
What are your opinions of this set, and experiences?
What do you like, what do you dislike?
(this should heat things up a bit

TT,

Funny because I was just thinking about this 2 days ago. I think there are some parts of the set that can serve as a good template for higher pressure 2 person drills, but overall, I don't use Hung in the way its presented in much of that set.

i only teach the gung gee partner set,the fu hok is almost identical with changes and addition and was created by Grandmaster Lam Jo if im not mistaken..while the ggffk deui chaak is from LSW. Theres a lots of stuff in it that I like and also things I dont like..i teach it to students that learn ggffk...

Well, as most of my Hung Gar knowledge comes from LSW texts, dvds and reading this forum, I have to say that when Derrick and I was working on the Fu Hok sparring set a lot of things I didn't realize was made clear. Lots of bridgework and sticking techniques, for instance.
I see it more as a tool, just like the single man sets. The only time I would ever use the patterns of the set in their entirety in a fight is if my opponent knew the opposing pattern. And that doesn't happen, hehe.
Cheers!
V.

[quote="TenTigers"]

Sure it looks cool for demos, and there are some movements that I do like, but on the whole,it seems more for deom than for teaching fighting.
Often, the form is just a basic stepping stone for beginners. Many things such as stepping back three times and defending is a bozo no-no in my book, and develops poor habits. I feel you should shut him down on the first beat.

Alright TT,

This resonates to one of my questions about the theatrical aspect of a demo, form or sparring set. I have the impression that when is a demo, and especially during those old days, it is in the audience imagination to create a fantastic scene without decor. It seems that we rationalize too much about the aesthetics but in those days they needed to attract more students and impress the audience. My 0.02

Hi Ten,

My take on it:

Due to (then) modern societal adjustments (of which everybody is already aware), the importance of maintaining private security forces in a state of combat readiness became de-emphasized. This gave the Gung Fu teachers of the day two options: "put on performances and like it", or "quit"...

Because a two-man choreography (rather than Saan Sik/ "Application Breakdowns") was important for Biu Yin/ "Gung Fu Demo" purpose, LSW's two-man choreography was the Gung Ji Chaak. This was their ONLY bare-hand Chaak, although they had some weapon Chaak as well...

Lam Cho grew up in that school, taught and practiced Gung Ji Chaak for his whole career. Later, he incorporated some Pek Gwa weapons, designing several other Chaak as well, including Fu Hok Chaak...

By this time, students who performed were good and ready just to have something "just a little different" to perform. This, including a number of LSW alumni who remained to train with their Hingdaai Lam Cho after the passing of LSW...

So, I'm not disagreeing with your observations. In fact, I don't particularly feel that "stepping back three times", letting someone "push or knock you to the ground", or fancy, "360-degree floor sweeps" are any kind of practical training either, especially just "as-is" (as, in a two-man set)...

I disagree that removing "all the 1-2-3, 1-2-3..", "jumping", and "spinning steps" of GJ Chaak is any type of practical improvement...

I will, however, mention that unless somebody is able to get accomplished through such two-man choreographies what many of us can, they might do well to avoid selling themselves short through a leap to judgement, lol...



Respects,

Michael