johnwang wrote:That's why I only said "3 WC forms". The wooden dummy can be treated as drills and drills sometime may come from "cross training".
Since the dummy form is taught as a form by all the WC lineages I've come across, I'm not sure why what it contains should be treated as drills any more than would an empty hand or weapon form. In particular, it doesn't follow that a drill derived from such a form is any more likely to come from outside the system. Could you explain your reasoning?
Ian wrote: Everything can be interpreted as anything in CMA
True enough. Some lineages make the interpretations more obvious than others though.
Rather than discuss whether sweeps exist in chum kiu or not (I don't think they do, but whatever), IMO IF you feel sweeps are important, then you should train them overtly. Overt training is better than secret interpretation
I think the difference is between overt and obvious in the forms. Some movements when done obviously are being done incorrectly, which is why much of their practice comes about in partner drills and on the dummy.
I'm certainly not saying that sweeps are the main focus of WC's method. Where they do fit in are in the instances where the other principles of the style are not compromised, which makes those moves necessarily small and limited in number.
