To reach the growing number of students, some sort of pre-conformed set must be established as standards for the branch to follow.
As a result all members will be conditioned according to the prescribed system. Many will probably end up as a prisoner of a systematized drill.
Styles tend to not only separate men - because they have their own doctrines and then the doctrine became the gospel truth that you cannot change.
拳種門派分裂了群眾, 因為各門派有各自的教義, 進而便成不可更改的教條.
But if you do not have a style, if you just say: Well, here I am as a human being, how can I express myself totally and completely?
然而如果你不墨守成規, 那就該思考「我就是我」且捫心自問 :「我就是我, 那麼我該如何全然地表現自我 ?」
Now, that way you won't create a style, because style is a crystallization. That way, it's a process of continuing growth.
如此你才不會又把自己陷入一個“形式” 之中. 因為“形式”是僵化的產物, 而你是一持續成長進化的.
To me totality is very important in sparring.
對我來說 “全面性” 在實際對打中是極為重要的
Many styles claim this totality. They say that they can cope with all types of attacks; that their structures cover all the possible lines and angles, and are capable of retaliation from all angles and lines.
許多 “門派” 自稱是 “全面性” 的拳種, 強調他們可以對應各種不同形態的攻勢. 他們的結構含蓋所有的 “路徑” 和 “角度”, 並且能對付實戰中所有迎面而來的 “攻擊路線”及“角度”.
If this is true, then how did all the different styles come about? If they are in totality, why do some use only the straight lines, others the round lines, some only kicks, and why do still others who want to be different just flap and flick their hands?
如真如此的話, 那些各式各樣的拳種又是如何產生的呢? 如果他們真的是“全方位”的, 那又為何有些只有直線路徑或曲線路徑, 其他有些只著重在踢? 或是有些只是手部的輕怕敲打 ?
To me a system that clings to one small aspect of combat is actually in bondage.
對我來說如果 “系統” 只著眼點在格鬥的某一個狹窄的層面, 事實上是一大束縛.
This statement expresses my feelings perfectly: 'In memory of a once fluid man, crammed and distorted by the classical mess.'