Small Literary Star vs Pi Cut

You've got nothing to worry about on quality, Liam. Admittedly, while it's a little fuzzy, it still serves its purpose and gets the point across. With that said, you wouldn't mind posting proper sword grips, would you? I've found several different methods, so I can't be sure which one is correct or if they're all correct and just dependent on the style.

I'm sorry, but no. I have done both simplified forms and traditional forms and there is a massive difference. There is a level of subtlety in a traditional form, when you learn under a good Master, that is missing in the simplified forms. Simplified forms are made for demonstration and being 'flashy.'

Done correctly, a form should not have any differences between the way it is done and the actual use. (Possibly stance and timing since the duifang rarely seems to want to oblige with form perfect movements. But it is certainly possible, but the difference should simply be a matter of forward/backwards weighting or lining up, nothing major.)

Whether a move is specifically designed for sword v sword combat is another matter. As you linked on the old boards, and is frequently shown in Scott Rodells book on Taiji swordsmanship, many moves are designed for polearms and various other weapons.

As for the spins, watch how in that clip towards the end they are doing the four corners drill. On the lower blocks, you have to spin the weapon rather than go for a straight thrust.

WITHOUT a spin is extraordinarily simple to defend against. You just draw your jian across in Ya (Press down) and if your distance is right, a simple reach forward gives you their pommel. Even a soft pull back on their pommel will torque the blade out of their hand, into yours. You can also bring it up into their groin for the kill to the artery present. (If using real blades.)

Re-watching your clip, (I don't know the 32 point form, only the 54) it seems that you go from a thrust, back into a spin that leads into a Pi cut. Done correctly, that's almost identical to a section of the 4 corners drill found on Linda's website. (If you are following rather than leading the exercise.)

So the correct order for the form movement should be: Thrust, deflection, spin the blade around the duifangs weapon, cut/thrust.

There seems to be some of that in the modern 32 form, but it's very hard to imagine direct practical application for other movements in that same form. I'm just now starting to learn the classical sword form, and the applications do seem to be more direct. Now for the three groin cuts immediately following "Three rings around the moon" in the classical (CMC version) Yang sword form, I can see smaller condensed versions of those same movements used in combat, but not the larger circular movements found in the form. Smaller circular movements are mandated by the body mechanics of the movements but when facing a live duifang, even if it is my four year old, the larger form movements are just too slow even when performed at top speed - they give the duifang too much opening.

Small Literary Star, Little Chief Star and Little Dipper all refer in Taoist literature to a same segment of the constellation of the Dipper. Pretty much just depends on your translation into English.

And in the classical sword form the movements vary greatly amongst various teachers. My Sifu, the first day I was learning the sword form, which included up to the Little Dipper, said from Big Dipper, large circle (big Liao cut to the left), small circle to the right (Chou), small circle back to the left (Chou) big circle into Little dipper (Liao to the right).

He also teaches two variations of the form, depending on the students goals. I told him that I didn't care about 'pretty' I wanted to learn the form as close to practical as possible. Since he has not the greatest English in the world his response was (paraphrased) 'Ah fighting form. Much smaller, tighter.' In the demonstration version of Little Dipper that he teaches, the left hand is extended outwards, similar to in Big Dipper, 'fighting form' it's up on the wrist, safely hidden away and giving that little bit extra protection to your veins.

I was told Ken Van Sickle had a really definitive sword form. Personally my favorite is the You Tube of Professor Cheng doing sword form:

Here's a quick clip of my Sifu doing it. (Great man, not too good on the technology.) This isn't exactly how he teaches it in class, but if you notice how much tighter the movements are compared to CMC.

Oh CMC did have an amazing level of Song. That is certain. But I am well aware of the directness and indirectness of the form. My issue is that there is a continuing of teaching the indirectness. This indirectness would not have been present when people were learning the sword for survival.

I have a deep seated belief that to truly progress in a martial art, it has to be stripped to its more primal essentials. Good Song is highly admirable. However, focusing on Song alone at the expense of the other energies is as bad as ignoring it entirely.

In my practice, I attempt to have each movement immediately practical rather than some vague 'principle'. Each of the 8 energies should be practiced and developed as much as you can. Far too many people neglect the energies like fa jin in favour of purely peng and or song. Taiji is about balance, the balance between hard and soft. Go too much in one way or the other and it's no longer Taiji. Yang Jun for example has gone so far to the soft end of the spectrum, that what he does can't really be considered Taiji anymore.

As I was saying initially, refine the form until it's exactly the same way you'd do each thing in actual combat and you'll find the soul of Taiji.