name that form

[tigdra]

my instructor has a habit of not telling us the names of the forms we are learning can anyone tell me the name of the form I am describing.

1st form very basic seen other school do it almost identically. I will discribe the form without the stances like gong bu, etc.

Start salutation
1. step to left, face forward and cross both hands right over left in front of groin area
2. lift arms up to face level (still crossing hands) fists are at head area and elbows pointing upwards.
3. open arms out shoulder hidth in a vertival (sun) punch position to both sides
4. left arm comes into chamber as you turn your body towards the left as you right arm swings towards the left wall in a veritcal punch
5. execute a right heel front kick towards same wall while simultaneously executing a left vertical punch
6. land forward (towards the wall you kick to) as you execute a right veritcal punch.
7. now facing what was the rear wall (opposite one that you did you sallutation) repeat steps 1-6 on opposite side (low cross block, bring hands up and open out, left punch, left kick and right punch, land forwards left punch)

I would really appreciate if someone could tell me the name of the form and what type of style teaches this form. I know that northern shaolin teaches these forms but it would be great if I had the name.

I would be happy to explain more of the form if anyone needs more details.

[Jade Tigress]

Can't you ask your instructor?

[tigdra]

I have and he gives me some an awnser like "it small plum blossom or something...quit bothering me it is not important." so I awnser "yes sifu, sorry"

I would push the subject but I don't want to piss off my teacher.

[clfsean]

What are you studying?

[Nebuchadnezzar]

I have and he gives me some an awnser like "it small plum blossom or something...quit bothering me it is not important." so I awnser "yes sifu, sorry"

I would push the subject but I don't want to piss off my teacher.

That kind of answer and I would say "See ya!" In my opinion, if he can't tell you what it is, or can't be bothered telling you, he doesn't know what it is either. :soapbox:

[pstarr]

I'd have some serious reservations about an instructor who doesn't even know the name of a form he's teaching (which is probably why he won't tell you the name of it)...

[tigdra]

he knows the names he just does it so none of his students become techers themselves

[clfsean]

he knows the names he just does it so none of his students become techers themselves

Then it's time to go if he's that selfish...

[Jade Tigress]

he knows the names he just does it so none of his students become techers themselves


I think that's a shame. Do you have any other training options? You are being short-changed.

[funnytiger]

I'm jumping on the bandwagon with this one... you are being hoodwinked... bamboozled... run-a-muck... you get the idea.

JT, I LOVE your sig!!!

[tigdra]

i appreciate all of your concern but really guys does anyone know this form. I am pretty sure he tells his students the names once they become a black sash.

[Hand Sword]

Sorry, I don't know the name, However, I have never heard of any such foolishness from an instructor. I would take the advise above and find another school. Waiting 'til Black Sash? Please!

[pstarr]

In my five decades of martial arts, I've never heard of a teacher who withheld the name of a form until the student reached black belt level. Has he revealed the name of the style you're learning? That'd be a big help insofar as identifying the name of a form...

My guess is:

(A). He doesn't know the name(s) or
(B). He's making it all up.

Either way, he's not what I would consider a good instructor at all. If I were you, I'd find another school - pronto.

If he has issues with any of his pupils eventually becoming teachers, he has a serious problem and should not be teaching anyone. A real martial arts instructor spends a lot of time praying that MANY of his or her students will eventually become teachers.

You have to ask yourself "why?"

And then find a proper instructor.

[clfsean]

In my five decades of martial arts, I've never heard of a teacher who withheld the name of a form until the student reached black belt level.

Only 2.5 decades, but same thing here. Names are history, identifiers of more than just a bunch of moves strung together, etc...



Has he revealed the name of the style you're learning? That'd be a big help insofar as identifying the name of a form...

Asked the same question. No response. I saw on the profile "Chinese Kenpo" ...



My guess is:

(A). He doesn't know the name(s) or
(B). He's making it all up.



a) Yep
b) Sounds likely but to what degree... no idea.



Either way, he's not what I would consider a good instructor at all. If I were you, I'd find another school - pronto.

Ditto



If he has issues with any of his pupils eventually becoming teachers, he has a serious problem and should not be teaching anyone. A real martial arts instructor spends a lot of time praying that MANY of his or her students will eventually become teachers.

I know all of mine have & have all said the little prayer that we exceed them in all aspects of our MA careers/lives.



You have to ask yourself "why?"

Yep



And then find a proper instructor.

On the double time...

[bydand]

RUN, do not walk to the nearest exit! If the instructor witholds the names of the form, you have to ask yourself what else is being witheld? If it is a method to keep their students from becoming instructors, then witholding the proper form would be a better bet than just the name, find someone else to train under.

[funnytiger]

It should also be pointed out that this method is in no way traditional. So don't let him lie to you by telling you this is the way it is done.

[oxy]

What I am about to say is going to make me look like a fraud and/or a bad teacher and is going to make most people on this thread pissed off at me.

Is there any importance for teachers to teach the name of the form?

Maybe it's my ignorance but I have not heard of anyone who progresses faster and/or solidly simply by knowing the name of a form.

While I would not fully agree with ANY teaching method that requires withholding trivial information such as names, I still wouldn't judge a martial arts instructor purely on that fact alone. Thus, the comments about this particular instructor seems really reactionary and not at all rational.

As an instructor myself (and having seen my father as an instructor), I have seen that students can be taught successfully without knowing the name. In my father's school, we refrain from teaching the names of the forms or even the moves within a form (except for the fundamental things like stances and such) for two reasons:

1) Translations are not always accurate.
2) Teaching people either name (ie, in english or chinese) can be a distraction.

And, me hypocritically judging by some of the comments on this thread, I would say my father's school's reasoning in point #2 seems proven.

Personally, I would not want any student who would be so impatient as to leave the school over such a trivial matter as the name of a form. It says to me that the student cares more about external image (such as the ability to dazzle people with your knowledge of names) rather than a full dedication to knuckle down and practicing the form till they sweat enough to stop Australia's drought in search of perfection.

Like some has said, my father's school also aims to produce instructors who can produce instructors (two generations for those counting). I have seen the success of teaching students to focus on the relevant knowledge and the failings of a student who became wrapped up in terminology despite the school's overriding philosophy to teach otherwise.

[funnytiger]

I'm going to be blunt and say, with this kind of attitude, why bother learning anything? Why bother learning the name of the states? Trivial. Why bother learning the names of your body parts? So long as you can point to them, who cares right?

Some have stated it already, but this speaks loudly of someone who doesn't know the terminology (which is important for communicating between martial artists) and has made an effort to erradicate it in an effort to not look uninformed.

No offense.


What I am about to say is going to make me look like a fraud and/or a bad teacher and is going to make most people on this thread pissed off at me.

Is there any importance for teachers to teach the name of the form?

Maybe it's my ignorance but I have not heard of anyone who progresses faster and/or solidly simply by knowing the name of a form.

While I would not fully agree with ANY teaching method that requires withholding trivial information such as names, I still wouldn't judge a martial arts instructor purely on that fact alone. Thus, the comments about this particular instructor seems really reactionary and not at all rational.

As an instructor myself (and having seen my father as an instructor), I have seen that students can be taught successfully without knowing the name. In my father's school, we refrain from teaching the names of the forms or even the moves within a form (except for the fundamental things like stances and such) for two reasons:

1) Translations are not always accurate.
2) Teaching people either name (ie, in english or chinese) can be a distraction.

And, me hypocritically judging by some of the comments on this thread, I would say my father's school's reasoning in point #2 seems proven.

Personally, I would not want any student who would be so impatient as to leave the school over such a trivial matter as the name of a form. It says to me that the student cares more about external image (such as the ability to dazzle people with your knowledge of names) rather than a full dedication to knuckle down and practicing the form till they sweat enough to stop Australia's drought in search of perfection.

Like some has said, my father's school also aims to produce instructors who can produce instructors (two generations for those counting). I have seen the success of teaching students to focus on the relevant knowledge and the failings of a student who became wrapped up in terminology despite the school's overriding philosophy to teach otherwise.

[clfsean]

What I am about to say is going to make me look like a fraud and/or a bad teacher and is going to make most people on this thread pissed off at me.

Nah... it's your approach that does/not piss people off. Me personally... I'm ok with it. Straight shooting & matter of fact.



Is there any importance for teachers to teach the name of the form?

Yep. For a huge variety of reasons. Some are:

-- number of forms in system make it prohibative to not name them
-- number of forms based on common ground (bat gwa, sap ji, moi fa, law horn, etc...)
-- names are a descriptive recognizing factor for performance & intent
-- establishes common ground between schools of same style

etc...



Maybe it's my ignorance but I have not heard of anyone who progresses faster and/or solidly simply by knowing the name of a form.

Me neither... but would you take a class in college if it simply said... "Required" with no other descriptor?



While I would not fully agree with ANY teaching method that requires withholding trivial information such as names, I still wouldn't judge a martial arts instructor purely on that fact alone. Thus, the comments about this particular instructor seems really reactionary and not at all rational.

Nope... if a person can't/won't tell me what I'm doing or why, then what are they hiding or missing?




As an instructor myself (and having seen my father as an instructor), I have seen that students can be taught successfully without knowing the name. In my father's school, we refrain from teaching the names of the forms or even the moves within a form (except for the fundamental things like stances and such) for two reasons:

How many forms are taught with LHBF?



1) Translations are not always accurate.

Nope, but a close approximation or at least number is workable



2) Teaching people either name (ie, in english or chinese) can be a distraction.

So give them the name in Chinese, an English alternative & easily used identifying name for class. Nobody has suggest that Mandarin and/or Cantonese is taught as part of the curriculum.



And, me hypocritically judging by some of the comments on this thread, I would say my father's school's reasoning in point #2 seems proven.

Well... you'd know... we wouldn't. But I imagine if somebody asked, you'd be inclined to give the name of a set.



Personally, I would not want any student who would be so impatient as to leave the school over such a trivial matter as the name of a form. It says to me that the student cares more about external image (such as the ability to dazzle people with your knowledge of names) rather than a full dedication to knuckle down and practicing the form till they sweat enough to stop Australia's drought in search of perfection.

Me neither, but then again I wouldn't want an instructor to hold anything back from me because of the reasons stated already in the original post while I'm sweating enough to soak the Outback either. If the instructor can't share a simple thing as a name, then why bother? What else will be held back because my accent or understanding of Chinese might not make it Beijing perfect?



Like some has said, my father's school also aims to produce instructors who can produce instructors (two generations for those counting). I have seen the success of teaching students to focus on the relevant knowledge and the failings of a student who became wrapped up in terminology despite the school's overriding philosophy to teach otherwise.

So have I, but I've seen plenty of schools that produced compentent instructors that have a working knowledge of Chinese (M/C) to be able to teach the names of the forms, terminology, histories, etc... without being dsitracted or without holding information back.

[oxy]

I'm going to be blunt and say, with this kind of attitude, why bother learning anything? Why bother learning the name of the states? Trivial. Why bother learning the names of your body parts? So long as you can point to them, who cares right?

In no way do I intend "this attitude" to be used for ANY sort of learning. Just in relevant areas where such terminology are not entirely useful. In medical education and computer sciences, for example, terminology can be a matter of life and death.

In other kinds of learning, like sports or physical activities, it's not at all important.


Some have stated it already, but this speaks loudly of someone who doesn't know the terminology (which is important for communicating between martial artists) and has made an effort to erradicate it in an effort to not look uninformed.

No offense.

Well, let me be the first to admit that I do not know most of the terminology in LHBF and I follow my father's school's way of teaching just to hide the fact that I do not know the terminology. I'm not being sarcastic. I've lived in Australia too long for me to remember non-basic Cantonese.

When I did use to teach, I had a student who was around 11 years old. His father, who trained in traditional forms of karate, is almost always there to observe me teach the kid. Maybe my emotional radar is on the fritz, but it seems the kid's father respects my way of teaching (not to mention a university researcher I also teach later on that day).

In an ideal world, the argument that it is "important for communicating between martial artists" is a strong one. In real application, it's much weaker. First, there is no standardisation of terminology (I know I used the word terminology, but I use it more leaning towards "names of forms"). Second (and I also get confused by this) many schools translates things just a little bit different from many other schools.

[funnytiger]

In no way do I intend "this attitude" to be used for ANY sort of learning. Just in relevant areas where such terminology are not entirely useful. In medical education and computer sciences, for example, terminology can be a matter of life and death.

In other kinds of learning, like sports or physical activities, it's not at all important.



Well, let me be the first to admit that I do not know most of the terminology in LHBF and I follow my father's school's way of teaching just to hide the fact that I do not know the terminology. I'm not being sarcastic. I've lived in Australia too long for me to remember non-basic Cantonese.

When I did use to teach, I had a student who was around 11 years old. His father, who trained in traditional forms of karate, is almost always there to observe me teach the kid. Maybe my emotional radar is on the fritz, but it seems the kid's father respects my way of teaching (not to mention a university researcher I also teach later on that day).

In an ideal world, the argument that it is "important for communicating between martial artists" is a strong one. In real application, it's much weaker. First, there is no standardisation of terminology (I know I used the word terminology, but I use it more leaning towards "names of forms"). Second (and I also get confused by this) many schools translates things just a little bit different from many other schools.

I can't say I agree with your last statement at all. I have never run into a school that translates Cantonese terminology in a way that can not be readily understood universally. In other words, "kuen" is fist or set or otherwise a word or phrase that gives the same meaning. I don't know how it is with Manadrin schools, but I would think its runs along the same lines in translations.

Your methods may work just fine and everyone is tickled pink with their daily lessons. But I still think that you are leaving your students at a disadvantage and robbing them of some important information despite what you may think.

But I can not dictate what you or your father teaches in your school.

I think clfsean probably addressed your post the best.

- ft

[oxy]

Yep. For a huge variety of reasons. Some are:

-- number of forms in system make it prohibative to not name them
-- number of forms based on common ground (bat gwa, sap ji, moi fa, law horn, etc...)
-- names are a descriptive recognizing factor for performance & intent
-- establishes common ground between schools of same style

etc...


1) I'm not against identification of forms. But names aren't important. My father's school's students remember the forms as "Form #1", "Form #2" etc. They remember fine. I suspect many other people can remember forms as numbers.

2) The fact that you use "number of forms" in your points is another kind of "distraction" that I allude to. No doubt that many styles where forms number more than roughly ten or fifteen that a lot of them aren't original. They were created by masters later along the line. Given many forms, it can become a matter of "form collecting". Kind of like how some people collect styles.

3) That is true. But performance and intent should be something that is gained through hours of practice. The need for words to become a "recognising descriptive factor" is another kind of distraction from learning.

4) Like I said with funnytiger, it's only a strong argument in an ideal world. Where things within a style are standardised and that no school branches off into a different teaching philosophy.


Me neither... but would you take a class in college if it simply said... "Required" with no other descriptor?

Not entirely sure what you're asking (since we use different terminologies :) ) in my education system.

Many units in my university course are labelled as "core units". You must take them and you must pass them within 1 - 2 times. If there was no other description to them other than "core units", I would still take them, since I need them to attain my degree. Of course, if you can demonstrate that you've taken a subject (at the same or another university) that is essentially the same, you can get a "recognition of prior learning" or some such.

I'm a bit slow in seeing the parallels between your analogy and learning names of forms.


Nope... if a person can't/won't tell me what I'm doing or why, then what are they hiding or missing?

And this is exactly my point. Taking one little thing and then extrapolating a whole lot of "what ifs" is like judging a book by its cover. The person who started the thread has not included information like whether he believes the teacher is teaching the forms properly (eg no one getting injured). Just the fact that he doesn't teach the names. And everyone's calling for boycott. While I do agree it is likely that if a teacher "hides" or is "missing" one thing, there are probably more, you can't assume this. You must see it.


How many forms are taught with LHBF?

The LHBF subset we teach has three. But we teach a few other arts as precursors and extended learning. 4 Praying Mantis forms. 1 Dao form. 3 to 15 LHBF forms. 8 LHBS forms.

No one has gotten confused with "Praying Mantis 1st form" or "LHBF 3rd form" in our school. Also, I teach my students to be able to recognise what forms a "move" comes from and the "moves" shortly before and after it. I find getting them to remember it without names lasts longer and makes them less dependent on learning crutches.


Nope, but a close approximation or at least number is workable

Exactly. And this is why the "communication" argument is a bit idealistic.


So give them the name in Chinese, an English alternative & easily used identifying name for class. Nobody has suggest that Mandarin and/or Cantonese is taught as part of the curriculum.

Again, I'm not against identification. A number and maybe the style (in multi-style schools) is good enough. I show my students a part of that style. They understand what I'm talking about and where it's from and how it's used and how to adapt it. They can properly convey that understanding to their students. That's all that matters.

Again, the "distraction" factor runs much deeper than just having to learn Mandarin or Cantonese.


Well... you'd know... we wouldn't. But I imagine if somebody asked, you'd be inclined to give the name of a set.

Yes I would. And they'd go "huh?" because the only people who ask are not students of the school (in my situation, that is). My father's students and their students just don't have the urge to know the name.


Me neither, but then again I wouldn't want an instructor to hold anything back from me because of the reasons stated already in the original post while I'm sweating enough to soak the Outback either. If the instructor can't share a simple thing as a name, then why bother? What else will be held back because my accent or understanding of Chinese might not make it Beijing perfect?

Again, that's justified if you have the evidence. Assumptions based on name-withholding is judging a book by its cover. And the rest of the assumption that follows is a slippery slope. Only when those what ifs are actually answered are they relevant. Withholding names is hardly evidence for withholding knowledge. Withholding knowledge is the only evidence for withholding knowledge. Withholding names can be a good indicator but it's not reliable.

Also, using a similar kind of logic opens oneself up to the terminology trap. Many "masters" throw form names around just enough to keep you interested. Your filter would not work and also limits your playing field unnecessarily and inaccurately.


So have I, but I've seen plenty of schools that produced compentent instructors that have a working knowledge of Chinese (M/C) to be able to teach the names of the forms, terminology, histories, etc... without being dsitracted or without holding information back.

Sure. But in our school, good teaching is judged whether competent instructors can produce other competent instructors. I have no doubt that a lot of masters out there have produced quality instructors. But the majority of the schools/styles quickly deteriorate after the first generation produced. So you may have seen competent instructors with full working knowledge, but can the same be said for the students of these instructors?

And while teaching names, terminology and histories take up almost zero class time, one has to wonder why so many debates on martial arts involve the historical legitimacy of a style/master. What are people doing wasting a good portion of time to debate history instead of practicing (or at least doing something worthwhile)? Such information has a high likelihood of becoming a distraction. People could be debating about teaching techniques instead... :)

[oxy]

I can't say I agree with your last statement at all. I have never run into a school that translates Cantonese terminology in a way that can not be readily understood universally. In other words, "kuen" is fist or set or otherwise a word or phrase that gives the same meaning. I don't know how it is with Manadrin schools, but I would think its runs along the same lines in translations.

You did pick a rather trivial example. Kuen's universally understood; I agree. But I specifically had the "names of forms" in mind, as per the original part of the thread. Either way, what you state is inconsequential to the lack of importance in the names of forms.


Your methods may work just fine and everyone is tickled pink with their daily lessons.

I wouldn't know anymore as I have stopped to pursue more university time.


But I still think that you are leaving your students at a disadvantage and robbing them of some important information despite what you may think.

This continues to allude me, unfortunately. Many people have said that such information is "important". But I cannot seem to figure out exactly "why". It's kind of like in the Red vs Blue episode where Church tells Caboose to guard the flag because "it's important... it's the flag... it's blue... we're blue."

While the disadvantages aren't nearly as great as the hyperbolic language I used to describe them, the advantages are not even there.


But I can not dictate what you or your father teaches in your school.

I think clfsean probably addressed your post the best.

- ft

I'm always looking to improve my teaching (and my learning), which is why I decided to take up this small debate anyway. I do not have a problem with disagreements. But I like to explore them. Often, it gets mistaken as stubbornness, which might not be a mistaken identity.

[funnytiger]

You did pick a rather trivial example. Kuen's universally understood; I agree. But I specifically had the "names of forms" in mind, as per the original part of the thread. Either way, what you state is inconsequential to the lack of importance in the names of forms.

Trivial seems to be the word of the day. lol

Trivial, but important none the less. Putting "kuen" identifies what is a form or set as compared to a set of movements or a stance. But like you said, even you don't know the names of the forms you have learned so it can't be expected of you to be fully aware of the importance of such a "trivial" word. The names of forms are most often metaphorical in nature. "Siu Ying Jow Kuen"; Small Eagle Claw Fist. None of the words used in the cantonese name refer to anything specific to just Jow Ga. Broken down the name can be understood and refers to a series of "eagle claw" movements in the form or kuen. Anyone from a different style could tell you that based on the name whether its the cantonese or the english they understand. (clfsean pointed out that its not necessarily the chinese names you need to know.) You tell me you know form #1 and I can't tell you jack squat about it as an outsider.

I am enjoying this discussion as well oxy. No one is accusing you of being stubborn or argumentative. This is going really well so far. I hope to read more input from other MAists!

- ft

[oxy]

You tell me you know form #1 and I can't tell you jack squat about it as an outsider.

That is true. But other than recognition, there is no learning that takes place if I told you that "form #1" is Northern Praying Mantis' "18 old men" or "form #3" is NPM's "Crushing step".


The names of forms are most often metaphorical in nature.

I know. And thus, other than the recognition benefit, there is no more use for the name.

Say you are discussing with some people face to face about the possibilities of such and such a stance (or whatever people choose to call them) in such and such a form. You may introduce by saying the name, but after that, no use. And I seriously doubt that if you show someone in your own style a stance/move and leave out the name of the form that the other person would be left confused.

I know that in itself is no reason to stop using names. But I have already stated my other reasons (I hope).


No one is accusing you of being stubborn or argumentative.

I'm not THAT paranoid. But I do know what I am, and sometimes I am stubborn/argumentative and sometimes I just act like it. Why else would I choose the name "oxy"? <- Ignore all this, it's off topic.

[Nebuchadnezzar]

he knows the names he just does it so none of his students become techers themselves

Then he shouldn't have any students. How can you teach someone without telling them what it is they're doing? Do medical schools show students how to dissect a colon without telling them the name of what they are doing?

[Nebuchadnezzar]

What I am about to say is going to make me look like a fraud and/or a bad teacher and is going to make most people on this thread pissed off at me.

Is there any importance for teachers to teach the name of the form?...

This is a joke right? :confused:

[IWishToLearn]

*Waves bye bye to instructor :)*

[oxy]

This is a joke right? :confused:

There have been a few who also posted replies.

They, at least, have enough respect for other human beings to give the points I raised AFTER the one you quoted some analysis and consideration.

In scientific circles, taking a small portion of text and leaving out the context (in this case, the REST of that post) is called "quotemining". It is a rather serious form of intellectual dishonesty. The rest of my post and subsequent replies further clarifies my position. If you do not wish to take those into account, then all I can say is that you are indeed quotemining.

Your reply is a joke, right? :confused:

[Jade Tigress]

Mod Note

Please, keep the conversation polite and respectful.

Pamela Piszczek
MT Moderator

[Nebuchadnezzar]

There have been a few who also posted replies.

They, at least, have enough respect for other human beings to give the points I raised AFTER the one you quoted some analysis and consideration.

In scientific circles, taking a small portion of text and leaving out the context (in this case, the REST of that post) is called "quotemining". It is a rather serious form of intellectual dishonesty. The rest of my post and subsequent replies further clarifies my position. If you do not wish to take those into account, then all I can say is that you are indeed quotemining.

Your reply is a joke, right? :confused:

I see, you're ego is bruised. I asked a legitimate question. While others have asked their questions, I"ve asked mine, short and to the point. Rather than a long drawn out re-hash of what the others have noted, without knowing the names of the forms you:

1) Do a dis-service to the founder or founders of the systems. They didn't arbitrarily attach a name to these forms.

2) Those who came before were diligent caretakers of these systems and transmitted it over the years.

3) When it comes time to interact with others (unless you isolate yourselves) who study said system, you cannot communicate with them as it was meant to be.

4) Not preserving the identity of the forms is a base betrayal and clearly dishonest to the students and those who practice this or any other system because you decide it is not necessary to preserve that identity. It actually is a form of intellectual theft.

There are many more things that can be brought up but I don't want to make this a long post, nor am I inclinded to. Removing the knowlege cheapens and diminishes it. Why even call this system by the name it was given if you don't want to keep it's history (which includes it's names)?

'Nuff Said

[clfsean]

Ok... sorry for the delay but I was at class. This will be last post on this & I'll answer your points directly to avoid any misconstruing of what I'm saying



1) I'm not against identification of forms. But names aren't important. My father's school's students remember the forms as "Form #1", "Form #2" etc. They remember fine. I suspect many other people can remember forms as numbers.


You come across as it's unimportant which is thepoint we're differing on. Chen Taiji for instance has for both Lao Jia & Xin Jia frames. Within those frames, they have Er Lu & Yi Lu with Yi Lu being known as Pao Chui. Wah Lum Praying Mantis has Forms 1 - 6 as well as named forms like Lok Lo, Siu & Dai Fan Che, etc... Yes people could go by numbers, but names carry meaning & weight for what the set is.




2) The fact that you use "number of forms" in your points is another kind of "distraction" that I allude to. No doubt that many styles where forms number more than roughly ten or fifteen that a lot of them aren't original. They were created by masters later along the line. Given many forms, it can become a matter of "form collecting". Kind of like how some people collect styles.


Wang Lang is said to have created 3 forms to teach his students Mantis. His students & subsequent generations created the rest. All carry those original 3. Hung Hei Goon passed along 1 he learned. The Wong family & their generations created the rest. What's the point? They named them because it's easier to remember names for certain attributes & concepts/theories, principles, etc... than a number.

With Chen Taiji as an example of set numbering instead of naming, they only have principle 2 sets & then subsequent hand sets numbered for the number of steps within those sets that are taken from the 2 principles. They don't have to remember that many sets. Bak Siu Lum has 10 sets that are numbered & known by numbers as well as names. The names carry the descriptive meaning of the set. Tan Tui roads are numbered but each number has a name to describe it. Same with Zha Quan. Names do carry meaning & should be taught as a quick reference for the student because of the definition of the set.



3) That is true. But performance and intent should be something that is gained through hours of practice. The need for words to become a "recognising descriptive factor" is another kind of distraction from learning.

I disagree. Performance & intent are gained with the hours you talk about. However in learning, the name carries weight with the student associating form & function with name & meaning. It also carries with it the history of the form's creator & what/why/how the thinking was inline with the need for the form to teach techniques as such.



4) Like I said with funnytiger, it's only a strong argument in an ideal world. Where things within a style are standardised and that no school branches off into a different teaching philosophy.


Well ... we could all hope for that or not. I prefer the comfort of it to randomization with no point of reference. That's just me.



Not entirely sure what you're asking (since we use different terminologies :) ) in my education system.


Eh it's cool... that's why thing are so cool with the world & people only a keyboard away.



Many units in my university course are labelled as "core units". You must take them and you must pass them within 1 - 2 times. If there was no other description to them other than "core units", I would still take them, since I need them to attain my degree. Of course, if you can demonstrate that you've taken a subject (at the same or another university) that is essentially the same, you can get a "recognition of prior learning" or some such.

Well let me rephrase it to make more sense. If I were to go back to school now for my Masters in CS, why would I take a class with nothing identifying it (name, number, area of specialty, etc...) other than the word "Required". How do I know I'm required to take it out of a course catalog of say 300 courses. You need the names & descriptions to better give insight into the content of what's being presented.

If I walked into your school & asked what hand you taught, what would you say? Kung fu? Wu Shu? Liu He Ba Fa? Or, "It doesn't matter". Well it does matter so I can better choose what's right for me or gives me more insight as to what it is I'm learning to fight & protect myself with... or if it does at all!



I'm a bit slow in seeing the parallels between your analogy and learning names of forms.


It's ok... different cultures... different thought patterns... damn it's the weekend too... it's ok. ;)




And this is exactly my point. Taking one little thing and then extrapolating a whole lot of "what ifs" is like judging a book by its cover. The person who started the thread has not included information like whether he believes the teacher is teaching the forms properly (eg no one getting injured). Just the fact that he doesn't teach the names. And everyone's calling for boycott. While I do agree it is likely that if a teacher "hides" or is "missing" one thing, there are probably more, you can't assume this. You must see it.

You're absolutely correct it must be seen. However, with what limited information I have, I made my call & stand by it. When I first started CMA, I went to a school where there was no talking, no asking questions, just following along. I had no idea what I was doing or following. It wasn't until later I learned I was studying at a Chin Woo based school & had started learning the 12 Road Tan Tui. It would've saved me a lot of grief & cash too had somebody clued me in so I would've been better prepared for what I was doing rather than blindly following with no explanations.





The LHBF subset we teach has three. But we teach a few other arts as precursors and extended learning. 4 Praying Mantis forms. 1 Dao form. 3 to 15 LHBF forms. 8 LHBS forms.

Ok... you can get away with calling forms by numbers with that few sets. That may work for you but at least you can/will give names. My branch of CLF can't. We've got close to 200 forms. Chan Taiji can... they've got 2 hand forms & a few weapons to work with. Lama Pai can't. They've got a ton of forms. Name recognition goes a long way with keeping track of things IME.



No one has gotten confused with "Praying Mantis 1st form" or "LHBF 3rd form" in our school. Also, I teach my students to be able to recognise what forms a "move" comes from and the "moves" shortly before and after it. I find getting them to remember it without names lasts longer and makes them less dependent on learning crutches.


What crutches?? It's part of the essence of the arts, especially with Praying Mantis that depending on the line & family, can have as few as 3 to 10 sets or over 200! How can you differentiate between Tang Long Chut Dong & Bak Yuen Chut Dong if you just show them moves that carry no meaning other than "this is it"? I just don't understand.



Exactly. And this is why the "communication" argument is a bit idealistic.


To each his own... communication saves time, lives & issues.



Again, I'm not against identification. A number and maybe the style (in multi-style schools) is good enough. I show my students a part of that style. They understand what I'm talking about and where it's from and how it's used and how to adapt it. They can properly convey that understanding to their students. That's all that matters.


In the end yes, but they're getting only part of the whole... I'm afraid I'd feel a bit shorted because it's more than the physical motions that should be taught.



Again, the "distraction" factor runs much deeper than just having to learn Mandarin or Cantonese.


Depends on why you're teaching I guess & how you look at it.




Yes I would. And they'd go "huh?" because the only people who ask are not students of the school (in my situation, that is). My father's students and their students just don't have the urge to know the name.


Well... I'm sorry for them then. They've missed out on something that's much much much more than a "distraction".




Again, that's justified if you have the evidence. Assumptions based on name-withholding is judging a book by its cover. And the rest of the assumption that follows is a slippery slope. Only when those what ifs are actually answered are they relevant. Withholding names is hardly evidence for withholding knowledge. Withholding knowledge is the only evidence for withholding knowledge. Withholding names can be a good indicator but it's not reliable.


But if you've nothing else to go on besides the knot it ties in your stomach that something may not be right... would you stick it out anyway over something grantedly as trivial as a name, but so important as a name?



Also, using a similar kind of logic opens oneself up to the terminology trap. Many "masters" throw form names around just enough to keep you interested. Your filter would not work and also limits your playing field unnecessarily and inaccurately.


Of course they do... it's called marketing. There are people who buy into it, people who research it, people who take it for what it is & keep going. I expect because I expect it. If I'm asked a question by a sidai, I answer it. If I don't know, I pass it on to my Sifu who gets back to me so I can the sidai. If I ask a question, I expect an answer. If I'm told "you're not ready now" then I know at some point down the journey I should & probably will find out. If I'm told "You don't need to know" or "It doesn't matter" I start asking more questions. If I start getting a funky feeling, I'm not above to someone who doesn't give me a funky feeling. My sifu I train with no has no such bars or restrictions on knowledge & shares what he knows because he wants us to know whatever we ask about (obviously within reason) and has no qualms about it.



Sure. But in our school, good teaching is judged whether competent instructors can produce other competent instructors. I have no doubt that a lot of masters out there have produced quality instructors. But the majority of the schools/styles quickly deteriorate after the first generation produced. So you may have seen competent instructors with full working knowledge, but can the same be said for the students of these instructors?


Yes. The ones who are students keep the traditions alive. The ones who pay the bills tend to not answer questions from their students because they don't know.



And while teaching names, terminology and histories take up almost zero class time, one has to wonder why so many debates on martial arts involve the historical legitimacy of a style/master. What are people doing wasting a good portion of time to debate history instead of practicing (or at least doing something worthwhile)? Such information has a high likelihood of becoming a distraction. People could be debating about teaching techniques instead... :)

It's simple... put two people in a room, chances are they'll get along ok on most issues. Put a 3rd in the same room, friction begins at some point & then bickering ensues & escalates.

It's human nature.

[oxy]

I see, you're ego is bruised. I asked a legitimate question. While others have asked their questions, I"ve asked mine, short and to the point.

The legitimacy of the question asked is not the point. It is the thing called "intellectual dishonesty". You quotemined me: end of story. It's not about my ego, since my ego is so big your attitude can not unsettle me :) . Calling your question "legitimate" (self-evaluated) does not make it so.

From my own experience, the fact that you bring out the "big guns" by claiming the other person acts the way they do because of a "bruised ego" says your following arguments are weak. So you hide that by trying to play on the other person's emotions and self-perceived value of worth to hopefully distract from the real debate at hand.


1) Do a dis-service to the founder or founders of the systems. They didn't arbitrarily attach a name to these forms.

And this is one of the reasons why styles destroy themselves over time. Why this irrational fear of "disservicing" the founders? How many styles fracture into competing systems when each claim to be the one properly doing service to the founder(s)?

I think someone devoting to improving the art and the teaching technique (dumping traditional names if necessary) does proper service to the founders than otherwise.


2) Those who came before were diligent caretakers of these systems and transmitted it over the years.

And that means teaching techniques cannot/should not change with the times?

This is a very common logical fallacy. "Because people who came before us do it, we must do it also and we should not change it". It's called "Appeal to Tradition".


3) When it comes time to interact with others (unless you isolate yourselves) who study said system, you cannot communicate with them as it was meant to be.

I do concede this is the only benefit of placing importance on names. Which is very small.

How much useful communication takes place between members of the same system that does not require person-to-person observation? As I've said in MY REPLIES TO OTHERS, the name wouldn't be important after maybe the first few seconds of discussion.

The only other benefit is the ability to show off your knowledge with words without having to back it up physically.


4) Not preserving the identity of the forms is a base betrayal and clearly dishonest to the students and those who practice this or any other system because you decide it is not necessary to preserve that identity. It actually is a form of intellectual theft.

That's a very strange definition of "theft", whether it is "intellectual" or not. Similarly, it is not theft if, say, a shopkeeper decides to not to sell to a customer. The shopkeeper is not stealing anything from the customer. And I think unwaivering dedication to the student more than makes up for not teaching them the name with which they'll have almost no use for in their daily lives.


There are many more things that can be brought up but I don't want to make this a long post, nor am I inclinded to. Removing the knowlege cheapens and diminishes it. Why even call this system by the name it was given if you don't want to keep it's history (which includes it's names)?

A very obvious example of "Appeal to emotion". The argument you raise is based on some irrational fear of "cheapens and diminishes" without any other reason than you saying it is so. Not good enough.

Why even call this system by the name it was given? How about the PHILOSOPHY of the art? I think you just cheapened and diminished all of martial arts by placing its worth on its history and not on its own merits.

You say there are "many more things" you can bring up. You haven't actually brought up anything new that I didn't address in MY REPLIES TO OTHERS.

So much for your "legitimate question".

[oxy]

It seems neither side has actually presented arguments that the other is convinced by. And it's no big deal.

To put things back into perspective:

The number of posts that came after diverted from my main argument about the importance of the names of forms. That is, on it's own, it is not a good reason to defame any teacher or their ability.

NB: I do agree it is highly likely a teacher who has the attitude of withholding names in the manner that tigdra describes is probably holding something else back. But that should only raise suspicion. It should not raise a boycott. Be suspicious. If your suspicions have been proved, THEN boycott.

The only time I've seen that knowing the names of forms or moves is a deciding factor in life and death is in Dragonball, Dragonball Z and Dragonball GT where an attack must be called by its name to have any effect. Other than that, knowing the name provides minimal benefit. Not that everyone should abandon names. I'm just calling for people not to jump down someone else's throat for teaching differently.

[MJS]

Mod. Note.
Please, keep the conversation polite and respectful.

-MJS
-MT Supermod

[bydand]

After reading back through the responses given I think the main point was slightly missed in all the verbose discussion that has happened. knowing the name of a form is NOT important in the application of the form. What the main point is though, the instructor is witholding the name after being asked for it. That IS important, it shows that the instructor either doesn't know, in which case I would be wondering if he knew the actual form for real; or he is controlling, in that case it raises a whole different set of concerns. Do I remember the names of every "form" I have learned over the years, no, but I also am not an instructor. When, and if I ever reach that level, I had better know what the names of things are, or I haven't studied the art enough to pass it on to others who are paying for that knowledge. Just my .02

[dmax999]

Taking a wild guess, even though the description does not really match up at all.

Tan Tui (Part 2)?

Tan Tui is "Seeking Leg" and a style all unto itself. Its common for Shaolin type schools to teach these forms to beginners. I'm guess this because you said beginning form, other schools do it, and the repeating part at the end of the description.

[East Winds]

It is not necessary for a student to learn the names of the postures of any form. However it is ESSENTIAL that the teacher knows them. If the teacher cannot be bothered to spend the time to learn the names, it says a lot about the remainder of his/her knowledge/teaching. As a teacher of a traditonal form of Taijiquan, I want to learn as much about my art as possible, both as a form of respect to the art and a form of respect to the founder (and my teacher) of that art.

Just my twopence worth

Very best wishes

[searcher]

Wouldn't it help to know who the instructor is? Seems like it to me.

tidgra, where are you from? Maybe there is another instructor that is on MT that you can go to and train. I am with some of the others in saying you should get away ASAP.

[bcbernam777]

he knows the names he just does it so none of his students become techers themselves

Sorry but that makes not one bit of sense

[oxy]

In economics, one of the most important things you need to do is to choose the right indicator and then being able to correctly interpret that indicator by understanding what such an indicator entails.

One way to check how an economy is doing is to check its inflation rate. If you want to check the state of inflation in the economy, you choose the inflation rate. You do not care for corporate tax rates. You may supplement the data with unemployment rates.

But then, you have to understand how inflation rates are calculated and what their pitfalls are. You sample a basket of goods and compare them to a similar one from previous years. Sometimes, you have to change that basket of goods. For example, if there is a spike in one quarter in the price of fuel, but it only lasts, say a week (INAE so I don't know exactly the time frame in which it can be disregarded) you wouldn't include that in because it will unnecessarily skew the inflation rate and you would make incorrect assessments. However, you might need to include in fuel if the price spike lasts, say a month (INAE). Such a long spike is bound to increase inflation since an economy needs fuel. This kind of reason is also why the financial year ends at June/July. Festivities also skew inflation calculations unjustifiably.

Many economic forecasts have the inflation rate (quarterly or annually) as a major factor in the equation. Thus, it is crucial to know how to choose the correct indicator/basket-o-goods. Such is its importance in making good and fair judgements.

No one here asking for a boycott, so far, has made a good case for their choice of indicator. I'm quite sure no one here actually knows how to interpret that indicator either (=> does not know how its "calculated" or its pitfalls).

The reactionary and unjustified exclusive use of such an indicator is just as bad as the teacher who refuses to teach names to prevent people from reaching teaching levels.

If a teacher who allegedly prevents students from reaching teaching heights should be boycotted in such an uninformed manner, then I would say everyone here who had a teacher who have suggested that other teachers should be abandoned for that reason should also be abandoned themselves. They're not teaching their students how to evaluate things PROPERLY. How can we know that the teacher's own knowledge is a result of careful evaluation of their art and themselves? Neither teacher is worth going to.

[dmax999]

Tigdra posted a question about Northern Eagle Claw from Ying Jow Pai, an association my school is affiliated with. I assume Tigdra was going there, and from the hints it sounded like Tan Tui, which are our beginning forms that are very short with repititon.

There are not seperate names for the Tan Tui parts, at least that I know of, and I'm not sure calling the form Tan Tui is actually correct. Its the name of the style and the form has no seperate name I know of. You all may be blowing something minor out of porportion. We don't know all the information and I was just trying to answer the question without throwing people, who I don't even know their name, under the bus.

But we are all free to have our own opinions. I know I do!

[oxy]

Tigdra posted a question about Northern Eagle Claw from Ying Jow Pai, an association my school is affiliated with.

...

You all may be blowing something minor out of porportion. We don't know all the information and I was just trying to answer the question without throwing people, who I don't even know their name, under the bus.

My sentiments exactly.

A very simple question was asked at the beginning of this thread. I don't think he was asking for life advice. Life advice is easy to give and is cheap and there's no liability to the giver.

[East Winds]

Much like the unwanted and irrrelevant potted lecture on high school economics. You forgot to factor in the law of diminishing returns!!!

Very best wishes

[oxy]

Much like the unwanted and irrrelevant potted lecture on high school economics. You forgot to factor in the law of diminishing returns!!!

Very best wishes

I think it's very relevant to the discussion, since I have been, time and time again, trying to point out (and what dmax999 also did in his recent post) that
there is no solid reason for the reactionary responses to sketchy facts. Not to mention that economic advice, just like life advice, is really easy to give. It is very cheap to give. And the person who gives the advice can cowardly hide behind the fact that they cannot be held liable for their advice.

The difference is that economics have proven the importance of inflation and interest rate figures while no one here even as a rational argument to support their call for the defamation and boycott of someone that is only known by the starter of this thread based on unreasonable criteria and slippery slope fallacies.

By the way, the law of diminishing returns is mainly concerned with microeconomics. I don't have a good idea of what its extent of relevance to macroeconomics (of which inflation is king or at least co-ruler of the round table) is, but isn't much (as it varies from organisation to organisation).

[Jade Tigress]

Mod. Note.

Please, return to the original topic.

Pamela Piszczek
MT Moderator

[Nebuchadnezzar]

Much like the unwanted and irrrelevant potted lecture on high school economics. You forgot to factor in the law of diminishing returns!!!

Very best wishes

Touche! Well said.

[oxy]

Touche! Well said.

The original topic was whether we can name the form described above. So I'll be keeping with the main topic and say "no, I don't".

It seems you haven't read the posts following the one you replied to. So will you stay on topic (or at least read the arguments that were put forth), or will you remain among those who give irrational and irrelevant-to-the-topic life advice simply because you can and you can hide behind the anonymity and non-liability of the 'net?

[Nebuchadnezzar]

The original topic was whether we can name the form described above. So I'll be keeping with the main topic and say "no, I don't".

It seems you haven't read the posts following the one you replied to. So will you stay on topic (or at least read the arguments that were put forth), or will you remain among those who give irrational and irrelevant-to-the-topic life advice simply because you can and you can hide behind the anonymity and non-liability of the 'net?

Seems like you're the one not reading what you're replying to. My advice to you all about this guy Oxy,:feedtroll

'Nuff Said.

[Xue Sheng]

Sorry I’m VERY late :asian:

I just read through this post and the discussion going on and I really do not wish to get involved in it I leave that to those already engaged.


my instructor has a habit of not telling us the names of the forms we are learning can anyone tell me the name of the form I am describing.

1st form very basic seen other school do it almost identically. I will discribe the form without the stances like gong bu, etc.

Start salutation
1. step to left, face forward and cross both hands right over left in front of groin area
2. lift arms up to face level (still crossing hands) fists are at head area and elbows pointing upwards.
3. open arms out shoulder hidth in a vertival (sun) punch position to both sides
4. left arm comes into chamber as you turn your body towards the left as you right arm swings towards the left wall in a veritcal punch
5. execute a right heel front kick towards same wall while simultaneously executing a left vertical punch
6. land forward (towards the wall you kick to) as you execute a right veritcal punch.
7. now facing what was the rear wall (opposite one that you did you sallutation) repeat steps 1-6 on opposite side (low cross block, bring hands up and open out, left punch, left kick and right punch, land forwards left punch)

I would really appreciate if someone could tell me the name of the form and what type of style teaches this form. I know that northern shaolin teaches these forms but it would be great if I had the name.

I would be happy to explain more of the form if anyone needs more details.

To answer the original question.

I am really not sure what the form you described is, but it does have similarities to a Long Fist form I use to do. But I do not think it is long fist from the description

As to form names, and I know this has already been said, but I do not think it is necessary for a student to know the names of every single posture of a form should the student choose not to know them. However I do feel it is very important that the teacher know the names should the student decide they want to know what the names are. If a teacher does not know the names of the forms it is first very difficult to talk to others about it and second in my opinion takes away form the form, it waters it down a bit. In Tai Chi White crane spreads its wings becomes that form where you kind of put most of your weight on the back leg and one hand is above your head while the other is below your waist. Or a teacher may decide it is easier to actually give the form he/she does not know a name so he/she can tell the students what to do more easily and what is to stop the teacher from calling it something like Billy or that one legged thingy. If that were the case would it still be Tai Chi?

I will also add I am very much a traditionalist when it comes to CMA so I personally feel that it is important to tell the student the names of the forms. Back when I use to teach I use to give out a sheet with the individual posture names on it for my students. However I did not require my them to know them unless they wanted to, there was no pop quiz.

This has also already been said but not form the US point of view..Just my 2 cents.

[oxy]

Seems like you're the one not reading what you're replying to. My advice to you all about this guy Oxy,:feedtroll

'Nuff Said.

Let's go through the posts you've made so far:


That kind of answer and I would say "See ya!" In my opinion, if he can't tell you what it is, or can't be bothered telling you, he doesn't know what it is either.

Nothing substantial.


Then he shouldn't have any students. How can you teach someone without telling them what it is they're doing? Do medical schools show students how to dissect a colon without telling them the name of what they are doing?

Again, like above, nothing substantial. So far, just a bunch of logical fallacies packed into two posts which draw irrational conclusions and comparisons.


This is a joke right?

Looks like a troll post to me. Like above, nothing substantial, so you try to hide it by shifting the spotlight onto my post.


I see, you're ego is bruised. I asked a legitimate question. While others have asked their questions, I"ve asked mine, short and to the point.

Again, shifting the spotlight to hide the fact that nothing you have said has anything substantial to contribute. At least the others do go into detail. You haven't. Looks like trolling to me.


Touche! Well said.

And here, you've regressed to playing cheerleader. In my experience of many forums, this is typical behaviour of you-know-whats. Nothing useful to add, so you hitch onto others instead of actually making discussion. Others have tried. You still haven't.

You should read the guy below you, since you don't understand what a post has to be to be a substantial contribution to discussion.

[oxy]

As to form names, and I know this has already been said, but I do not think it is necessary for a student to know the names of every single posture of a form should the student choose not to know them. However I do feel it is very important that the teacher know the names should the student decide they want to know what the names are. If a teacher does not know the names of the forms it is first very difficult to talk to others about it and second in my opinion takes away form the form, it waters it down a bit. In Tai Chi White crane spreads its wings becomes that form where you kind of put most of your weight on the back leg and one hand is above your head while the other is below your waist. Or a teacher may decide it is easier to actually give the form he/she does not know a name so he/she can tell the students what to do more easily and what is to stop the teacher from calling it something like Billy or that one legged thingy. If that were the case would it still be Tai Chi?

I agree that is a problem. But I am just skeptical about the scope of that problem. Can anyone carry on a whole martial arts discussion without reverting to actually showing the action? In my limited teaching experience, it's impossible to carry on a whole lesson by using the names of the actions. And it was also faster just to show them.

I have also had enough time to sample many internet discussions about martial arts, whether it is between different arts or within the same art. The ones that you can learn things from have almost no mention of any names other than generic ones that has sort of entered into public domain.

I don't know the names of the individual actions of LHBF. My method is to just do the action. And they remember where it is from and the stuff associated with it. I think I actually have called something the "one legged thingy" before. As I have said before, I think proper conveying of the philosophy of the art defines the art much better than passing on the names. So, personally, I would say yes, it will still be Taiji if you called something a "one legged thingy" if you dedicate a lot of effort to passing on the philosophy of the art.

---------------------------------

The thing is, my main objection is to the reactions of people. Drawing erroneous conclusions from a simple thing as not giving the names is very unsettling. It's unsettling, but not surprising though, because we have people learning martial arts who do not even have the capacity to make logical and rational evaluation. Martial arts is not just about the body. It's also about the mind.

Some opinions expressed are along the lines of: "If a teacher doesn't give the names, the teacher doesn't know the art" or "the teacher is an *******".

My father's LHBF teacher only made it as far as 4th grade before the economic effects of WWII forced him to quit school and go into the workforce. As far as I know, his teaching methods don't concern the names of the forms much. His vocabulary (we are talking about the Chinese language here), or rather lack of, makes the knowledge of form names rather distracting. He did learn enough Chinese to write prescriptions of very common remedies to martial arts related injuries, but that was it. Can then anyone conclude that this martial arts teacher is not worth going to because he did not know the names? Can anyone conclude that he's doing a disservice to the founders?

Therefore, is it responsible for anyone to conclude, based on ONE point of evidence, anything that resembles the responses in this thread?

[Xue Sheng]

"If a teacher doesn't give the names, the teacher doesn't know the art" or "the teacher is an *******".

Nope, I never said this nor would I.


My father's LHBF teacher only made it as far as 4th grade before the economic effects of WWII forced him to quit school and go into the workforce. As far as I know, his teaching methods don't concern the names of the forms much. His vocabulary (we are talking about the Chinese language here), or rather lack of, makes the knowledge of form names rather distracting. He did learn enough Chinese to write prescriptions of very common remedies to martial arts related injuries, but that was it. Can then anyone conclude that this martial arts teacher is not worth going to because he did not know the names? Can anyone conclude that he's doing a disservice to the founders?

Therefore, is it responsible for anyone to conclude, based on ONE point of evidence, anything that resembles the responses in this thread?

You miss understand what I am saying here and I have no wish to argue. I am not making a judgment call as to anyone’s teaching ability based on the lack of names. I am saying I am a traditionalist and I do feel the names are important to the integrity of the art and I bleieve this because I am a traditionalist when it comes to CMA.
If a teacher does not know the names does not mean he or she is a good or bad teacher. If that where the case there are an awful lot of people out there teaching Tai Chi that in my opinion know nothing that could be considered good because they know the names of the postures.

I personally think the names are important and when I use to teach and if I teach again I will teach them that is all.

Your LHBF and that of your fathers could be absolutely amazing and not knowing the names does not change that. But I personally feel that knowing the names for the forms, particularly for a Chinese style only adds to the form. Most names of Chinese forms are metaphors and if research those metaphors it can make the forms easier to understand. But with that being said I did not nor would I teach the associated metaphor.

Your teaching style is your teaching style that is all and mine is mine we do not agree about the important of names, so what big deal who cares is that going to make you or I change our style, not likely. So I will end with enjoy the training.

[oxy]

Nope, I never said this nor would I.



You miss understand what I am saying here and I have no wish to argue. I am not making a judgment call as to anyone’s teaching ability based on the lack of names. I am saying I am a traditionalist and I do feel the names are important to the integrity of the art and I bleieve this because I am a traditionalist when it comes to CMA.
If a teacher does not know the names does not mean he or she is a good or bad teacher. If that where the case there are an awful lot of people out there teaching Tai Chi that in my opinion know nothing that could be considered good because they know the names of the postures.

I personally think the names are important and when I use to teach and if I teach again I will teach them that is all.

Your LHBF and that of your fathers could be absolutely amazing and not knowing the names does not change that. But I personally feel that knowing the names for the forms, particularly for a Chinese style only adds to the form. Most names of Chinese forms are metaphors and if research those metaphors it can make the forms easier to understand. But with that being said I did not nor would I teach the associated metaphor.

Your teaching style is your teaching style that is all and mine is mine we do not agree about the important of names, so what big deal who cares is that going to make you or I change our style, not likely. So I will end with enjoy the training.

Sorry, none of the comments I made underneath the dotted line were suppposed to be addressed to you. I was talking about the issue in general at that point and to other people. So I wasn't criticising your post with those comments in any way. Just the overall attitude of this whole thread (if you've been through the whole thread, you might see what I was ranting on about).

[MJS]

Mod Note:

Please, return to the original topic. Please feel free to use the ignore feature for posts that you do not wish to read. It can be found on every users profile. In addition, please use the RTM (Report To Mod) feature, to address problem posts. Its the little red triangle that can be found in the upper right hand corner of every post. It is much better to use that, than continuing to engage in heated posts, with someone you're having a problem with.

Mike Slosek
MT Supermod

[Xue Sheng]

Sorry, none of the comments I made underneath the dotted line were suppposed to be addressed to you. I was talking about the issue in general at that point and to other people. So I wasn't criticising your post with those comments in any way. Just the overall attitude of this whole thread (if you've been through the whole thread, you might see what I was ranting on about).

No problem oxy.

But back to the post

I do have a question for anyone on MT that has done long fist, does the described form sound like to you?

I have limited experience in long fist and it was a long time ago. But my take on the form described is up to step 5 it sounds very much like long fist but if I remember correctly there was a back kick done where step 6 is at. And from that point I remember little except the occasional cart wheel. Also my teacher was a Wushu guy so it may not be exactly the same as a traditional long fist form.

tigdra

Where there any cartwheels (no handed) later in the form?

[funnytiger]

The thing is, my main objection is to the reactions of people. Drawing erroneous conclusions from a simple thing as not giving the names is very unsettling. It's unsettling, but not surprising though, because we have people learning martial arts who do not even have the capacity to make logical and rational evaluation. Martial arts is not just about the body. It's also about the mind.

Some opinions expressed are along the lines of: "If a teacher doesn't give the names, the teacher doesn't know the art" or "the teacher is an *******".

My father's LHBF teacher only made it as far as 4th grade before the economic effects of WWII forced him to quit school and go into the workforce. As far as I know, his teaching methods don't concern the names of the forms much. His vocabulary (we are talking about the Chinese language here), or rather lack of, makes the knowledge of form names rather distracting. He did learn enough Chinese to write prescriptions of very common remedies to martial arts related injuries, but that was it. Can then anyone conclude that this martial arts teacher is not worth going to because he did not know the names? Can anyone conclude that he's doing a disservice to the founders?

Therefore, is it responsible for anyone to conclude, based on ONE point of evidence, anything that resembles the responses in this thread?

Based on what the OP said about the teachers refusal to divulge the names of the forms I don't think anyone was completely out of line to assume that he didn't know the names of the forms. My point being, some of these conclusions may seem severe to you, but some people (including myself) find it extremely unsettling that a teacher would refuse to divulge information. And for what? For fear that the students might become teachers themselves??

So based on what the OP presented I think the advice to "flee" was warranted and not at all exagerrated on anyone's part.

-----------------------

BTW, why the hell does this post keep getting all these damned "mod notes"? I'm not sure if at any point this topic has needed any kind of moderation. Its been a little heated, but that's what happens on message boards...

:confused:

[shesulsa]

BTW, why the hell does this post keep getting all these damned "mod notes"? I'm not sure if at any point this topic has needed any kind of moderation. Its been a little heated, but that's what happens on message boards...

Funnytiger, these in-thread warnings are because the discussion in this thread has gone off-topic and because some members posting on this thread are not abiding by our TOS and posting policies (http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=141&). MT runs a bit differently that many martial arts discussion boards. If you have any more questions regarding our moderation policy or our Terms of Service, please feel free to post them in the Support Forum.

[funnytiger]

Funnytiger, these in-thread warnings are because the discussion in this thread has gone off-topic and because some members posting on this thread are not abiding by our TOS and posting policies (http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=141&). MT runs a bit differently that many martial arts discussion boards. If you have any more questions regarding our moderation policy or our Terms of Service, please feel free to post them in the Support Forum.

To be honest, it was more of a rhetorical question, but thanks for the reply anyways.

[tigdra]

thank you everyone for trying to figure out the form. I have found a video and names of the forms. Just in case the name of the form is

Bak sui mui fa Kuen

Little plum blossom form



Man what one little question escalades too... relax gentlemen

[newtothe dark]

Tig its sounds to be either tan tui or Chang Chun (long fist) there is many books with that form in it as it is fundamental long fist movements.

[tigdra]

messed up again

[tigdra]

tigdrathank you everyone for trying to figure out the form. I have found a video and names of the forms. Just in case the name of the form is

Bak sui mui fa Kuen

Little plum blossom form



Man what one little question escalades too... relax gentlemen


Thanks I have found the name of the form

But I do enjoy tan tui alot seen and done many variations of it and like most of them