name that form

[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?

 

[IWishToLearn]

*Waves bye bye to instructor *

 

[oxy]

This is a joke right?

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?

 

[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?

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