That may be the case for the popular version but there are plenty of forms around that tend to be held a bit closer to the vest (see the thread on secret moves) where this is most definately NOT the case. There are a few moves here and there in my form that are, AFAIK, just for developing certain kinds of feeling, awareness or balance etc. but the other 98% have direct combat applications. Most are flexible and in that sense there is a "principle" thing at work but you can be taught at least one or two very explicit things with almost every single move. Things like, "punch him in the gut" or "grab his arm at the elbow here and at the other shoulder here and twist suddently to the right as you hook his left leg".

Most of this stuff is not public for "us" here in Xi'an but here is one such application done EXACTLY as it is performed in the form:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=IrXz6mZJQes

Technically there are 3 applications but the second one is not "live". The first one comes completely out of the blue and I was 100% not cooperating. Then he kind of leads me into a better position as I cooperate and place my arm behind his head and and realize he has shown me how to enter differently and I then go for the sweep by using "repulse monkey", again, exactly as it shows up in one of the couple places it exists in our form. He counters it kind of nicely and dissolves the sweep. The 3rd is him going back again to the position before he threw me with the first one and showing me step by step how I could have/should have countered that set up except that the push, in real application, should be a strike.

3 techniques. One of them demoed completely "live". The second kind of a 6 on a scale of 1 to 10 in "liveness" and the last one a standard explanation step by step.

Referring back to Repulsive's post, try to imagine just about any standard Judo throw being practiced solo with no partner. Looks pretty silly yeah? How about some BJJ rolling around on the ground with no partner? That's why you need to work with another person in Taijiquan just like anything else but the point here is about the degree to which you could hope to identify a technique based on just observing the solo practice. You can pretty much only do it if either:

- someone shows you in real live 2 man work.

or

- you have previously learned that same technique or something similar already.

And even then, with either of those conditions, you still need to really kind of have an eye for it.

You can go the "principle" route but it's slow and tiresome and in the end you do both anyways but to say that there are no specific techniques, IMO, just says that your training is seriously lacking.

Though what you have shown me is interesting, you didn't completely understand my meaning. For example, if I throw a reverse punch in Gongbu it is related to, but not the same as a punch thrown in Sandajia. The difference between the two is that one is used for Jibengong and the other for hitting someone, because it is too difficult to move around in a low stance. Just like the back leg is always straight in the Taolu but when you really kick or punch it is a little bent and your normal sparring stance is a little "bouncy" so that you can move around more freely. Throwing a kick with your supporting leg straight is a good way to get your arse Shuai-ed. =P After getting into Sanda I am VERY skeptical of any fighting system with low stances. A lot of the things that I had previously learned (Like most standing Qinna techniques) were rendered completely useless when the sparring began (We go full contact with no equipment of any kind). In what kind of stance do you spar in?

- Maarten Sebastiaan Franks Spijker

You're right. I didn't completely understand your question. Based on what I have seen on this thread, neither did anyone else. I think "hidden meaning" is a poor choice of words. That's why we all went off on a riff about "secret" applications and such.

What you are describing is what I just call "common sense" also known as "training in a vacume". I got 2 related ideas on this.

1. Forms generally represent "platonic forms" of technical applications. We all know that platonic forms don't exists anywhere in this world. They are only there as ideas and yet we strive to get as close to them as we can. I am talking about just down to earth stuff like architecture and building cars and stuff. There are no truly perfect circles. Equilateral triangles don't exist in nature and neither to straight lines when you get down to it but we ignore that stuff when we draw up designs and then when we have to actually build something or drive somewhere we adjust to the conditions that actually exist.

The same exact throw that is showed in that clip is not REALLY going to be EXACTLY the same in the form or even when done on a different person.

2. A lot of other stuff is not hidden. lol. It's just not meant to be anything more than a calisthenic or in some cases movements are even specially designed to take into account the differences in solo training and how your movements are going to get shortened or otherwise changed when the rubber hits the road. You purposely stretch things out and open them up more when working solo in order to just help loosen up better and to better ingrain the movement patterns.

The difference between the two is that one is used for Jibengong and the other for hitting someone.... because it is too difficult to move around in a low stance. Just like the back

"jibengong" = calisthenics/exercises

leg is always straight in the Taolu but when you really kick or punch it is a little bent...

Straight leg kicking is just for stretching. It's an exercise. That shouldn't be a secret.

...and your normal sparring stance is a little "bouncy" so that you can move around more freely. ...

Depends who you ask. Some fighters are highly critical of any bounce at all. A lot of Traditional CMA is based in stillness not movement. This could be a holdover from weapons fighting or dueling but it's really a whole different subject.

Ke?po is just what the Chinese taught the Japanese WRONG so they could sit back and laugh at them while having a cup of tea.

That's the word on the street.

Wasn't Ke?po originally the Japanese pronounciation of Kung Fu?
.

No, it's the Japanes pronunciation of the Chinese characters for chuan fa. And most ke?po that I've seen is neither Japanese or Chinese in it's entirety. There are branches of Japanese arts called ke?po; Nippon Kempo and Shorinji Kempo for example. And all Chinese boxing can fall under the umbrella of chuan fa. But the Ke?po that we're most familiar with in the USA is a hybrid art that's not truly from either country, as far as I can tell. The ke?poists can elaborate more on the history, I'm sure.

Ken-po is a Japanese word 拳 (Ken) Fist and 法 (Ho/Po) Law. The Kem comes in when puting the kanji together the n becomes are m sound.

Kempo is a term used for some Ko-ryu Jujutsu to described their striking arts. It was later apply to the Okinawan-Te arts.

Chinese Kempo makes no sense as it is the japanese reading of the characters.

I have heard the Bugeisha version of the name before not the Ninjew version. It was from a book that had a fair amount of BS, so who knows. From Chinese speakers I have heard of chuan fa being used as a generic term regarding striking arts rather than a specific style.

The ke?poists can elaborate more on the history, I'm sure.Yes, can they elaborate on the part where Mitose commanded his student to kill someone and was convicted of murder? I just love to hear that part over and over again!

/me sits around the campfire waiting for the story

:D

Yeah, yeah, I know, I'm a jerk :jerk:

I have heard the Bugeisha version of the name before not the Ninjew version. It was from a book that had a fair amount of BS, so who knows. From Chinese speakers I have heard of chuan fa being used as a generic term regarding striking arts rather than a specific style.

The explaination that Ninjew gave just expanded on what I said; it's not really different. Kempo is the Japanese reading of the Chinese words chuan fa (quan fa). It means the same thing. The end point is that in the modern usage in America, Ke?po usually refers to a hybrid art; not directly Okinawan/Japanese kempo or Chinese chuan fa.

In reference to "hidden meanings in forms", there is a tradition of using terms and ideas clouded in language. There is a pupose of obscurity.

However, it is not "hidden" as much as it is unexplained and usually requires someone to explain many times what it represents.

This would be like going to a boxing gym, receiving no coaching, and following the movements of a good boxer at the gym. You could certainly get the general ideas of what is going on but without the finer points taught and coached, you would not ever be very good at it. You would not understand various uses, power generation, the like.

Like a track/running coach. What is there to coach? It is just running and everyone knows how to run, right? But it is the finer points that are coached.

Many times if a martial arts instructor talks about hidden meanings or the like, at least in my experience, he doesnt know either.

... The whole point is that you CAN'T recognize and utilize the application just by looking at it out of context. But if someone demonstates the application on you freestyle and presents the context.....
You could do the form for 40 years and never get it. Someone has to point it out to you. Someone has to pull you aside and say, "Hey man...your intention (there's that dirty word again) is all wrong there. That move is for this kind of situation..." and then demo it on you or point it out when he has used it on you in sparring but you didn't even recognize it... Omar, quite a few sentences I fully agree with...
About "hiding" the techniques: I was taught WT under the banner of "no secret techniques, only hard and dedicated training".
The "hidden secret" of the techniques lies within their apllication.
One can learn to ape a kung fu set precisely like the founder of the style, yet this will never mean the person is able to use the techniques from the set.
One needs to be shown and taught what those movements mean, how and why do they follow each other, what is their purpose, what's the basis of their body mechanics, etc...
I've seen wing chun people, who had no idea about different transitions from position to position even in the first form, Siu Nim Tau, while those transitions are basic techniques by themselves. Goes to tell an awful lot about how and what their instructor was teaching them. How can you expect anybody to grow in their art if you don't make the basics clear to them?

...This would be like going to a boxing gym, receiving no coaching, and following the movements of a good boxer at the gym. You could certainly get the general ideas of what is going on but without the finer points taught and coached, you would not ever be very good at it. You would not understand various uses, power generation, the like.
... I think I see where you're going with this, but chosing boxing as a reference is not lucky IMO and is going to get your ass raped by boxers and the like if they ever wander off here and read it.
You cannot compare the practising of Chinese kung fu sets with jumping into a boxing ring.
Boxing has got nothing comparable to sets/forms.
It is an Asian speciality.
Some argue it's useless, especially in the 21st century, I believe sets do have their place in the learning curriculum of a kung fu student (then again, I only have to learn and practise 3 empty hand sets as opposed to dozens in most other systems... :icon_colo).
One has to see the sets as what they are meant to be - concentrated repetition of basic techniques. The (almost) first step. The alphabet that is going to be used in sentence making during sparring/training fights.

It is not my intention to compare boxing to anything but itself. I was just trying to use common frames of reference for those that have not trained in systems that use a certain style of coaching.

The point I was trying to make is mimicing motion without refinement does not equal skill. In reference to the thread a boxer would have "secret" or "hidden" refinements with his techniques that could not be learned as a mimiac.

Hoping this forum will serve better for these types of questions...

Anyway, I hear lots of tales about various Kung Fu masters "hiding" their true techniques within form practice. That the real techniques are either slowed to the point of being unrecognizable, or are broken up into pieces that are flowed into with non-practical more showy motions in between.

I also hear about, forms being used to preserve technique knowledge, that only the creator of the form will understand.

Can anyone provide historical evidence of any of this to be true, or is this just revisionism by modern day LARPers trying to reconcile their forms with reality?

A couple of pieces of information get passed over in these discussions. Since I do quite a bit of research in MA maybe I can help.

The first thing to remember is that not all forms are the same in intention. Generally a forms can fall into one of four categories: conditioning, demonstration, training or teaching and combat. To attempt to use a form for one purpose when it is intended for another purpose can create no end of frustration on the part of the practitioner.

The next thing to rmember is that not all forms are "spirit" (aka "ghost") forms. Quite a few arts have multiple-person forms and there is more than a little evidence to support that such forms provided the basis for modern "sparring" and "flow-drills".

Lastly, not everyone's goals in MA training are the same and it is quite common for people to be sold a form of practice intended to accomplish one goal as being appropriate for some other goal. In a recent interview (See INSIDE KUNG FU) CAI Longyun the well-known Chinese Boxing champion and author made it abundantly clear that training for WU SHU, as a form of physical culture, is not the same as training for combat or competion. While he did not deride the use of forms, he made it very clear that it is a mistake to train in forms and to believe that one has then prepared themselves for contact. Thoughts?

Best Wishes,

Bruce

... Thoughts?



Yeah. Go back to the noobie forum and come back after you've had your initiatory gangrape.

Link: http://www.bullshido.net/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=64

Somebody had to say it.

:XXkiss:

Lastly, not everyone's goals in MA training are the same and it is quite common for people to be sold a form of practice intended to accomplish one goal as being appropriate for some other goal. In a recent interview (See INSIDE KUNG FU) CAI Longyun the well-known Chinese Boxing champion and author made it abundantly clear that training for WU SHU, as a form of physical culture, is not the same as training for combat or competion. While he did not deride the use of forms, he made it very clear that it is a mistake to train in forms and to believe that one has then prepared themselves for contact. Thoughts?

Best Wishes,

BruceWelcome. That said take this part of your paragraph to noobietown. The reason this is being skipped is because, as Omar will tell you, this is very old news.

Also, if you are a real researcher, IKF is not a good source of information. That same magazine had an article, with a champion, saying Wu Shu is good for combat. That, there are combat applications "hidden inside forms."

The problem with all Bunkai or hidden meaning in forms is that it's like software with out a computer to run on.

Even if there are legitmate moves, with out the right drills, situational application and form of resistent training in them they're useless.

But I am sure this is not ground breaking news