Hidden meaning in forms

[Plasma]

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.

[meataxe]

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.

[Guizzy]

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:

[Bugeisha]

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.

[dwhomp]

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.

[Tonuzaba]

... 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?

[Tonuzaba]

...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.

[dwhomp]

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.

[glad2bhere]

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

[Omar]

... 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: