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.
