Naming of the Techniques

[mj-hi-yah]

To All Seniors:

I've read a few things on this forum in various threads about technique names. In many traditional martial arts systems, that I've seen, the technique names are in either Japanese or Chinese with little or no translation in English. In American Kenpo some of the technique names are representative of things that are obvious to the technique and make sense and others are a little less clear, so I'm wondering what is the origin of many of these names used to refer to the techniques? Basically who came up with the terminology (doom, peaches, sacrifice etc.,), and were they chosen for memory purposes or for other reasons?

Respectfully,
MJ :asian:

 

[Doc]

To All Seniors:

I've read a few things on this forum in various threads about technique names. In many traditional martial arts systems, that I've seen, the technique names are in either Japanese or Chinese with little or no translation in English. In American Kenpo some of the technique names are representative of things that are obvious to the technique and make sense and others are a little less clear, so I'm wondering what is the origin of many of these names used to refer to the techniques? Basically who came up with the terminology (doom, peaches, sacrifice etc.,), and were they chosen for memory purposes or for other reasons?

Respectfully,
MJ :asian:

Ed Parker was impressed with the descriptive nature of the Chinese translations of many of its moves, forms, sets, etc. like "The Dragon Whipping It's Tail." He surmised this was a good way to allow students to remember techniques. He than created synonyms (with others assistance) for various weapons, movements, attacks, and attack results for the techniques.

Previously techniques were 'numbered.' Than slowly they were given loose descriptive names so the 'guys' would know what each other were talking about when teaching and/or training.

It went from being "do this,"(with the appropriate physical gestures), to "do number 7," to "do the 5 count technique," to ultimately, "do Five Swords."

In the original Chinese Arts (and others) the complexity of the body mechanisms and physical principles and science in techniques, make it virtually impossible to write a description of all of the actions involved. (In my own coursebooks I use the term "Survive The Initial Assault™" to describe a multitude of mechanisms included in the initial action of different technique, that if written, would be entirely too complex to read and understand.)

Therefore information was passed down through a series of extremely complex forms, sets, techniques, and training methodologies. With the associated "descriptive phrases, terms, and synonyms," the recipient could then use them to relate to, recall the action, and extrapolate the appropriate information. The heart and soul of the science is imbedded in these actions, and was the primary reason and methodology the information was tranferred though "family" lineage. (not to be confused with the Japanese method of lineage). It is also why important written documents like the "Bubishi," was 'misinterpreted' in many ways by some in translation to the Okinawans and others.

So you see once Ed Parker became involved in and studying the Chinese Sciences, he saw this was the norm unlike the Okinawan/Japanese model he initially was taught. It was during this period when he began to abandoned the use of foreign language terminology, in favor of an all English, American approach to expressing his very American Art.

 

[mj-hi-yah]

Doc,

Ed Parker was impressed with the descriptive nature of the Chinese translations of many of its moves, forms, sets, etc. like "The Dragon Whipping It's Tail." He surmised this was a good way to allow students to remember techniques. He than created synonyms (with others assistance) for various weapons, movements, attacks, and attack results for the techniques.

Previously techniques were 'numbered.' Than slowly they were given loose descriptive names so the 'guys' would know what each other were talking about when teaching and/or training.


It went from being "do this,"(with the appropriate physical gestures), to "do number 7," to "do the 5 count technique," to ultimately, "do Five Swords."

I would imagine that as the number of techniques increased it would have been a bit confusing to use numbers or go by counts.

In the original Chinese Arts (and others) the complexity of the body mechanisms and physical principles and science in techniques, make it virtually impossible to write a description of all of the actions involved. (In my own coursebooks I use the term "Survive The Initial Assault™" to describe a multitude of mechanisms included in the initial action of different technique, that if written, would be entirely too complex to read and understand.)

This is interesting. In your school would you say that once shown what is involved in "surviving the initial attack" for a technique it is easy enough to remember, or in the absense of written descriptions is this something you must constantly refresh students on through repitition because of the complexities? Like in the Bightstor commercial where the guy has all the files in his head and slips and falls and passes out ~ is there no other backup? Is all of the information for “surviving the initial attack” contained in your head or other instructor's heads?

Therefore information was passed down through a series of extremely complex forms, sets, techniques, and training methodologies. With the associated "descriptive phrases, terms, and synonyms," the recipient could then use them to relate to, recall the action, and extrapolate the appropriate information. The heart and soul of the science is imbedded in these actions, and was the primary reason and methodology the information was tranferred though "family" lineage. (not to be confused with the Japanese method of lineage). It is also why important written documents like the "Bubishi," was 'misinterpreted' in many ways by some in translation to the Okinawans and others.

When you say family lineage, was martial studies for the Chinese relayed from generation to generation within an actual family - father to son etc.,? What is the Japanese method of lineage, and, or, how do they differ? Much like the passing down of any skill, do you think there were changes or refinements made to the techniques etc., over time as the interpretations would have been subject to the influences inherent in passing down knowledge that has not been written?

So you see once Ed Parker became involved in and studying the Chinese Sciences, he saw this was the norm unlike the Okinawan/Japanese model he initially was taught. It was during this period when he began to abandoned the use of foreign language terminology, in favor of an all English, American approach to expressing his very American Art.

Excellent!

Thank you,
MJ :asian:

 

[Doc]

Doc,

I would imagine that as the number of techniques increased it would have been a bit confusing to use numbers or go by counts. [/size][/font]

absolutely.

This is interesting. In your school would you say that once shown what is involved in "surviving the initial attack" for a technique it is easy enough to remember, or in the absense of written descriptions is this something you must constantly refresh students on through repitition because of the complexities? Like in the Bightstor commercial where the guy has all the files in his head and slips and falls and passes out ~ is there no other backup? Is all of the information for “surviving the initial attack” contained in your head or other instructor's heads?

They are no harder to remember or perform under duress than any other aspect of a technique. However they must be engrained in the muscle memory to respond reflexively to an external stimulus, and be significantly “hard wired” to not be interrupted by an “adrenal dump.” Like any other aspect of the physical sciences, proper repetition is the key under crisis like conditions.

When you say family lineage, was martial studies for the Chinese relayed from generation to generation within an actual family - father to son etc.,?

Yes, usually. Styles were given “family names,” usually after the patriarch “sifu” or teacher. Nevertheless, understand within the Chinese Sciences there is really only one style, but there are many different methods and emphasis of training, theoretically all leading to the same place.

Much like true martial sciences, the material is in the head of the knowledgeable to be passed to trusted students. It has always been this way and will continue to be this way. Even relatively simple “locks” and “holds” committed to paper are merely “picture books” with very little text to describe what is actually taking place in the world of martial publications. True physical information can never be relayed through video, pictures, or writing. The writing, and/or visual images only serve as a “reminder” to jog the memory back to the teachers physicals lesson and its many subtle but important nuances.

What is the Japanese method of lineage, and, or, how do they differ?

The Chinese Methodologies were based on science and combat. The Japanese “do” or “way” arts concentrated on “how” things were done and not necessarily the result. Practicality and combat effectiveness were secondary to Japanese “artistic” expression as dictated by the head of the “style.” Thusly, the term “martial Art or martial sport” are more correct. The head of the art dictates what is and what is not correct, and of course, all art is interpretive.

Much like the passing down of any skill, do you think there were changes or refinements made to the techniques etc., over time as the interpretations would have been subject to the influences inherent in passing down knowledge that has not been written?

Absolutely, but as much refinement took place, there was also lost a considerable amount of information. Minor movements and nuances not understood, could be ignored and lost. What may appear unnecessary to the unknowledgeable may make all the difference to the trained eye of a knowledgeable teacher. As the knowledge slipped away through nationalistic adaptation and misinterpretation of the information, the “arts” moved closer to its lowest common denominator of expression. “Sport.” Here the emphasis is on muscle mass, speed and blunt force trauma induced “power.”

All nations eventually succumbed to this level for the masses. Korea has its TKD, Japan has its Karate-do, Ju-do, Aiki-do, ken-do, etc. These are all “way” arts, not fighting arts. Even more recently, “American Martial Arts” is generally based on the premise of the “kick and punch” of competition with black belts awarded for good “competitors” called “fighters.” In the early days of martial arts in America, people like Joe Lewis, Chuck Norris, and others brought abbreviated martial arts from the orient after military service. Most of them receiving black belts in Japan or Korea in stripped down “kick & punch” arts in less than a year. This was the initial basis for all popular understandings of “martial arts” until the second wave of the “grappling craze” went mainstream, and Ed Parker & Bruce Lee intimated there might be more from the Chinese Lineage over the Korean or Japanese Okinawan variety.

More recently some have taken to creating videos of stripped down version of arts for profit which are less than a shell of the true martial science. Unfortunately, some of these play on the nieveté of the American martial art wannabe's susceptability to the idea that you can learn anything by video. If it were that easy you wouldn't need sport coaches. And of course when some one is trying to kill you, the physical task at hand is infinitely more complex in it's possibilities and applications.

But I guess even these videos perform some kind of service, but people who get their black belts that way, don't advertise it when standing in a crowd of "real" students and teachers. If they did away with the belts awards, I would remove my objections. But then if you did that, nobody would buy them. Ya think?

 

[Doc]

absolutely.

They are no harder to remember or perform under duress than any other aspect of a technique. However they must be engrained in the muscle memory to respond reflexively to an external stimulus, and be significantly “hard wired” to not be interrupted by an “adrenal dump.” Like any other aspect of the physical sciences, proper repetition is the key under crisis like conditions.

Yes, usually. Styles were given “family names,” usually after the patriarch “sifu” or teacher. Nevertheless, understand within the Chinese Sciences there is really only one style, but there are many different methods and emphasis of training, theoretically all leading to the same place.

Much like true martial sciences, the material is in the head of the knowledgeable to be passed to trusted students. It has always been this way and will continue to be this way. Even relatively simple “locks” and “holds” committed to paper are merely “picture books” with very little text to describe what is actually taking place in the world of martial publications. True physical information can never be relayed through video, pictures, or writing. The writing, and/or visual images only serve as a “reminder” to jog the memory back to the teachers physicals lesson and its many subtle but important nuances.


The Chinese Methodologies were based on science and combat. The Japanese “do” or “way” arts concentrated on “how” things were done and not necessarily the result. Practicality and combat effectiveness were secondary to Japanese “artistic” expression as dictated by the head of the “style.” Thusly, the term “martial Art or martial sport” are more correct. The head of the art dictates what is and what is not correct, and of course, all art is interpretive.

Absolutely, but as much refinement took place, there was also lost a considerable amount of information. Minor movements and nuances not understood, could be ignored and lost. What may appear unnecessary to the unknowledgeable may make all the difference to the trained eye of a knowledgeable teacher. As the knowledge slipped away through nationalistic adaptation and misinterpretation of the information, the “arts” moved closer to its lowest common denominator of expression. “Sport.” Here the emphasis is on muscle mass, speed and blunt force trauma induced “power.”

All nations eventually succumbed to this level for the masses. Korea has its TKD, Japan has its Karate-do, Ju-do, Aiki-do, ken-do, etc. These are all “way” arts, not fighting arts. Even more recently, “American Martial Arts” is generally based on the premise of the “kick and punch” of competition with black belts awarded for good “competitors” called “fighters.” In the early days of martial arts in America, people like Joe Lewis, Chuck Norris, and others brought abbreviated martial arts from the orient after military service. Most of them receiving black belts in Japan or Korea in stripped down “kick & punch” arts in less than a year. This was the initial basis for all popular understandings of “martial arts” until the second wave of the “grappling craze” went mainstream, and Ed Parker & Bruce Lee intimated there might be more from the Chinese Lineage over the Korean or Japanese Okinawan variety.

More recently some have taken to creating videos of stripped down version of arts for profit which are less than a shell of the true martial science. Unfortunately, some of these play on the nieveté of the American martial art wannabe's susceptability to the idea that you can learn anything by video. If it were that easy you wouldn't need sport coaches. And of course when some one is trying to kill you, the physical task at hand is infinitely more complex in it's possibilities and applications.

But I guess even these videos perform some kind of service, but people who get their black belts that way, don't advertise it when standing in a crowd of "real" students and teachers. If they did away with the belts awards, I would remove my objections. But then if you did that, nobody would buy them. Ya think?

Additionally:

Consider the human body has, depending upon age, about 200 to 300 bones. All of these bones are attendent to an/protagonistic muscle groups and other soft tissue and connected to each other in some fashion, (except one). How all of these parts relate to each other has truly infinite combinations. Therefore the answer in any physical situation is "it depends." One finger moved, a chin dropped, a head turn, a slight shift in weight, etc, can completely destroy or create structural integrity.

It is impossible to convey such sophisticated knowledge except by hands on instruction from a knowledgeable source - which is as rare as a kenpo black belt with no stripes on his belt.

 

[GAB]

Very Informative Doc, Thanks for the lesson.
206 is the number of bones, in the last book I read on the skeletal system.

Regards, Gary

 

[Michael Billings]

There are still some guys around from the 60's and even early 70's that call the techniques Blue-14 or Green-21, they now add the technique name with the number, but it is interesting to see how they think of the technique number first.

-Michael

 

[GAB]

Michael, I can understand that thinking, it is a simipilar way. I guess when it changes so shoud we. DUI and 502 come to mind as simplicity.

I still call a structual tie by the first name I used which is a "tico".
Joe,hand me that tico! oh, I am sorry they are now called "Simpson Structual Support metal hangers", just give me the ******thing.

I guess when talking to Doc about the bones. I should have said, 'Adult'? Since I figured he was talking about his system which is very specific (adult and many years in the arts as a general rule as I take it)?

I have read also when born the human body has as many as 350 or 275 guess it's, in who's opinion or thought at the time.

It is pretty mysterious the way each and everyone of us, are programmed, if you will.

Regards, Gary

 

[Doc]

There are still some guys around from the 60's and even early 70's that call the techniques Blue-14 or Green-21, they now add the technique name with the number, but it is interesting to see how they think of the technique number first.

-Michael

Yes, and if you go back far enough in some kenmpo lineage, you hear the term "dance." Each technique taken out of the original Chinese Forms were called numerical "Dances."

As a side note; as a person ages there are actually fewer bones, because smaller bones in infants and young people come together and fuse into a single bone as a person ages into adulthood. The average adult has about 206 bones.

 

[Michael Billings]

Doc orig. posted:

All of these bones are attendent to an/protagonistic muscle groups and other soft tissue and connected to each other in some fashion, (except one)

HYOID

-Michael

 

[Doc]

HYOID

-Michael

"smarty pants."

 

[Kembudo-Kai Kempoka]

Now it's my turn to be a smarty-pants...what, then, do the omohyoid and stylohyoid muscles connect to?

Dave

 

[mj-hi-yah]

Thanks Doc for this interesting exchange! I've learned a lot, like where the word "sifu" originates, and I understand more about the roots and diversifications of the MAs and MSs.

But I guess even these videos perform some kind of service,

I think they do when used as a reinforcement....

but people who get their black belts that way, don't advertise it when standing in a crowd of "real" students and teachers. If they did away with the belts awards, I would remove my objections. But then if you did that, nobody would buy them. Ya think?

Would people buy them? I suppose not as many would, especially those who have the belt as their primary objective. One thing I've learned though - not all belts are created equal.

Doc and Dr. Dave I'm learning some things about anatomy here too. How about considering a thread on it in relation to martial studies? :asian:

Dr. Dave I'm jumping in with my guess... omohyoid and stylohyoid muscles connect to the hyoid bone, or is that too obvious? :uhyeah:

 

[Doc]

Now it's my turn to be a smarty-pants...what, then, do the omohyoid and stylohyoid muscles connect to?

Dave

Rather than answer, I'll just stick my tonque out at you. So there!

By the way, your e-mail address is "kapute."