The form does not have those movements. I don’t know if they were removed or were never present. I find it difficult to believe that he would just take a few moves out just for the hell of it, but I cannot really claim he didn’t either.
on the first point I think that is a stone cold solid cop out. The information is readily available for the most part.
No, a great deal isn’t readilly available in English, at least in regards to martial arts. You can certainly learn alot about Chinese history in English, but rarely is martial arts written on in any depth. And without solid understanding of the language, how would you go on to conduct your own in depth research?
Martial artists are horrible sources for credible history. IMO, it is unwise to invest any emotional or intellectual interest in what any non-scholars have to say about Chinese history or the history of martial arts. Time and again, just about all of them, including the Chinese ones, seem to always get proven innacurate.
I wasn’t implyling that he took them out for the hell of it. I’ve been told so many different things about what makes a kwan dao for a kwan dao form. Some assert that these 4 standards are essential to a legitimate KD form. Others say they had them in the form but took them out for whatever reason. Still others say that northern KD forms don’t have them (its a southern thing), and yet I’ve heard people say that the 4 standards are a hold-over form the opera days where they were placed in for a theatrical representation of the General. I was just curious about your teacher’s take on these issues.
I wasn’t being pizzy. I’m just saying I see no reason why he would have taken it out. I think the whole argument is bit silly, anyway. IMO, your form looked generally Chinese, as opposed to the handsets I linked to which I think look generally Japanese.