Qi Jiguang and other authors were not just assembling these lists of
styles out of mere curiosity; they were attempting tofind the most func-
tional skills available. Qi complained about the incompleteness of many
styles, that they were only good in parts and lacked a comprehensive set of
techniques. Most of the authors were also concerned with what they called
“Flowery Boxing花拳,”ineffective and overly elaborate styles that only
looked nice. Indeed, one of the central issues of the discussion of boxing
styles was effectiveness. There was a constant comparison between styles,
or anecdotes recounting how someone practiced an ineffective orflawed
style. Theseflowery styles had lost the foundation of boxing and strayed
very far from some presumably simple and effective original form.
Although boxing styles varied widely across China, and indeed the
terminology for boxing was similarly varied, there was perceived to be a
core of effective techniques. Unarmedfighting was not as effective in combat
as armedfighting, and that is perhaps why boxing was listed last on the
reformulated Ming period list of“Eighteen Martial Arts.”From the military
standpoint, boxing was not a real battlefield skill. For Qi Jiguang and Mao
Yuanyi, boxing was the beginning skill for martial arts training before one
took up weapons. It was also useful for developing overall agility with the
hands and feet. Anyone expecting tofight on the battlefield would have to be
better trained and properly armed. Boxing was recognized as a develop-
mental rather than a functional skill in the army, and Qi dropped it from the
later edition of his manual. To practice boxing was therefore more about
training the body and mind, despite the quest for practical boxing skills. The
practical skills were the genuine or true roots of the art, and thus by
definition, more effective in developing the body and mind.
Fencing with Swords
The single-edged, curved sword remained the basic closefighting weapon
of the Chinese military during the Ming Dynasty, and it was widely used in
the population at large. Like boxing, the techniques for using the sword
were practiced under a bewildering variety of names, with a broad range of
effectiveness. The performative aspects of these sword styles sometimes
overwhelmed the combat concerns of the practitioner, and it is possible
that some stemmed directly from stage traditions rather than the battle-
field. Yet unlike boxing, swordfighting was a practical battlefield skill and
a practical skill forfighting or self-defense in general.
The origin of these many styles of swordfighting is unclear. Lin Boyuan
may be correct in asserting that they developed among the general
Fencing with Swords 177