Hypothetical Master

[Hua Lin Laoshi]

This is actually 2 related topics in one and most likely explosive in nature.

Master X has studied 3 different branches (pick any 3) of Northern Mantis from the leading instructors in their respective styles for over 20 years and is recognized as an authority. He decides to create a new syle of Mantis based on what he's learned over the years. What kind of response could he expect from the Northern Mantis community (you guys)?

Since Northern Mantis originally was one style that branched out into multiple variations I would expect it to eventually come full circle and recombine into a single system either through the efforts of an individual (similar to Master X above) or an agreed upon governing body for the Mantis community. This would not cause the extinction of the existing branches since there will always be practitioners willing to preserve those styles as they have been handed down. Would you support this endeavor (you don't have to participate, you can stay within your style)?

Please explain why you're for or against either scenerio.

[MantisifuFW]

Hua Lin

This has been done on the mainland already. Compulsory competition sets combining elements of Tanglang were created by several different masters, not just one. They are very interesting sets with clear applications. In fact, I learned one myself.

However, the community as a whole did not accept them as more than an interesting aside, as far as I have heard. They were played largely at the Jinan competition in 1998 when the late Fan Chen He was trying to promote traditional Gongfu in that area.

I believe that the same would be done with anyone else who did this. There are schools who teach several different branches as one even today in the U.S. They arouse no ire from anyone as I have heard, more like shrugs.

As with most martial systems it is the test of time that would be listened to overall.

Steve Cottrell

[Art D]

As for the first part, you teach what you know. I think it has always been that way, system verse style. You teach what you think works to transmit the essence of what you do . I see it in my self, what I teach today is not the same as what I taught 10 or 20 years ago, we learn and grow. Teaching exactly what you learned from 3 or more styles is more anthropology than training for skill; I think that happens a lot. Many folks like to collect things, kung fu forms is just an extension of that, people also are moved to create this is why we have so many new ways and you see branches of the original. It’s just in our nature to be like this. Be who you are and be true to you Tao. What you do today will change too, that is the Tao.

To the part of will it be accepted? It will be by some and not by others that is just the way it is. My advice is DO NOT LIVE BY CONCENCES

Part two, when you see the art from the point of view of wholeness it is one, when you look at the parts it is many . I think we all are doing one thing in many ways.

[MantisifuFW]

Hua Lin,
On the mainland, most mantis instructors see themselves as branches of the same tree. In fact, many masters do study different styles of mantis to gain focus on abilities taught in the other branches. (I have not yet done this, 7* keeps me quite busy). It seems that they like it this way, preferring the differing points of emphasis presented by the different branches of the style.

As for accepting the new form of mantis you propose, this question is already being asked here in the West in a more drastic fashion. There is a growing trend for mantis schools to take on a JKD like attitude, drawing from all other arts (Japanese, Brazilian, Korean) to evolve their own mantis. The philosophical question of the "legitimacy" of their approach and if the final product is mantis is already being debated in some quarters. What do you think about this?

To take the discussion one step further, what about schools that teach mantis sets but kick box for their "sparring training"? Can a school that takes on such diametrically opposed regimens be considered still mantis? I personally think such approaches are flawed in their reasoning.


Anyway, an interesting question.

Steve Cottrell

[KickingMantis]

you stated,

"To take the discussion one step further, what about schools that teach mantis sets but kick box for their "sparring training"? Can a school that takes on such diametrically opposed regimens be considered still mantis? I personally think such approaches are flawed in their reasoning."


Do you think it is possible to use the mantis methods, principles, theories of attack and defense in sparring, kickboxing and sport fighting?

Do you think touching/playing hands and or feet will alone give the students a reality of what real combat will be if they needed to defend themselves from an aggressive attacker(s)?

[MantisifuFW]

Kicking Mantis,

Indeed it is possible to use mantis principles to some degree in most any physical pursuit, including sports of all kinds. The question arises however as to what is most effective in teaching someone to fight using Tanglang Quan.

For example, one might kick box and be able to use some Tanglang principles with JKD stances and footwork, boxing jabs, hooks, overhand rights, bob and weave motions, Thai style kicking, Gracie Jujitsu groundwork and Chen Taiji pushhands for sensitivity training and even jing training. It would not look at all like Tanglang but could indeed be using some Tanglang principles as its guide. I offer that it would be an effective fighting system too. But the question would be is it teaching Tanglang?

Preferable to me (and I know that I am speaking only for me in this regard) would be to fight using Tanglang techniques, (not just principles).

As for sensitivity exercises or drills of any kind, including sparring they are all only parts of the whole. One neglects well rounded training, including sparring, at their own peril.

My students fight at karate schools but they fight using their Tanglang they look markedly different from the kickboxers in most every respect. When I have seen sparring done in recent years, most gongfu people look like everyone else. Probably this is due to the restrictive rules but it causes me concern. If we train to respond to aggressive attacks using kickboxing and never use our mantis in the same aggressive response environment, I believe that we are flawed in our reasoning if we think that our students will choose the untested Tanglang techniques over the tried and true methods we use in sparring.

Anyway a long winded answer.

Steve Cottrell

[mantis_seeker]

Hi,

Do you think you could take priciples from other martial arts and mantisize them?

Also doesn't mantis have its own form of ducking and weaving motions similiar to western boxing?

Thanks
mantis_seeker

[Art D]

Mantisifufw

It is a bit off the post but can you give us some ways that you train these skills . and do you think there is any room for drawing from other things to help in training mantis w/out it not being mantis any longer

[KickingMantis]

MantisifuDFW,

Thank you for your response. I agree on many of the points you made, but i think that techniques are important, but so aare the principles and theories of the style. They should be interchangeable always flowing, changing and evolving, not only from one movement to the next, but to each situation as it present itself, whether it is mantis or not is left up to the beholder to interpret.

I think that if one say they are a student of mantis, mantis techniques should definitely be obvious in their fighting style, and I thinkthis can be done whether in sparring, playing hands or in real combat.

As you may know, in real combat some techniques that, are executed look very different, than how they appear visually during practice, which is a result of many variables. I am not speaking of playing hands where there are still martial ethics or codes that we observe for obvious reasons or on a movie set where things are choreographed nor even in two man sets.

So i wonder, if it doesnt look like mantis or the mantis set, does t not make it mantis?

In my opinion, there are tons of techniques tat can be taught for proper execution in sparring. Yes , you would definitely have to leave out a lot of the grabbing and hooking, breaking and many of the other techniques that make mantis what it is but lets take the Bung, Chow and Huen Chois, Black Tiger Pierce/Steals the Heart Punch, the Si-Peks, Waist Chopping, Supplementary Punch, the Closed Door Kick to name a few and many others could go very well in sport sparring if taught and done correctly. And it is all still mantis.

I know a lot of schools dont spar, just as many schools dont play hands, for various reasons. I think the major reasons is because most instructors dont know how or don't want to because of risk managements reasons, time it takes or etc.,

I think a lot of it is finding ways to teach and utilize mantis to fit in any situation.

[MantisifuFW]

Mantis Seeker,

Indeed mantis has ducking and dodging movements. However, they are not the same as boxing in the same way that mantis punches and body dynamic are not like boxing.

To answer your question about adopting principles, that is already happening today in the growing JKD mantis movement. I cannot agree with that approach either though it is a reality. Tanglang is sufficient for me as it is.

Steve Cottrell

[KickingMantis]

JKD Mantis?

New one for me!

MantisifuDFW,

I know that u also teach WC. Could you explain how it may compliment your mantis or vice versa. are the principles/techniques/approach more similkiar than different?
examples.

Also i know that WC has less emphasis, i am assuming, on forms, do you take this approach when teaching mantis?

[MantisifuFW]

Art D,

We probablly do drills just as you do, teaching correct reaction to increasing variables until a student is reacting against spontanious attacks and attacking when situations are favorable.

I am very hard on correct Tanglang footwork, (bu fa) and correct structure. When they do start fighting they are hard to hit. Then I emphasize speed and offense. I am very strict on my students that they only fight with the combinations I teach them. (I teach a LOT of combinations so we cover many variations).

As for tactics the art of the counerpuncher does exist in Tanglang but it is a secondary tactic, as I was taught by Sifu Brendan Lai. When Tanglang participates in sparring with other schools they fight, not spar. One does not participate in the "science of boxing" approach where one tests the opponent, sees reactions and then forms strategy. Offense is full and final the same for Couner offense, (we do not use the term defense). Sparring is used to develop skills in fighting not better sparring.

I have read your posts on being a better teacher, do you teach Tanglang and if so, where?

Perhaps we could start a thread on fight training and look more fully into this topic...

Steve Cottrell

[MantisifuFW]

I used to be completely against training in other arts to improve one's Tanglang. I mostly found that cross training messed up my own Tanglang instead of helping it. However, I have mitigated my stance on that in recent years. I have seen others helped by studying Tong Bei or even Taiji.

As for adopting techniques, I believe that each of us is on a path and ultimately must do what enables us. However, I believe that using BJJ with one's Tanglang does not make Tanglang better, it only means one can do BJJ too. The same goes for Thai, Western Boxing, TKD or JKD; one can do it, it does not make that art Tanglang.

For me, each art is an expression in itself. They are the creation of men who spent their lives developing it. We should give full credit to those from whom we draw our sources as honorable martial artists, not adopt them as "our creation". One day, our students or their students will talk about our Tanglang and how it took from other arts; in other words, if it stands the test of time, let others attribute such honors to us.

Steve Cottrell

[MantisifuFW]

Kicking Mantis,

I have never done anything more difficult in my life as trying to teach Wing Chun and Tanglang, even if it is on different nights. They do not complement each other in the least. Training in one does not help me with the other, in fact it hurts performance in both as far as I see in myself. There are no principles that blend, the body method, stepping, power generation, tactics and techniques of each are very different and in fact antithetical. I came to do this by accident but now am a victim of my own success.

Just to begin with WC moves and in stabilized by adduction on a constantly maintained rooted stance. True WC has no stepping method only moving stances. Tanglang moves by explosive extension and contraction an array of stepping methods and stances.

I have to begin my day practicing each on its respective day so that my reactions in that day's classes fit the style I am to teach.

As far as teaching goes, we spend most of our time either doing Jiben Gong or paired exercises, (I got this from my teacher Brendan Lai). Sets are practiced but are mostly considered homework and are evaluated during class.

Hope my ramblings make sense,

Steve Cottrell

[KickingMantis]

Thank you much.

actually I sort of like your approach...

"sets are practiced but are mostly considered homework and are evaluated during class."


good idea.

[HuangKaiVun]

I think it all depends on what the reason one is making up the set for.

For example, what constitutes "correct" footwork in modern wushu mantis is totally different from what a traditionalist would think.

A true master only cares if what he does works or doesn't work - and is willing to put it to the test.

[mantis_seeker]

Sifu Cottrell,

Thanks for the reply. There use to be a JKD mantis school in Atlanta but I think they have changed their name now. It is an odd mixture to say the least.

Having seen mainland 7* and being a desciple of Brendan Lai can you comment on the differences between HK 7* and mainland? Also there a lot of techniques and sets, like drunken sets, that mainland does not have. Do you think HK mantis has become more than a subset of mainland mantis and are on diverging paths?

Thanks
mantis_seeker

[MantisifuFW]

I will move to start another thread. The hypothetical master thread should remain and not morph further, I believe.

Steve Cottrell

[yu shan]

What are your thoughts?

[MantisifuFW]

Yu Shan,

I believe that since the over the past fourty years that China was isolated there was much exchange between Taiwan and HK. Because of this, there is a greater similarity between the two branches (though they are not identical by any means).

At the same time the Mainland was subject to much exchange and blending between the schools there and was profoundly affected by the esthetics of modern Wushu (which took them even further from the appearance of the art as it was when it migrated to Taiwan).

So, what we have is arts that took estheticly different paths though much of the theory and application remains very similar. We are all, indeed Tanglang, and I believe firmly that no one can with claim supreamacy or authenticity.

I know that there are groups on both sides that claim such; that the best masters went to Taiwan from the mainland or that the art remained unchanged on the mainland but I think the truth is somewhere in between.

I would enjoy hearing your prespective on the subject.

Steve Cottrell