Yantai Beng Bu Genesis

[mantis108]

On the other thread, which is getting rather long, I shared the following:

<<<<First off, I found the assumption that masters don't befriend each other and exchange material quite unsettling. I think if we look closely we can see that a lot of masters learn form each other especially when they have equally quality material bring to the table. A lot of people went from other styles to learn Mantis. This doesn't mean that they will have to be brainwashed and forget about what they already achieved.

Second, the following is my very own opinion. The information are collected through various sources. I am grateful to those who have opened my eyes, namely Ilya Profatilov, Kevin Bazier (Tainan Mantis) and many others. This doesn't represent any other's view except my very own. Any mistake is solely mind. Please feel free to correct me.

I think a lot of the differences materialized because of the different methodolgies which are based in the teaching philosophies of the various masters. For example, the older version of TJPM based more on a body of techniques which are collectively known as Mishou (some seems to suggest that this is rather a form). This explain why it used to be very few students that the Grandmasters would accept and transmit the system to mainly an individual as oppose to many students. From there came Luanjie and Bazhou (during GM Liang XueXiang's time when he decided to accept a large number of students). Then came Xiao Beng Bu which was created to hide the Luanjie. Later another version of Beng Bu, which is the most recognizable PM form of all time, was created. Since it is taught in Yantai county, the old capital of Shandong, it is also called the Yantai Beng Bu. It's original name Da Beng Bu is now rarely in use. Finally a prototypical version of Dzai Yao was created. It is then further developed into 7 sections. At the core, the training philosophy is deeply rooted in Mishou where individual techniques are practiced mano a mano in most hardcore closed quater combat manner. This I have a taste of from my training in CCK TCPM which is a branch of TJPM. In a way, forms were created to keep other students entertained while the masters work closely with a selected number of students (1 or 2) in the Mishou type of training. If we look at the 12 Characters of Taiji (Meihwa), we see that they are somewhat of an encoded series of drills of conceptual nature, which are expressed through various combinations of techniques (ie Feng Shou has go-lu-tsai in it).

Meanwhile no one exactly know what Li Sanjian taught but then by Wang Rongshang time Longfist forms would have been inseperable to the 7* system. From there Chaai Chui, HeHuJiaoJia and others were added. The main reason that there are so many forms and the high regard of form in 7* is IMHO mainly because of its Longfist background. Later on Ling forms became another important feature of 7*. If we examin the QingTsao 7*'s version of 12 characters we see the Longfist mindset is deeply encrouched (ie Beng, Pi, Tiao and Chong). It is also heavily technique based rather than concept based although some people argue that it is also concept based. But this somewhat hard style philosophy experienced yet another face lift by LGY's or WHF's time. Beng Da Diao Jun (swift and fluid - characteristic of Eagle Claw) replaced Beng Pi Tiao Chong (rapid and bold - that of longfist). This is largely IMHO a change due to coming in contact with Eagle Claw in Ching Wu, which was pioneering in creating a universial national art of China. The adaptation of these four words would make the gap between Eagle Claw and Mantis even smaller for Ching Wu students to learn things quickly, and switch from style to style without seemingly having 2 vastly different looking style. This would explain why HK 7* and mainland seems a bit different and instructors of Mantis origin of Ching Wu such as TJPM Grandmaster Chiu Chuk Kai adopted the latter deviced 12 characters. Drills in 7* are quite similar to Taiji's excepted often 7* drills are often broken down into smaller pieces and limit the student to one side of the drill as oppose to TJPM's switching role constantly.

Kung Fu as martial education has to be pragmatic. It has to evolve according to the time and the need of the people. In the case of PM it has been so. Having said that we must remember those who make the evolution possible are well learned (martial wise) masters. They don't create or change things out of a whimp and pass it off as legitimate material. Until the time we all fully understood the profund wisdom that is in the system. I don't suggest anyone to make the system fits you. Rather you should first learn how to fit with the system. I agreed that way back when Tanglang is Tanglang and no specific tags were assigned. It would be great if we can do that again but currently it would take a major miracle to bring all sides to the table. Anyway, lineage dispute and secrets are major obstacles in promoting an awesome art such as Tanglangquan.

Just my thoughts on the matter.>>>>

Tainan Mantis posted a question about why I would think that Beng Bu was created to hide Luanjie. On second thought, I think the word hide is rather heavy. Here are some more thoughts concerning the TJPM forms' genesis.

It would seem that the actual form that really existed according to the most recent research spearheaded by Ilya Profatilov was the 8 Elbows (Fen Shen Bazhou). It would have been the one and only form beside the body of technique which was known collectively as Mishou and was later on reoganized into Dzai Yao (the essentials). This would clearly explain Sifu Profatilov's position in teaching 8 Elbow as the first form since Tanglangquan was often refer to as Duan Da. In fact one text even referred Tanglangquan as 18 Lohan Duan Da. From an Quanpu (manuscript) dated around 1842 that belonged to GM Liang XueXiang, it has Beng Bu (Laiyang Bengbu?), Luanjie (also has an alias plum blossom) and Fen Shen Bazhou. So it is clear that Beng Bu already excited by 1842 which means GM Liang would have been 32 (quite a mature age back then!) By 1852, that is 10 year later, Another Quanpu by GM Liang claims that Mishou, Fen Shen Bazhou (the real one) and Luanjie, which was created to be taught as the Bazhou to outdoor students. So some attempts were taken to disgusie the original 8 elbows form but there is somehow a change of heart to "come clean" with the disguise or perhaps it was legitimate move to address a need for a nova form for novices, thus Luanjie was created to fill the gap. So basically, we are looking at:

Fen Shen Bazhou - a real and only true mantis form according to Taiji/Meihwa tradition.
Mishou - a body of techniques

these 2 made of the original teachings pre-1810

During 1810 - 1842

Luanjie - Nova form to either hide the Bazhou or serves as a entry level form.

having said all that, Bengbu (between 1810-1842) could have been come into existance in the similar light of Luanjie. The technical difficulty of Luanjie, which require the practitioner to be aglie, to have superb hand eye coordination and to have great finesse instead of brute and raw power, is understandablely hard for novice to attempt it as an entry level form. In Yentai Beng Bu we can see that the stances and moves are quite direct and straight forward ( I have yet to see the Laiyang Beng Bu to confirm) yet maintain the close quater combat integrity of PM. Both Laiyang and Yantai Bengbu are believed to have taught to many by GM Liang. The Da Beng Bu was brought to Yantai by some of GM Liang students inculding the famous Jiang Hualong while Xiao Bengbu, the older of the 2 was mostly kept in Laiyang. To a large degree, I surmise that's the possible genesis of a popular PM form - Yantai Beng bu.

Mantis108

[ninjaboy]

hey mantis108, nice to see your voice again!!!

that's a very interesting post. i don't have the knowledge to even comment on the topic but i've contacted a prominent sifu out of australia who seems exceptionally knowledgeable on the histories of tanglang.

i'd like a second opinion on the matter as i have heard questions surrounding the legitamacy of mr profatilov's historical verification methods as to 'fact vs folklore'.

nothing personal...i'd just like to open the communication levels.

sincerely,
ninjaboy

[Tainan Mantis]

ninjaboy,
I'm with you about open communication.
There are many conflicting viewpoints.
It is best to get them out in the open and examine those different histories with a scientific eye

[mantis108]

Hi Ninjaboy, Tainan Mantis and All,

Nice to hear from you too. :) By all means check with all the sources you can get your hands on and work with them. I am in agreement with Tainan that to really understand and gain an appreciation of the art, we need to open our hearts and minds. We should share and help each other on the way. I think then we will enjoy the art more.

Mantis108

PS I might have errors in the post due to certain my limited understanding perhaps even misunderstanding. I basically just wanted to put forth my perspective of things. I am sure others have the own opinion and/or facts on the subjuct and I welcome the oppotunity to hear and learn from them.

[B.Tunks]

Hello all, my name is Brendan Tunks and I am new to this board.

I find it quite frustrating and difficult to communicate with ease in these forums but will occasionally chime in when I cant resist.
The first thing brought to my attention here so far is this post on Yantai Beng Bu genesis. I don’t agree with most of the opinions expressed and I am very agitated by the rate at which certain ‘historical’ opinions are being propagated throughout the international martial media.

This response is so long it will be in two parts...

Mantis 108, I must first of all state that this is in no way a personal attack upon you (though I guarantee I will be offensive in part). Some of opinions you have expressed here are however, based on forementioned propaganda and misinterpretations of other people’s research/material.
I realise you have claimed all mistakes as your own, but in your own words people such as Ilya Profatilov have ‘opened your eyes’. But I wonder if you have checked your vision lately?
Please do not take his research as gospel, he is widely disregarded within his own Taijimeihua family. All this talk of Mishou vs Tanglang is garbage. Tanglang is Tanglang, is Tanglang.
Secrets are mostly for liars, thieves, manipulators, small children and people with something shameful to hide. The majority of the propaganda on the development and origin of Tanglang is nothing more than a complicated effort to claim legitimacy as the purest form of Mantis Boxing.
Funnily enough, it is largely ignored and laughed at in the places where people actually bother to ‘practice’ Tanglang.

You wrote:

>If we look at the 12 Characters of Taiji (Meihwa), we see that they are somewhat of an encoded series >of drills of conceptual nature, which are expressed through various combinations of techniques (ie >Feng Shou has go-lu-tsai in it).

There is no difference between Meihua and Qixing application of the principles, only the principles themselves vary (and even then, only ever so slightly).

You go on:

>Meanwhile no one exactly know what Li Sanjian taught but then by Wang Rongshang time Longfist >forms would have been inseperable to the 7* system.

Not so, what is your back up for this statement?

>From there Chaai Chui, HeHuJiaoJia and others were added. The main reason that there are so many >forms and the high regard of form in 7* is IMHO mainly because of its Longfist background.

Firstly I would like you to please define ‘Long Fist’. If anything, the influences came later.
There are not ‘so many forms’ in Shandong Qixing. There are many in Hong Kong Tanglang which is a much more recent derivitive.
There certainly is a Chuantong Chang Quan influence but there are also similar influences found in Meihua. Meihua/TJM borrowed heavily from many local Shandong styles, all of which you can read about in the recent asian martial arts journal publication. It is only recently that TJM Tanglang has begun to trim back its curriculum to represent an apparently purer form of Tanglang. Most Meihua people will not admit that also once included in their curriculum were forms such as Cha Chui and even Xio Huyan Quan, particularly in places such as Qingdao. There has always been form and technique sharing, denying is lying. In fact many masters openly shared and continue to do so.

>Later on Ling forms became another important feature of 7*.

Not everywhere! And certainly not a defining feature of Qixing Tanglang.

>If we examin the QingTsao 7*'s version of 12 characters we see the Longfist mindset is deeply >encrouched (ie Beng, Pi, Tiao and Chong).

Hmmm, sounds familiar! I appreciate your efforts to look at it from another perspective but I feel you may have gotten the wrong impression from my material. Which ‘Long Fist’ are you referring to? Beng. Pi, Tiao etc are all techniques found throughout the chinese martial world including Meihua/TJM (I will use Meihua, its original name from here on). How does this mean the Long Fist (which by the way, is not ‘a’ style, rather a name of a very large group of boxing styles) mindset is deeply encroached? Gong Bu, Ma Bu, Xu Bu and basic strikes and kicks are ‘borrowed’ from
The ‘Long Fist’ styles. All of which are also present in Meihua. By the way, do you know the 12 character formaula as it is expressed in Yantai? Do you realise that Jingang Qixing Tanglang is not reperesentative of Qixing as a whole. For example, one Qixing family lists 16 key words!

>It is also heavily technique based rather than concept based although some people argue that it is also >concept based.

No, there is no argument. I practice the style, just as I have Meihua, and it is definitely, without a doubt, both technique and concept based.

>But this somewhat hard style philosophy experienced yet another face lift by LGY's or WHF's time.

What hard style philosophy? What is a hard style philosophy and how does your interpretation of my list of 12 character principles from Li Zhanyuan of Qingdao Qixing make this category? Are you implying that the philosophy of Meihua is that of Neijia whereas that of Qixing is Waijia?

>Beng Da Diao Jun (swift and fluid - characteristic of Eagle Claw) replaced Beng Pi Tiao Chong (rapid >and bold - that of longfist).

Pi, Tiao, Chong were never replaced! All these techniques and principles exist in all forms of Tanglang, even those you mentioned. The ‘lists’ of 12 principles varied, the principles did not.
These ‘lists’ vary from master to master even within one men pai. I have seen about 50 variations!
‘Rapid and bold’ are charecteristics found in even the shortest form of boxing (duan quan) that comes to mind, Wing Chun! These are not exclusive Chang Quan charecteristics.

>This is largely IMHO a change due to coming in contact with Eagle Claw in Ching Wu, which was >pioneering in creating a universial national art of China.

There are definite influences after the Jing Wu, but I think not in the area you are implying. People are making far too much of the 12 principles in understanding or differentiating Tanglang, they are even joked about by many famous masters.

>The adaptation of these four words would make the gap between Eagle Claw and Mantis even >smaller for Ching Wu students to learn things quickly, and switch from style to style without >seemingly having 2 vastly different looking style.

These are two very different styles. If you are finding little difference you are playing one or the other, or both incorrectly.

>This would explain why HK 7* and mainland seems a bit different

Very different in some areas, very similar in others…
This would go only a very small way to attempting the explanation, but that a whole different topic.

>and instructors of Mantis origin of Ching Wu such as TJPM Grandmaster Chiu Chuk Kai adopted the >latter deviced 12 characters.

Is that why? How do you know this is why?

>Drills in 7* are quite similar to Taiji's excepted often 7* drills are often broken down into smaller >pieces and limit the student to one side of the drill as oppose to TJPM's switching role constantly.

This is totally incorrect, sorry.

I don’t know what you really know about Qixing Tanglang. From what I can see so far, you don’t know much about Qixing Tanglang from Shandong (what some people call ‘PRC Tanglang’), or at least haven’t actually trained in it, at least under any master who really knows it. As far as your knowledge on the H.K school, it is also seems a little clouded and perhaps over-generalised.
I will certainly apologise if you can lead me to believe otherwise. You seem to have gotten most of your information on the origins and development of the major families and their included techniques and forms, second or third hand from sources such as the research of Mr I.Profatilov and even websites such as my own. There is nothing wrong with this, but I advise you to test your sources and keep an open mind. Who knows where I got the information on my site? Do I, or others like myself in the ‘martial media’ really speak with any authority for any sect of Tanglang? Is what we say just academic sounding trash based on legend, myth and forged documents? In many cases the answer is yes, the majority of sources are dubious at best.

continued...

[B.Tunks]

continued...

>Kung Fu as martial education has to be pragmatic. It has to evolve according to the time and the need >of the people. In the case of PM it has been so. Having said that we must remember those who make >the evolution possible are well learned (martial wise) masters. They don't create or change things out >of a whimp and pass it off as legitimate material.

True.

>Until the time we all fully understood the profund wisdom that is in the system. I don't suggest >anyone to make the system fits you. Rather you should first learn how to fit with the system. I agreed >that way back when Tanglang is Tanglang and no specific tags were assigned. It would be great if we >can do that again but currently it would take a major miracle to bring all sides to the table. Anyway, >lineage dispute and secrets are major obstacles in promoting an awesome art such as Tanglangquan. >

I agree with all this. I wonder why in the rest of your post you make such divisive comments and support such controversial ‘research’?


>Tainan Mantis posted a question about why I would think that Beng Bu was created to hide Luanjie. >On second thought, I think the word hide is rather heavy. Here are some more thoughts concerning >the TJPM forms' genesis.

I also do not agree that this is so. There is no evidence whatsoever that Luanjie/Lanjie was created before Beng Bu to start with. In fact the creation date of both are unknown.

>It would seem that the actual form that really existed according to the most recent research >spearheaded by Ilya Profatilov was the 8 Elbows (Fen Shen Bazhou).

According to him, yes. It is a very old form but is part of a group of about 5 very old forms.

>It would have been the one and only form beside the body of technique which was known collectively >as Mishou

Mishou is thought by many to be just a nickname. It was never the one and only form, even in Meihua. Also why do you totally neglect the forms extant in the Qixing system of the same era?

>and was later on reoganized into Dzai Yao (the essentials). This would clearly explain Sifu >Profatilov's position in teaching 8 Elbow as the first form since Tanglangquan was often refer to as >Duan Da.

Duan Da, by Meihua people. Ba Zhou is taught as first set by many teachers apart from him.

>In fact one text even referred Tanglangquan as 18 Lohan Duan Da. From an Quanpu (manuscript) >dated around 1842 that belonged to GM Liang XueXiang, it has Beng Bu (Laiyang Bengbu?), Luanjie >(also has an alias plum blossom) and Fen Shen Bazhou. So it is clear that Beng Bu already excited by >1842 which means GM Liang would have been 32 (quite a mature age back then!) By 1852, that is 10 >year later, Another Quanpu by GM Liang claims that Mishou, Fen Shen Bazhou (the real one) and >Luanjie, which was created to be taught as the Bazhou to outdoor students. So some attempts were >taken to disgusie the original 8 elbows form but there is somehow a change of heart to "come clean" >with the disguise or perhaps it was legitimate move to address a need for a nova form for novices, >thus Luanjie was created to fill the gap.

Ha ha, can you not see from your own words, they were making it up and creating history as they went along. Do not forget how much deception there is in martial arts!

>So basically, we are looking at:
>Fen Shen Bazhou - a real and only true mantis form according to Taiji/Meihwa tradition.

Yes, according to some, not all Meihua people. There are even those from Meihua who totally discredit a lot of this theory.

>Mishou - a body of techniques
>these 2 made of the original teachings pre-1810

Yes, for some in Tanglang, not the Tanglang world in total.

>.During 1810 - 1842
>Luanjie - Nova form to either hide the Bazhou or serves as a entry level form.

This is an opinion, there is no proof. “Hiding’ was most often done by total with holding.

>having said all that, Bengbu (between 1810-1842) could have been come into existance in the similar >light of Luanjie. The technical difficulty of Luanjie, which require the practitioner to be aglie, to have >superb hand eye coordination and to have great finesse instead of brute and raw power, is >understandablely hard for novice to attempt it as an entry level form.

Are you saying Beng Bu uses exclusively ‘brute and raw power’?

In Yentai Beng Bu

Which is just one nickname for the form of Beng Bu ,

>we can see that the stances and moves are quite direct and straight forward ( I have yet to see the >Laiyang Beng Bu to confirm)

Beng Bu is Beng Bu, the added place names are just nicknames. It is one of the forms that no matter how much people pretend, it varies very little from sect to sect.

>yet maintain the close quater combat integrity of PM.

All versions of this form use both close and long range techniques, as do all forms of Tanglang.

>Both Laiyang and Yantai Bengbu are believed to have taught to many by GM Liang. The Da Beng Bu was brought to Yantai by some of GM Liang students inculding the famous Jiang Hualong while Xiao Bengbu, the older of the 2 was mostly kept in Laiyang.

Cough, cough, choke! What??? This is all hearsay. I don’t blame you I blame your sources. Jiang Hualong did not bring Beng Bu to Yantai. There is so much bull**** about him and Song Zide. How about the time he ran away from Yantai in the middle of the night, in fear of Gong Baotian or how he was smashed by Hao Shunchang of Qixing Tanglang, why do we never hear about that in these propaganda stories?

>To a large degree, I surmise that's the possible genesis of a popular PM form - Yantai Beng bu.

I agree, you surmise.

I’m sorry I’m being so harsh but really, you must watch what you say particularly as you say it with so much apparent authority. Personally, I don’t know you and just from your writing style I can gather you are a nice guy. I don’t know your Tanglang skill level but I expect you must be very good in Taiji Tanglang, or you wouldn’t bother to go into so much detail with your research. I simply can not stand to sit by and watch all of this one sided bull**** that is being spouted these days on the history and origins of Tanglang Quan. It is a very shady area of research and I implore you and others (who are obviously great lovers of this art), to watch carefully what you believe. Please be more objective and try to remember, we know very little indeed before the last hundred years. There is a definite difference between history and folk tradition. Quan Pu amount to very little in the scheme of things, as you yourself have illustrated in your paragraph regarding Liang’s own variable Quan Pu.
My apologies if you have been offended, its nothing personal at all. I’m sorry you had to be the target of my frustrations.
Awaiting your response,
Brendan Tunks

[mantis_seeker]

Hi Sifu Tunks,

Wow what a post!

Concerning this research it seems like all Sifu Ilya Profatilov research comes from one source. He has many manuscipts but they still are from his particular lineage. This type of research is biased at best. There is no reason to believe his lineage's accounts of history are any more accurate than the horoscope. When I asked one sifu about this whole mess he told me "There are many old quan pu's on both sides not just his..". Who is to say which side is more accurate.

When I first started learning Seven Star my Sifu told me that all tang lang is family. Since then I have seen some ugly arguments between different lineages. The thing to note is that the arguments usually stem from the students not the actual Sifus.


mantis_seeker

[B.Tunks]

Mantis seeker you hit the nail on the head!
I think we all need to bring everything back into perspective and rub the nostalgic fog from our eyes.
B.T

[Tainan Mantis]

Hi Brendan,
Welcome to the KFO Mantis board.
Your research definetly provides a fresh perspective.

This question is about the ling beng bu or 2 man beng bu form.
I have been tracking its history and wish to know your opinion.

In HK 7* PM ling beng bu starts with Luo Guangyu according to Huang Hanhsun/WHF, who goes on to quote him as saying it is the only ling form in PM.

Later ling forms in HK 7* seem to be created by Luo's students, including WHF, and/or grandstudents.

In Taiwan ling beng bu history starts with Su Yuzhang.
I can find no Taiwan teacher of his that knew this form.

Mantis108's Ling bengbu form starts with his shrfu Zhao Zhuhsi from what I can gather.
Although the solo versions are somewhat similar to 7* the 2 man versions are completely different.

So, according to my research the ling beng bu starts with 3 people who were not in Shandong when teaching it.

-Luo Guangyu
-Su Yuzhang, who had access to old published ling bengbu book.
-Zhao Zhuhsi, whose ling bengbu is totally different.

So the final question is...
Is ling bengbu part of traditional 7* or any other PM that you have seen in Shandong?

[mantis108]

<<<Hello all, my name is Brendan Tunks and I am new to this board.>>>

Greetings and welcome to you. Nice to have a chance to get your perspective on things.

<<<I find it quite frustrating and difficult to communicate with ease in these forums but will occasionally chime in when I cant resist.
The first thing brought to my attention here so far is this post on Yantai Beng Bu genesis. I don t agree with most of the opinions expressed and I am very agitated by the rate at which certain historical opinions are being propagated throughout the international martial media.>>>

Well, I am glad the thread caught your attention. Like I have said, please feel free to corrrect me. I welcome a chance to listen to the other side of the story.

<<<This response is so long it will be in two parts...

Mantis 108, I must first of all state that this is in no way a personal attack upon you (though I guarantee I will be offensive in part). Some of opinions you have expressed here are however, based on forementioned propaganda and misinterpretations of other people s research/material.>>>

I can assure you that no offense taken. Thank you for being candid and straight forward with me. Likewise I will be returning the same favour. Hopefully we could have an interesting debate.

First off, I am not working in the capacity of any political organization nor party nor do I believe that Kung Fu (mantis or otherwise) should involve in such activities. So the word propaganda frankly sounds odd to me. As for misinterpreatations of other people's research/material, I can't say for certainty that I haven't. I did have placed a caveat. I realize that I should have added more caveats. I have put forth a suggestion based on various sources that is readily available publicly plus through my own study on my style. I apologise to those who feel their works being misinterpreted in my understanding of thing. But I stress that it is only my opinion not facts (well facts to a certian degree).

<<<I realise you have claimed all mistakes as your own, but in your own words people such as Ilya Profatilov have opened your eyes . But I wonder if you have checked your vision lately? >>>

Now, I have to stress on the point that I really really do not want to get into petty Kung Fu politics. I believe that is counter productive at any rate. It is true that I have personal contact with Ilya Profatilov and he has generously shared some interesting material with me and I hope to meet him in person someday as he would be one of the closest Kung Fu relatives that our style has. Through him I have also seen some of my lineage's cousins stuff which really helps in getting a glimspe of my roots. Also I use the term "openning my eyes" liberally. So you are also one of the people who has openned my eyes through your effort in building a 7* PM site. For that I thank you. The same go for Kevin Brazier, Steve Cottrell, Brain Bateman, and many more...

<<<Please do not take his research as gospel, he is widely disregarded within his own Taijimeihua family. >>>

Thank for the concern. I can assure you that while I admire his effort and work, I do not take his research as gospel.

<<<All this talk of Mishou vs Tanglang is garbage. Tanglang is Tanglang, is Tanglang.>>>

I am not sure where your impression of there is a Mishou vs Tanglang going on comes from? As I have stated before my understanding of Mishou is that it is a body of techniques. Why it would seem so problematic? In my style, CCK TCPM, we have 64 techniques, which I refer to as Taizu Duan Da. It is also a body of techniques not linked to gether but are grouped together for easier practice purposes. We don't look at it as the ultra super duper secret that we revered and left on the pedestal. So that's how I see Mishou. Whether I will be proven wrong on the view; that's another story. I certianly agree that Tanglang is Tanglang.

<<<Secrets are mostly for liars, thieves, manipulators, small children and people with something shameful to hide. The majority of the propaganda on the development and origin of Tanglang is nothing more than a complicated effort to claim legitimacy as the purest form of Mantis Boxing. >>>

While I agree whole heartedly that secrets are BS, I am not sure why you repeatedly trumpet the almost political party rhetoric like statements? My concern is that some TLQ masters are already lining up with the current communist regime to "reform" TLQ which we have seem some of the changes, or variations to put it nicely, in some of the mainland China PM (stances being the most obvious) not to mention the creation of competition routines for Wushu. How do we know that your view is not tinted by the political movement? I recalled you did provided a link to a recently created competition routines a while ago althought lately you seem to distant yourself from that. Are you suggesting that there is not legitimate pure form of Mantis Boxing? Please define your view on legitimacy or legitimate. That means government approved is it not or it is otherwise?

<<<Funnily enough, it is largely ignored and laughed at in the places where people actually bother to practice Tanglang.>>>

I agreed ultimately Kung Fu has to be functional not fictional.

<<<You wrote:

>If we look at the 12 Characters of Taiji (Meihwa), we see that they are somewhat of an encoded series >of drills of conceptual nature, which are expressed through various combinations of techniques (ie >Feng Shou has go-lu-tsai in it).

There is no difference between Meihua and Qixing application of the principles, only the principles themselves vary (and even then, only ever so slightly).>>>

Right, if you don't mind elaborate this point with example.

<<<You go on:

>Meanwhile no one exactly know what Li Sanjian taught but then by Wang Rongshang time Longfist >forms would have been inseperable to the 7* system.

Not so, what is your back up for this statement?>>>

I read some of this on the Mantiscave. I understand that's not first hand information. But then I haven't come across mainland 7* site that has a curriculum availble including yours. Now, I would definitely like to see what exactly is being offered in Mainland China.

<<<>From there Chaai Chui, HeHuJiaoJia and others were added. The main reason that there are so many >forms and the high regard of form in 7* is IMHO mainly because of its Longfist background.

Firstly I would like you to please define Long Fist . If anything, the influences came later.
There are not so many forms in Shandong Qixing. There are many in Hong Kong Tanglang which is a much more recent derivitive.
There certainly is a Chuantong Chang Quan influence but there are also similar influences found in Meihua. Meihua/TJM borrowed heavily from many local Shandong styles, all of which you can read about in the recent asian martial arts journal publication. It is only recently that TJM Tanglang has begun to trim back its curriculum to represent an apparently purer form of Tanglang. Most Meihua people will not admit that also once included in their curriculum were forms such as Cha Chui and even Xio Huyan Quan, particularly in places such as Qingdao. There has always been form and technique sharing, denying is lying. In fact many masters openly shared and continue to do so. >>>

It is exactly because of the sharing and mixing that, I would like to know where these forms are originated. There is nothing wrong with sharing and I think sharing enhancing the Kung Fu experience. However, I am sorry I don't agreed with the attitude that "be happy, don't worry". I personally am not a Mantis Mystic nor am I a believer in status quo. If Dali took a painting of Picaso and claimed it is his, you will be okay with it? For sports that attitude may be okay; for arts I am not so sure.

continued...

[mantis108]

<<<>Later on Ling forms became another important feature of 7*.

Not everywhere! And certainly not a defining feature of Qixing Tanglang.>>>

Okay, so in mainland or rather in Shandong area, most TLQ don't have ling forms. What about 2 men sets such as Pai An or Tao Hua San?

<<<>If we examin the QingTsao 7*'s version of 12 characters we see the Longfist mindset is deeply >encrouched (ie Beng, Pi, Tiao and Chong).

Hmmm, sounds familiar! I appreciate your efforts to look at it from another perspective but I feel you may have gotten the wrong impression from my material. Which Long Fist are you referring to? Beng. Pi, Tiao etc are all techniques found throughout the chinese martial world including Meihua/TJM (I will use Meihua, its original name from here on). How does this mean the Long Fist (which by the way, is not a style, rather a name of a very large group of boxing styles) mindset is deeply encroached? Gong Bu, Ma Bu, Xu Bu and basic strikes and kicks are borrowed from
The Long Fist styles. All of which are also present in Meihua. By the way, do you know the 12 character formaula as it is expressed in Yantai? Do you realise that Jingang Qixing Tanglang is not reperesentative of Qixing as a whole. For example, one Qixing family lists 16 key words!>>>

Good points. I am at a handicap since I have not visited Yantai area. I only have seen some of the form performances. Thanks for sharing the info.

<<<>It is also heavily technique based rather than concept based although some people argue that it is also >concept based.

No, there is no argument. I practice the style, just as I have Meihua, and it is definitely, without a doubt, both technique and concept based. >>>

Okay.

<<<>But this somewhat hard style philosophy experienced yet another face lift by LGY's or WHF's time.

What hard style philosophy? What is a hard style philosophy and how does your interpretation of my list of 12 character principles from Li Zhanyuan of Qingdao Qixing make this category? Are you implying that the philosophy of Meihua is that of Neijia whereas that of Qixing is Waijia?>>>

Hard/soft and Neijia/waijia are just relative. It doesn't imply superemacy. I think your list of characters are more consistant than that of the HK version and that it may help illustrate a point that HK version differ from the Qingdao version for a reason. It would seem to me that by borrowing your publicly listed list agitate you. For that I am sorry. I should observe your full right to your material in the future.

<<<>Beng Da Diao Jun (swift and fluid - characteristic of Eagle Claw) replaced Beng Pi Tiao Chong (rapid >and bold - that of longfist).

Pi, Tiao, Chong were never replaced! All these techniques and principles exist in all forms of Tanglang, even those you mentioned. The lists of 12 principles varied, the principles did not.
These lists vary from master to master even within one men pai. I have seen about 50 variations!
Rapid and bold are charecteristics found in even the shortest form of boxing (duan quan) that comes to mind, Wing Chun! These are not exclusive Chang Quan charecteristics.>>>

Pardon, my poor descriptions. I should have added some phyiscal examples. By replace, I don't mean that Pi Tiao Chong not existed in the HK version or any other Mantis for that matter. It only means that some other characters similar to those of Eagle Claw are adopted or hightlighted for whatever reason.

<<<>This is largely IMHO a change due to coming in contact with Eagle Claw in Ching Wu, which was >pioneering in creating a universial national art of China.

There are definite influences after the Jing Wu, but I think not in the area you are implying. People are making far too much of the 12 principles in understanding or differentiating Tanglang, they are even joked about by many famous masters.>>>

Famous master such as...? I do agreed that the importance of the 12 words are sometime overplayed.

<<<>The adaptation of these four words would make the gap between Eagle Claw and Mantis even >smaller for Ching Wu students to learn things quickly, and switch from style to style without >seemingly having 2 vastly different looking style.

These are two very different styles. If you are finding little difference you are playing one or the other, or both incorrectly.>>>

That's beyond the scope of this discussion for now but I think it would make another interest debate.

<<<>This would explain why HK 7* and mainland seems a bit different

Very different in some areas, very similar in others
This would go only a very small way to attempting the explanation, but that a whole different topic.>>>

Agreed

<<<>and instructors of Mantis origin of Ching Wu such as TJPM Grandmaster Chiu Chuk Kai adopted the >latter deviced 12 characters.

Is that why? How do you know this is why?>>>

It's a rather long story. Perhaps we will touch on this again some other time?

<<<>Drills in 7* are quite similar to Taiji's excepted often 7* drills are often broken down into smaller >pieces and limit the student to one side of the drill as oppose to TJPM's switching role constantly.

This is totally incorrect, sorry.>>>

Would you mind to elaborate your view?

<<<I don t know what you really know about Qixing Tanglang. From what I can see so far, you don t know much about Qixing Tanglang from Shandong (what some people call PRC Tanglang ), or at least haven t actually trained in it, at least under any master who really knows it. As far as your knowledge on the H.K school, it is also seems a little clouded and perhaps over-generalised. >>>

Well, it is true that don't train in Qixing TLQ. I have only been exposed to it most through 7* people. It is rather interesting though that previously you claim that TLQ is TLQ. So theortically speaking, following that logic, my being a CCK TCPM stylist should be able to understand Qixing TLQ providing that I understand my own training well enough to draw a comparsion. If I drawn a comparsion based on what are available to me through people (my style and 7*) who trained in it. How could it be totally wrong? Unless you are suggesting that those people are not "representives" of the style. On the one hand, you suggested that all TLQ are the one and the same and on the other you suggest that no one should make a comparsion unless trained in "both" or all TLQ. So which is it? Frankly, I feel your statment here tends to undermind my chance of rebuttal.

"I will certainly apologise if you can lead me to believe otherwise. You seem to have gotten most of your information on the origins and development of the major families and their included techniques and forms, second or third hand from sources such as the research of Mr I.Profatilov and even websites such as my own. There is nothing wrong with this, but I advise you to test your sources and keep an open mind. Who knows where I got the information on my site? Do I, or others like myself in the martial media really speak with any authority for any sect of Tanglang? Is what we say just academic sounding trash based on legend, myth and forged documents? In many cases the answer is yes, the majority of sources are dubious at best."

Thank you for the advice. Points well taken. At the same time, I would like to point out that I do have access to the people who provide their information through massage boards, private emails and even in person except perhaps you. It is unfortunate that you feel I am asserting some kind of authority on the subject matter or that I have a hidden agenda of sort, which seem to be more of a concern to you than anything else. I don't claim to be an adept or master at any rate. I don't have a hidden agenda. I love TLQ and I welcome any chance of applying and improving myself with it. I have been fortunate to have access to a few great PM folks who are willing to share freely without setting up fences and Kung Fu politics through forum such as this one. I build my friendship with them based on good faith and honesty. It is sad that you feel the integrity of material in public are mostly based in dubious sources at best. If you even feel that way about your own material, what can we said?

continue...

[B.Tunks]

Mantis 108

Woah, nice response! Communist party politics, modern competition Tanglang, intellectual property, all in the one post!
I'll have to get back to you as soon as I can. Its good to see you are a sharp guy who really knows where he stands.
B.T

[mantis108]

why... Thank you, Sir. :) I will take that as a compliment. I see the same in you as well. Please take your time. I have yet to do the rebuttal on your second part of the response. Personally, I am enjoying this debate. Catch you later. :)

Regards

Robert Hui (Mantis108)

[B.Tunks]

Hello again Mantis 108!

>Greetings and welcome to you. Nice to have a chance to get your perspective on things.

Thankyou very much. I appreciate your hospitality, especially after all of my unkind words.


>I can assure you that no offense taken. Thank you for being candid and straight forward with me. >Likewise I will be returning the same favour. Hopefully we could have an interesting debate.
>First off, I am not working in the capacity of any political organization nor party nor do I believe that >Kung Fu (mantis or otherwise) should involve in such activities.

Neither am I. Why would you mention this?

>So the word propaganda frankly sounds odd to me.

Propaganda is not an odd sounding word. ‘Sasquatch’ is odd sounding.

>As for misinterpreatations of other people's research/material, I can't say for certainty that I haven't. >I did have placed a caveat. I realize that I should have added more caveats.

I’m not sure what you mean here, but I think I catch your drift. Either way, I know you had good intentions.

>I have put forth a suggestion based on various sources that is readily available publicly plus through >my own study on my style. I apologise to those who feel their works being misinterpreted in my >understanding of thing. But I stress that it is only my opinion not facts (well facts to a certian degree).

This is well understood.

>Now, I have to stress on the point that I really really do not want to get into petty Kung Fu politics.

Neither do I. Are you suggesting I am being petty? I represent my Gongfu physically and have no time for ‘pettiness’. The mere fact that I bothered to respond to your thought provoking post suggests otherwise.

>I believe that is counter productive at any rate.

I agree, wholeheartedly.

>It is true that I have personal contact with Ilya Profatilov and he has generously shared some >interesting material with me and I hope to meet him in person someday as he would be one of the >closest Kung Fu relatives that our style has.

That is good, he is often regarded as a great scholar of Mantis Boxing. I questioned your objectivity in accepting his research.

>Through him I have also seen some of my lineage's cousins stuff which really helps in getting a >glimspe of my roots. Also I use the term "openning my eyes" liberally. So you are also one of the >people who has openned my eyes through your effort in building a 7* PM site. For that I thank you. >The same go for Kevin Brazier, Steve Cottrell, Brain Bateman, and many more...

I understand and accept this. As I said, nothing personal. Your post was a convenient target for my frustrations. I am sick of the one-sidedness and a little worried about the direction some of this research is taking.




I am glad, thankyou for proving otherwise.



I am not sure where your impression of there is a Mishou vs Tanglang going on comes from? As I have stated before my understanding of Mishou is that it is a body of techniques. Why it would seem so problematic? In my style, CCK TCPM, we have 64 techniques, which I refer to as Taizu Duan Da. It is also a body of techniques not linked to gether but are grouped together for easier practice purposes. We don't look at it as the ultra super duper secret that we revered and left on the pedestal. So that's how I see Mishou. Whether I will be proven wrong on the view; that's another story. I certianly agree that Tanglang is Tanglang.

<<<Secrets are mostly for liars, thieves, manipulators, small children and people with something shameful to hide. The majority of the propaganda on the development and origin of Tanglang is nothing more than a complicated effort to claim legitimacy as the purest form of Mantis Boxing. >>>

While I agree whole heartedly that secrets are BS, I am not sure why you repeatedly trumpet the almost political party rhetoric like statements? My concern is that some TLQ masters are already lining up with the current communist regime to "reform" TLQ which we have seem some of the changes, or variations to put it nicely, in some of the mainland China PM (stances being the most obvious) not to mention the creation of competition routines for Wushu. How do we know that your view is not tinted by the political movement? I recalled you did provided a link to a recently created competition routines a while ago althought lately you seem to distant yourself from that. Are you suggesting that there is not legitimate pure form of Mantis Boxing? Please define your view on legitimacy or legitimate. That means government approved is it not or it is otherwise?

<<<Funnily enough, it is largely ignored and laughed at in the places where people actually bother to practice Tanglang.>>>

I agreed ultimately Kung Fu has to be functional not fictional.

<<<You wrote:

>If we look at the 12 Characters of Taiji (Meihwa), we see that they are somewhat of an encoded series >of drills of conceptual nature, which are expressed through various combinations of techniques (ie >Feng Shou has go-lu-tsai in it).

There is no difference between Meihua and Qixing application of the principles, only the principles themselves vary (and even then, only ever so slightly).>>>

Right, if you don't mind elaborate this point with example.

<<<You go on:

>Meanwhile no one exactly know what Li Sanjian taught but then by Wang Rongshang time Longfist >forms would have been inseperable to the 7* system.

Not so, what is your back up for this statement?>>>

I read some of this on the Mantiscave. I understand that's not first hand information. But then I haven't come across mainland 7* site that has a curriculum availble including yours. Now, I would definitely like to see what exactly is being offered in Mainland China.

<<<>From there Chaai Chui, HeHuJiaoJia and others were added. The main reason that there are so many >forms and the high regard of form in 7* is IMHO mainly because of its Longfist background.

Firstly I would like you to please define Long Fist . If anything, the influences came later.
There are not so many forms in Shandong Qixing. There are many in Hong Kong Tanglang which is a much more recent derivitive.
There certainly is a Chuantong Chang Quan influence but there are also similar influences found in Meihua. Meihua/TJM borrowed heavily from many local Shandong styles, all of which you can read about in the recent asian martial arts journal publication. It is only recently that TJM Tanglang has begun to trim back its curriculum to represent an apparently purer form of Tanglang. Most Meihua people will not admit that also once included in their curriculum were forms such as Cha Chui and even Xio Huyan Quan, particularly in places such as Qingdao. There has always been form and technique sharing, denying is lying. In fact many masters openly shared and continue to do so. >>>

It is exactly because of the sharing and mixing that, I would like to know where these forms are originated. There is nothing wrong with sharing and I think sharing enhancing the Kung Fu experience. However, I am sorry I don't agreed with the attitude that "be happy, don't worry". I personally am not a Mantis Mystic nor am I a believer in status quo. If Dali took a painting of Picaso and claimed it is his, you will be okay with it? For sports that attitude may be okay; for arts I am not so sure.

continued...
__________________
Contraria Sunt Complementa
TJPM Forum
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
<<<All this talk of Mishou vs Tanglang is garbage. Tanglang is Tanglang, is Tanglang.>>>

>I am not sure where your impression of there is a Mishou vs Tanglang going on comes from? As I have stated >before my understanding of Mishou is that it is a body of techniques. Why it would seem so problematic?

O.K. I am not certainly questioning your understanding of Mishou, just its place in the overall historical picture of the development of TLQ. Actually I have an understanding of Mishou, what was said to have developed from it (Qi Duan Zhaiyao or in some peoples opinion Liu Duan Zhaiyao), and what some other masters within the Meihua family concieve of it. However in your initial post you listed some points that lead to my comments on mishou regarding its secret transmission:

>For example, the older version of TJPM based more on a body of techniques which are collectively known as >Mishou (some seems to suggest that this is rather a form). This explain why it used to be very few students that the >Grandmasters would accept and transmit the system to mainly an individual as oppose to many students.

>At the core, the training philosophy is deeply rooted in Mishou where individual techniques are practiced mano a >mano in most hardcore closed quater combat manner. This I have a taste of from my training in CCK TCPM which >is a branch of TJPM. In a way, forms were created to keep other students entertained while the masters work >closely with a selected number of students (1 or 2) in the Mishou type of training.

I doubt the fact that this Mishou was passed on in this manner. If so, why was it later developed into the Zhaiyao series and eventually passed on to everyone? It doesn’t make sense. I also question the claim that Mishou is the ‘original’ Tanglang Quan. It is not extant in qixing which was around at the exact same period and even so, what of the apparent Song Dai origins of Tanglang Quan that is claimed by the same branches of Tanglang? Surely, according to their own accounts, this is the original Mantis Boxing (though I do not believe it as so).
Don’t forget this whole thing is based upon reproductions of the Quan Pu of a most likely fictional character, Sheng Xiao Daoren. He himself is listed as having existed over several different time periods spanning a couple of hundred years!

continued...

[B.Tunks]

>In my style, CCK TCPM, we have 64 techniques, which I refer to as Taizu Duan Da. It is also a body of techniques >not linked to gether but are grouped together for easier practice purposes.

You guys are lucky to have such a useful training aid. I do not doubt it’s validity.

>We don't look at it as the ultra super duper secret that we revered and left on the pedestal. So that's how I see >Mishou.

I don’t see your Taizu Duan Da in that way either! There is nothing magical that can be done with a fist, an elbow or a foot…

>Whether I will be proven wrong on the view; that's another story. I certianly agree that Tanglang is Tanglang.

There is nothing there to prove wrong.

<<<Secrets are mostly for liars, thieves, manipulators, small children and people with something shameful to hide. The majority of the propaganda on the development and origin of Tanglang is nothing more than a complicated effort to claim legitimacy as the purest form of Mantis Boxing. >>>

>While I agree whole heartedly that secrets are BS, I am not sure why you repeatedly trumpet the almost political >party rhetoric like statements?
>My concern is that some TLQ masters are already lining up with the current communist regime to "reform" TLQ >which we have seem some of the changes, or variations to put it nicely, in some of the mainland China PM >(stances being the most obvious) not to mention the creation of competition routines for Wushu. How do we know >that your view is not tinted by the political movement?

Hmmm… How could I align myself with a party or its views, that persecuted most of my Tanglang family (including my Shi Ye) during the cultural revolution and also tried at one stage to totally destroy its art? I will try to hold my tongue for now, as frankly your suggestion is making me angry. I wonder where the **** you got this idea?
Does practicing PRC Tanglang make me a communist?

>I recalled you did provided a link to a recently created competition routines a while ago althought lately you seem >to distant yourself from that.

Are you kidding? You have never seen my Mantis Boxing, are you insinuating that I play modern competitive Wushu Tanglang, or that my Tanglang is in any way infected by it? Why don’t you talk to those who have met, seen or even fought with me? I will continue now to put this stupid part of this argument to rest…

Your accusation regarding my apparent link to ‘recently created competition routines’ is a pretty poor attempt to discredit me. It is in fact from your thousands of hours of web-mantis training that you somehow forged a link between me and modern Tanglang. In fact I am well aware of where you got this idea, though you clearlyy are not. I have nothing to hide! You are reffering to comments made on a website guestbook, made 6 years ago, where someone had falsely claim a particular Mantis Boxing set had been handed down through their fathers lineage as a traditional routine. In fact, the Xiao Tanglang form (which was published in Wulin magazine in the early 80’s), was devised as a competition form as part of research on behalf of the Shanghai Physical Education Institute, by two prominent masters. One of the two is one of my 7 major coaches. The form was devised entirely for competition, as they are also professional coaches of competitive Wushu (therefore more than martial arts hobbyists), and the assignment required the production of a standardised routine for national utilisation. One of the men in question incorporated chuantong techniques and yongfa into the set, in conjunction with several standard modern movements.
He is a traditional Tanglang specialist who surprise, surprise, specialises in Meihua Tanglang also of the Liang Lineage. He is also a proponent of Duan Da as Mantis and cites an earlier 4 forms predating Ba Zhou, of which he and his highly respected master also possess Quan Pu.
Do not mistake my mainland Tanglang, it is certainly not tainted by competition wushu and its main purpose is combat, of which I partake constantly. There is a definite distinction between real and fake Tanglang in China.
Now, if any of your net friends have a similar question of my integrity please pass this on.


>Are you suggesting that there is not legitimate pure form of Mantis Boxing?

Yes. It is gone, even if there ever was one. Anyone who claims to practice it today is a deluded idiot. The past is done.

 Please define your view on legitimacy >or legitimate. That means government approved is it not or it is otherwise?

Are you joking? The government of any country has no relevance to Tanglang.
I meant legitimacy as the heir to the throne of pure Tanglang. That is what this is all about as I see it. Who is the number one idiot in the western world to be the holder of the Tanglang tradition. It’s a bull**** quest.


>Meanwhile no one exactly know what Li Sanjian taught but then by Wang Rongshang time Longfist >forms would >have been inseperable to the 7* system.

Not so, what is your back up for this statement?>>>

>I read some of this on the Mantiscave. I understand that's not first hand information. But then I haven't come across >mainland 7* site that has a curriculum availble including yours. Now, I would definitely like to see what exactly is >?being offered in Mainland China.

Qixing Tanglang also has its ‘sacred’ Quan Pu. They are held in Yantai, Shanghai, Qingdao, and Hong Kong. There equally as many as there are for TJM/Meihua. They are, of course not available to the general public, which in my opinion is a shame.
Whilst on this point, we do know what was taught by Li Zhizhan!!! Who knows what the so called nameless bandit taught if he indeed did ever exist!
nameless bandit…


>It is exactly because of the sharing and mixing that, I would like to know where these forms are originated. There >is nothing wrong with sharing and I think sharing enhancing the Kung Fu experience. However, I am sorry I don't >agreed with the attitude that "be happy, don't worry". I personally am not a Mantis Mystic nor am I a believer in >status quo. If Dali took a painting of Picaso and claimed it is his, you will be okay with it? For sports that attitude >may be okay; for arts I am not so sure.

Yes, but rather confusing. I told you, this is not a sport. I think maybe you are confusing PRC Qixing with Yu Hai’s intrpretation.

>Okay, so in mainland or rather in Shandong area, most TLQ don't have ling forms. What >about 2 men sets such as Pai An or Tao Hua San?

Yes, they are practiced. What is the relevance?

>Hard/soft and Neijia/waijia are just relative. It doesn't imply superemacy.

It does imply sophistication, and in most cases superiority of technique and theory. In fact it is one of Taijimeihua’s claims to faim, hence the recent addition of the Taiji.

>I think your list of characters are more consistant than that of the HK version and that it >may help illustrate a point that HK version differ from the Qingdao version for a reason. It >would seem to me that by borrowing your publicly listed list agitate you. For that I am >sorry. I should observe your full right to your material in the future.

No not at all. I apologise for giving you that impression. I am honoured that you cited it, I just thought you may have misunderstood it, as I presented it. I welcome you to use it in future, as I will use some of your thought that arise from this debate.

<<<>Drills in 7* are quite similar to Taiji's excepted often 7* drills are often broken down into smaller >pieces and limit the student to one side of the drill as oppose to TJPM's switching role constantly.

This is totally incorrect, sorry.>>>

>Would you mind to elaborate your view?

We drill everything left and right side and switch roles constantly. I think this boils down to your lack of experience with Shandong Qixing once again. Have you noticed say nothing about your Taiji Tanglang technique and theory? That is because I have very limited knowledge…
<<<I don t know what you really know about Qixing Tanglang. From what I can see so far, you don t know much about Qixing Tanglang from Shandong (what some people call PRC Tanglang ), or at least haven t actually trained in it, at least under any master who really knows it. As far as your knowledge on the H.K school, it is also seems a little clouded and perhaps over-generalised. >>>

>Well, it is true that don't train in Qixing TLQ. I have only been exposed to it most through >7* people.

Which Qixing People from PRC, there are very few outside of China? I am familiar with most of them (the coaches), if not all. If not them personally, their coaches in China.

>It is rather interesting though that previously you claim that TLQ is TLQ. So theortically >speaking, following that logic, my being a CCK TCPM stylist should be able to understand >Qixing TLQ providing that I understand my own training well enough to draw a >comparsion.

Yes. You should be able to understand the common mantis principles, but not the Qixing.

continued...

[B.Tunks]

>If I drawn a comparsion based on what are available to me through people (my style and >7*) who trained in it. How could it be totally wrong?

It could be totally unbalanced and it appears so.

>Unless you are suggesting that those people are not "representives" of the style. On the >one hand, you suggested that all TLQ are the one and the same and on the other you >suggest that no one should make a comparsion unless trained in "both" or all TLQ. So >which is it? Frankly, I feel your statment here tends to undermind my chance of rebuttal.

It does.
Tanglang is Tanglang and from it came Qixing, Meihua, Liuhe etc. They are also Tanglang, their entities as Qixing, Meihua etc are secondary. They do exist and to speak on them, one must know them. I accept that you do indeed know Taiji Tanglang and therefore Tanglang, but you don’t know enough, at least about Shandong Qixing Tanglang to draw any conclusions. If you wish to disprove me on this matter I invite you to define PRC Qixing Tanglang so I can see what you understand of the art.
I suggest you go to China for at least a few months and spread yourself about amongst teachers from all sects and then you might paint a bigger picture. The net is not enough, its all just words and opinions. I believe it should only be a supplement to the art, not the fountain of knowledge and authority it is currently attempting to be.


>Thank you for the advice. Points well taken. At the same time, I would like to point out >that I do have access to the people who provide their information through massage >boards, private emails and even in person except perhaps you.

Please refer to above comments. I hope you won’t cut me out of the equation, you are welcome to what I have. It is perhaps unfortunate that we ‘met’ in such a fashion.

> It is unfortunate that you feel I am asserting some kind of authority on the subject matter >or that I have a hidden agenda of sort, which seem to be more of a concern to you than >anything else. I don't claim to be an adept or master at any rate.

No, I don’t put any of those things on you. I am indirectly attacking your sources. I never once questioned your personal character, though you have certainly questioned mine.

>I don't have a hidden agenda. I love TLQ and I welcome any chance of applying and >Improving myself with it. I have been fortunate to have access to a few great PM folks >who are willing to share freely without setting up fences and Kung Fu politics through >forum such as this one. I build my friendship with them based on good faith and honesty.

I understand and respect this. You show good intentions.

>It is sad that you feel the integrity of material in public are mostly based in dubious >sources at best. If you even feel that way about your own material, what can we said?

Nothing can be said except that I won’t claim hypothesis and anecdote as fact. In fact my material stands up, test it if you will. I will not run or hide, as I didn’t with your challenge regarding my legitimacy as a practitioner of traditional Tanglang.
Also please take note, I am not a fanatical sectarian interested in devisive politics. I practice all forms of Mantis Boxing, Qixing just happens to be my specialty.
I will continue to talk with you and help you in anyway I can, hopefully not at such great length. Training and coaching wont allow me the time. The internet ****es me off but these days I see it as a necessary evil. I feel much more is accomplished face to face.
I hope I have been of some assistance.
Brendan Tunks

[Shaolin Master]

However,

Although I have read the long winded cut and pasted posts,I must say that there is a lot of superficial arguement at essentially widening each othes views but there isn't any real substance at all.

The advise to Mantis108 to go to Shandong (or other provinces as well) is one I am sure he is aware of and probably has reasons for not having made the trek yet.

Mantis108, I think you have a deep embediment of ill-thought regarding China, Wushu and Shaolin. Just always keep in mind that a nation and the people within it are two separate entities. Communism is an evil in the USA but for those living in China at the moment I must say it truely a great place to be.

If you do go to Shandong, however what will happen is in fact more confusion as to the clear origins of the TLQ arts. If you travel even further there are even further eye openers. Manuals are not so difficult to obtain if you know the right people but there are also many that were created and fake as well.

Each student is typically attached orrelated to a particular branch or geneolgy this limits the discussion. Brendan with Seven star, Illya with TaijiMeiHua (and Liu He to a limited extent), Tainan with Taiwan, Mantis108 with TCTL, etc..........All have open views but all have a directive in thought.

I think it would be better to compare and provide equivalents of the information that Illya provides for TJMHTLQ of the SanShan for the Seven Star divisions (Brendan). In this way it would bring about the understanding in the mantis community and may contend(maybe provide a different point of view is a better description) the information of the TJMHTLQ group. The problem is that there research is the most readily available and systematically organised for the western audiences. So although you can open eyes if there isn't anything to feed off it will revert to the trained thought soon after.

anyways, have fun conversing and again apologies for the disruption...

cheers,
Wu Chan Long

[B.Tunks]

Wu Xiansheng.

So far yours is the voice of reason in this thread.
Of particular relevance:

If you do go to Shandong, however what will happen is in fact more confusion as to the clear origins of the TLQ arts. If you travel even further there are even further eye openers. Manuals are not so difficult to obtain if you know the right people but there are also many that were created and fake as well.

I will hold off this topic for now as I have gone on enough.
Kevin, I will get back to you on your Ling topic shortly.
Thankyou,
B.T

[mantis108]

First off, thank you for the informative response. I would like to apologize for my reply which was perceived to have strayed into somewhat of a character attack on your integrity as a Chuantong Tanglang proponent. I did not mean for it be such rather I just would like to draw a clarification from you. I believe that you have clarified your position very clearly. Sorry for any grief caused.

From these correspondences, I believed we have established that

1) I made an attempt to theorized the origin of the form Bengbu. It was an opinion expressed and should not be taken as facts. It is by no means an exercise of asserting an authority on the subject matter. I do not have any agenda to push forth an ever continuing research on the complicated history of Praying Mantis Kung Fu as gospel truth. In the future, I should warn readers not to draw any rash conclusion.

2) I am not some greenhorn Kung Fu kid who wanted to create a name for himself by riding on the tailcoat of others via the internet. I am a practitioner of Praying Mantis Kung Fu and as such I have a great interest in all aspect of it. All I tried to do was to gain some understanding as much as I can. I might have erred in the somewhat baised research but that's part of the growing pain which I will accept full responsibility.

3) I am glad that you remain a Qixing Tanglang stylist following the traditional path. My impression that you support the Modern Wushu Mantis movement is incorrect.

4) Althought we don't see eye to eye on a few issues, I respect you as one mantis stylist to another. Many points that you made in your last post to me are highly reasonable and agreeable. The fact that we don't agree on certain things do not necessarily make us enemies. Especially when I don't intend to favor a single source of research material. I have great appreciation to your offers of access to your website material and open dialogue. Thank you for the opportunity to an open communication channel. I hope that a fruitful friendship would result in the future despite of an undesireable start.

All information provided by you are well noted and much appreciated.

Sincerely,

Robert Hui

PS I hope I have made it clear that I am not a messenger for anyone. So please don't play the "shoot the messenger" game with me. I hate to be mistaken as a sacrificial lamb. Thank you for the understanding.

[B.Tunks]

Robert,

I clearly understand your intentions and acknowledge my heavy handedness in responding to your initial post. I should restate that my initial tirade was actually directed at the current state of research on Tanglang Quan rather than at you yourself. Thanks for your understanding in response. Looking forward to more productive exchanges in the near future.

Messenger Shooter

(P.S: I know you are not a messenger or a greenhorn)!

[B.Tunks]

Hi Kevin.

Your research on Ling forms is pretty consistent with opinion in China. As far as Shandong, Ling forms are not taught in the curriculum, though counters and defences for most techniques are taught individually and in drills as single movements or combinations (left and right sides). As far as I am aware it was an innovation of Luo Guangyu, but may also have made its way to the Jingwu in Shanghai at some stage (just as Luohan Gong made its way back to Shandong via H.K).
In my opinion Ling are good for developing some aspects of combat but are a hinderance in other areas. This is one of the reasons two man forms are often dispensed of in Shandong.
B.T

[mantis108]

Hi Brendan,

Thank you for the clarification. No harm no foul. :) Likewise, I am looking forward for future productive exchanges with a newfound Mantis brother.

Warm regards

Robert

PS Glad to see your sense of humor, my friend. lol...

[MantisifuFW]

Originally posted by mantis108
On the other thread, which is getting rather long, I shared the following:
<<<<Meanwhile no one exactly know what Li Sanjian taught but then by Wang Rongshang time Longfist forms would have been inseperable to the 7* system. From there Chaai Chui, HeHuJiaoJia and others were added. The main reason that there are so many forms and the high regard of form in 7* is IMHO mainly because of its Longfist background. .
Mantis108

Mantis108,

I cannot address the Taiji/Meihua sections of your history but I can speak to some of this section. In the time after Wang Rongsheng, Changquan was added to the Qixing Tanglang mix, to be sure. However, its effect was not to proliferate sets. Instead, its effect was, in my opinion, to open up the structure of Qixing in a way that does not happen with Meihua. In my interviews and training with Mainland Chuangtong Qixing Tanglang practitioners I heard it said often and was shown examples of this structural difference.

As for the proliferation of sets, most certainly there were sets created by Wang Rongsheng. However it is arguable that Luo Guangyu himself probably had around twentyfive sets at the most when he left Yantai for Shanghai and this generations after the addition of Longfist. Having spoken to the masters in Shanghai, Qingdao and Yantai, and having on occasion seen copies of their lists of forms I have arrived at this estimation by my own calculation but am open to others who have done similar research with all the branches that I have. However, more than that I have trained with them. Sets are there, for certain, but our time was spent in Jiben Gong, and Sanshou training overwelmingly with sets being a distant third.

As for the high regard for form training present elsewhere, I can only say that we do believe in performing the sets well. However the idea that by learning many sets one can learn to use Tanglang is an idea that belongs to some Qixing practioners (a minority I might add) but not to others.

Longfist does increase the number of sets, without question. So did the inclusion of Fan Che. That having many sets is a greatly desirable and positive thing is the perspective of certain lines of Qixing Tanglang and they must speak for themselves. It is not the perspective of most WHF or any mainland Tanglang practitioners I have met who's number comprises the overwelming majority of Qixing Tanglang in the world.

The proliferation and collection of Qixing Tanglang sets is a phenomena that I am investigating. However, what I have found on the mainland is that no one engages in the collection of great numbers of sets. Instead, most have a modest number of sets that address different aspects of Qixing Tanglang that the Sifu wishes to teach.

I have more to say but the hour is late. I really enjoy your posts, your wealth of information and your willingness to share. It benefits us all.

Sincerely,

Steve Cottrell
P.S. This is a far more rough draft of a response than I usually post. I may amend it when I get some sleep.

[mantis108]

I think your explanation of Longfist influence is excellent. "Structural differences" is great point! I could not have said it any better. I also agreed with Your views on the focus of Jiben Gong, SanShou, proliferation of sets, etc... Your rough draft presents valuable and organized information already. It is always a great pleasure to have generous sharing from you. I am looking forward to learn more from your insights. Thank you for giving up precious rest time [I know how it feels ;) ] to help broaden my understanding.

Sincerely,

Robert Hui (Mantis108)

[MantisifuFW]

Originally posted by mantis108
On the other thread, which is getting rather long, I shared the following:

<<<<I think a lot of the differences materialized because of the different methodologies which are based in the teaching philosophies of the various masters....

Meanwhile no one exactly know what Li Sanjian taught but then by Wang Rongshang time Longfist forms would have been inseparable to the 7* system. From there Chaai Chui, HeHuJiaoJia and others were added. The main reason that there are so many forms and the high regard of form in 7* is IMHO mainly because of its Longfist background. Later on Ling forms became another important feature of 7*...

The technical difficulty of Luanjie, which require the practitioner to be aglie, to have superb hand eye coordination and to have great finesse instead of brute and raw power, is understandablely hard for novice to attempt it as an entry level form.

Mantis108


Mantis 108,

I decided to scrap my initial try and just start over...(sometimes wish that about a lot of things),

Okay here goes...Changquan as a major influence is inseparable from The Tanglang of Li Sanjian, as you say and all of Qixing Tanglang of every branch. It is, I would argue strongly, also inseparable from the Tanglang from Taiji/Meihua as well. The question, as I see it, is one of degree, training methodology, (as you have said) and the desired end product.

All Tanglang is first and foremost an outgrowth of Taizu Changquan (long fist) and Tongbei, (Tongbi or through the back boxing). Both of these systems exhibit a long range whipping power flying from the body's core. The result of this is a devastating exponent of long range boxing.

When this is combined with Fan Che, a later addition to Tanglang the long range boxer is enhanced even further. I would assert also it helps create a formidable fighter even against multiple opponents.

So far we have been describing the same system in both TJMH and QX Tanglang. Historically Wang Rongsheng, a champion longfist boxer, then institutionalized this emphasis with the development of sets for what was to later be called Qixing Tanglang. I think the reason for this was that he and Li Sanjian believed that the longfist method, at which Wang was so adept, made training in the Liu He, (six harmonies) and Chang Jin (body core whipping energy) systematic, applicable and more easily reproducible. The result was to open the body of the practitioner first, then teaching the more difficult closer techniques and smaller body structure as an emphasis later.
(For those who might wonder, the closer, smaller techniques do not "replace" the larger. This is an error that many experienced Qixing Tanglang practitioners make. Long supports short. The Eighteen founding sources of Tanglang do not drop the first two and Fanche when they get to Duanda, (short strikes).

This is the foundation of Qixing Tanglang. It did not take away the short range fighting abilities. It did add sets, without a doubt but what it also did was to maintain institutionally this core heritage of Tanglang's eighteen founding systems. Wang Rongsheng's champion fighting skills were not eliminated by Li Sanjian when he defeated Wang. Instead, it was used, strengthened by the Tanglang of Li Sanjian.

The result is a different looking Tanglang initially, (because of Meihua's Duanda emphasis initially). But I would argue that Taiji/Meihua can fight long even as I would argue that Qixing can fight short.

Hope this makes sense,

Steve Cottrell

[MantisifuFW]

Originally posted by Shaolin Master
The problem is that there research is the most readily available and systematically organised for the western audiences. So although you can open eyes if there isn't anything to feed off it will revert to the trained thought soon after.

cheers,
Wu Chan Long

Greetings Sir,

I agree. I am, (to the ire of many), a researcher who tries be as objective. I really do not care where research leads us, only that it is as nonpartisan as we can be and that we preserve it for future generations of ALL Tanglang, hence my trips to China.

Though my own interviews have shown many who dispute the history presently being presented, (even those among the Mainland Taiji/Meihua branch), as simply being not possible, I have not yet gathered sufficient information, other than interviews, to present a well documented and moderated response. What I have discovered is that the history is not at all as clear cut as many want to make it and that theories on both sides must be allowed to stand, and be discussed.

I too would like to see a more coordinated, cooperative history of both branches, dialogue between historians rather than the all or nothing approach we see in the West presently. I plan to present some of the interviews with Tanglang practitioiners on both sides in a future article for a start.

I appreciate your input to this conversation.

Steve Cottrell

[MantisifuFW]

Originally posted by Tainan Mantis
In HK 7* PM ling beng bu starts with Luo Guangyu according to Huang Hanhsun/WHF, who goes on to quote him as saying it is the only ling form in PM.

Later ling forms in HK 7* seem to be created by Luo's students, including WHF, and/or grandstudents.


Greetings Tainan Mantis!

I just recently had a conversation with one of my Gongfu brothers about the value of the ling forms. He has done considerable research, much more than I with masters no longer with us, and states clearly that the Ling, specific to those sets Master Luo created, (a topic in hot dispute among HK practitioners), were all designed by Master Luo to be preformed with the Ling component present. Ling was the timing training element for the HK mantis component and preserved the clear meaning of the movement.

Ling was, I believe, one of many contributions Master Luo made to Tanglang and a major one. If it was the only set on the mainland that had Ling then it was the inspiration for Master Luo, a champion fighter, to bring to his curriculum.

Wish I had more than a perspective to give but here it is.

Steve Cottrell

[mantis108]

Thanks for sharing the more indepth view of the matter with me. I think the 18 styles and longfist/short strikes relations with PM merit their own threads. That way we can examin them closer. Personally, I think they are rather spicy topics. Also thank you the input on the ling Bengbu.

Warm regards

Robert Hui

[Young Mantis]

Originally posted by Tainan Mantis

In HK 7* PM ling beng bu starts with Luo Guangyu according to Huang Hanhsun/WHF, who goes on to quote him as saying it is the only ling form in PM.

Later ling forms in HK 7* seem to be created by Luo's students, including WHF, and/or grandstudents.


Tainan Mantis,

The 7* Praying Mantis style as passed on by LGY is a very sophisticated system. The forms are well designed and thoroughly though out. They flow very smoothly all the while adhering to a specific theory or strategy.

To say that a form was designed without the ling side already in mind does not make any sense to me. How does the sequence of techniques make any sense if the applications were not taken into consideration when putting the form together? There is a definite and precise sequence that relies on a direct cause and effect relationship. Every technique in the form is followed by the next because of a specific counter or reaction from my opponent. It is because of that specific reaction that causes me to execute the next technique and then his reaction to my counter is followed then with another technique and so on...

Your implication that the solo forms were developed first and the ling forms a much more recent development leads me to ask:
Does the horse come before the cart or after?
Which came first, the chicken or the egg?

One of the greatest attributes of the Praying Mantis style as passed down by LGY is that every technique can be linked to another. So while it is certainly possible to find a way to link all the techniques of a solo form into a cohesive 2 man set, would it not seem more logical that this was already being done when the form was being designed in the first place? If the form is just a random collection of sahn sao, then I would not think the forms would flow as smoothly as they do.

To put it another way, just like my Sifu says, the ling forms are like the juice of the style. They give the practitioner an understanding of the form's design but also help the student develop timing, distance, reflex, control and conditioning as well as practicing the applications at the same time. Without the ling forms, it is like buying an orange and not peeling the skin to find the juice inside.

YM

[Tainan Mantis]

Young Mantis,
The forms connect together in ling format.
There is no doubt that everything can be connected logically.
And what you say makes perfect sense.

What I say is that before Luo Guangyu did "ling" who in PM did so?
You know I have learned many 2 man forms.
After a while I see how it is done and I make 2 man forms for Wah Lum and TKD.
They are logical too. And yet it is not part of their traditional method.

In our school we also learned another way to teach fighting.
When someone comes to my school to test my skill I find that it is not the ling training that allows me to win(sometimes I lose), but another method with very short drills and relies heavily on lu-lu and Fanche theory(not forms, but techniques)

I see that WHF and Sheng Hsiao, who he quotes, say the same thing about Lu-Lu and Fanche being so important(we can start another thread on this later). They don't say you must have ling.

As you know WHF quotes Luo as saying only beng bu can ling.
Later WHF and others teach other ling forms.
Am I wrong here?

I am not saying ling is bad or wrong.
I only ask who taught it before Luo Guangyu.
So far the answer is nobody in PM. Only in some other styles.
This is what I have found from asking and reading and visiting.
If There is more info I will look objectively.

[MantisifuFW]

Tainan Mantis,

Perhaps because we are looking so closely to the Ling, (which I agree with you as being a creation of Master Luo or at least that he was the one to institutionalize this aspect) that we (WHF practitioners) are neglecting to include that Master Luo also taught Pi and Chi. These aspects, that of breaking apart aspects of the sets and practicing them or of Chai which approaches sparring are indeed essential for the path he laid out for the aspiring boxer to acheive mastery.

It sounds like the things you are describing in your fighting training are inclusive of these aspects. The problem is for those schools that practice only the set or just the Ling and neglect the other aspects of training.

As I see it, one can and indeed most branches of Tanglang do learn the art without the formal and systematic pursuit of the Ling of a set. What it does for the LKY HK Tanglang practitoiners is to provide as seemless a path as possible.

I believe that Master Luo's experience in the Qingwu and the times in which he was living made him extremely careful in his curriculum. Remember at that time the US, England, Japan, Germany, France and others were engaged in a unified project to wholesale discredit traditional Chinese Boxing and all who practiced through unfair and fixed competitive events, print media and social/ economic pressures. Those who pursued study of TCMA were swimming against the current, to be sure. Even Douglas Fairbane, of knife fighting fame and a respected military officer, came under ridicule for his own little known study of Chinese arts while in Shanghai.

I believe that the Ling was another way to ensure the success of the young striving martial artists and to enable organized training on a mass scale. In contrast, many schools in the past had engaged in a "weeding out" process, I believe that though still very challenging, LKY's method helped to an even greater degree to develop the student.

By the way, you wrote an excellent article on Ling and other aspects of training for the Mantis Quarterly (insert shameless advertisement here, lol).

Steve Cottrell

[Young Mantis]

Originally posted by Tainan Mantis

In our school we also learned another way to teach fighting.
When someone comes to my school to test my skill I find that it is not the ling training that allows me to win(sometimes I lose), but another method with very short drills and relies heavily on lu-lu and Fanche theory(not forms, but techniques)

I never said that we train fighting solely with the ling forms. In fact, I agree that short drills and sahn sao practice are a necessary component to fight training. It would not be efficient to practice the form applications solely with ling training. I would even say our training of sahn sao is more intense than our ling training but the ling forms add much depth to our understanding of each form and also the style as a whole.


Originally posted by Tainan Mantis

As you know WHF quotes Luo as saying only beng bu can ling.
Later WHF and others teach other ling forms.
Am I wrong here?


I do not agree with this translation and I think you mislead the other members of this forum by giving this partial interpretation of WHF's quote of LGY. In the preface to his Bung Bo book, WHF does indeed quote LGY. He states:

"Master Law often said: 'All Praying Mantis forms can be done with partners, but (consider) Bung Bo can be explained with three formats, ling, pek, and chak.'"

Perhaps you interpret this as only bung bo has the ling format. But I do not believe WHF is quoting LGY as saying there is only ling bung bo. He states that there are three ways to practice bung bo and ling is one of three formats. It can be said that here, Bung Bo is used as an example or that only bung bo has all three of these methods. But it is not clear to me that there are no other ling forms other than ling bung bo.

In addition, in 1951 WHF published a book titled, "Assorted Essays of Praying Mantis Boxing". In it he wrote an article titled, "3 Styles Originated From 1 Family". In this article, WHF writes that both LGY and Yang Wei Sun were both closed-door disciples of Master Fahn Yook Tung. Every set passed down by these two masters can be done in it's entirety with a partner just like commonly seen sparring sets of other styles and that without this knowledge, the fakes can not hide.

There is more information to support that ling bung bo was not the only ling form taught by LGY but I do not have time to get into it further at the moment.

YM

[MantisifuFW]

Young Mantis,

Thank you for the insightful post. I had completely forgotten about the passage you mentioned concerning Yang Weixin and his line (a mind is a terrible thing to lose).

When I was studying with some of his martial descendants this past summer I simply did not think to ask them about ling (I will pass this off to (1) jetlag, (2) that I was almost passing out in the 100+ temperature and (3) general exhaustion. I will make inquiries the next time I speak with them and get back with you!

I look forward to your information on the other sets! Thank you for being open with such important information.

Steve Cottrell

[Tainan Mantis]

Steve and YM,
First off, this comparison of our definition of the facts, I believe, is worthwhile to the PM community.
I think we are mostly in agreement about everything except for one quote which I have included here.

YM,
You have included in your quote from GM Luo "...but(consider)..."

Which I translated as "however" or "only"
I am not purposely trying to mislead anyone, just trying to get a better understanding.

Maybe some of the other Chinese readers can offer their opinions on the enclosed quote as the meaning seems to hinge on this single character (which I have circled-WEI).

About your quote from "Assorted Essays...." I see that it is as you say.

I believe that I can summarize your thought as the following:
-There were ling forms since before Luo Guangyu.
-They were taught to a very small group of indoor disciples.
-They are taught more openly now than in the past.

Did I get it right?

Steve,
We look forward to hearing the results of your future research with Yang Weixin's disciples.

[Young Mantis]

Tainan Mantis,

Let me first say that I did not mean that you have any intention of deceiving anyone in the forum with your comments. My comment was not to slander or attack your character in any way. You contribute much to the forum and through your posts, I can see that you are also a scholar in addition to a martial artist.

That said, let me clarify that I say you mislead fellow members of this forum because you often quote WHF under the assumption that anyone else with access to this information would interpret his writings the same way. First of all, I would guess the majority of the forum would not have access to this material so they would just have to take your word for what WHF says but as I have stated, it can be interpreted differently. You and I have shared discussions in other threads over this very matter. We read the texts differently, I think mostly because I read it being a WHF lineage descendant and you are not. There is a lot more information passed down from sifu to student than what is presented in the WHF texts.



Originally posted by Tainan Mantis
YM,
You have included in your quote from GM Luo "...but(consider)..."

Which I translated as "however" or "only"
I am not purposely trying to mislead anyone, just trying to get a better understanding.

Maybe some of the other Chinese readers can offer their opinions on the enclosed quote as the meaning seems to hinge on this single character (which I have circled-WEI).

Here again we have a difference in reading this quote. You seem to choose to stress the second line with a word by word translation. I look at the quote as a whole. I do not feel the meaning of the quote hinges on the word "wei" but you do and place your stress there. In fact, I did translate "wei" as "but" and offered "(consider)" as an alternative, hence the parentheses. I am not saying either of us is right or wrong, we simply have different interpretations of the written text.


Originally posted by Tainan Mantis

About your quote from "Assorted Essays...." I see that it is as you say.

I believe that I can summarize your thought as the following:
-There were ling forms since before Luo Guangyu.
-They were taught to a very small group of indoor disciples.
-They are taught more openly now than in the past.

Did I get it right?


I do not believe I ever said definitively that the ling forms came before LGY. Honestly, I can not know for sure. What I imply from the quote is that the forms taught by both LGY and YWS can be done as ling. Whether the forms were taught to them both that way or they together made innovations to the style while at Jing Mo I do not know. I have no idea who in that generation was taught or not taught what material. The quote only mentions these two names. I know you are a scholar and so conduct research and then make deductions based on your research. But I find it intriguing that you can take what I wrote about a quote and then feel you are able to summarize my train of thought on related matters. Nowhere in my post do I mention the points you bring up as following my train of thought and to answer your question, no, I don't think you quite understood me.

Quite honestly, I had not ever examined these texts as detailed as I have in the last few days and for that I guess I should really thank you. But I didn't make any jumps from what I read to what other people of the lineage may or may not have learnt or taught. I only know what was written, what was told to me by my Sifu, and what I have been taught by him. Ling form practice is definitely part of the WHF curriculum. According to my Sifu, most WHF lineage students would have learnt Ling Bung Bo. Those that were certified to teach certainly would have known Ling Sup Baht Sao, Ling Daw Ghong. Only a select few students would have been taught Ling Tchaap Tchoi, Ling Bahk Yuen Tchut Dhung, Ling Bahk Yuen Tao Toe,.....

I am resolved that we may never come to agree on how to interpret WHF's texts. We come from very different backgrounds and so differences of opinion of course will occur. It has been though interesting as always.

Gong Xi Fa Cai to you and your family.

Thank you Sifu Cottrell for your comments and compliments. I too lookk forward to hearing more about your experiences with YWS's lineage descendants.

YM

[Tainan Mantis]

Thanks all for the informative comments,

I think that a translation of WHF's material would be a good idea.
Seeing how much discussion there has been on the significance of one sentence this project would best be coordinated among several people.

[MantisifuFW]

Tainan Mantis,

Indeed for over five years I have been working on a comprehensive translation of the books. I am far from finished. However, as there is so much interest in them, I am working now on a primer to teach people how to read Chinese through the books, using the limited vocabulary and the Wen Yanwen style.

The workbook, intended to teach a person from no knowledge of Chinese to being able to read the movement section of a couple of books, (application sections will be later) will be available by December 2003.

I just don't have enough to do...

Steve Cottrell

[Albino_Mantis]

Hello Everyone,

I have noticed on the different boards that a number of you refer to research that you have done (are doing). First I must admit that I find that highly admirable, especially since I know from experience how difficult the research process is (different area though).

My question is, since I want to start my own research journey, how would I go about getting my hands on these different documents and information sources (since most College and public libraries don’t have it)?

Additionally, I have noticed at different times people calling to question one another’s source(s) of information. Has any though been given to contracting a PhD'ed historian to help validate the research and ensure the proper steps are followed, as well as help establish the validity of the documents being used?

I know it sounds like a lot of work, but it also appears that everyone really has the same goal in mind (thus worth the effort). If we can start putting out work(s) that follows the formal process (what you learn when getting your PhD), I believe it will start moving us all in the same direction and hopefully start clearing up some of the confusion. Plus it will provide a solid source of references for the generations that come after us.

Thanks,

Shen Bao Rui

[Tainan Mantis]

What westerner has a PHD in Asian MA history?

From what I have found there is only a handful of people on the planet doing research of this type.

They are all MArtists as far as I can see.
In the past excellent research has been done in China and Taiwan, for the most part it has not been translated into English.
Also, even in Chinese, its implications have not been fully analyzed.

Albino, what style of mantis do you study?
Seems that would be a good place to start.

[RAF]

Albino_Mantis:

If you are in your local Border's or Barnes & Noble, pick up a copy of The Journal of Asian Martial Arts. http://www.goviamedia.com/index.html

Look at the editiorial board and try contacting a few. You'll find that many hold graduate degrees, some with doctorates in a variety of fields, and you can probably locate them and write to them. Academic careers don't pay much---you buy a lifestyle and thats always an important factor to keep in mind but the work is always interesting because you determine what it will be.

Its a shame there is not more academic interest in this area and my biggest fear is that is shows of how little importance the martial arts were to China's 16th, 17th, 18th, 19th, and 20th century. However, I am seeing a lot of primary mantis data (article in past issues of JAMA on Meihua Tanglang Quan) and other findings coming to light and that could always change things.

Having said that, someone's got to do the job; why not you?

[Albino_Mantis]

Tainan Mantis and RAF thank you for your replies.

Tainan Mantis as to your quote below:


Originally posted by Tainan Mantis
What westerner has a PHD in Asian MA history?

There are a lot of PhD's in Chinese history, the person doesn't need to have specialized in MA history to be able to assist you and help you authenticate document.

I am in the process of creating my own library of resources to pull from for my personal research, but my original emphasis was not focused just on PM, so in truth I have very little information about PM.

During life, my Sifu (Lai Sifu) wasn’t too big on worrying about the history of PM or researching the origins of a set. The research he did, that he made know to me at least, was focused on the efficiency of a technique and what the possible counters were (rather useful lines of research for a MA practitioner). I do not know if he had a love for the history of PM that he just didn’t share with me (but maybe he shared with the other students), but since he has passed away I have no way of asking him.

In conversations with my other classmates, the only history they seem aware of are the old “stories” about the origin of the style and the “Who begot Whom” of the lineage. No one seems to have looked at where or when a set was added.


Originally posted by RAF
Journal of Asian Martial Arts. http://www.goviamedia.com/index.html

Look at the editiorial board and try contacting a few. You'll find that many hold graduate degrees, some with doctorates in a variety of fields, and you can probably locate them and write to them. Academic careers don't pay much---you buy a lifestyle and thats always an important factor to keep in mind but the work is always interesting because you determine what it will be.

Thank you for the idea. I will follow up on contacting them.

Thanks again,

Shen Bao Rui

[mantis108]

Personally, Chinese history and Chinese martial arts are pretty much inseperable. The scales may be different but they are connected. Of course the reasons to document dates, events, etc must appear to those who work on the documention. Many systems and styles were products of times. As we look into Chinese history we also get to see that CMA is about evolution and not creationism. For example, General Chi of Ming dynasty (1500s) documented martial arts that deemed useful for the military at the time. Styles that he mentioned were as far back as Song dynasty (906-1279 CE). Later in Qing dynasty around 1700s plenty of style flourished including Tanglangquan as we know it. Style such as Wutzuquan (5 ancestors fist) was developed out of 5 styles (Taitzu, Louhan, Damo, Monkey, and Wing Chun white Crane) related to Shaolin in one way or another. BTW Wing Chun is a county in Fujian province where General Chi stationed before. The father of the founder of Wing Chun White Crane (another Qing dynasty period creation) was said to be a Shaolin stylist. There could be a possibility that Shaolin temple's military arm was station there. Ming dynasty's military structure includes monk armies which shaolin temple monk soldiers happened to be among them. Therefore, we have the legends of Southern Shaolin, Wing Chun, etc... The famous Six Harmony Spear, if I am not mistaken, was of Six Harmony style (aka Shaolin Weitomen). General Chi studied this and taught it to the soldiers. To further this, we know that Karate came from martial arts in Fujian but the seed was planted during the Japanese pirates invasion and General Chi was there to suppress them.

All in all, I am all for reseach in CMA. If it takes PhDs to do it, by all means. I think it is about time that people take Martial Arts seriously as a study subject. If sports including dancing (I know it should be performing art ;) ) Why can't we have PhD degree for martial arts? In fact, I think we should first start with a MA channel. Just think of all the cheezy kung fu flicks and yours truely be the Kung Fu talk show host. Just imagine the lineage feuds ... Jerry Springer, watch out! :D :eek:

Regards

Mantis108

[Tainan Mantis]

RAF,
Your idea of looking at the editorial board sounds good.

MA played a crucial rule in all aspects of Chinese history.
Although it was so important, it is odd that most history books don't give it its' due importance.
Problem is that most historians don't study MA. This is especially true in Asia or Taiwan.
Here MA has/had a strong connection with Anti government, criminal organizations.
Though this has been changing especially since the lifting of martial law.

Though the perception that the public has is often different from the way it really is.
For example, most legit masters will not teach criminals.

But the perception that common folk has still exists.
For example, My shrfu was beaten with a stick for studying kung fu when he was a teenager.
His parents feared MA was a doorway to the mafia.

Monks who know kung fu are sometimes retired gangsters who quit the business or they are hucksters.
You make a lot of money chanting for the dead here.
This is from what I have seen or heard in first hand accounts.
In one case, I was sitting next to a monk, he threatened to kick my ass if I took another chicken breast.

Albino,
If you come up with something interesting be sure and share it.
Supposedly WHF had a copy of some of the oldest PM documents.

His 18 Luohan Gung gupu was not completely published.
It has a clear reference to ancient history, including a novel that was famous in the Yuan dynasty, Xi Shuang Ji.

[Albino_Mantis]

RAF:

It could be that we’d end up increasing the ratings on Springer ;)

Tainan Mantis,

If I do come up with anything, I will definitely let everyone know. If for no other reason then the fact that in most other research arenas, the researchers publish their work in peer-reviewed journals so that others can weigh in and look for holes in the research. It sort of leaves you vulnerable, but if you have really done your homework and covered all avenues properly, then your peers won’t be able to punch holes (pun intended) in your theories.

Publishing in a peer-reviewed journal also gives you a date/time stamp as it were, so other people would have difficulty stealing your research and capitalizing on it.

If someone were to be industrious enough to start a peer-review program within the Martial Arts Community, the problem that we’d face it getting peers who are of an appropriate level (i.e. Masters or PhD). We could start with just having anyone who wants to weigh in, get the ball rolling, and then as time goes on, as a group help the people industrious enough to get a Masters and/PhD program started at their college of choice. That could be one way to bring MA history studies into the mainstream academia. Lets face it Psychology didn’t really exist before Freud (a MD mind you) started documenting and testing his theories.

If the board feels it’s a worthy endeavor, I am willing to try pitching the idea to Kung Fu Mag (unless someone on this board has good connections with them, in which case I would as that they do the pitching). If people don’t care, or don’t feel it would be beneficial, then I won’t.

So I guess I am looking for a :) or :( from everyone.

[RAF]

Well, I wish I had this interest in the martial arts when I started my graduate program (I worked with underground coal miners).

I was asked by my teacher to help write in 1997 and also retrained in International Management and Business. I haven't quite found a way to leverage my martial arts interest with my academic interest in China.

Ph.D.s have pluses and minuses but I got tired of all the BS in taijiquan etc. etc.. It looks like praying mantis hasn't been distorted as much with all the mystical/commercial baggage found in the areas we call roughly call "internal".

I am not a praying mantis practitioner any longer but still have great respect and appreciation for it (much more than when I studied it from about 1987 to 1997).

So good luck! It just seems that praying mantis can really be made one of the respectable, competitive martial arts systems for the world. It really, as a system, give taekwando and karate a run for their money.