Where is stealing the Peach?.... [Archive]

loki

01-23-2003, 05:37 PM

In our version of the form we do have a move which seems to be missing from the WFH version. BTW, I just finished watching a tape where I have the late Brendan Lai performing this very form. I also have an article by Jon Funk where he was photographed doing the entire form and I have seen his student Dwight Edwards doing the form as well as others. The technique in question does seem to be missing from the form. It is true that people will forget moves and even entire sequences sometimes but isn't it strange that everyone I have seen do the form "forgets" the same move at the same exact spot ?

Please do not misinterpret this as an attack on the WHF lineage ( I am sure some will ). All I am saying is that to use the excuse that maybe it was "forgotten" is a real weak arguement. I know full well that there are diffrences in forms from lineage to lineage ( sometimes even in the same lineage ) for whatever reason, but it would seem to me that at least the moves which give the form it's name would be included in the forms providing the common thread throughout the different lineages.

Anyway, the move in question comes right after the kneeling stance and topple sequence. For example, in the beginning of the form there is an upward armbreak ( basic and common application ) afterwhich, you go into a right kneeling stance and press the left fist into your right forearm which is perpendicular to your torso. It is a pressing movement which we simply call topple. It is a lower body attack. As your opponent is pushed backwards and struggling to maintain balance the right hand is sharply used to attack the opponent's private parts. It is sort of a back hand and is done with a flicking action. We call it stealing hand. In fact , it is the very first move in Chop Choy, only it is done in a kneeling stance. Because in this sequence the stealing hand is attacking the groin area it is called stealing the peach.

I hope this has been helpful. Also, there is in fact two parts to this form. I believe the WHF lineage teaches the 2nd part which is the one more commonly seen and the CCM lineage teaches the 1st part. These 2 forms are actually one form and can be linked together and performed as one form.

Peace

ursa major

01-23-2003, 06:33 PM

Originally posted by loki
In our version of the form we do have a move which seems to be missing from the WFH version.... I hope this has been helpful. Also, there is in fact two parts to this form. I believe the WHF lineage teaches the 2nd part which is the one more commonly seen and the CCM lineage teaches the 1st part. These 2 forms are actually one form and can be linked together and performed as one form.

Peace

Hello Loki,

Fascinating -- I did not know there was a part 1 and part 2 ??? I practice the WHF version. Can you advise were I might find a book or print of the CCM version ? Perhaps a web site that shows it ?

thx in advance,
UM.

RAYNYSC

01-23-2003, 07:16 PM

My point exactly loki thanks for the info on the 2 roads....

Peace

ninjaboy

01-23-2003, 10:16 PM

loki....

i'm WHF lineage....i'm curious about a couple of things....

are you saying that you guys play an additional strike to the groin at, what we would call, the end of the first line? if yes, that's very interesting. do you feel it was a chu chi man (CCM) innovation OR do you think it was long forgotten early on in WHF's career and simply never passed on OR do you think that lo gwon yuk (LGY) taught them differently?

having said that, do you guys use the strike at the end of your first line, a strike to the groin area, as the 'peaches' reference analogy? typically WHF people hear about the first move, a strike to the groin, as being the 'stealing peaches' reference. speaking of which, is the first move of your version a groin strike also?

i've never seen the set played your way, do u step or shuffle forward in any way or is it purely a hand gesture?

or there any other cool similarities or differences? it seems you have access to some video footage of WHF types playing and teaching their stuff...is there video material available from the CCM side as a reference for us WHF people? any good websites?

sorry for all the questions...

ninjaboy

loki

01-24-2003, 04:25 PM

Hi UM,

Sorry, I don't think that there is any printed material of this form from the CCM side.

Ninjaboy, no apologies necessary. :)

Yes, I am saying that there is a specific groin strike at the end of the first line. The same move is done again two more times on the other side as you go back to the starting point of the form. I really cannot say if this is a CCM innovation. That would not really make sense because like I said before , this is the move that gives this form it's name. As far as CCM making any innovations I would have to say that it was adding more eagle claw techniques to the forms. CCM was an Eagle Claw expert at Jing Mo before he became LKY's student. In our line of mantis (Chiu Luen ) there is a heavy influence of eagle claw.

The first move in our version is exactly the same as yours. Although one of it's usages is a groin strike we don't consider it to be in line with the characteristics of a stealing the peach move. The intention is not to hit the groin with full force but to tap the groin with a sharp tapping action with as close to the fingertips as possible. This can actually be more painful for the opponent because the target area is conentrated on a very small area. Because the first move of the form is hitting with a large area namely, the wrist with what is called a negative hook (reverse diu sao) it is not really a concentrated move so I don't see it as a stealing the peach action. Another point to take into consideration is that many of the 7 star mantis forms begin with this move and no one addresses these forms as stealing the peach as well, right ?

The move is done with a shuffle step forward. I don't think that there is too much on a commercial level. Lee Kam Wing put some tapes out but even his stuff is a little different from ours. Hope this has been helpful.

Peace

LawClansman

01-24-2003, 11:22 PM

Greetings Ninjaboy,
I would just like to add to my student's (Loki) comment. the Two forms are indeed taught in our lineage. However they are also taught in other lineages as well. The book "SanDong Tong Long has both forms. This book was written by Lam Wing Kit.

This book is all in Chinese without pictures. In other words just the kuen po of the sets . It is often said by the late Brendan lai that Wong Hon Fun never taught all of the sets he knew. So the 1st road of Bak Yuen Tau Tao could just be one of them.

There are also two roads (forms) for the Bak Yuen Chut Dung.

MantisifuFW

01-26-2003, 12:52 PM

LawClansman,

Great to hear from you! I thoroughly enjoyed talking to you on the phone and hearing your perspectives. I always learn a great deal from you and I encourage you on your projects to promote the art.

As for the topic of a "Stealing the Peach" movement. According to the Shangdong Tanglang Quan Pu by Lam Wing Kit, neither the first or second roads of the White Ape Steals the Peach, has a movement called, "stealing the peach". Therefore it can be concluded that, at least for independent researchers and for the WHF branch, the form does not derive its name from a specific movement by that name.

Nor is there a groin strike of any kind at the end of the first road of either first or second half of the set as recorded by this reference. So it can be concluded that for independent researchers and for the WHF and CCY branches, this is not essential for the set's validity. It would seem that this is a CCM addition, though it sounds like a very effective though apparently later addition.

That the CCM branch has made innovations is something that Sifu Carl and I have discussed somewhat. The additional emphasis on the fast and fluid Eagle Claw methods is something that intrigues me greatly. That there were innovations by CCM and names for that innovation is both fitting and honorable.

The second road of Lam Wing Kit's book on Hongkong Tanglang does match exactly the WHF version. That it may not match the CCM version is no indictment, however. Sifu Carl and I have already discussed the development of Tanglang by both WHF and CCM and that this book is an interesting guide but that neither can be held to standards other than their own.

Great topic, RAY

Steve Cottrell

mantis108

01-26-2003, 08:30 PM

Wow, this thread is amazing. I mean having both Sifu Albright and Sifu Cottrell in the same thread sharing information with us all. Indeed a great thread. Thank you.

BTW, What do you both think of Sifu Lam's book? I think it's rather interesting to see my style's forms written in that Quan Pu format. Also I would like to get your opinions on the 2 men forms curriculum in the last section of the book if you don't mind. Thank you.

Mantis108

LawClansman

01-26-2003, 09:54 PM

Hi Robert,
Sorry that my computer time is extremely limited so my posts are sporadic. Questions can always be directed to my email
sevenstarmantis@hotmail.com
or
lawclansman@prodigy.net

Sifu Cottrell is correct in that the Kuen Po of the San Dong book does NOT contain the aforementoned stealing peach movement. I referenced the book to point out that there are two roads / forms entitled White ape steals peach. In fact in BOTH roads the "stealing peach" method is employed at each end of a row of techniques after the "gwon bong" / topple (circle entering step with forearm press) in our version of these sets.
The kuen po holds the skeletal key to the sets. In other words Bung Bo is not muy fa kuen. As long as the sets conform to the overall outline of the forms, the variations are indeed all valid. If someone played a move here or there diferently, it only means that that is the way it is passed through their line.
In the CCM line, there are 8 "Bak Yeun" sets. 2 of each:stealing peach, emerging from cave, watching the banquet and bows north. as stated on my forms list.
http://www.geocities.com/sifu_carl/forms.html
This list omits the example of the two roads of steals peach and emerges from cave. To be corrected on a future update.

Another varaition of the steals peach set (2nd road) is the use of the whirling Diu Sao with jumping kick instead of the jumping huen choy (roundhouse strike). This is, I believe, the version that was taught by the Mantis Monks of Yip Ming Duk temple, See pic on:
http://www.geocities.com/sifu_carl/chiuleun.html
At some point I will do an article on these monks. perhaps in the New Mantis Quarterly courtesy of Steve Cottrell.

MantisifuFW

01-26-2003, 10:57 PM

Mantis108, Sifu Carl,
Greetings gentlemen!

As Sifu Carl has eloquently said the Quanpu of Lam Wing-Kit is indeed an outline of HK Tanglang. It is overall the outline of the CCM line of HK 7*. That he is not a part of any of the larger organizations and has no political adgenda, I consider him objective. Lam Wing-Kit was a direct student of Chu Chi Man, as I understand it, and set about to document the sets and techniques of that system and that of his other pursuit, that of Taiji Tanglang.

As Sifu Carl has already said, Lam Wing-Kit's book is the outline of CCM Tanglang Quanpu. There are variations present throughout his wide martial following, to be sure. All are acceptable, being propagated by honorable men pursuing excellence in this art we all love.

However, since RAY has brought up this thread stating that he has seen different branches of Tanglang all of whom had this move entitled "White Ape Steals The Peach" except the WHF branch, I must continue.

As far as I can tell, among the CCM lines, only Chu Leung's branch has this movement. That is no criticism, believe me. I fully endorse such diversity in the system, (as if he need it, haha), and development by such men as Chu Leung. In the WHF branch Philip Man Chow has made great innovations to the sets given to him by WHF.

I would like to know what other lines have this movement that RAY has seen?

I too must go but will be back tomorrow.

Again RAY, great that you have brought up this thread, there is MUCH yet to discuss!

Mantis108, my appologies, but I will get back to you on LWKit's book!

RAY, great thread!
Peace!
Steve Cottrell

cha kuen

01-27-2003, 12:09 AM

Good Post.

B.Tunks

01-27-2003, 12:25 AM

Hi Sifu's Cottrell, Albright and others...

To make matters more complicated...
Stealing the peach as a form exists in two routes as Bai Yuan Tou Tao and one as Tanglang Tou Tao in Luo Guangyu's lineage. Tanglang Tou Tao from H.K is the same form known in China as Bai Yuan Tou Tao. This form was also known as Qixing Tanglang Bai Yuan Tou Tao which was shortened in both Shandong and Shanghai to become two different titles. It is most commonly referred to these days in Shandong as 'Tou Tao', which avoids some of the confusion.

The movement ' Stealing the Peach' is not a groin strike in Shandong Tanglang. It is a jumping knee with a cross pull, and is definitely found in the form Bai Yuan Tou Tao (Jing Wu's 'Tanglang Tou Tao') near the end of the third duan. This movement is found in other Qixing forms and is always called 'Stealing the Peach'. The 'peach' represents the groin in some southern styles but is different in the case of Tanglang forms due to the actions representing specific sections of the white ape legend.
Another point of interest, literal or explanatory Quan Pu and classic four character Quan Pu often use totally different names fot the same technique or combination.
Hope this murks things up!
Brendan Tunks

Tainan Mantis

01-27-2003, 06:51 AM

Just a note to say that my research matches 100% what Brendan says.
The technique White Ape Steals the Peach is also in HK Zhaiyao #1 AKA 1st essentials.

In that book WHF states that the original name of the movement is zhaiyao and this is why these forms are called zhai yao.

In fact what he should have said is,"This movement is originally called White Ape Steals the Peach and is why that form has such a name."

But he would have trouble there since in HK the form name White Ape Steals the Peach was changed to Mantis Steals the Peach.

Then, in HK a new White Ape Steals the Peach was made and since then the confusion has never stopped.

MantisifuFW

01-27-2003, 07:53 AM

Shifu Tunks, Tainan Mantis, Greetings!

Thanks for both the backup and the historical information.

I do know that often Quanpu and names for movements differ. Just as there is a mantis movement called "Fainting lady crosses the bridge" and others common by one descriptive name in Quanpu but poetic name in other venues. It is a beautiful example of the artistic nature of Tanglang.

However, to return to RAYNYSC's, original post. He says that there is a movement missing from WHF branch sets but that is present in the various other lines of Tanglang he has seen. I must restate that I have only heard of this specific ending in Chu Leung's branch of CCM Tanglang. It is not present in the various lines of CCM Tanglang I have seen, (and I have seen a lot of them on tape and in person). I still want to know the other lines he has investigated as I do not know of others having this movement and would like to be informed on this also for my research.

And, there is the matter of two roads of White Ape Steals the Peach. Indeed, RAYNSC, there are two roads taught in the CCM/ Chu Leung, (hereafter as CL) branch. However on the mainland, this is not the case in any of the branches I have investigated. To restate the point made by Shifu Tunks and Tainan mantis, the actual set once called White Ape Steals the Peach is really our Praying Mantis Steals the Peach, (which has only one road also on the mainland and in the WHF branch). The set you know as White Ape Steals the Peach does not exist outside of LKY's line of HK Tanglang.

But, since you bring it up, let me inform you that the other halves of the form you know as White Ape Steals The Peach were not retained in WHF's curriculum even as second halves of many other sets were not. Additionally, in my research, these halves, much prized as an inheritance to those who have them, (and rightfully so), do not exist on the mainland at all.

To get to what I think is the heart of your focus on WHF's inclusion or exclusion of things you find in your style of Tanglang, RAYNYSC, WHF retained in his Quanpu what he considered essential for a full comprehension of Tanglang. He simply considered the additional sets retained by the CCM branch unnecessary in this pursuit. Masters will differ and attempt to preserve their arts in different ways. CCM chose one way and WHF chose another. The more I study other lines of Tanglang, both among HK and mainland branches, the greater wisdom I find, (for me), in WHF's approach. This does not invalidate CCM's or CL's approach. It is only to say that we differ.

There is MUCH more to say on all this, RAYNYSC, but I must teach class. I look forward to your information on the other branches you have seen that have this movement.

Again, great topic RAYNYSC,
Peace!
Steve Cottrell

MantisifuFW

01-27-2003, 12:19 PM

Originally posted by RAYNYSC

What I was asking was where is the specific move which gives the form it's name. It seem to be missing from the Wong Hung Fung version.

Peace

Originally posted by loki
In our version of the form we do have a move which seems to be missing from the WFH version. BTW, I just finished watching a tape where I have the late Brendan Lai performing this very form. I also have an article by Jon Funk where he was photographed doing the entire form and I have seen his student Dwight Edwards doing the form as well as others. The technique in question does seem to be missing from the form.

but it would seem to me that at least the moves which give the form it's name would be included in the forms providing the common thread throughout the different lineages.

RAYNYSC & Loki, Please forgive the time and corrections I had to make to this post, I am just learning how to use this forum's controls. However, to get to my point.

I hope that you have seen from the preceding conversations by both mainland and HK practitioners that your version of the "Stealing the Peach" movement, though logical and quite applicable, is specific to your branch alone and not shared by the rest of the community in this specific context. It is not the movement that "gives the form it's name" for the overwhelming majority of the rest of the mantis community and as a movement is not in many of your fellow CCM branches. It is not "missing" from other's versions of the set; it has been added to yours.

Though it is unavoidable and essential that we evaluate others through our own experience in Tanglang, I have learned repeatedly (and sometimes with great embarrassment) throughout my research both here and on the mainland that we cannot make our approach the benchmark of "correct" and all others as variations. We all stand equally as Tanglang practitioners and our skill and education in the art speak for us.

Please understand that I point this out with greatest respect for your efforts to understand the family of Tanglang, just as I would want to be respected. Be circumspect in how you go about it.

Sincerely,

Steve Cottrell

MantisifuFW

01-27-2003, 03:06 PM

Originally posted by mantis108
BTW, What do you both think of Sifu Lam's book? I think it's rather interesting to see my style's forms written in that Quan Pu format. Also I would like to get your opinions on the 2 men forms curriculum in the last section of the book if you don't mind. Thank you.

Mantis108

Mantis 108,

I thoroughly enjoyed reading through the book. It was very revealing in terms of a clear look at the corpus of CCM Tanglang. It is interesting that the total sets are fifty three, as I count them for the CCM line, excluding such sets as Gong Lik Kuen. I had a good time comparing the lists of sets with the Lee Kam Wing curriculum and seeing where he placed his emphasis. Several of the second routes mentioned in LWK's book are left out in LKW's curriculum.

The Quan Pu format, that of having right's and lefts' really clearly spelled out was good for me since I don't know many of the sets for CCM's curriculum and certainly not for TJTL. The two person format seemed easy to follow though I was not familar with all the drills presented. I would really enjoy getting with someone one day just to walk through movements.

It is a great reference! Doubtful in my own present and future writing endeavors I will approach such complete and accurate coverage of my own line's art. I wish someone would.

Great to hear from you,

Steve Cottrell

ninjaboy

01-27-2003, 05:15 PM

i'm not even finished reading all of this yet and i'm drooling. i had to express how lucky i feel to be privy to all of this information. so immensely kewl.

neil armstrong
ninjaboy's a nick name

ps. great job on the quarterly sifu cottrell. thank you

loki

01-27-2003, 05:17 PM

I don't have all the time in the world to spend time in front of this monitor but I would like to quickly say that the we refer to the cross arm pull as Bak Yune Chan Hak or White Ape Invites the Guest.... will definitely be back to continue this debate. :)

BTW, let's not forget that CL's lineage comprises of the CCM and Yip Min Duk monks lineages so Sifu Cottrell please don't blame it all on CCM ;)

ninjaboy

01-27-2003, 05:45 PM

k

done

couple of questions:

hey brendan, regarding the following paragraph,

"The movement ' Stealing the Peach' is not a groin strike in Shandong Tanglang. It is a jumping knee with a cross pull, and is definitely found in the form Bai Yuan Tou Tao (Jing Wu's 'Tanglang Tou Tao') near the end of the third duan. This movement is found in other Qixing forms and is always called 'Stealing the Peach'. The 'peach' represents the groin in some southern styles but is different in the case of Tanglang forms due to the actions representing specific sections of the white ape legend.
Another point of interest, literal or explanatory Quan Pu and classic four character Quan Pu often use totally different names fot the same technique or combination.
Hope this murks things up!
Brendan Tunks"

you mention that the move we're talking about is a strike to the groin but that's STILL not really WHY it's called 'stealing the peaches'?

what is the 'white ape legend'?

neil

MantisifuFW

01-27-2003, 05:49 PM

Loki,

I hope I have miscommunicated. I do not blame anyone or hold anyone in a negative regard. That there are differences between practitioners under the same teacher is a matter of proverb among traditional artists.

I have, (and do), thoroughly enjoy and learn a lot from these discussions.

Regards,

Steve Cottrell

ninjaboy

01-27-2003, 06:20 PM

do we know where LKY got the form we call 'white ape steals peach', or is that a whole other thread?

neil

B.Tunks

01-27-2003, 06:30 PM

Hi Neil and all,

>you mention that the move we're talking about is a strike to the >groin but that's STILL not really WHY it's called 'stealing the >peaches'?

Actually it's generally a knee to the mid section, the throat or the face.

>what is the 'white ape legend'?

Its a story about a person who was nicknamed Bai Yuan. It is a little long but basically it involves the young man in question looking after his poor blind mother in a cave. She is ill and he has to basically go through the motions of , leaving the cave, climbing the tree, moving the branches, stealing the peach, entering the cave, presenting the fruit/peach and in the Qingdao version (where the story is most often related), worship or show filial piety to his mother. He is witnessed by a scholar who also gives him a classic text which in turn he also presents. As a m,atter of a fact in Qingdao in some families, he sits on/guards the hill, bows to the north star etc, etc. This white ape also invites guests, amongst other 'movements' found in many forms of Tanglang.

There is a Bai Yuan Quan, but it is unrelated to Tanglang, more closely related to Tongbei/Tongbi.

Sifu Cottrell is right, the names often vary. Feinting Lady Crossing Bridge is also known as White Tiger Washes Face.
hope this helps,
Brendan

ninjaboy

01-27-2003, 07:44 PM

would someone please describe for me the actual physical movement involved in 'feinting lady crosses bridge' and/or 'white tiger washes face'?

...with examples out of mutually played sets, in a perfect world...

neil

MantisifuFW

01-27-2003, 10:34 PM

Sifu Armstrong,

The movement as I learned it so named would be the Arm Break/ hammer into the kneeling stance, movements 6 & 7 of White Ape Steals the Peach, just to keep with the theme of the thread.

Thank you for your kind ascessment of Mantis Quarterly. I am receiving many good comments from all over so it looks like our initial effort has gone well.

Good to hear from you,

Steve Cottrell

mantis_seeker

01-27-2003, 10:57 PM

Hi Sifu Tunks, Sifu Cottrell et. all,

Sifu Tunks wrote:
Its a story about a person who was nicknamed Bai Yuan. It is a little long but basically it involves the young man in question looking after his poor blind mother in a cave. She is ill and he has to basically go through the motions of , leaving the cave, climbing the tree, moving the branches, stealing the peach, entering the cave, presenting the fruit/peach and in the Qingdao version (where the story is most often related), worship or show filial piety to his mother. He is witnessed by a scholar who also gives him a classic text which in turn he also presents. As a m,atter of a fact in Qingdao in some families, he sits on/guards the hill, bows to the north star etc, etc. This white ape also invites guests, amongst other 'movements' found in many forms of Tanglang.

I too have heard this story. Mainly the part about having to climb up the tree to steal a peach for his mother. Concerning HK White Ape Steals the Peach I had thought the form got its name from the first two opening moves. Just my own speculation as I am not familiar with all the names of the movements so I am often wrong.

As I know steals the peach form starts with a circle entering stance with a negative dieu sau to groin, followed by a press filing punch to head.

I had always associated the first movement as a low strike to make the opponent bend to block and then climbing up him to deliver the filing punch.

Like a ape that climbs from the bottom of a tree to snatch a fruit.

mantis_seeker

MantisifuFW

01-28-2003, 11:21 AM

Originally posted by RAYNYSC
I have a two part question for 7 star mantis practitioners.
The question is in reference to the form( Bak Yuen Tau Tou or White Ape Steals the Peach.) I have seen the form played by practitioners from various lineages, for some reason it seems that the move which gives this form it's name is missing from the Wong Hung Fung version, Also, I've heard that there is actually two roads to this form....

Any info on this will be appreciated thanks in advance.

Peace

Colleagues,

I have seen RAYNYSC on the list but he has not yet replied to my request for information on the other families that may have the movement he originally was investigating. That he stated clearly that he had investigated multiple lines of Tanglang and found this movement everywhere but in the WHF line makes clear that he had obviously done his homework.

I would like to open this up for anyone else who might know of this movement, its origin and how many other lines have it. I thought that it was a product of the developments by Chu Leung, and, as has been stated by Loki, the influence of his training with the Yip Ming Duk monks, perhaps. As such, it should be found in only a few lines of CCM HK Tanglang and only with those connected with CL's rare style of CCM Tanglang. My own research and knowledge of all other CCY and CCM lines show that this movement was not present, yet, RAYNYSC was very clear that he found it predominately among, at least, a majority of HK mantis clans.

As a researcher, I am very interested in finding answers as you all know. The implications of RAYNYSC's assertions are fascinating. There could be another person who had contact with Yip Ming Duk monks, perhaps and that they are plentiful enough that his research revealed only those lines for study! There should be a great deal of information on these schools but I cannot find them. Without question, I have missed something and am very willing to be brought out of my ignorance.

Anyway, if others can help me in this investigation, until RAYNYSC returns and shares his information, please feel free to do so.

Thanks

Steve Cottrell

loki

01-28-2003, 04:43 PM

I would like to open this up for anyone else who might know of this movement , it's origin and how many other lines have it.

The very first move of Moi Fah Kuen has this move. I believe all the lineages begin this form with that move. It is in many of the forms. I thought I had described the action well enough that most people would have understood what I was trying to describe. I used the opening of Chop Choy as an example except that the movement in CC is done in a hill climbing stance. I get the impression that the implication here is that the move is completely made up. I could be wrong but that is how I am compelled to understand the above quote.

As a matter of fact, It almost appears to me that although Mr. Cotrrell has been as euphemistic as possible he is inlcined to throw slight jabs at the CL line whenever it is feasible. Now it seems to me he is not even sure what move it is we are debating.

You state that Sigung CL's mantis is rare. I'm not quite sure if I should take this as a compliment or something else. Nevertheless, the statement is true in the sense that CL's line is not as widespread as the other lines but that will change eventually.

MantisifuFW

01-28-2003, 05:03 PM

Loki,

I do not "take jabs" at any CCM Tanglang. Please show me in my post where I insulted CCM or his decendants and I will appologise immediately. I do not believe that you will see it. If you speak to your Sifu you will know that I have nothing but respect for CL, the CCM line and the art they practice. We do differ in many respects but there is no negative considerations towards that line of HK mantis now or ever.

I consider CL line of mantis "rare" in that it is a unique combination of influences not shared by Shakespear Chan's line, Lee Kam Wing's line, Lam Wing Kit's line or others. (Nor any other branch of Tanglang, HK or mainland). If there is another word which you would prefer, I would use it but that it is distinct from the others is without question and this should be noted for technical accuracy. Secondly, it is not practices widely on an international scale as is Yantai Tanglang or LKW's Tanglang.

As for the movement itself, I understood and appreciated your explaination. However, I thought I was clear in asking for information on other lines, (besides yours) that had this move in the same place as was indicated by RAYNYSC as a defining movement. That is the subject of the thread, that this movement as it appears in White Ape Steals the Peach as a defining movement, is present in all lines RAYNYSC investigated except the WHF line.

I believe you are reading things into my post that are not there. However, to return to the subject of the thread, again, do you know of other lines that have that movement in the same place as the defining movement described by RAYNSC? I am still interesed, still willing to learn.

I am sorry I have been misunderstood. I take issues with people not with the legitimate styles of kungfu they practice.

Steve Cottrell

loki

01-28-2003, 05:27 PM

It was not my intentions to end my last thread the way I did but I accidentally hit a button and poof! The thread went in, sorry.

Anyway, getting back to the topic at hand. To say that a move has been added by our clan simply because the TL people in mainland China don't have it is irrellevant. They don't have it so it must not have existed. Even if the original form did not have this move it does not negate the fact that the move as taught in our line gives the practitioner a , perhaps clearer picture of what the form is conveying. Not only this, but I am quite sure you would agree with me that many TL changes were made during it's transition from the Mainland to HK. Does the fact that something is older make it better ? I know, I know, you said that the names of the form don't have to necessarilly imply that a move has to be in the form which would demonstrate the essence of said form. I would have to disagree with that train of thought. Every form is meant to teach the student something specific. It is not meant to be merely a collection of techniques. The name of the form will indicate to the practitioner, once he has learned it what aspect of fighting in terms of theory, strategy, energy, technique, etc. is being stressed.

For example, Dar Gong ( Avoiding Hardness ) has specific moves where the practioner is taught to sidestep the opponent in a sideways angle so as not to receive his incoming force and throwing him. Moi Fah Kuen ( Descending Plum Blossom Fist ) has five continuous punches or blocks that are executed as you are going backwards that illustrate the precise movement of fists falling from above. There are many other forms I can use as examples ( about 30 that I personally know ) but time doesn't permit me to get into those at this time. I think for now, this is enough to make my point. Have run out of time but will be back.

loki

01-28-2003, 05:32 PM

My apologies. I wrote my last post before I read your last response. Thank you for the clarification. Feel free to respond anyway. I am sure you will not miss the opportunity ;)

Like I said before, gotta go.

NPM

01-28-2003, 06:51 PM

There were a few points brought up in this thread that I wanted to comment on but since Sifu Tunks and Sifu Cottrell already replied with comments similar to mine, then I will not repeat anything already stated. However, I do like to add a few things:

Originally posted by MantisifuFW

I would like to open this up for anyone else who might know of this movement, its origin and how many other lines have it. I thought that it was a product of the developments by Chu Leung, and, as has been stated by Loki, the influence of his training with the Yip Ming Duk monks, perhaps. As such, it should be found in only a few lines of CCM HK Tanglang and only with those connected with CL's rare style of CCM Tanglang. My own research and knowledge of all other CCY and CCM lines show that this movement was not present, yet, RAYNYSC was very clear that he found it predominately among, at least, a majority of HK mantis clans.

Well, over the years, I have had the chance to meet other LGY descendants in both Hong Kong and China. In Guangzhou, I met Grandmaster Kwok, Chi Sek who was a sihing of WHF and began his studies with LGY while LGY was still teaching in Shanghai. When I asked Grandmaster Kwok about the WHF books, he told that they are correct in line with LGY’s teachings. In addition, I also had the chance to meet some students of Grandmaster Chan Chun Yee in HK. CCY was also a student of LGY in Shanghai. They performed their forms exactly like the WHF students.

Concerning the differences between lineages and questions about what the CCM lineage has that the WHF lineage does not, this has existed for over half a century. As a matter of fact, in the case of the BYTT form, if you have the original printing of WHF’s book on BYTT and can read Chinese, he clearly addresses this issue in his preface. WHF states that the form is as presented in the book and that it has only 24 movements and that’s it. The preface implied that this debate was already an issue even before the book was written.

In regards to the book written by Sifu Lam, Wing Kit, I am not surprised with what he has listed as the curriculum for 7 Star Praying Mantis since he is from the CCM lineage. But to my knowledge, no other WHF classmate has what is listed as the first route of BYTT. I am not in a position to educate anyone over the Internet. For anyone who does have two routes to BYTT and can point out which technique gives the form it’s name, then well, I am happy for you, but I strongly believe that LGY did not teach BYTT with 1st and 2nd routes.

By the way, regarding form names, not every form has a specific move that gives the form its namesake. But for “Bahk Yuen Tao Toe”, anyone who has learned the 2-man form or “Ling Bahk Yuen Tao Toe” should know which technique gives this form its name.

NPM

LawClansman

01-28-2003, 08:00 PM

I would like to clarify a few items that have been touched upon in this thread.

1. Lam Wing Kit is a follower of the CCM line.
This is not exactly correct. He follows both CCM and WHF lines. His Kuen Po matches WHF kuen po (as stated by Sifu Cottrell) exactly. CCM sets do NOT almost in every case. In fact an obvious example is that CCM doesn't call the set "Sei Lau Bun Da" at all. It is called "Sei Lok Bun Da" in his kuen po. Additionally, I have CCM's kuen po and there are many differences between these and Lam Wing kit's. I would go as far to say they there are not written from CCM's kuen po at all. However to re-state my post, the framework of these sets are all intact and recognizable. Lam Wing it is a scholar and as such garners his information from a number of sources. This is for the better I think as he does not have to pledge all to any line and can be objective.

2. Chiu Leun / Chiu Chi Min differences:
This has been addressed before internally among our brothers in this line. I have always given the following explainaton: When CCM taught at the begining of his mantis days he taught from the practice of daily memory and training. When he got older he taught from the kuen po. If small details or a move or two were left out they were not taught to later students. The older generation as I recall were all playing their sets like Chiu leun. The younger generation like Lee kam Wing. To put it into perspective. Chiu Leun was already teaching in the U.S. and had been a mantis disciple for 22 years when Lee kam Wing started his training. Therefore the training was different. This is not to say that LKW is not a valid master in his own right for certianly he is. His books and now tapes give a different perspective than there once was. But there HAS to be differences. This is true with most teachers that have been around for a while. They teach differently when they are younger. Then due to experience, and years the trainings changes. Sometimes a lot sometimes a little.
Additionally, although it is an ugly topic, many of the "old school" teachers believed in a yat kup, yee kup saam kup method of teaching that has caused more than one bitter rivalry.

3. Name of technique:
What a branch chooses to call a technique cannot resonably be argued with. You say tomato I say tomato. It is true however that in OUR line there are movements included in each set that identify with the naming of the set. Additionally, as with keeping what I said before, CCM's kuen po is riddled with poetic terms "white snake spits out tongue" (bak shr to sik), and yellow dragon explores cave (waan loong tam dung), white ape invites guest (Bak yuen cheng hak), Black tiger steals heart (Hak Fu Tau Sum) etc, etc, etc, something lacking in the Lam Wing Kit kuen po.

4. Law gwong Yuk's teaching's:
Chiu Chi Min has stated in the past that His sets were taught by LGY. LGY was known to have created sets. So since the HK group is the last group to be taught, who is to say that these sets that are not taught in China are not his. When LGY went back to China from HK he died. If LGY had lived longer perhaps there would be a larger kuen po all around. Although it is true that the Chiu Leun line specific has more sets than CCM due to the additional sets from the Yip Ming Duk monks, CCM has more sets than most other sects of seven star.

5. Sifu Cottrell's Posting:
I do not consider Sifu Cottrells post insulting. He has every right to state his opinion based on his research. I have had many communications with him in the past and all have been good.
He does have experience with our branch after his training with some of my younger brothers. It is unfortunate that for the most part my brothers are more adept in technique and inadequate in historical information. So ANYONE is within their right to ask questions about our line. And the questions are welcome. I don't compare our line with others I simply state what I believe to be factual in regard to what I practice.

RAYNYSC

01-28-2003, 08:32 PM

Wow! LOL! "Thanks for the back up!?....
What is this a gang war? LOL!

I must have really struck a nerve this time. Mr.Cottrell, since you're so insistent upon knowing who I have seen doing the form,I will oblige.

First,let me state that I am not at this time affiliated with any Mantis school,although I have trained 7 star mantis in the past & may be some time in the near future, However, I am not a newcomer to kung fu & I do some people who do practise Mantis....

Having said this I must say that I have seen Brendan Lai do the form in a commercial tape called " Living Legends". Aside From the "White Ape steals the Peach" form Sifu Lai also does Bung bo,Chop Choy & some applications. After viewing the tape I was intrigued about how some of the forms get their names & subsequently had a conversation w/a CCM lineage practitioner who told me that the hand strike to the groin techinque is what gave the form it's name. I told him about that move not being visible in Sifu Lai's form & he told me, maybe they don't have it.

Anyhow in my opinion, having the move in the form makes more sense than not having it. It looks like a functional application & is in sync with the theme of the form. So wherther it is an addition on the CCM side or not it is as I see it an improvement....

Now that thats out of the way, Why is it that when there is a difference in opinion when it comes to forms between CCM & WHF,
the WHF line always screams out that CCM changed something. Especially when it is public knowledge that WHF did not learn the complete curriculum from LKY & that WHF did make changes....
As far as I know,no one has ever said CCM did not learn the whole system from LKY.( Meaning there is a very good chance that CCM learnd alot more then WHF under LKY ) This is not to say that WHF did anything wrong or that he was not legitimatein way shape or form.

It looks to me like you got some issues there Mr.Cottrell if I didn't know better I would be willing to bet the farm that you have/feel some contempt twards the CCM,CL line for what ever reason & if thats the case all I got to say is you got issues!...

Peace

MantisifuFW

01-28-2003, 11:58 PM

RAYNYSC,

Originally posted by RAYNYSC
I have a two part question for 7 star mantis practitioners.
The question is in reference to the form( Bak Yuen Tau Tou or White Ape Steals the Peach.) I have seen the form played by practitioners from various lineages, for some reason it seems that the move which gives this form it's name is missing from the Wong Hung Fung version,

You stated:

1) That you have seen the BYTT played by "various lineages".

2) That in the BYTT of these "various lineages" there is a movement that gives the form its name.

3) That the "various lineages" you have seen all have this movement except for the WHF version.

I have proven:

1) Only the CL branch or those associated with it have this movement.

2) It is the naming movement for only the CL branch.

From this we know with certainty that:

1) It is not true that you saw "various lineages" playing sets having this movement.

2) In stating that you had seen "various lineages" performing this movement, you tried to deceive people.

3) The deception you tried to perpetrate had only one target, the WHF lineage.

This then makes the following certain:

1) That your statements cannot be trusted on what you say you have witnessed or studied.

2) That your statements on technical matters concerning Tanglang cannot be trusted without outside verification.

3) That you will fabricate information, try to deceive people, and ignore the truth in order to damage the credibility of the WHF lineage in even a trivial way.

Sadly, RAYNYSC, the only person's credibility you have hurt is your own.

Steve Cottrell

-N-

01-29-2003, 12:15 AM

Sifu Brendan Lai said, somewhat figuratively, "My Sigung knew 100 sets, my Sifu knew half as many, and I know half of what my Sifu knew." The context of this statement was to remind us to be humble, to practice hard, and not to be greedy for forms.

Sifu Lai always followed up this statement saying, "You don't need so many sets. Many things are repeated in the sets. It is more important to be able to use the applications. It's no use to have 100 sets, but not be able to use anything."

He also would add, "I already taught you many advanced things from the other sets. I took the applications out of the sets for you to practice. Practical application is more important than sets."

Other times he would say, "You already have too many sets. It's time to drill the applications. Practice, practice, practice them to death."

Norman.

MantisifuFW

01-29-2003, 12:40 AM

Norman,

I also recall being told by Lai sifu of the young man who did not want to learn Gongfu from his father but learned half of Bungbo. He then went away to college in the West for a few years.

Upon returning, he went to his father's Gongfu School to see him. The other young men were unhappy with him for his earlier refusal to learn his father's Gongfu. They were rough with him so he responded, flooring the senior student who confronted him. The student tried to hit the young man again and again he was knocked to the floor. They said, "We had no idea your Gongfu was so good! We thought you only knew half of Bungbo, but you are very skilled"!

The young man said, "I had to fight a lot with the other men in college. I did not know how so I just used what I knew from Bungbo. No matter what they did, I just charged in or used what I knew from Bungbo. Soon they did not fight me anymore".

Lai sifu would laugh and say, "He beat them with half of Bungbo! So why are you asking me for more"?

He was like that. I cherish what he gave me.

Thanks for reminding me.

Steve Cottrell

Young Mantis

01-29-2003, 09:48 AM

Originally posted by loki
I know, I know, you said that the names of the form don't have to necessarilly imply that a move has to be in the form which would demonstrate the essence of said form. I would have to disagree with that train of thought. Every form is meant to teach the student something specific. It is not meant to be merely a collection of techniques. The name of the form will indicate to the practitioner, once he has learned it what aspect of fighting in terms of theory, strategy, energy, technique, etc. is being stressed.

I agree completely that each form was designed and is taught to teach a different aspect of Praying Mantis. That each form should have it's own distinct flavor and specializes in either a particular theory, strategy, or technique. However, in our lineage, that does not mean there is a specific technique for each form, perhaps a specific theme yes but not necessarily a defining movement.

Originally posted by loki
For example, Dar Gong ( Avoiding Hardness ) has specific moves where the practioner is taught to sidestep the opponent in a sideways angle so as not to receive his incoming force and throwing him.

Yes, Daw Ghong does have the movement you describe where the practitioner sidesteps backwards to avoid an attack. In fact, in the WHF kuen po, he says this technique was in fact originally called Daw Ghong. So is this why the form is so named? What about Sup Baht Sao (18 Ancestors)? That form also has this same technique? How come it is not called Daw Ghong 2nd road then?

That two forms have the same technique is not uncommon and it does not necessarily identify the source for the name of the form. In the case of Daw Ghong, the overall theme for the entire form is avoiding the direct attack. Even in the opening move, we sidestep a forward attack and counter with a jab. Later we use the Maw Poon Sau (Grinding Wheel Hands) to deflect and counter a direct strike. Throughout this form, we use deflection, side-stepping, flexible against rigid. Sometimes, the entire theme of the form designates it's name, not always a specific technique.

YM

B.Tunks

01-29-2003, 03:31 PM

Young Mantis wrote:

Sometimes, the entire theme of the form designates it's name, not always a specific technique.

This is also true.
B.T

RAYNYSC

01-29-2003, 04:42 PM

Mr.Cottrell,
Just for the record I should have said various people instead of various lineage's in mantis.... My Bad:eek:
So to make things clearer
( I'll try to walk you through this ok so that you don't misunderstand what I'm saying....) I am aware that the CCM line is the only one to have this move! But I only became aware of this after watching the WHF version of this form.

I may have been a bit hasty in how I used my wording in my initial thread that doesn't give you the right to jump all over me & try to make me look like a liar.... ( But then again thats on you if thats the way you feel ) I find it quite offensive that you would attempt to make everyone believe that my intention were less than honorable ( perhaps you're still upset about our last incident ? ) :confused:

Regardless of how you may feel towards me personally there's no denying that this was an interesting topic. It's not everyday that you see some of the top Sifus from at least 3 different lineages. You being one of them sharing their perspectives on one topic on a public forum for the benefit of others. Which by the way is a good thing so all in all I would have to say that this thread served it's purpose....:)

By the way thanks for the kind words....

Peace

loki

01-29-2003, 04:47 PM

YM and Sifu Tunks,

I agree with both of you wholeheartedly. YM, you are correct in pointing out that many of the sets share the same techniques. Your comparison between Sup Ba Sao and Dar Gung are points well taken. Yet, would it not be a bit odd had these very same movements NOT been in the form Dar Gung ? Why were they inserted into THIS particular form? The move is also in Moi Fah Lok but like I said before the "falling fists" aspect is what is being stressed in that form.

Let's take Tong Long Suen Bo as another example. In our line there is a move toward the end of this form that clearly illustrates the SUEN BO ( Whirling Step ). Without mentioning any names I have seen the form played minus that move. I'll be honest, I have never seen this form played by a WHF practitioner so I will ask you guys. Do you have a Whirling Step move at the end of this form? After all that has been said on this thread it's no big deal if you don't but I hope you can see my point as far as our line is concerned.

I will admit that there are some forms that do not have a distinct , clear , obvious move ( technique ) for the form's name. However, in my experience so far there are more that do than do not.

Yours in Gung Fu ,

Pablo AKA Loki