4 mantis Mepgs -wushu Vs.Wushu

[carly]

http://www.beijingkungfu.com/Multimedia/Videos/MantisJiao.avi
+
http://www.beijingkungfu.com/Multimedia/Videos/MantisKicking.avi
+
http://www.beijingkungfu.com/Multimedia/Videos/MantisHook.avi
+
http://www.beijingkungfu.com/Multimedia/Videos/MantisElbow.avi

[BeiTangLang]

First off, I do not speak for others. I only speak what is on my mind.

I believe that the term Wushu reflects a certain philosophy and attitude just as Kung Fu reflects a different philosophy and attitude. I personally do not use the terms interchangeably although at times I use them in broad, general and liberal fashion to cover the philosophical implications.

Wushu to me has always been defined as Modern Wushu or Competitive Wushu. It has always been a sport in my mind ever since its worldwide offical introduction in the 80s. It might have come a long way since then to try to reinject the real martial substance into it. But it has always failed to do so in an honorable and respectful manner. This site in question is another outstanding example of that. It simply skipped the truth of its beginning as an sport activity just like the gymnastics. There was nothing martial about it - period. This was clearly conveyed to those people (would be coaches of Wushu) who went to China during the 80s to "receive the sutra" from the Wushu organzation which was still under the tight control by the government. I personally talked to the Canadian contingent then. Wushu routines are just pretty looking movements mimicking fight movement without the martial intent and real martial application. They were meant for shows. That is my understanding since then.

An example from these clips in question would be: he did low kneeling position with a low hook hand while the half of his back side turned towards where his would be target is. It looks impressive. If there is an real application to that and he can pull it off clean even if there is a counter from the opponent (non cooperating partner), I would definitely be interested in founding out more about this "amazing" style called 6 Plum Mantis which is based in the Nanjing GSI's teaching as they claim. As for now, I believe I am looking at a bunch of modern Wushu stuff that is borrowing the good name of Nanjing GSI and the riding on the tail coat of classical Tanglangquan.

This site simply circumvent the whole thing and have an "as a matter of fact" attitude that the martial substance has always been in Modern Wushu since day one of its conception. That is not true. A lot of people still knows the truth. Secondly, it implies that the Nanjing GSI was the "father of the ******* child". Personally, I am very uncomfortable with that implication. Finally, it use the Nanjing GSI curriculum outline to "seamless" add in contemprary Wushu, SanShou (a more recent developement even in Modern Wushu history), and last but not least Chin Na. I am sorry, but Chin Na is a style on its own ever since the origin Nanjing GSI period? Why is there no one from the origin Nanjing GSI claimed that as a style or a special category curriculum until now?

All these just lead me to believe that the dishonorable and disrespectful attitude is acceptable to Modern Wushu as a sport activity. I suspose people who weren't following the history and development closely would be fool by it. But no serious observers and practitioners will ever want to get into this muddy water.

Now having said that we can also find the same dishonorable and disrespectful attitude in Kung Fu folks. Kung Fu means chores hard work, time&effort spended, and the merits of them. The trade is irrelevant. Its all in a honest days after days practice striving for perfection. If people tell me I have good Wushu that means nothing to me (even a bit insulting). If they say you have some Kung Fu, that, my friends is what I have been trying in earnest to achieve. For myself, good or bad, I give credit (or fault) where credit (or fault) deserves and dues. I won't call an orange a tangerine. Eventhough they are fruits, and kind of resemble each other in appearance, the taste is way different.

People can believe in what they want (it's a free world after all), please be my guest. As for myself, I try to see things as they are and call it what they are. I have my reasons, which it could be deemed as baised sometimes, to back up my statements.

Mantis108

PS, I won't trust a government that don't even use proper Chinese full characters to give me its defination of the term Wushu. It doesn't respect civil education, do you honestly think it does better with the martial education?


__________________
Contraria Sunt Complementa

[BeiTangLang]

I split this off so that he original post would not go this direction as only a part of it had to do with the original question.

Mantis 108, I am curious as to why you would abandon one term & cling to another?
Wushu, war arts/art of war, has meaning just as gongfu/kungfu means time spent working (to) perfecting an art.
modern wushu on the other hand differs from the original interpertaion to be sure, but if the Chinese government started calling "modern wushu" Gongfu, would you still be offended?
Just some thoughts,
Best Wishes,
~BTL

[carly]

now belongs to the chinese government's new sport of wu shu, for better or worse. That's what the term has come to mean.

[mantis108]

Thank you for the question. I am glad you brought it up. :)

<<<Mantis 108, I am curious as to why you would abandon one term & cling to another?>>>

I think it is simply about orientation. Wushu, in my mind, is about entertainment these days. While Kung Fu is about being pragmetic. That is it has a broader practical daily life appliction then just a mere sport activity.

<<<Wushu, war arts/art of war, has meaning just as gongfu/kungfu means time spent working (to) perfecting an art.>>>

Well, Wushu is "skills pretained to be martial/war". In other words, it is martial skills (not necessarily about arts/art). To take this further, a Wushujia is a martial smith as in a blacksmith or goldsmith, a craftsman if you will. It is in a sense a class of people. Now I think you can see the fallacy of the Communist bureaucrats (of all people) selling you the idea of Wushujia. Besides, I don't make war and have not intention to join a war. So I don't believe I belong to that class of people. ;) Whether I can or can not make war with Kung Fu that's another question.

I do Kung Fu, I strive at Kung Fu, and I try to live the Kung Fu way. Everything is about hard work ethics nothing is given or taken. Above all it is not about being a class of people. It's rather a lifestyle choice unlike doing a sport whenever one feels like taking it up or leaving it altogether. I don't sell nor advertise my art as if I am a craftsman. That's no aspiration of becoming the future star of a sport. I don't tell people that I do Kung Fu to impress them. It is simply what I do. To many in my community in daily life, I am simply a guy who loves to do Kung Fu.

You might think that I am being tunnel visioned about terms. But to me it is about orientation of my path and the terms are a good indication. One can only walk on a path that one sees clearly without falling head over heels. To some, the two pathes look the same. I however see otherwise. At this juncture, I can confidently go full steam ahead with what I have got without regerts because the path is clear as the full bright moon shinning on it.

<<<modern wushu on the other hand differs from the original interpertaion to be sure, but if the Chinese government started calling "modern wushu" Gongfu, would you still be offended?
Just some thoughts,>>>

Well, I can't said that they haven't tried. But it is always in the line that Wushu (the general term) is the "proper" term. If you accept that, then how far away from accept modern Wushu being the norm for Wushu? It is a simple mind game. ;) The term Modern Wushu would be better serve their purpose so I don't really see how they would call it Gongfu. If they really call modern wushu "gongfu", I really would resent that because modern Wushu would never have the same depth as Kung Fu as I see it. Thank you for the food for thoughts and best wishes to you too. :)

Regards

Mantis108

[Brad]

Depends on who you talk to. I use wushu for all Chinese martial arts, like my teacher does. He also uses Gongfu when talking about someone's skill. Like if someone does a form and obviously shows no "intent" or something like that he says "no Gongfu". If someone wants to make a big deal about what I call what I do... they're allowed to waste their time on it. It's a free country, and doesn't affect me any. I do what I do, and what some "traditionalist" calls it isn't going to change anything.

[BeiTangLang]

Brad I happen to agree with this set of terminology.
"Kung fu" is something you get over time from training well/hard in "wushu".

As always, everyone is left to their own in determining what works for them.

Thanks mantis 108 for expanding your description & explanation.
Best wishes,
!BTL

[B.Tunks]

Hello again,

I must say, I'm not trying to push Competitive Wushu here but I think I might add a couple more points on the topic, particularly as such strong opinions have been offered.
In fact I feel compelled to defend my freedom to use the name Wushu, in conjunction with Gongfu or any other appropriate label, without that choice bringing any misconception or degradation to the art form I dedicate my life to.

Mantis 108 wrote:

>Wushu to me has always been defined as Modern Wushu or >Competitive Wushu. It has always been a sport in my mind ever >since its worldwide offical introduction in the 80s.

The name Wushu predates Communist China, but was adopted as an official label in the 1940's. I think your viewpoint has been formed by being only exposed to one aspect of this massive thing which is called Wushu.

>It might have come a long way since then to try to reinject the >real martial substance into it. But it has always failed to do so in >an honorable and respectful manner.

Most of Wushu did not develop its major competitive charecteristics until much later, around the end of the 1950's.
I dont know what you mean by failing to do so in an honourable and respectful manner.

>This site in question is another outstanding example of that. It >simply skipped the truth of its beginning as an sport activity just >like the gymnastics. There was nothing martial about it - period. >This was clearly conveyed to those people (would be coaches of >Wushu) who went to China during the 80s to "receive the >sutra" from the Wushu organzation which was still under the >tight control by the government.

This is not a suprise as 1979 to 1986 were the peak developmental years of Wushu as a competitive sport. China intentionally pushed competitive Wushu in this direction with the ultimate goal of it becoming an Olympic sport.

>I personally talked to the Canadian contingent then. Wushu >routines are just pretty looking movements mimicking fight >movement without the martial intent and real martial >application. They were meant for shows. That is my >understanding since then.

Granted sports Wushu is no comparison to real combative chinese martial arts (which are known as Chuantong Wushu), but even this kind of Wushu requires martial intent at least, to be performed well. The routines are meant for competition not just for 'show' therefore there must be intent. In fact any decent Modern Wushu practitioner must also have a good understanding of application. Only the lowest level amateur athlete will not have these requirements.

Having said that, I will in no way deny that there are many movements in competitive Wushu routines that have absolutely no application whatsoever and are only performed for technical difficulty or pure embellishment.

This is my point, there are none of these in traditional/Chuantong Wushu.

Though I am opposed to Modern Wushu, I have personally trained in various routines in the 1980's (and later), under mainland Chinese coaches, as opposed to having merely talked to people about these routines and related training methods. This gives me the advantage of actually being able to make an unbiased comparison between the two schools. I KNOW by experience and continual involvement that there is a clear and distinct difference.

In closing, I respect your right to dismiss Wushu as a name for Chinese martial arts, but I request that you respect mine.
I have not merely adopted it in line with party policy, I am a free thinking individual and bow down to only a small handfull of people on this planet.
I also use the name Gongfu/Kungfu when it suits me (as do my teachers), and when it comes down to it, it's whether or not the practitioner has Gongfu that is the ultimate indicator of true martial arts.

O.K, I've rambled on enough.
Apologies to all of your eyeballs,
B.Tunks

(God **** it Robert, let's agree on something soon)

[B.Tunks]

'God d.amn it! '

Whoa, religion sensitive editing!

Oh yeah...

The worst thing about this is I find my self constantly having to use Gongfu/Kungfu in public or the western media, precisely because of the stigma attached to the name Wushu. Its no wonder that my all time favourite name is 'Chinese Boxing'.
O.K, I promised I'd shut up...
B.T

[mantis108]

Hi Brendan,

<<<I must say, I'm not trying to push Competitive Wushu here but I think I might add a couple more points on the topic, particularly as such strong opinions have been offered.
In fact I feel compelled to defend my freedom to use the name Wushu, in conjunction with Gongfu or any other appropriate label, without that choice bringing any misconception or degradation to the art form I dedicate my life to.>>>

I must apologize that my post seems to infringed on others' freedom on using their preferred term. I merely want to point out that I am satisfied with Kung Fu being my choice of words to describe what I do. I would not want to force that on anyone nor would I want anyone force their ideas on me. Whether it is popular usage or not, it is of no concern of mine. I stress that I respect others rights on all level and I hope to receive the same respect.

<<<Mantis 108 wrote:

>Wushu to me has always been defined as Modern Wushu or >Competitive Wushu. It has always been a sport in my mind ever >since its worldwide offical introduction in the 80s.

The name Wushu predates Communist China, but was adopted as an official label in the 1940's. I think your viewpoint has been formed by being only exposed to one aspect of this massive thing which is called Wushu.>>>

I do realize the term Wushu is more than modern wushu. But due to the connotations involve, I would rather avoid it all together. Again that's entirely a personal choice.


<<<>It might have come a long way since then to try to reinject the >real martial substance into it. But it has always failed to do so in >an honorable and respectful manner.

Most of Wushu did not develop its major competitive charecteristics until much later, around the end of the 1950's.
I dont know what you mean by failing to do so in an honourable and respectful manner.>>>

Well, it will take another long winded rant from me. So I would rather leave it. Please don't feel offended.

<<<>This site in question is another outstanding example of that. It >simply skipped the truth of its beginning as an sport activity just >like the gymnastics. There was nothing martial about it - period. >This was clearly conveyed to those people (would be coaches of >Wushu) who went to China during the 80s to "receive the >sutra" from the Wushu organzation which was still under the >tight control by the government.

This is not a suprise as 1979 to 1986 were the peak developmental years of Wushu as a competitive sport. China intentionally pushed competitive Wushu in this direction with the ultimate goal of it becoming an Olympic sport.>>>

And they are near their goal.

<<<>I personally talked to the Canadian contingent then. Wushu >routines are just pretty looking movements mimicking fight >movement without the martial intent and real martial >application. They were meant for shows. That is my >understanding since then.

Granted sports Wushu is no comparison to real combative chinese martial arts (which are known as Chuantong Wushu), but even this kind of Wushu requires martial intent at least, to be performed well. The routines are meant for competition not just for 'show' therefore there must be intent. In fact any decent Modern Wushu practitioner must also have a good understanding of application. Only the lowest level amateur athlete will not have these requirements.

Having said that, I will in no way deny that there are many movements in competitive Wushu routines that have absolutely no application whatsoever and are only performed for technical difficulty or pure embellishment.

This is my point, there are none of these in traditional/Chuantong Wushu.>>>

I totally hear you, my friend.

<<<Though I am opposed to Modern Wushu, I have personally trained in various routines in the 1980's (and later), under mainland Chinese coaches, as opposed to having merely talked to people about these routines and related training methods. This gives me the advantage of actually being able to make an unbiased comparison between the two schools. I KNOW by experience and continual involvement that there is a clear and distinct difference.>>>

I don't doubt you on that and I thank you for providing a balanced view point.

<<<In closing, I respect your right to dismiss Wushu as a name for Chinese martial arts, but I request that you respect mine.>>>

I apologize for seemingly undermindly your freedom. I assure you that I very much respect your right at all level. I merely expressed my feeling and views on the matter for the record.

<<<I have not merely adopted it in line with party policy, I am a free thinking individual and bow down to only a small handfull of people on this planet.
I also use the name Gongfu/Kungfu when it suits me (as do my teachers), and when it comes down to it, it's whether or not the practitioner has Gongfu that is the ultimate indicator of true martial arts.>>>

Totally agreed. :)

<<<O.K, I've rambled on enough.
Apologies to all of your eyeballs,>>>

BTW, I would just like you to know that I happen to agreed with you already. ;)

I think having a passionate debate about things without creating animosity can be good thing for strong friendship. Personally, I think we might be able to achieve that after all. :)

Warm regards

Robert Hui (Mantis108)