Tanglang and JKD Phenomenon

[mantis108]

On the other thread Sifu Cottrell has the following comment which I find most interesting. I would like to share some thoughts about it. Here's the recap and my comments:


Originally posted by MantisifuFW
Indeed people did create Tanglang Quan. (Personally I think about the 17th century but opinions differ). From there, the system created by people continued to be defined to greater degree with succeeding generations thus arriving in the many varieties of Tanglang we have today.

RE: I also believe in the 17th century time frame. I agreed that indeed people created the system. But I also believe that the system was created not from scratch. It had a base structure already in place, a former self if you well. the progenerator and the succeeding generations transmist the system according to their visions (new sub-systems) and their own expressions (styles within the original system or sub-system) to varying degrees.

In every case the fighters of each system put their own stamp on the style they practiced. But most felt their interpretation of the system did not change it significantly from what they inherited. Indeed people did define how the system was practiced for themselves. But they did not change the system beyond their own physical performance of the art.

RE: I think the systems and styles is defined here in a subtle way. The thought pattern here is easy to follow. Well put indeed.

In most cases, (but admittedly not all), where significant departures from what had been was noted, the derivative system took on another name to distinguish it from what had been. For example, Meihua, Taiji Meihua, Hao style, Taiji Tanglang, ect. Where the newer innovation did not take on it's own name, invariably the martial community will attach its own name change to distinguish it. For example Yantai Seven Star or Qingdao Seven Star differ significantly in body mechanics though are the same in many more respects. The same can be said of Master Luo's Tanglang and mainland Seven Star. Where Master Luo's students have assumed the Qixing name, the community eventually of its own renamed it Mainland Qixing and HK Qixing. Practitioners will always make a difference when addressing them to be clear.

RE: This on the physical level is verifiable by different forms both in the structure and technical integrity. In other words, abstract thoughts and artistic licensing do not and can not validate innovations in Kung Fu. Designations should only meant for identification purposes but not for kung fu politics. Kung Fu should be judged by the content of the character not the pedigree of the person nor the colours of the clan.

The idea that we might redefine history and what has been established in each generation is an intriguing one, but it is not what has been the case up to now despite the present popularity of JKD concepts where anything can be called one's "Tanglang". We do not operate individually in a vacuum where we might change all terms and values at will. Instead, we live in a community, regardless of our acceptance or rejection of it. We can define the practice of an art for ourselves, to be sure, but equally certain and of greater enduring impact will be the communities defining of us. We might judge ourselves for a lifetime but we can be certain that history (the community) will judge us for multiplied lifetimes and that is what will be remembered.

RE: I agreed with and echo the statement. This would be the reason why Quanpu (manuscripts) are important research materials. They are records of the work (conceptual level) of the people who passed down the systems and styles. Forms and fighting are quanpu in action. Having said all that I feel the need to address JKD phenomenon and PM. What most people object to JKD is the amalgamation of different systems, styles and/or techniques. What people don't give credit to is that Bruce Lee saw the attribute advantage of different arts. He saw those advantages would give him the edge of being the best of the bests. So he took mostly the drills of developing the desired attributes in order to develope his ideal and his vision. There is nothing inheritely wrong about that as long as the base structure is intact. The problem is really when the second generation and onwards beginning to develope "principles" of JKD out of Jun Fan Kung Fu, etc... and package it as JKD concepts and such. We then have people from disgruntle kung fu people looking towards JKD for inspirations hoping to rediscover or discover the secrets of their own systems and styles. As they borrowed the "principles" such as the "ball and hinge" theory and such, they unwittingly changed and departed from they very own system and style. This is where the problem really is between TCMA and JKD today. Personally, Attribute Cross Training is what JKD concept is really about and it is not that new a concept in TCMA. There are documentations about ACT possibly dated arround Song and Yuan dynasty (1100s CE). Anyway, we need to clearly identify the problem(s) that JKD phenomenon could bring to Tanglang before Tanglang as a system begins to lose its very distinct identity and status as a viable pugilistic art in modern times.

[Ren Blade]

Great post!:cool:

[mantis108]

Thank you, Ren Blade. Glad you enjoyed it. :)

Warm regards

Mantis108

[MantisifuFW]

Mantis 108,

Attribute Cross Training has indeed been a part of Tanglang and Gongfu throughout its long history. My Sifu, Brendan Lai, and his Sifu Wong Hon Fun both encouraged this kind of study. I do too. Attribute Cross Training is not the JKD influence in Tanglang.

JKD influence in Tanglang began when some Chinese practitioners attempted to ride on the early popularity of Bruce Lee by altering their art to mirrior his. They still called it Tanglang, however, and used some Tanglang techniques to differentiate themselves and gather their own following. This was the beginning of the problem, (IMHO). The same thing happened in Wing Chun until traditionalists propagated and published so much about the art that the difference was clear for anyone to see and the charade ended. We have yet to see this happen in Tanglang but there is hope.

JKD in Tanglang now is many years old, somewhat organized and has a philosophy of its own. It has its own negative way of refering to traditional practitioners, their techniques and methods. It has and continues to redefine traditional terms and concepts to justify its own method as "traditional". (I guess twenty five years is a tradition). In short, it is a style unto itself hence my refering to it often as JKD Mantis.

More to say, but I must, again, get ready for class.

Steve Cottrell

[mantis108]

Great post. Looking forward for the follow up. Thanks.

Warm regards

Mantis108

[MantisifuFW]

Mantis108,

JKD Tanglang today does not make the same bold statement as Bruce Lee's JKD, defining itself as "Non Classical" and then standing its ground to debate in the arena of ideas. (They know that overall, they would be rejected by the traditional community and find themselves small fish in the big pond of JKD at large). Instead, it does, as I stated before, seek to redefine Tanglang and actively seek to delegitimize the traditional Tanglang community.

They do, in their efforts, follow much the same tactic as originally was done by by the Chinese government's modern Wu-Shu on the mainland; that is to redefine and use ONLY perjorative terms to define the techniques of traditional Tanglang, then use ONLY positive terms to define their own and ultimately to replace traditional Tanglang:

For example:

The traditional use of the Siu Deng San, (a rasied heel stance used in Meihua, HK Tanglang and called the Kay Lin Bo by many 7* practitioners on the mainland) is referred to by JKD Tanglang practitioners as (I quote), "the old, hard style, external Tanglang" and the stance used by them as the (quote) "soft style, internal, more advanced way of doing Tanglang".

Notice the wording of the analysis. JKD Tanglang will never give that the Siu Deng San gives great mobility nor that it is a part of a larger robust stance/ step variety available to the traditional practitioner. It is, in its intent, an attempt to invalidate the traditional approach altogether.

There are many other ideas I could present but this is the approach used by this group whenever discussing technique, style or tactic. They may draw from a variety of sources for their "Tanglang" (Japanese, Chinese, Western Boxing), but their presenting of their approach will be the same. In all cases they will either redefine traditional terms, (such as hard, soft, internal, external), to match their intent instead of simply presenting that they have innovated new, and perhaps even very effective, techniques that depart from traditional Tanglang.

Hence my drawing sharp distinctions between what is and is not traditional Tanglang and the definition of Chinese terms. Also why I hold to divisions and families and branches within the art we practice. They serve a greater purpose than giving someone "legitimacy" or denying it to someone else. They preserve the art we practice.

I believe that it is the man and his skill that makes his Tanglang worthwhile, regardless of whatever awarded level of achievement or piece of paper he may or may not possess. But I also believe that there is such a thing as definable Tanglang and that is to be guarded and valued.

I do not care if someone else mixes their Tanglang with other arts. It is their martial path and they must walk it. But one should cite sources truthfully, like an honorable traveller and researcher. If one is an innovator and one's skill is good (and he can pass that on), then the art will survive and take its place among all others, if not, then it will be over.

Anyway, that's not well organized but it sort of defines the nature of JKD Tanglang as I have encountered them.

Hope it helps,
Steve Cottrell

[-N-]

Ok, I guess I don't get out much, but JKD Mantis is new to me. :)

Now you've got my curiosity up. Are there any urls for more information?

thanks,
N.

[MantisifuFW]

N,

Good to hear from you! No, I wish I knew of one that was so straightforward. Unfortunately this redefinition of Tanglang really is a very quiet phenomena that I came upon during the last fifteen years or so.

Drop me a line off list and I will bore you with some details!

My main intent is, since Mantis 108 wished to discuss the phenomena, is to make folks aware of it.

There will always be folks with a little Tanglang who will add a little of this and that to their art. Its what we at AKF call "Partial Artists". Their art usually does not survive their own involvement and as such is of lesser concern. But, as this particular movement has actually grown, it concerns me. I think that many of those involved actually believe the party line, (ignorance is bliss after all...), hence the Mantis Quarterly, this group and any public forum where real Tanglang can be discussed is a good thing and will, hopefully, do for Tanglang what it did for Wing Chun.

BTW, I am sure you get out as much as any of us, you just don't travel in the same twisted circles as I do!

Again good to hear from you!

Steve Cottrell

[mantis108]

Thanks for the candid and detailed posts about the JKD phenomenon and it influence on PM. I agreed whole heartedly that education is key.

I also have some thoughts about your comments:

<<<JKD Tanglang today does not make the same bold statement as Bruce Lee's JKD, defining itself as "Non Classical" and then standing its ground to debate in the arena of ideas. (They know that overall, they would be rejected by the traditional community and find themselves small fish in the big pond of JKD at large). Instead, it does, as I stated before, seek to redefine Tanglang and actively seek to delegitimize the traditional Tanglang community. >>>

I think we need to look at the issue from somewhat different angle as well. This could be viewed as a serious lack of concerted effort within the traditional Tanglang community, especially those senior practitioners, to demonstrate some form of a leadership role in addressing what is and is not PM from a tradtional perspective. A lot of the "my Tanglang is the puriest and above the rest" type of attitude without substantial effort to outline the traditional wisdom (we're not even asking for specifics). Leadership isn't about who would win in a fight. Leadership is about providing guidence, encouragement, education, etc... It is about vision not viciousness. Tanglang was once born of an idea. It is now dying of idea as well. We need not to allow that to happen if only if we all work together and really promote traditional wisdom. In this date and age, it takes a huge amount of conviction, courage and commitment. JKDization of PM can survive just by living off the negative energy and secrecy of traditional Tanglang community.

<<<They do, in their efforts, follow much the same tactic as originally was done by by the Chinese government's modern Wu-Shu on the mainland; that is to redefine and use ONLY perjorative terms to define the techniques of traditional Tanglang, then use ONLY positive terms to define their own and ultimately to replace traditional Tanglang:

For example:

The traditional use of the Siu Deng San, (a rasied heel stance used in Meihua, HK Tanglang and called the Kay Lin Bo by many 7* practitioners on the mainland) is referred to by JKD Tanglang practitioners as (I quote), "the old, hard style, external Tanglang" and the stance used by them as the (quote) "soft style, internal, more advanced way of doing Tanglang".

Notice the wording of the analysis. JKD Tanglang will never give that the Siu Deng San gives great mobility nor that it is a part of a larger robust stance/ step variety available to the traditional practitioner. It is, in its intent, an attempt to invalidate the traditional approach altogether.>>>

Speaking of Xiao DengShan, or Xiao Shi, I believe it is almost the single most important stance in PM arsenal as well as its history. The variants of this stance is almost like a living story book on the development of PM. Incidently, the Yuhuan Bu, which is made up of the Xiao Shi, is in my mind most important to apprehend the heart and soul of forms such as Luanjie and Bazhou.

<<<There are many other ideas I could present but this is the approach used by this group whenever discussing technique, style or tactic. They may draw from a variety of sources for their "Tanglang" (Japanese, Chinese, Western Boxing), but their presenting of their approach will be the same. In all cases they will either redefine traditional terms, (such as hard, soft, internal, external), to match their intent instead of simply presenting that they have innovated new, and perhaps even very effective, techniques that depart from traditional Tanglang.>>>

I think drawing comparison is one thing. Assuming foreign conventions, adopting innovations or redefining traditional terms is quite another thing. Thanks for pointing that out.

<<<Hence my drawing sharp distinctions between what is and is not traditional Tanglang and the definition of Chinese terms. Also why I hold to divisions and families and branches within the art we practice. They serve a greater purpose than giving someone "legitimacy" or denying it to someone else. They preserve the art we practice.>>>

I understand and agreed with you. :)

<<<I believe that it is the man and his skill that makes his Tanglang worthwhile, regardless of whatever awarded level of achievement or piece of paper he may or may not possess. But I also believe that there is such a thing as definable Tanglang and that is to be guarded and valued.>>>

Agreed

<<<I do not care if someone else mixes their Tanglang with other arts. It is their martial path and they must walk it. But one should cite sources truthfully, like an honorable traveller and researcher. If one is an innovator and one's skill is good (and he can pass that on), then the art will survive and take its place among all others, if not, then it will be over.

Anyway, that's not well organized but it sort of defines the nature of JKD Tanglang as I have encountered them.>>>

I think you have done an excellent job in posting quite an educational post. I appreciate the input a lot. Thank you.

Warm regards

Mantis108

[Glimmer]

Interesting thread - I'm sure Tang Lang is not alone in being an art that has been influenced by MMA or Jeet Kune Do.

Also, I find it slightly ironic that JKD (which includes elements of southern tong long as well as Wing Chun) should then influence northern Tang Lang kung-fu:)

[MantisifuFW]

Glimmer,

It should not be surprising considering the philosophy behind JKD. It is a thought process that actually offers an easier way, egocentrically, than traditional martial arts because one becomes the ultimate shopper; taking what you want and feeling totally justified in leaving the rest. You don't have to undergo the period of beginner, journeyman, master, under the guidence of a teacher who you must believe knows more than you and who's guidence you must accept. It is very 60's and then again very "Sting" ala "history can teach us nothing".

Bruce Lee was heavily influenced by existentialism and Krishnamurti, philosophies that stress the primacy of the "man who creates himself". It crowns everybody king of their own world and says they must create their own art. Hence the JKD school was, in its final sence, a process where one progressed through boxing, wrestling, judo, jun fan and other arts to arrive at what works for one's self.

However, this has little or nothing to do with Gongfu. Gongfu is like classical guitar where one trains again and again in basics, transistions, sensitivity to degrees of force, straight timing and syncopation until one can play classical guitar and then...you are ready to play blues, jazz, rock or anything. In Gongfu this is true because your body is ready.

Today's JKD mantis, however, is mostly the product of a couple of people's journey and the art they created in the process. Otherwise it is most often the product of people attempting to fill in the gaps in their training. Then again, knowing the most popular folks in JKD mantis, their art was the result of the same search to fill in gaps that then became institutionalized.

Anyway, I believe that classical mantis folks need to be aware that it is around and the thought process behind it.

Hope it helps,

Steve Cottrell

[mantis108]

I agreed with your adeptly put perspective on the matter, Sifu Cottrell. I believe what you touched on is really a bigger issue (cultural) as well.

Before I go further, I would like to present a link to an article by a Taiwanese martial artists, Zhou Bao Fu:

http://www.kungfuloung.com.tw/booka.htm

It is a very well written article about PM's spirit of exercise. It covers what is praying mantis pugilism and the proper attitude towards the practice. I don't think it is anything new (nothing that we haven't discussed on many mantis forums already) but the way that the article is put together really struck a cord. I will try to do a summary on it when I have more time if others are interested about it.

With that in mind and in the spirit of that article, I will also present some thing I wrote on the main Kung Fu Board here on the KFO.

<<<Mantis108 wrote:

Kung Fu and BJJ
I agreed with SevenStar. If we think in terms of Attribute Cross Training, there are more benefits than harm in introducing BJJ to Kung Fu training. I believe a lot of negative opinions were formed by UFC and NHB type of promotional events. But put those negativities aside, there are much lessons to be had IMHO. BJJ much like practical Kung Fu (not the modern wushu dance fest) do emphasis on the basics. The most important basic in BJJ is the understanding of how the positions work, the hiarchy of positions and how to maintain the superior position. Then you add in the attacks be it strikes or submissions. This is similar to kung fu, from a praying mantis stylist perspective, which stresses on understanding the relationship between good stancework (the way to generate power) and footwork (the tool to get you into effective range/position) plus working the gates (range and positions). Then you can apply your style specific combinations both strikes and/or submissions. It is futile to try to do a straight armbar if one can't even pull a descent guard. It is also meaningless to try to do kung fu combinations when one can't even dominate a desired gate.

As long as your Kung Fu style works with takedown and such things, it is worthwhile looking into BJJ or vale tudo (sp?).

As a praying mantis kung fu practitioner who enjoys working and learning from others regardless of styles, I honestly don't see the downside of this type of cross training. May be it just would eat up some of the training time for the Kung Fu curriculum but if it is integrated thoughtfully, that shouldn't happen nor matter. Besides, in most northern Kung Fu, the ground positions and stuff are already there. The sad truth is that most styles had taken those moves as showmanship other than its practicality. Now most CMA styles wouldn't understand how to work them in ground fighting situations which is a big shame.

Personally, I training with my students in both sparring and rolling (not too much of rolling at this point but we are working on it). I have people who have done mixed martial arts and Jitjutsu that would love to training our Mantis Kung Fu as well (mostly they like the hand speed and the beauty of the combinations). So it is a two way street as far as I am concerned.

Mantis108>>>

Does adding the attribute of a ground fighter (or any other art) to Mantis, which is primarily a striking and stand up grappling art, in fact changes the Mantis art? Would this means Mantis is not a viable pugilistic arts in modern times? What changes if any has to be made in the training structure(s) or methodology? Does that mean we are following the JKD route? What is the difference? These are just some of the questions that I am sure a few people, including myself, are monitoring closely.

I intend to explore on these issues later.

Mantis108

[Ren Blade]

I think this article can add food for thought for this whole Jeet Kune Do issue. The article mentions Wing Chun alot, but what Hawkins talks about, I feel can be applicable to Praying Mantis and any and all traditional styles.

http://www.cfw2.com/article.asp?s=cfw&content_id=103

[mantis108]

Thank you very much for the link, Ren Blade. It is a very interesting article.

I read though it quickly once. My impression of it is that he is after "Bruce Lee the legend". I guess in a sense it is like an argumement of "if Christianity is really the religious salvation, then the Jeudaism institution or all other religions would have disappeared entirely 2000 some years later at present time." (my apologies to the religiously inclined). We all know that in reality things don't work that way. Same as BJJ claimed to be the one and only truth by many people but now it is an equal playing field as people study it more and more. We all fear the unknown and how it would change us.

In traditional mantis, or Wing Chun for that matter, there are manuscripts based on actual practice that gives the system(s) a shape, a blue print or a voice if you will. This is an important measure that would ensure the survival of the identity of the system. Forms have similar function. It is one of the most articulate tools about all things concerning the system/style at least from a TCMA perspective.

Granted JKD, NHB, and MMA movement is relatively new, we can not ignore the fact that TCMA has been arround for centuries. Within that time, tens if not hundreds of systems and styles were born or deceased. The moral is that TCMA survived for a reason and it's more than just because it is a viable self defense skill or fighting sports pass time. JKD was at a infane stage when Bruce died. It already displayed much of the similar treads as its mother, TCMA. Only though, people believed it as a grown up and that it is nothing like its parent. So, IMHO it is pretty much a lost art. It would not be fair to critic on it.

Mantis on the other hand is very different. It is a full grown art. It is like an extremely old tree that the branches created a foliage that might even be hazardous to the root's health. This is why we have to be on our toes to make sure the tree will stay healthy.

The general attitude of TCMA pratitioners today is that it needed not to be challenged since time is the best witness of the effectiveness of the art(s). It is a given and a status that based on past or dead legends. That's just plain passive. The reality, as it always has been, is that challenge is the normal. It is nature's way to trim the tree so that the tree can do its part within the "grand design". That is active like it or not. Yes, JKD, NHB, MMA and whatever that may follow in reality will keep on challenging TCMA which includes Mantis. If only we are proactive just like our legendary founder Wang Lang was, we would deem studying ground fighting or whatever attribute as an integral of shapening our skills. We can reach out meet them at their own arena and prove our art with sweat and blood (hopefully little of that) rather than past legends/stories, dead ideas and hot air. Only then can we throw the challenge back to those folks to understand that TCMA and particularly Mantis is a force to reckon with. The idea is simple - Mantis will and can adapt at all range but first it must study the uncharted territories (pun intended). This will not and need not be done at the expense of tradition unlike JKD.

Mantis108

[ninjaboy]

sifu cottrell!!!

i wish i was enjoying the warmth of texas right now!

in your second post on this thread you offer a quote but offered no author to the quote. may i indulge you to refer the source of these words?

sincerely,
neil

[ninjaboy]

sorry...the quote you posted is here:

The traditional use of the Siu Deng San, (a rasied heel stance used in Meihua, HK Tanglang and called the Kay Lin Bo by many 7* practitioners on the mainland) is referred to by JKD Tanglang practitioners as (I quote), "the old, hard style, external Tanglang" and the stance used by them as the (quote) "soft style, internal, more advanced way of doing Tanglang".

[MantisifuFW]

Sifu Neil,

As always great to hear from you! How is it is sunny Shanghai? Wait till summer, 99degrees and 100%humidity it makes up for the winter LOL!

Contact me off list and I would be happy to discuss.

Let me know how your training is going.
Steve Cottrell

[RAYNYSC]

Looks to me like your knowledge in JKD is very limited there Mr. Cottrell. Now as for jkdmantis what the hell is that? where did it come from? Who's teaches it better yet who's it's Founder? You seem to know alot by the statements you've made. Yet you really haven't said much about it if you know what I mean...:D