Purity of Style

[mantis108]

There seems to be a debate brewing about the purity of style. I would like to share some thoughts I have about it as it relates to Mantis system.

First of all, I would like to repost Sifu Cottrell's post:


Divisions of Sets
GermanMantis,

As you have stated in previous posts, Hong Kong mantis has the distinction of being a part of the Qingwu curriculum. As such, many instructors of Hong Kong lineage can and do teach the Qingwu sets and their Luo Guangyu Tanglang sets. Others, observing that these were not originally a part of Tanglang, have dropped those sets since those instructors left the Qingwu organization. Lee Kam Wing, as I understand it, remains a part of the Qingwu and apparently chooses to keep those sets.

The distinction is often drawn here in the Americas between instructors who teach the Qingwu sets and those who do not. The way I understand it, those HK Tanglang practitioners who do not teach Qingwu sets feel that they are more "pure" in their Tanglang. Those HK Tanglang practitioners who include the Qingwu sets feel that they are their heritage and that it gives great training in fundamentals.

However, when I was on the mainland I found that instructors drew a further distinction, between those sets which were created by Luo Guangyu or brought into Seven Star by him and those sets which were a part of Tanglang as it existed in Yantai or Qingdao. There, it is considered more pure not to have the sets associated with Luo Guangyu's development and to remain with those associated with Yang Weixin or Lin Jingshan.

Ultimately, to me, which traditional series of sets one uses is of secondary importance to the principles, tactics and techniques that make up one's Tanglang. It is how one uses the art that is of primary importance. (Of course, I say this as I carefully research the history, techniques, variations and applications of the WHF Northern Praying Mantis sets I use!)

Hope it helps,

Steve Cottrell

I totally agreed with Sifu Cottrell's observations.

Before we get into the deeper level of discussion, I believe it is more productive to look at what is the main issue behind Mantis and Jingwu.

The Jingwu spirit of openess and such was frankly not generally accepted at its early stage by most traditional masters. There were still some great support though. It is through time and presistance by the organization that the idea began to spread. The fact that Jingwu took hold in Shanghai is a reflection of Shaghai's unique situation. It was a place where forign powers (English, French, Japan, etc...) established themselves as they set food on Chinese soil. This was a metropolitan environment which is echoed by Hong Kong. People there were more open to new ideas relative to places through out China.

Jingwu harmassed some of the best talents and the brightest minds. They came up with a curriculum of 10 forms that reflects the vibrant, dynamic and unique nature of TCMA. Instructors at Jingwu had to study the curriculum in order for the appointment to the position of educating the public about the great heritages of TCMA to materialize.

People who don't work with Jingwu would think that what's the big deal? Our styles have been around for ages way before and it still works fine. We better not let some new ideas of outside source to mess up what we have. That was then. Now it is still the same.

The idea of Jingwu IMHO was to unify the TCMA communtiy and to speak with one voice through the art which in my mind is an intelligent languge of combative form/art. To some, the rejection bascially comes from the fear of losing the arts identity and being assimilated. To others, it is hurtful to admit that embracing new ideas (including learning the Jingwu curriculum) means that they are not the all knowing beings as they thought they were.

So the best defense is "PURITY OF STYLE". It is the gold plated armour of pride, the shield of ignorance, and the excalibur of vengeance and envy. Not to mention it is a hot bed of elitism. Having said that there is a fine line between identifying a pure style and capitalizing on the purity of style.

Capitalizing on the purity of the style can going both ways. It could have a positive benefit as well as a negative effect.

More to come...

Mantis108

[German Bai Lung]

Originally posted by mantis108


So the best defense is "PURITY OF STYLE". It is the gold plated armour of pride, the shield of ignorance, and the excalibur of vengeance and envy. Not to mention it is a hot bed of elitism.

Mantis108

Very well said! I really looking forward to read more ...

May I add some thought?
I am more than curious if there is only ONE style, only one lineage, only one master who doesn´t add, change or seperate forms or techniques! Always believing to do so for the benefit of the style!

[MantisifuFW]

Mantis 108,

Beautifully written historical perspective and analysis! (By the way everybody, Sifu Hui has written another article for the next Mantis Quarterly!)

I agree with your analysis of the negative aspects of "purity" of style. This same attitude also goes to the heart of much research that is done today in Tanglang. Far too much of it becomes a search for "anything that makes our group appear to be the most legitimate, authentic, original, best..." instead of objective and stringent analysis. The only way that the community can come together is when research changes from the search for justification of a particular school into fair and impartial inquiry that all can accept because of its high standards.

There is such a thing as definable authentic Tanglang. It can be traced through teachers and centuries, modified by each, some in small ways and in large ways by others. Yet it always remains Tanglang in its theory, technique and boxing art and it should be preserved.

I have long ago tired of the attempts by some teachers in the Tanglang community to delegitimize others to advance themselves. It never works anyway. One advances through exhibiting excellence in technique, training proficient disciples, demonstrating mastery of Tanglang's theory and history.

Hope my rant helps,

Steve Cottrell

[mantis108]

First and foremost, I couldn't agree more with Sifu Cottrell's statement.


Ultimately, to me, which traditional series of sets one uses is of secondary importance to the principles, tactics and techniques that make up one's Tanglang. It is how one uses the art that is of primary importance. (Of course, I say this as I carefully research the history, techniques, variations and applications of the WHF Northern Praying Mantis sets I use!)

Hope it helps,

Steve Cottrell

Systems and/or style to me is an intelliegent language of combative form. Intelliegent means how well are we as individuals communicate as well as interact with our environment namely the combat. The expression which is the language is dictated but not limited by the mind-body continuum. We are or at least the majority of us, excluding the may be 5% natural talents and 5% untrainable, simply what we train.

Lineage is the direct and intimate experience with the individual(s) who instruct, practice, and develope the language. In other words, lineage is a DIALECT. It is unique, dynamic and local. It is always changing; hence, it is always ALIVE.

Those who speak the Hong Kong dialect understand that it is a Chinese language based dialect of Guangdong province (City of Guangdong to be precise). It has since developed it's uniqueness by absorbing usage of English words, experssions, etc. It also has embraced American (Hollywood to be precise), Japenese(comics culture to be precise) pop culture, etc... Not to mention culinary culture (I am pretty hungry now ;) ). This is the dialect that puts the once barren island on the map of the world!

We can draw a similar parallel with mantis and to be precise 7 Stars GM Luo Guangyu's and TJPM GM Chiu Chuk Kai's mantis. There are common links between these two Grandmasters' Mantis. The obvious being both are superb Mantis exponents and both had fought putting their lives and careers on the line. They also worked in the Jingwu organzation. Both absorbed the Jingwu curriculum into their own curriculum. Both one way or the other adopted the same 12 key words that is reminiscent of Eagle Claw's key words ( THIS IS THE MAJOR ONE). BTW, Eagle Claws is another popular CMA from Shangdong. We see the eagle claw used in GM LGY's lineages as a further development. GM Chiu went on with his own ideas and basically left the forms alone.

Once upon a time in China, people would build momuements on main roads known as "Jing Jie Pai Fang" for decorations of loyalty, chastity, honors, etc.. It is only supposed to be a reminder of great virtues to the people . As the admirers gathers around the momuements, it becomes an obstacle blocking the path. In Kung Fu, the "purity of style" is the "Jing Jie Pai Fang". The sad thing is there is always a tragic human cost (happiness, youth/time, or personal growth) to the Jing Jie Pai Fang. Sometimes such decoration is but a moral shackle of freedom of expression in Kung Fu. It has its time and place. We can look at purity of style as the source of inspiration but we have to beware that it could become an obstacle on our path if we admire it too much.

We have seen 2 Grandmasters who bathed but not drown in the source of inspiration [re: purity of style]. I think we should all swimming in the spring rather than drowning ourselves with the deep dive.

Mantis108

[Mika]

It's not my place to say anything, but in many ways Wang Rui Xuan is right.

But. Theory sometimes comes from application and vice versa. If a given technique does not work quite as effectively with one teacher as it does with the next, an examination of the processes involved would be a wise idea.

And I am thinking of a real life situation now: a son of a Grandmaster from an off-shoot branch once argued with a Master student of another branch over how to execute a certain block. They just couldn't agree on this, so both theories had to be put to the test. The son ended up with a bloody nose.
Now, there probably were other factors impacting this result, but the theoretical point remains.

This, by the way, is not a comment concerning Tong Long in any way as I know nothing of the history of the art. I am merely offering another point of view.

But like I said, Wang Rui Xian makes a lot of sense.

Unity! :)

//mika

[mantis108]

Thank you very much for all of the great inputs. Lots of great points being make.

Hi Mika,

All thoughts and comments related to the subject are welcome. It doesn't matter whether you are a mantis stylist or not. Thank you for give an interesting example as well.

Warm regards

Mantis108