Real traditional Kung Fu Please define if Possible

[mantis7]

This is not an attack on Hungfutkune! You just gave me another inspirational idea to speak on..

__________________________________________________ __
I also have a great amount of respect for as you called it "this Shanghai group", because I have met them, and thier main goal is to promote real TRADITIONAL kung fu. They are a very friendly bunch of people that make everybody that visits them feel welcome. That's not to say that non-
__________________________________________________ __
The idea of what is traditional is very abstract in nature. Wl created a system but during his time it would not have been considered tradtional but a moden hybrid mutation....

Now what defines traditional now?

Does the system have to be passed down through 10 generation or just 2 to become traditional?

Once a system is passed down from teacher to student it becomes a tradition reguardless of effectiveness.

Now if you are refering to effective martial technique then I understand... or if you mean martial technique that actually works that has been passed down through the generation then I understand that as well...

but if you are refering to martial arts, family, clan or deviation that only you deem to be traditional that has been passed down through a proper lineage then thats bull.

A student can learn mantis but may not posses ever single last form of the family but may have the core and surpass many in skill. This student can still pass on what he knows and create a effective martial artist and then in turn the student can pass it on to his students. This may be a streemlined version of the system but doest it make it any less of a mantis system since it contain the core aspects?

So I ask please, if you could, define what you are refering to as real TRADITIONAL Kung Fu.....

[Hungfutkune]

Mantis 7,

You make some good points in your post. I will try to the best of my limited knowledge to answer what Traditional Kung Fu means to me. Let me say first and foremost this is only my opinion, and if my opinion was combined with a dollar I might be able to buy a chocolate bar.

I have had the oppurtunity to train with Sifus that taught traditional kung fu and others who taught non traditional martial arts and I have always fovoured the ones that taught a more traditional method.

Traditional could be combined with not only learning the martial art but it was also learning more about oneself. When I was younger with no martial arts training I had the tendency to get into fights to prove myself. When I studied non traditional styles, I found the need to prove my self in fighting situations even more. When studying a traditional style I didn't feel the need to prove anything to anybody!

I came across a Traditional Kung Fu sifu that I wanted to train with and at the begining of the training I was frustrated that I wasn't learning enough. My sifu would remind me to be patient. I remember his words as if it was yesterday "First learn patience, then humility and then if your lucky you will learn Kung Fu". I spent endless hours doing horse stance training and learning the proper way of doing our salute. What I eventually noticed in traditional Kung Fu was that every move had a reason. The salute which is taught in many different schools was more than a flamboyant way of saying "Hello, let's get to it". It actually became a block, arm break and an attack. There were even moves in our horse stance training that were used as blocks and breaks.

In more non traditional schools that I have noticed, they spend the time to learn the forms but never learn to use them in a sparring or fight situation. These schools would train in the forms but when they started sparring they would revert to something that was more similar to Kick boxing or boxing. In the traditional schools that I trained in - when we sparred we could only use the moves out of our forms!

I also noticed that in non traditional styles, more class time was spent on conditioning and less on technique. Jumping Jacks , push ups, situps, running etc. Yes conditioning is an important part of marial arts, but those type of exercises are just as effective when you are on your own, before class. During class I would rather spend my precious time in class learning techniques, and If I was going to get conditioned, it would be through doing forms and techniques.

I guess what I'm trying to say the most important thing to traditional training is learn the forms and then learn how to use them in a self defense manner without reverting to a kickboxing or other style of fighting.

There are other things that I find make a traditional school. In the modern world so much emphasis is put on fighting when learning kung fu, and though I agree that Fighting and defending yourself is a major part of Kung Fu there are other aspects that are nearly as important to a full kung Fu system. The cultivation of Chi, Acupressure, Herbology, bone setting, Lion Dance and certain rules of respect in the kung fu world. (ie: showing respect at a meal by not eating before your sifu does, having the proper documents and permission in place when visiting another sifu etc.)

These forms, techniques and procedures that have been passed down for hundreds of years for me to learn and eventually pass down to my students (when and if I am able to teach them) is what I consider as Traditional Kung Fu.

I some times get frustrated when I see schools say that they teach Traditional Kung Fu, because they teach forms, but they never learn to use those forms in a practical manner. But if it works for them and they enjoy doing what they do, then all the power to them.

Is Traditional Kung fu for everybody - definetely not. I have met some great fighters that aren't traditionalist and I don't look down at them. Many of them are great guys and good friends of mine and I would not want to meet any of them in a fight unless they were on my side.

Now that I've rambled on for way to long, I would like to invite you and everybody else (that wants to) to say what Traditional Kung Fu means to them. I am sure that not everybody will agree with me, but that's what creates healthy debate and sharing of knowledge.

Peace out!!

[Vash]

Good stuff, Hungfutkune.

[sayloc]

hungfutkune

It seems your opinion is my opinion also!

(except you did a much better job writhing it than I could have done)

[mantis7]

Very nice reply.

What you discribed was the social, cultural and familiar aspects and tradition of kung fu via chinese culture.

What I am refering to is actually what makes a system of combat i.e kung fu traditional...

what I mean is their any traditional diffrences between say Hong kong mantis, shandong mantis or yanti. Just because they are diffrent in certain aspect does it make them any less traditional.

If someone say in this day and age takes position of adding ditang boxing to seven star praying mantis and passes it down to the next generation does this make it any less traditional?

Does the art, since it is now a further mutation of the original mantis system, become a modern one or a traditional one that follows a diffrent influence.

is it still mantis or do we have something else.
The reason why I bring this up is because people argue who has the true traditional mantis system or that their art is real Kung fu..
What defines this REAL kung fu outside of social, cultural norms.

what movements, concepts, training methods that define this real gung fu..

if a system has these core concepts but was created inthis day and age is any less REAL?


Victor

[German Bai Lung]

Originally posted by mantis7

If someone say in this day and age takes position of adding ditang boxing to seven star praying mantis and passes it down to the next generation does this make it any less traditional?

Does the art, since it is now a further mutation of the original mantis system, become a modern one or a traditional one that follows a diffrent influence.

is it still mantis or do we have something else.
The reason why I bring this up is because people argue who has the true traditional mantis system or that their art is real Kung fu..
What defines this REAL kung fu outside of social, cultural norms.

Victor

I strongly believe that in the older days the teacher with KNOWLEDGE and a great martial experience sometimes changed and added their system. Nothing wrong about that. I also believe if the changes were bad, so the system did not continue ...

These days I got problems with teacher who thought their insight is great enough to change and to add their system freely. Without the permission of the still living Grandmaster.
That makes the system a NON-Traditional and in most times a bad one.
If some teacher spend his/her whole Life to learn and teach a Mantis System and gain skills and knowledge in a great way, okay then he will also be able to make "senseful" changes and "reasonable" adds.

But all the teachers training for some 10 years and teaching for just some 5-10 years should be keeping the system like they have learned it!

For me, it´s an important aspect of a traditional style!

But this includes NOT the way the system is teached!!!!!
E.G.: today we got different aspects in live. We don´t train to save our or our families life! Also we got new insights in training-science.
So I don´t like to be reduced to teacher who can´t be thinking for himself and must do everything like his teacher. i got my experience and I (e.g. personally I´m a physiotherapist with knowledge in this way) know things that maybe some other teacher can´t know.
What I´m trying to say ( ;) ) : If a teacher adds a different warm up, different sparring methods, different conditioning etc it didn´t mean he changed the art and style and make it a non traditional!
Not everything the older days proclaimed as healthy and perfect was that good! ;)

[blooming lotus]

Originally posted by Hungfutkune
Mantis 7,

You make some good points in your post.



Traditional could be combined with not only learning the martial art but it was also learning more about oneself. When I was younger with no martial arts training I had the tendency to get into fights to prove myself. When I studied non traditional styles, I found the need to prove my self in fighting situations even more. When studying a traditional style I didn't feel the need to prove anything to anybody!


Peace out!!

you make some good points yourself, but the way I interperate that comment is that the discipline and legacy factor are different and more pronounced in "traditional" form, styles and eastern fighting methods. When you consider that wushu has a traditional branch itself, yet no "spiritual" component persay, I think it 's easier to understand. Yah, I would call a 2 generation style traditional, but for myself, I just prefer oldschool.

cheers

[mantis7]

you both make excellent responses

but I also think that many teachers back in the days trained for ten years maybe and added more to the art or removed material that didnt suit their frame, skill, level and the like. The difrence between teachers of this day and age and those from the past is that they do not train with the same goals as old. This means that the teachers of old trained to perserve their lives and for war.

There are a few teachers that I have met that even though they have trained for only 20 or 30 years but still have made changes to their art that makes perfect linear and progressive change.

What I am getting at here could be summed up in this manner.
I know Mantis men who specialize in shuia jiao like throws and it shows in their mantis techniques. Yes I know mantis has many throwing techniques but they went a step further and researched and studied in great depths the shuia jiao system. They took what they thought was important and added it to their mantis.
Their mantis now has a distinct flavor diffrent from what they originally learned.

So the questions stands is this system still seven star or should it be named something else to glorify both systems?

Should this new hybrid still be considered traditional?

Is this now a ******* child of seven star ?

in my eyes the answers are yes,yes and no.

each person who studies a paticular system will, if they are well trained, take the system in a diffrent dirrection.
The sifu should want his student to make the art his own and if it means taking it in another direction as long as it is sensible and effective then so be it.

IF a sifu specializes in a specific skill or tech and it changes the dynamics of the art; I see that as a plus.

[Hungfutkune]

Mantis7

You makes some good points.
In my opinion if someone adds to a style, then this becomes a new or hybrid style.
For example if I were to learn 7 star and Hung Gar and combine the styles. Using the quick footwork with the arm movements of Hung Gar. Is that still considered traditional 7 Star? or traditional Hung Gar? In my opinion No. Is it less effective? My answer to this question is also no. It could be more or less effective, all according to the student.

What I don't like is when a school wich claims they teach and study Traditional Kung fu (of any style) forgets their teachings and reverts to Kickboxing style sparring matches. There are many examples of this on this forum! These schools cannot claim that they teach traditional kung fu if they cannot put it into practice when they fight!

I was at a tournament once and I fondly remember two contestants that were sparring. It was evident from their fighting skills what styles they were doing. (One happened to be Hung Gar and the other Wing Chun). They ended up wiping the floor of any other competitor there and when they ended up both making it to the finals they put on a great show for the audience (not caring which one won as they were both very good friends).

[WinterPalm]

I think this is a very good thread. For Traditional Kung Fu, the type my Sifu teaches me, he keeps it very old school but with his own flavour and style. He will show us several ways of defending or attacking, he has even said he may not prefer one method, but it is an aspect of the style and he keeps it in there. This is so people of all sorts of size and personality can pick up an art and find something to suit them. One problem I believe now being encountered in the JKD style, is that each teacher is teaching what he specifically has in mind, what he thinks will work, a lot of techniques don't work for some people, they just aren't comfortable. So, I think that maintaining a system is traditional and it carries the art as a whole, you learn a form, you cover all the techniques and refine them in practice, then, like Sifu says, you take them out of the form, and apply them or adapt them to a given situation. This way the form retains the movements and correct body posture and angles, yet allows for adaptation on one's own utilization in either sparring or self-defence scenarios. If you take stuff out because you don't agree with it, you may be throwing the baby out with the water!:)

[mantis7]

Excellent rply hung you made me contemplate my questions a bit further...

__________________________________________________ __
Quote:
In my opinion if someone adds to a style, then this becomes a new or hybrid style.
For example if I were to learn 7 star and Hung Gar and combine the styles.
__________________________________________________ __
If this was to occur then I would say that you are correct in saying that it is a hybrid system.

What I am refering to is if say hungar decides to add the seven star sweeping method to it system? Would it be a hybrid? or is it still hung gar with and added technique to the hungar core?

Same could be said for mantis.. say if mantis added the bridging hand from hung gar to increase its chin na locking abilities? would it be still be mantis? I am not speaking of combining two systems all together thus changing the core of the system.

A perfect example of this would be plum blossom mantis, 7 star and 8 step. they all have diffrent areas of expertise or diffrences but they all still have a core ideaology that keeps them in themantis family....

__________________________________________________ __
Quote
What I don't like is when a school wich claims they teach and study Traditional Kung fu (of any style) forgets their teachings and reverts to Kickboxing style sparring matches. There are many examples of this on this forum! These schools cannot claim that they teach traditional kung fu if they cannot put it into practice when they fight!
__________________________________________________ __
Ok this I will agree with you 100% there are to many schools that revert back to this methodology of combat and it is a shame. BUt then again it is kung fu stripped down to its bare bones and most simplistic state. Simple yet effect but not reprsntative of any given system or family.

Victor

[SPJ]

A tradition means to recognize the teacher and the teacher's teacher and ---.

Praying Mantis and Xing Yi are popular thruout northern China. Every boxer would add more or modify the forms and the methods of studying and practice. The branches or pai started to emerge. Sometimes to diversify, if the differences in methods and philosophies are big enough. Sometimes several branches decided to merge (Choy Li Fu).

Seven star Tang Lang are most popular.

Liu He Tang Lang is not as popular. How they different? One might ask.

Lin Si Tzun once singlehandedly defeated 20 people while holding his pants with the other hand. He was good at short boxing (Duan Zwei). He merge the basic principles of DZ with Mantis. He thus added to Liu He Tang Lang.

Liu He was created by Wei De Lin (We San). He used Mantis as the core. He added essences from Xing Yi, Tong Bei, Ba Gua, Tai Ji and Pi Gua. Thus the name is Liu He.

How different?

In general, LHTL is considered soft and internal. Thus the name Ruan Tang Lang.

Seven star is considered hard and called Yin Tang Lang.

I studied both and mix them with Tai Ji Chan Si.

I may create something very unique. But it may take more time to evolve. One day, it is unique enough. We may start another tradition.

My point is that your teachers or your students may learn and merge or learn and diversify.

You use the word tradition only to mean where your methods are from.

Chen Fa Ke-> Chen Zhou Kwei called his form Xin Jia. They added more circles to Chen Chan Xing Lao Jia.

Chen Yo Bang-> Chen Qin Ping-> called Xiao Jia.

They are all Chen Tai Ji. However, there are differences or some modifications.

I studied both. I merge them. I have notes of forms to practice both in a single format. I keep the differences and not repeat the same. I may call them Zhuong Jia.

However, my last name is not Chen.

My point is that do not waste time with semantics.

Know what you know and recognize your teachers and the methods you studied from.

That is a tradition you learn, carry on, diversify or merge.

Peace.