some confusion with the 12/36 keywords

[monkeyfoot]

I am going by the '31 keyword formula' as shown in LKWs seven star vol 1 book.

I understand most of the principles to a basic level but I am interested/confused about these particular ones.

1. Ou (Hook)
2. Tiao (intercept)
3. Chan (contact)

These 3 principles seem to be pretty much the same? What are the differences between each? Here is what I have concluded so far, so please correct me if I am way off.

Starting with Chan. This is the idea of contacting the incomming attack, so in theory Chan is represented in both Ou and Tiao.

Ou is usually combined with the skills of Lou (grapple) and Tsai (pluck). Ou catches, Lou secures, and tsai plucks the opponent downwards towards the attack.

Tiao seems almost the same as Ou. What is the difference. In the above example, Ou simply catches the attack and then it is the grappling hand that pulls down the opponent.
However, in my head, Tiao does both the catching and the pulling, therefore it can be used exclusively without needing to be combined with other principles.

Am I way off?!?!?
Give me your insight

craig

[onyomi]

The difference between gou and diao and is that gou focuses on the middle, ring and pinky fingers, while diao focuses on the thumb, index and middle fingers. Gou has more of a "sliding/leading" quality while diao has more of a pinching or grabbing quality. That being said, gou often immediately precedes diao. You can go for a gou and if you don't get it, circle around the opponent's arm into a diao, sliding down as far as the wrist, where you can pinch the joint between the wrist and hand.

Keep in mind that gou-lou-cai-gua and diao-jin-beng-da are in some ways like a parallel set and that in addition to their usual meanings of say, "beng" being a beng-chui, the characters can also have meanings in terms of strategy. Gou can help you set up a diao, lou is a means to jin, gou and lou give you cai--a method to "beng" or "break open" the enemy's defense, setting up for gua (taking the opponent down) or da (any strike).

[mantis108]

I am going by the '36 keyword formula' as shown in LKWs seven star vol 1 book.

Please bear in mind that different teachers have different interpretations. So I am sharing my opinion only.


I understand most of the principles to a basic level but I am interested/confused about these particular ones.

Yes, sometimes it might be counter productive to read different line's interpretations.

1. Ou (Hook)

Gou (ou) is a middle level (face/throat/chest) and relatively long distant intercepting move. Usually making contact with the wrist area of an incoming arm. The energy can be diao (ward off/casting aside), Zhan Nian (contact and adhere) and Chan (wrapping and reeling). It's more than meets the eyes.

2. Tiao (intercept)

Diao (tiao) is again middle level. It's intercept and ward off and casting aside usually casting the incoming forearm away and behind you from a high line to a low line. In some ways, it's almost like a slip in boxing term except that you have the hook hand preceeding; hence, Diao Jin (advancing).

3. Chan (contact)

Zhan (chan) is to make contact. It doesn't have to be a hook. It can be any part of the forearm upto the tip of the elbow (back of hand included). Usually Zhan would be use in conjunction with Nian (adhere) in order to listen your opponent through his bridge. Zhan can be delivered with a Gou (hook), but a Gou doesn't necessarily has to be Zhan.

These 3 principles seem to be pretty much the same? What are the differences between each? Here is what I have concluded so far, so please correct me if I am way off.

This is typically the idea of Bian Hua (variations and changes). Tanglang is holistic and organic in nature. When it's broken down into cellular level, the powress of it will be diminished as well. That's why these keywords should be drilled and emperically studied.


Starting with Chan. This is the idea of contacting the incomming attack, so in theory Chan is represented in both Ou and Tiao.

please see above.


Ou is usually combined with the skills of Lou (grapple) and Tsai (pluck). Ou catches, Lou secures, and tsai plucks the opponent downwards towards the attack.

Gou is mostly applied to the wrist area. Lou (grab) is working on the elbow and upper arm grid. Cai (pluck) can be used in conjunction with Gou and Lou. But it can also work as a single handed grab or snatch against an incoming arm (mid to high level). It requires very good hand eye coordination though.


Tiao seems almost the same as Ou. What is the difference. In the above example, Ou simply catches the attack and then it is the grappling hand that pulls down the opponent.
However, in my head, Tiao does both the catching and the pulling, therefore it can be used exclusively without needing to be combined with other principles.

Diao in Greater Meihwa Line is more of a grab/catch and pull to the side. You effectively change your opponent's line of attack. Gou is more of an interception and follow up with the other hand (Lou). His and your relative position and distance don't change much. Remember Tanglang (the insect) in nature uses both claws in conjunction. But we human can choose freely depending on the situation. That's where the art is, my friend. ;)


Am I way off?!?!?
Give me your insight

I think you are quite close IMHO. May be working with drill such as Zhan Nain and Feng Shou will help you see more. Just some thoughts to share.

Warm regards

Mantis108

[mooyingmantis]

Monkeyfoot,
I think of gou as a grasp that is maintained for a second or two, while diao merely hooks for a split second without the need to linger on the opponent's appendage.
I compare diao to redirecting parries. A movement similar to fencing with the foil, or parrying with the gim.

Richard A. Tolson

[monkeyfoot]

Hey people

Those were all very helpful comments. I just got back from my class and spent some time breaking apart certain techniques.


You effectively change your opponent's line of attack. Gou is more of an interception and follow up with the other hand (Lou)

This was the exact same thing that I concluded. Diao seems to be more of a redirection onto a different line, creating an opening to drive forward from.

Im going to experiment a bit more tomorrow in class.

cheers again people

craig

[LawClansman]

Monkeyfoot,
The principles are covered on my site also.
http://www.lawclansman.com/theory.html

Just more information to help. In LKW's book, it is my opinion that the expanded expression of the keywords reiterates the twelve. Principles are more alive than techniques and that is what should be kept in mind. Techniques give examples of principles but a single principle can give way to many techniques.

[Young Mantis]

Principles are more alive than techniques and that is what should be kept in mind. Techniques give examples of principles but a single principle can give way to many techniques.

Sifu Albright,

I would disagree with this statement. Principles are academic, techniques are practical. The Keywords are used to identify and organize the techniques in the system. They are expanded upon to construct strategy and tactics. But the techniques are most alive. Every different opponent offers a different variation in response either because of height, reach, distance, timing. Techniques are countless while the keyword principles for most of the Tong Long community number 12. Even with the variations on these keywords, there are more often similarities than differences. But each branch of Tong Long expresses these principles with their own distinct flavor. The principles can be the same but the techniques are different. Over the course of the history of Tong Long, more variations, modifications, evolution of techniques has occurred than the principles. It must be if we are truly adapting as martial artists to our opponents.

Vance Young

[DBAC]

I think Sifu Albright hit the nail on the head.

You can not look at a single technique and expect it to represent a principle.

The common technique often referred to as Au (Ou) demonstrates all 3 of those principles.

Your opponent does a straight punch aimed at your head. In response you make contact and intercept his strike by hooking his wrist and snap him forward.

The Gim (Jim) is demonstrated once you make contact with your opponent.
The Dieu (Dil) is demonstrated by your intent to intercept his movement.
The Au (Ou) is demonstrated by the actions of your hand on your opponents wrist.

Also, as I explain to new students the differences in grabbing (grasping) and hooking, the actions are very much true to the meanings. Lou (grasp) is a solid, active grab on an opponent requiring you to squeeze, whereas Au (hook) is a hook using the hand, most common around the wrist. The hook doesn't require a person to squeeze in order to tighten the grip, but instead it is the opponents resistance that tightens the grip. You can associate this to chinese finger cuffs... The harder you pull, the tighter it gets.

Trying to get your head around the principles will take time. I'm not sure anyone here can tell you how to really understand them. Don't try and pin point their meaning, instead try and have an open mind and see how they define your techniques.

**Disclaimer**
My views are that of my personal experiences and training. Each lineage and every person has slight variations that explain these types of things. So you may take this information as simple advise, but in the end decide for yourself how you would describe such things.

BTW, I apologize for my romanization :)

[bungbukuen]

Young Mantis – I agree with your comment in part that “principles are academic and techniques applied”. Taking that one step further one might say that everything on this board is academic, including the talking of techniques. Something applied would actually involve physical training.

But later on you seemed to talk about the same thing LawClansman wrote about earlier. In essence agreeing upon the idea that principles are fewer and techniques are many. In fact if I am not mistaken I think that was the driving point of LawClansman’s post – that a single principle can represent one and/or many different possible techniques.

IMO, principles are a nice way of chunking larger pieces of information into something a little more digestible. In this regards adding on an additional 19 princples as LKW did seems to defeat the notion of "chunking".

BBK

[mantis108]

Personally, there's little doubt that praying mantis' keywords have something to do with the Shaolin Authentic which in my mind is written from a mystic perspective. That's the classical approach.

When I look at LKW's keywords, it's more of an exploration of techniques more so than a keyword explanation to me. BTW, I would say it's actually 32 techniques altogether. Teng-Nuo (bounce in the book) could be broken off as 2 techniques IMHO. I also see these 31 keywords in his book as a guide to get acquinted with the techniques found in the forms in his book series. To that end, it is a great design and a well thought out book.

IMHO this book isn't about classical Tanglang theories per se. It's more of a personal expression and an unique neo-classical approach to Tanglang especially that of HK 7 Star line somewhat reminiscent of the writtings of WHF. I am not saying that LKW borrowed WHF's material. I am just saying that I would categorize their work as neo-classics of Tanglang since personal interpretations are involved.

Just some thoughts

Mantis108

[LawClansman]

Well thought out comments across the board,
I would like to expound on my post just a bit. It is the academic nature of the martial arts that separate them from one another and is devised to advance fighting to an art form.

In my teachings, techniques have a short life. That is to say after the technique is done, it is done. You must now continue with something else or repeat said technique. However, you may continue with many techniques all of which are goverened by a single principle. The principle still lives on when the technique is over.

The techniques are the practical aspect to be sure. But the grouping of the techniques using the principle as guidelines, serves as order to the otherwise chaotic/random number of techniques. This is also the purpose of forms. To create order in the limitless number of techniques at your disposal.

[mantis108]

Hi Sifu Albright and All,

Very well put indeed, my friend. Establishing order out of chaos is what a system or art is about.

IMHO the reason to have a theory is to clearly demonstrate Tanglang techniques and its approach is not merely heuristics, rule of thumbs, old wives' tales, and/or anecdotal evidences (check out Game theorum in the book - 5 Golden Rules of Mathematics). Theory is the back bone of a system. When it comes to system or style, no perminant structure of effective teaching can be established without it.

from a Greater Meiwha line perspective, the 12 Keywords principle points to the objective goal that we try to achieve within the stylistic framework set forth by the princple. All 12 converge to a single objective that is to dispatch the opponent skillfully in the shortest time possible. This prime directive (the 12 keywords) is holistic in nature. In my mind that is the Tanglang path.

The question of why is it 12? Is the number randomly picked or it is just a convention? I can say that it's most definitely not a random number and it has roots in classic Chinese studies. However, it's beyond the scope of this thread. So I would leave that for now.

Warm regards

Robert

[Three Harmonies]

Robert
Interesting that you ask "why 12?"! Hu Laoshi has stated that though in traditional chuan pu there are certainly 12 keywords (16 in LHTL), that in fact there are well over 20 keywords he considers "key" or important. He is constantly reminding me to not get too fixed on any certain one principle because they all intertwine with each other, one leading to another, opening an avenue for yet one more. Though the words may be very simple, the concepts/theories/ideologies behind them are as endless as 10,000 miles of space (my **** poor attempt at Chinese mystical explanation :o ).
So while our lineage certainly has the classic 12 keywords, and 16 keywords in Liuhe, all in all the words work for all Mantis styles (and many non-mantid systems as well ;) ), and are many more than just 12.
CHeers
Jake :D

[mantis108]

Hi Jake,

Thanks for the input. For reference purposes here's a version of 16 Keywords (not sure if this is the 16 Keywords that you are referring to:

钩 (Gou), 搂 (Lou), 刁(Diao), 采(Cai)

崩(Beng), 砸 (Zha), 挂(Gua), 劈(Pi)

粘(Zhan), 黏(Nian), 贴(Tie), 靠(Kao)

闪(Zhan), 转(Zhuan), 腾(Teng), 挪 (Nuo)

Warm regards

Robert

[bungbukuen]

Originally posted by Mantis108
IMHO this book isn't about classical Tanglang theories per se. It's more of a personal expression and an unique neo-classical approach to Tanglang especially that of HK 7 Star line somewhat reminiscent of the writtings of WHF. I am not saying that LKW borrowed WHF's material. I am just saying that I would categorize their work as neo-classics of Tanglang since personal interpretations are involved.

Identifying WHF and LKW as neo-classcial interpretations of classical Tanglang is an interesting perspective.

LKWs 31 key words would be an exmaple of this.

WHFs departure from the classical written quan up approach to forms is another example.

I am interested to get your general thoughts Mantis108 on other areas, particularly in WHFs books, where you feel he has shifted to a more neo-classical framework. In a physical approach our line does seems to also have some uniuqe interpretations compared to other 7* families.

Thanks,
BBK

[Three Harmonies]

Robert
The 16 Keywords of Liuhe Tanglang as passed on to me from Hu laoshi:
(Apologies but my computer does not help in the hanzi dept. Perhaps you could help Robert??)
Guo (Hook)
Luo (Parry/Cover)
Cai (Pluck)
Kua (Suspend)
Zhan (Contact)
Nian (stick)
Bang (Bind)
Tie (ADhere)
Shan (Dodge)
Zuan (Turn)
Tang (Jump)
Nuo (Slide/Shift)
Kun (Bundle)
Feng (Seal)
Gun (Roll)
Lo (Leaking)

Where did your 16 words come from?
Thanks
Jake :cool:

[mantis108]

Hi BBK,

Thanks for the input. I believe many in the mantis community would have heard or read about WHF's work. He's properly one of the most if not the only prolific writers of our time. I am a fan of this interesting master. To be honest, I had collected his Tanglang series when I was young and that got me falling in love for northern praying mantis styles. Personally, it would be great to have his descendents to organize some kind of a celebration for this great mind of Tanglang.


Identifying WHF and LKW as neo-classcial interpretations of classical Tanglang is an interesting perspective.

Glad you find it interesting. :)


LKWs 31 key words would be an exmaple of this.

I agreed.


WHFs departure from the classical written quan up approach to forms is another example.

IMHO WHF didn't exactly departed from the classical style of Quanpu writing per se. In fact his 5 characters per move format and the standardized footwork-hand coordination stylus naming convention is in my mind an evidence of his exposure to Classical Tanglang Quanpu both found in Mainland Qixing and GML. The benefit of it is that it allows for easy referencing the moves. The Quanpu writings become demystified and generic. This is a good move in promoting Tanglang and moving it towards modern times. However, it is not totally without flaw IMHO. Some combinations would have to be broken down into individual moves; thus, might create an impression of mechanical and literal execution for the general readership. Now, of course, an adept from WHF's line would disgree and point to the contrary. Anyway, I prefer the poetic style of Classical Tanglang. But I do see the value of WHF's Quanpu; hence, I appreciate and enjoy his efforts very much also.


I am interested to get your general thoughts Mantis108 on other areas, particularly in WHFs books, where you feel he has shifted to a more neo-classical framework. In a physical approach our line does seems to also have some uniuqe interpretations compared to other 7* families.

WHF's writings impress me as very straight forward and honest. He is also quite an visionary. I remember translating one of his article for the Mantis Quarterly, in which he talked about Judo would become a giant power in combative arts. We now see the strength of Judo and it's revolutionary influence on BJJ (an evolution of Judo) that developed an earth shattering new paradigm for the combative sports. The science of hand to hand combat has reached a new summit because of Judo's Randori training methodology. Now WHF saw that a good 40 years ago (?). The world back then didn't think much of Judo let alone knowing the development of BJJ. At a time when the CMA community was prejudice against all combative arts, he called it as it is.

This is a man who did use his intellect and applied it to Kung Fu or vice versa. He didn't try to sell the audience regurgutated information on Classical teachings. Rather he objectively observes, analyze, and reduce both ancient and current information and data to draw conclusions as well as setting new standards. He poured new insights into what was fast becoming a status quo of Kung Fu most notably proliferation of forms. IMHO He also was innovative in identifying the stages of mantis training and the use of Ling forms (partnered sets) in LGY Qixing. Comparing this to most MA teachers of his time he was "a crane standing tall in a roosters' flock"

I hope this answers your questions. :)

Hi Jake,

I got the 16 keywords form the mainland Chinese mantis forum. I don't know which branch of mantis it is from other than that might be of LHTL. It seems your 16 is somewhat similar to it as well as the GML 12 keywords. If you like I could try to put the Chinese for your 16 keywords. Personally, I use the GML 12 keywords. So you use these 16 now?

Warm regards

Mantis108

[Three Harmonies]

I "use" any and all keywords that is found within my technique. So I guess one can say that I "use" well over 25 or 30.
Please do post the Chinese for the benefit of others. Dave Cater chose not to print the hanzi for the keywords in my article earlier this year on Liuhe and Hu laoshi, and I cannot do it on the computer, so I don't think many people have seen the proper hanzi.
As always your help is really appreciated.
Cheers
Jake :cool:

[mantis108]

Here's yours 16 words with the Chinese characters:

勾 (gou), 摟 (Lou), 採 (Cai), 掛 (Gua)

粘 (Zhan), 黏 (Nian), 幫 (Bang), 貼 (Tie)

閃 (Shan), 賺 (Zhuan), 騰 (Teng), 挪 (Nuo)

捆 (Kun), 封 (Feng), 滾 (Gun), 漏(Lou)

Correction:

"bang" would be "綁" instead.

Warm regards
Robert

[onyomi]

Just to be nitpicky, shouldn't "bang" be "綁" if it means "bind"?

[mantis108]

Oops... You are right. I think I over looked that one with GML convention.

My mistake, sorry about that, Jake.

Warm regards

Mantis108

[omarthefish]

I am going by the '31 keyword formula' as shown in LKWs seven star vol 1 book.

I understand most of the principles to a basic level but I am interested/confused about these particular ones.

1. Ou (Hook)
2. Tiao (intercept)
3. Chan (contact)

These 3 principles seem to be pretty much the same? What are the differences between each? Here is what I have concluded so far, so please correct me if I am way off.

Starting with Chan. This is the idea of contacting the incomming attack, so in theory Chan is represented in both Ou and Tiao.

Ou is usually combined with the skills of Lou (grapple) and Tsai (pluck). Ou catches, Lou secures, and tsai plucks the opponent downwards towards the attack.

Tiao seems almost the same as Ou. What is the difference. In the above example, Ou simply catches the attack and then it is the grappling hand that pulls down the opponent.
However, in my head, Tiao does both the catching and the pulling, therefore it can be used exclusively without needing to be combined with other principles.

Am I way off?!?!?
Give me your insight

craig

I know pretty much nothing about mantis but I speak Chinese pretty fluently and since some other posters have already provided the Mandarin terms it's pretty easy to explain at least how the words are different. They are quite different. Some have come on here and presented the ideas in a very mantis specific way talking about what body parts contact and so on but I think I can still add a bit by just pointing out how very different the meanings of the words are.

First, so I don't get confused. the standard Mandarin:

1. Ou (Hook) = gou
2. Tiao (intercept) = diao
3. Chan (contact) = zhan

Ou/gou - This generally really does mean to hook. The stereotypical mantis fist when used to hook onto someone's arm. I'm going to use a fishing analogy because it covers both gou/ou and tiao/diao. The act of the fish hook hooking into a fishes mouth is "gou". To use any hook shaped object, including a mantis fist, to hook somthing is called "gou".

Tiao/diao - "fishing" is called, in Chinese "diao yu" where "yu" is the fish and "diao" is the act of throwing the fish hook out there to see what happens. It has a connotation of baiting. Throw something out there to attact prey and see if they come. "Diao" is a trap. If the prey falls for the bait, if your "diao" is succesful, you can say that they "shang gou le", they "got on the hook" or "were hooked by your "diao".

Chan/zhan - This means simply to stick to something. It is, in taijiquan usually presented together with "nian" which more literally means "sticky". Zhan, in contrast, is more like the way a piece of celophane will "stick" to your hand from the static electricity. It just means maintaining light contact but has none of the mechanical connotation of hooking. It's like just putting your hand on someone and maintaining contact no matter how they move.

I hope all this helps.

Diao is problematic because "intercept" is a poor translation. "Intercept" already has a standard translation in Chinese as "Jie" or in Cantonese, "Jeet" as in "Jeet Kun Dao", same character.

[mantis108]

Hi Omerthefish,

Thanks for the input. I believe we have to bare in mind the context of Kung Fu volcabury has tendency to borrow meanings and also slang usage.


I know pretty much nothing about mantis but I speak Chinese pretty fluently and since some other posters have already provided the Mandarin terms it's pretty easy to explain at least how the words are different. They are quite different. Some have come on here and presented the ideas in a very mantis specific way talking about what body parts contact and so on but I think I can still add a bit by just pointing out how very different the meanings of the words are.

While Mandarin is the official langauge it's has limitations when it comes to local dialects and slangs. In fact, Mandarin has it own slangs that may not be compatable with other dialects such as Cantonese. Shandong has it's own dialect and slang just as Shanghai, Henan, Fujian, Guandong (Canton), etc. has its own. Sometime dialectic usage of words is employed. Couple with specific usage in a particular Kung Fu, the words become more esoteric in nature.


First, so I don't get confused. the standard Mandarin:

1. Ou (Hook) = gou
2. Tiao (intercept) = diao
3. Chan (contact) = zhan

Ou/gou - This generally really does mean to hook. The stereotypical mantis fist when used to hook onto someone's arm. I'm going to use a fishing analogy because it covers both gou/ou and tiao/diao. The act of the fish hook hooking into a fishes mouth is "gou". To use any hook shaped object, including a mantis fist, to hook somthing is called "gou".

鉤 - Gou/hook in full character is written with a "mouth" inside the radical on the right. the short hand form of Gou would use the 勾 (hook) radical on the right with the Gold radical as well.

刁 - Diao The character looks like the Tanglang claw. It also borrowed the meaning of another word that sounds similar but means toss aside/away. It has the meaning in Tanglang to intercept as well.

釣 - Diao (hooking as in fishing with a rod)
吊 - Diao (hanging or lift high and that left suspending/hanging)

This 2 words sounds almost the same but very different in meaning. The problem is that we see the latter is often used as the short hand form for the former.

釣魚 - Diao Yu as is fishing with a rod. But this is also a China Na move (shoulder lock) in the Mantis lingo.

Similar problem exsit with the word Bang.

幫 - Bang as in helping this is also a Shandong dialectic (specific to Laiyang and Haiyang area) use of describing the use of forearm hitting/shoving horizontally. This word is used in Liang Xuexiang's writing.

綁 - Bang as in binding. It's sometimes seen as having the hand radical other than the silk radical on the left. It is often seen replacing the character (helping). The Bang (with the hand raidcal) is primarily found in Cui Shou Shan's Quanpu which IMHO has a lot of typos. Cui seemed to have used a lot of short hand form to record his material.

膀 - Bang as in the upper limbs. Most of the Sevenstar's manuscript use this character instead.


Tiao/diao - "fishing" is called, in Chinese "diao yu" where "yu" is the fish and "diao" is the act of throwing the fish hook out there to see what happens. It has a connotation of baiting. Throw something out there to attact prey and see if they come. "Diao" is a trap. If the prey falls for the bait, if your "diao" is succesful, you can say that they "shang gou le", they "got on the hook" or "were hooked by your "diao".

Diao Yu is a Chin Na move in Mantis lingo. Also baiting is done usually with Dian Shou (dotting or spotting hand). So it won't be that generic.

Just some thought to share...

Regards

Mantis108

[omarthefish]

Sometimes you can really make too much of dialects.

That's a different Diao than I was talkking about but there is nothing slang or dialect specific about any of those characters or meanings other than the secondary meaning for "bang" in Shandong dialect. The others all mean the exact same thing in Mandarin.

[seung ga faat]

The keywords are an attempt to express that which at certain levels can't be express through word spoken or written. The keywords are point.
Use them as a starting point and you might find yourself limited by you level of understanding but, you understanding will grown and so, your expressions.
I suggest finding as much as you can in what you are or have learned and practice attack and defense using this knowledge. Change distance and timing, allowing for change and variation. Use the mind and visualization to help you with limitless possiblity.
________
medical marijuana dispensary (http://dispensaries.org/)
________
Uhwh warehouse (http://uhwh.com/)

[Three Harmonies]

Robert
Those be the ones! Thanks buddy!
Cheers
Jake :cool:

[mantis108]

I am glad that they matched your material. I am more than happy to be of service, my friend.

Warm regards

Robert

[Young Mantis]

Over the years I have read many articles about the keywords and seen many advertisements for seminars on the keywords. In fact, I would say the majority of all published Northern Praying Mantis articles in magazines such as Inside Kung Fu are about the keywords. They are definitely an integral part of our style although I think each school and each teacher puts a different emphasis on it. I believe to debate it is much like the question of which came first, the chicken or the egg.

Clearly, Sifu Albright and I agree on many things. We have both stated that there are more techniques than there are keywords and that the keywords are used to identify and organize the techniques of the style.

I believe where we differ is when and how much emphasis to place on them. Some schools teach the keywords early on, as their foundation. "Here are 12 keywords to our style. Memorize the words and understand what they mean. You will learn the techniques that can be grouped into these keywords."

We don't follow this approach. From early on, our students start practicing partner drills and application of the techniques. They practice the variations and are explained why the variations exist and why it would be logical or preferential to use one over another. After a student has been with the style long enough to have some understanding and an arsenal of techniques, we can begin discussing the keywords. At this point, the student is able to visualize the keywords based on all the techniques they have learned so far and associate them. But still, the keywords are more academic. I don't face my opponent and think, I am going to use the "ou" principle or the "gwa" principle. My techniques will depend on many factors: the size of my opponent, our distance, his timing, his actions or reactions. I will use strategy to lead the opponent into traps and locks but these are not governed by the keywords.

I find that many schools place a heavy emphasis on these keywords. That students devote so much time to memorizing what they mean and analyzing which techniques belong where. From my own training experience, I focused on the techniques. When and how to apply them against various sized opponents. In every class, we practice the techniques against everyone else in class in round robin fashion so that I practiced against many different body types. This was the emphasis of my training from my Sifu and with this understanding, I can identify each technique into a keyword if necessary but I did not have to spend time memorizing a list. This is why I say they are academic. They provide order and identification but do not govern how I fight. For sure they are part of the style, just not everyone views them the same way.

Vance Young

[bungbukuen]

Yong Mantis,

Any particular reason why you want to make it sound like the Law Clansman does not teach partner drills and applications to technqiues early on? You make them sound like a bunch of penicl pushers.


Posted by Young Mantis:
I believe to debate it is much like the question of which came first, the chicken or the egg.

Why do you seem so intent then on stating that you are in disagreement? This is the second time, but when I look to see what you are actually in disagreement with, either I cannot find anything, or it is a minutely irrelevant point, or as in this case it is not true.

Hope to get some clarification.
Thanks,

BBK

[Young Mantis]

BBK,

I did not ever claim that Sifu Albright does not teach applications nor partner drills. While I have not observed any of his classes, I am aware of his school's reputation for being able to fight. I noted that there are different approaches to teaching the keywords. I gave an observation of articles presented historically on Northern Praying Mantis and I offered the level or placement of emphasis of the keywords at our school.

I am not trying to express disagreement, only a different opinion. As I have stated, every school and every teacher will present the material differently. I never said one way is better than the other, just giving a different opinion than what seems to be the norm based on publicity. I wasn't aware presenting a different point of view was to be in disagreement. I did disagree in my initial post about what I thought was "more alive". I understand now that that in itself is based on point of view. I view the techniques to be ever changing and the principles the same so the techniques are "more alive". Sifu Albright presented that since the techniques come and go, the principles are more alive since new techniques can represent the same principles. This was the chicken and egg analogy. I don't believe debating to be disrespectful. Why else would we have these discussions on this forum?

If my post was found to be offensive by anyone, then I apologize for not making my intentions more clear. It was just my point of view.

Vance

[Young Mantis]

BBK,

Actually, upon further reflection of your post, even if I was to be in disagreement, why would this be questioned? Are we not allowed to disagree regardless of how minute a detail? Is this not what the forum is for? To learn from each other through debate and discussion? Again, to disagree does not equate to disrespect so I don't understand why you question my post to begin with. From the posts following mine, I learned from others pointing out that the differences are actually not great, only a different frame of reference and I further clarified that difference.

I gave a difference of opinion and you asked for clarification of my intent and suddenly I felt I had to justify my presenting of my Sifu's teaching method. If you would rather, I will just not post about the inner dynamics of my school anymore.

[mooyingmantis]

Young Mantis & Law Clansman,
I appreciated both of your statements! I learned much from both opinions and I am glad that each of you are willing to share and even possibly politely debate.
I didn't sense any disrespect from either of you. This speaks of both of your moral virtues.

Richard A. Tolson

[holymantis]

shows nobody is just tunnel vision too. keep up the debate guys. i love what most of you guys post.:D

roy

[bungbukuen]

Young Mantis,

No worries. I appreciate the clarification, and as I should have said earlier the healthy discussion.

Originally I just wasn’t clear on where you were coming from when you described your approach as being different to LawCansman. You described teaching partner drills, applications, and variations - in this context it sounded like you were saying they didnt. I was just checking.

Peace,
BBK

[tonglongtodei]

Interesting discussion going on here. I'm certainly not as astute and learned in the writing styles and histories of the keywords and such. My sifu has always been of the "yes, but can you do it" mentality so I guess I am somewhat the same. That being said however, we do discuss and learn the keywords and principles of the system.

As to the technique vs principle discussion I can see both points made here by both Young Mantis and Sifu Albright. I guess I would fall in the group Young Mantis spoke about who focus on the principles rather than the techniques. I actually do, when fighting, approach my opponent thinking of the principles rather than techniques. As I have seen the principles are more adaptable in my opinion. The idea of trying to fight governed by certain technqiues is foreign to me. I can think I want to really apply the ou principle or the gwa principle while fighting, but it could be applied to a myriad of situations or techniques. I have found that if I govern my fighting by the principles I can adapt the technique to meet each situation. If I govern my fighting by techniques I must have a technique, practiced to the point of muscle memory that effectively and accurately fits the situation, that happening in every possible situation of a fight seems impossible to me. However I dont believe my "family" is represented here and we tend to focus extensively on "feel" and letting the opponent guide me into the technique or attack that best fits the situation. I find that if I attempt to focus on technique when fighting there is too much room for forcing a technique when abandoning the technique with feel would be a much wiser course of action. Now this is more than likely due to my skill level, but I find it interested the different ways we all approach mantis fighting. Even within my own "family" there are those who focus on technique over principle or feel, while we focus on feel over tehcnique....not to say one is above or more important than the next, they must both exist in a perfect harmony to really express the heart of mantis fighting.

As to the principles being academic, I can agree. We do not sit and memorize the 12 keywords, in fact I would have to go look them up to be sure of placing them in the correct order if listing them. However we tend to teach partner drills and applications from the idea of the principles rather than techniques. For instance the ou lou choy drill can teach a technique that embodies the principles but it is not the principles of ou, lou, and choy (Guo, Luo, Cai). These can be applied to many, many different situations, and techniques while the drill can only be applied to a small number of attacks with a straight punch. We try to encourage each other to think of various ways to aply the principles rather than the techniques. Can that same drill be done against a kick or just a punch? A hook? Etc. However I will say again, we focus quite heavily (probably more so than any other family I have seen) on the soft aspects of the system most notably yielding, emptying, plucking, etc. We get a bit more taiji-ish in our approach to fighting than many do.

All of that to say I can see the point of the keywords being academic but only until you begin to explore the many possibilities of how you can actively use them in many, many different ways. I also understand how techniques are adaptable and mutable from on person to the next, but I think that is because of the principles behind them. You can change any technique to fit any scenario as long as you stay within the "guidlines" of the principles. The bottom line is, what defines mantis fighting, the techniques or the principles? That is a debate that has been going long before us and will continue long after us. I do find it interesting to hear these discussions however and see the differences within the mantis community.

Train Hard

[Michael Dasargo]

Hello all,

Albright Sifu and Vance Young, thank you both for your valuable insights. I definately agree that the principles are comatose without the technical expression, and that principles maintain the life and continuity of technical execution during spontaneous response.

Omarthefish

You bring up an excellent point. Without thorough experience of the culture, linguistics alone may lead to several tangents. Many of the traditionalists I know focus only 30-40% (estimate) on verbal transmission, and the remainder on experiential transmission of the art. So although many principles and techniques may be difficult to articulate in English, Polish, Italian, even Chinese...the art survives in the form of body language. Which brings up my question:

How early are the earliest quanpu, and how much deviation is there in the neo-classics? How much deviation is rooted in the evolution or illiteracy of the written language, accentual differences, and cultural implications? It may appear that written words may be beneficial yet limiting when cross referencing. Hence the importance of gathering in person to share TLQ experiences.

To productive posts,
M. Dasargo