Traditional 18 Forms

[tattooedmonk]

What are the traditional 18 forms taught within the 7* Preying Mantis System?

[Paul T England]

No sure, we have 80+....

Paul

[German Bai Lung]

Paul: and you believe they are all traditional? :o

[Paul T England]

Depneds what you mean by traditonal I guess....

[Three Harmonies]

80 + is a new one to me. With whom do you train?
Jake

PS If you are interested in the traditional 18 check out my site in the mantis section www.threeharmonies.com

[Tainan Mantis]

the traditional 18 check out my site in the mantis section www.threeharmonies.com


I only saw your mention of beng bu, luan jie, and ba zhou.

Didn't see the 18 forms.

[Three Harmonies]

Go to "styles" click on "Bei Tanglang"


The site is NOT easy to navigate. Hence me revamping the whole thing. Not sure when it will be done, but it will be much nicer!
Jake

[mantis108]

I think what he meant was 18 styles or rather the 18 families, which we have covered over and over again on these boards. Besides there really isn't anything that is formed by 18 forms unless of course it's yet another Shaolin Do gimmick. :D

Mantis108

[EarthDragon]

I think mantis108 is on the right track here.
I was going to correct the question with the answer of the 18 styles some versions of mantis is made up of...... not 18 forms taught, as many styles have thier own collection of forms and that number varies from family to family.

[No_Know]

Seven Star Praying Mantis book had a pink page or pages. On this was eighteen something. They included proper names. I took, at first them to be styles as I thought of styles. To me style in Kung-Fu meant form or forms based on a theme.

I realized later that they were what I might call techniques--a move or a few moves done with particular function in mind. Like the Karate type move where the fist whirls around the other and pulls to the side of the body while the actual noted part --the fist, goes up to make a block.

That's a technique. But it might be So-and-So's Style of block. And when all moves are secret, sort-of=thing, a technique Now-a-days was a Style back then. Only a few moves were known to be used. All others while vital to the Teacher or the System, only the dead and the next instructor of the System got to know those.

So I was of the understanding that Seven Star (at least one something called Seven-Star Praying Mantis (Seven Star Tanglang--Seven Star because the insect had seven spots on it, the seven splotches were in a pattern seeming to be a dipper of the Northern sky, or they were saying this is a great Kung-Fu (Undefeatable (a cultural thing))))incorporated seventeen techniques from Well established or formidable people or Kung-Fus...seventeen techniques framed by the theme of preying mantis characteristics--not necessarily physical.

Two I am also called Two--Ehr-Ni, Two-You. It can mean twice as good as you But also Second to you. Seven Star seventeen techniques might have been performed in such a way that the arms are close and strong and the hands grab such that that could resemble a praying mantis. And the footwork could have resembled monkies. If these creaturs were around at the naming period for this Kung-Fu composite or Mixed Martial Art, perhaps, then it might have been stylized or fancified-ish and sold as being the strength of the insect intensified and personified. All the while masking the actual individual techniques that were actually being used.

Some-such-perhaps-some-might-say-some-such.

I No_Know

[tattooedmonk]

I am aware of the 18 different styles that Wang Lang used to created his Preying Mantis system, the 3 core sets created by Wang Lang and SD's supposed / proposed 18 Original Forms.



Here is another question, what weapon sets have you all learned or know of within the 7*PMS?


And what about the Mook Jong Set ( Wooden Dummy Set)??

[Three Harmonies]

Weapons will all depend on the teacher and his/her previous experiences. In some cases a lot of the weapons from southern systems has been adopted. Too general a question bro.
Same with the wooden dummy, though that is even more specific to the CCK group I believe (Robert will chime in shortly I am sure, and he can help loads more than I).

I have known some Mantis cats who practice on the Mok jung, but the CCK group is the only group I know of that actually created a set.
Cheers
Jake

[tattooedmonk]

What weapons forms do you teach, Jake??

[Three Harmonies]

Well I teach them in private lessons only, my group class is reserved for combatives.
But over the years I have learned the Jian Ma Dao / Monks Spade / Dao / Staff / XY straight sword / Kuan Dao / Miao Dao and I know a little whip chain, though not a traditional form per se. I also trained 5 years with Remy Presas in stick and knife work, but again the forms were nothing to speak of.

Cheers
Jake

[tattooedmonk]

Which of these , if any, are mantis forms/ weapons??

[Three Harmonies]

Well bro, that is where many may disagree with me. What is a "Mantis Weapon"? There is no "Mantis" in a weapon because the weapon adheres to certain principles set forth by the weapon, and the ability of the human body. If I hook my hand a certain way does that make it "Mantis?" Know what I mean?
So I do not look at these as stylistic weapons, but rather weapons based on how that specific weapon is utilized.
I have learned the Jian Ma Dao from my teacher Hu Xi Lin, who learned from Ma Han Qin. All Mantis cats. But the form came from Ma's understanding of the 108 weapons of Shaolin. I learned my Miao Dao from John Wang, but it certainly is NOT a Shuai Chiao weapon! I learned the Melon Hammers from Jochen Wolfgramm who was part of LKW Mantis group, but there is no mantis in it. See what I mean? I even learned some two handed sword from Wang Rengang, but again you would not look at it and go '" Oh yeah, I see the mantis"

Not sure this helps, but that is my 2 cents
Cheers
Jake

[tattooedmonk]

I understand what you are saying. So there are no standardized weapon sets in the various mantis systems?? or at least in your's and some others????

[Three Harmonies]

In mine, no. When I studied with Wutan, no. LKW I have heard, yes. Steve Cottrell and his group, and believe so. Pong Lai, not sure.

[Paul T England]

I agree with most of the argument that weapons are weapons and not mantis or Hung Gar but certain characteristics should come through. with the Melon Hammers I see most ofl the keywords and main techniques. Kwa, Fung etc. and the footwork can also show which style they come from. Choy Li fut forms compared to Mantis Forms are easy to distingush but it gets more dificult with cross polinated styles like North Shaolin/Mantis or Hung Gar/Choy Li Fut.

Paul

[B.Tunks]

These are some of the main weapons of the TLQ families- Damo Jian, Baxian Jian, Qixing Jian, Tiangang Jian, Yuhuan Jian, Yanqing Dao, Yuhuan Dao, Liuhe Shuang Dao, Liuhe Gun, Taiyi Zijin Gun, Wulang Gun, Meihua Qiang, Liuhe Qiang, Qunqiu Dadao.

T

[Three Harmonies]

BT
Are they similar to other styles' version's of the same (at least named) form? Or are these unique to the Mantis systems?

Thanks
Jake

[tattooedmonk]

These are some of the main weapons of the TLQ families- Damo Jian, Baxian Jian, Qixing Jian, Tiangang Jian, Yuhuan Jian, Yanqing Dao, Yuhuan Dao, Liuhe Shuang Dao, Liuhe Gun, Taiyi Zijin Gun, Wulang Gun, Meihua Qiang, Liuhe Qiang, Qunqiu Dadao.

TThanks . May I get an english translation of these forms ,please??

[B.Tunks]

Thanks . May I get an english translation of these forms ,please??

Jake,

They bear very little resemblance to weapons matching their name (eg. baxian and damo jian, liuhe gun). Almost all of these weapons routines utilise yuhuan bu, qixing bu, gou shou etc. The spear forms, followed by the stick forms (and qixing jian, liuhe shuang dao) are a little more generic, but still pretty distinct. The versions of jian most closely match Tanglang shen fa, bu fa etc.

TM

Damo Jian- Damo (Boddhidharma) Sword
Baxian Jian - 8 Immortals Sword
Qixing Jian - Seven Star Sword
Tiangang Jian- Heavenly Stars Jian (from memory, TBC)
Yuhuan Jian - Jade Ring Sword
Yuhuan Dao - " " Broadsword
Yanqing Dao- Yanqing Broadsword
Liuhe Shuang Dao - Six Harmonies Double Broadsword
Liuhe Gun - " " Stick
Taiyi Zijin Gun - Taiyi Purple Gold Stick
Wulang Gun - 5th Son Stick
Meihua Qiang - Plum Blossom Spear
Liuhe Qiang - Six Harmonies Spear
Qunqiu Dadao Spring and Autumn Halberd/Long Handled Broadsword.

[Oso]

just my very minor .02 on PL: the one form I've learned from Shifu Scolaro that Shifu Brazier also does is a Shaolin 18 Stick: Shaolin Shi Ba Gun. (me and a student did a crappy rendition of the 2 man version at the MQ event in '05) I learned a spear set from Shifu Jim and a broadsword set but both were from his Wah Lum background and he taught them to me because I asked.(Thanks, J. !) Both good sets, imho irregardless of from where.

Shifu Kevin, i think, plays the jian and double single sticks a lot but that opinion (mine) is just based on the clips he's given out and small comments he's said about both.

if there is truth to the opinion that the empty hand largely derives from the old weapon work from waaaay back then the should obviously be a commonality to weapon sets across styles ???? right ????

[Three Harmonies]

BT
Thanks. I stand corrected.
Jake

[MightyB]

All I can say is that there are a lot of weapons sets at our school (Chung) and there seems to be a progressive methodology in the order of how you learn them. The sets are consistent with what LKW and Tony Chuy teach. Also, in Shandung- The two handed jian is referred to as Mantis Sword.

[MightyB]

http://www.northernmantis.com/forms.html#Weapons%20Forms

http://www.leekamwing.com/ (click the forms tab and scroll down to weapons)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jdO-6_v9pMc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qn1EQscart0

[B.Tunks]

There are a few two handed jian forms (though they are younger than the single handed versions). What is referred to as tanglang jian is a generic modern creation based largely on the double handed movements from damo jian and baxian jian (not all versions of either are double handed but still have some double handed or supported strikes).

BT

[Tainan Mantis]

You may find this article interesting.

It starts off...

Mantis Boxing is based on chopping with the hands and forearms in moves such as beng (collapsing-the back fist) and pi (cleaving). These same motions are constantly seen in weapon techniques. Is Mantis Boxing closely tied to the techniques of chopping weapons? This month I uncover never before seen relationships between Mantis Boxing and paired weapons.


Buried in there is also...

Short strikes are a key ingredient of what makes up not only the Mantis Boxing style but many other styles of martial art as well.

The theory of short strikes is also the underlying method of weapons. Recent discoveries have uncovered a new link between the short strikes of Mantis Boxing and that of weapons.


http://www.plumflowermantisboxing.com/Articles/WL%20swords.htm

[Three Harmonies]

As always, nice article!
Jake

[Crushing Step]

I think a basic understanding of why mantis came about, according to legend of course, saw no need for weapons. Some martial arts that were more military in origin must have had weapons as a part of core training. For example the "koryu" styles of Japanese martial arts, created prior to self improvement and sport arts such as judo, generally had battlefield application. Students had to learn weapons because their opponents had weapons.

Reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koryu

Please excuse the Japanese reference, it's been a recent point of interest.

For mantis, it was designed specifically for a smaller opponent to overcome a larger one. Assuming both Wang Lang and his brother (in law?) were already kung fu masters, things like weapons would have already been in their curriculum, yes?

[Three Harmonies]

All martial arts were created for a smaller, weaker person to overcome a larger, stronger opponent.
Jake

[Crushing Step]

Thank you for the enlightenment.

[Mi Hou Tao]

I dont see what all the confusion is about, its pretty obvious that mantis is an empty fist system. all you need to do is look at the fact that it contains the basic 18 weapons of shaolin, and the fact that many systems have the same weapons and/or same forms. Sure maybe a few mantis hands have been thrown in where other systems would use a fist or non-mantis gou shou, but having a tattoo of bob marley on your shoulder doesnt make you a rastafarian.

Of course there are going to be some similar movements, duh, its fighting. hell, I could probably find similarities in synchronised swimming, doesnt mean weapons techniques were created by a bunch of freaky looking chicks bobbing around in pools



You may find this article interesting.

It starts off...

Mantis Boxing is based on chopping with the hands and forearms in moves such as beng (collapsing-the back fist) and pi (cleaving). These same motions are constantly seen in weapon techniques. Is Mantis Boxing closely tied to the techniques of chopping weapons? This month I uncover never before seen relationships between Mantis Boxing and paired weapons.


Buried in there is also...

Short strikes are a key ingredient of what makes up not only the Mantis Boxing style but many other styles of martial art as well.

The theory of short strikes is also the underlying method of weapons. Recent discoveries have uncovered a new link between the short strikes of Mantis Boxing and that of weapons.


http://www.plumflowermantisboxing.com/Articles/WL%20swords.htm

And lets be realistic here, a few characters about a mythical figure does not constitute anything.
Discovering a link between short strikes of mantis and that of weapons....hmm i wonder why, could it be that both are about beating the s**t out of people?
what next theyll be telling us they have discovered a mysterious link between baseball and softball.

let the hating begin..

[mantid1]

I have to admit the size can give a person a big atvantage. But, it doesnt mean that the martial arts were developed for smaller people to defeat a bigger person. I am sure a bigger person would prefer to defeat a smaller one as fast as possible...so the arts will still benefit them. What do you consider bigger? Taller or stronger? What if a tall guy is fighting a shorter but stronger guy? Which one was the martial arts developed for?


Mi, you make some good points but I cant totally agree with you. It is understood that the mantis has its own fighting theory, techniques, footwork...philosophy for the empty hand fighting. That is what makes it an individual "style" or "system" even though other styles use thier hands and feet as well.

Most people who have read a few magazines or books, like yourself, know that there were 18 weapons of shaolin...and were adopted by other systmes....etc.

But, the experienced martial artists knows that a particular style will at the very least have incorporated some of its own footwork into the weapons sets. Most legit styles have thier own fighiting theory or methods for each individual weapon. This doesnt mean it looks completely different than other styles....a staff is a staff and you can only use it so many ways.

So, if someone were to tell me that weapons were generic I would assume that individual has only done weapons training on a "forms" level with little understanding. I would also assume that the person doesnt understand their empty hand skills....since the you should be practicing fighting and drilling techniques with the weapons the same as you would for empty hand....and would hope could figure out it works the same for weapons.

[Crushing Step]

I dont see what all the confusion is about, its pretty obvious that mantis is an empty fist system.

Quoted for truth.



I have to admit the size can give a person a big atvantage. But, it doesnt mean that the martial arts were developed for smaller people to defeat a bigger person.

Exactly. As was my point above, many martial arts were developed for the military, taught to soldiers for battlefield use. This fact alone speaks nothing of smaller vs larger opponents.

[Three Harmonies]

The only martial art that has any historical reference being used on the battlefield is Xing Yi. All other are pure speculation.
All things considered equal the bigger (height, weight), stronger opponent will always overcome the smaller, weaker opponent. That is just simple physics. The "un" equalizer if you will is skill. Hence the practice of martial arts. Skill and training gives the advantage to someone smaller.

Jake

[Crushing Step]

I'm sorry, you're right.

[mantid1]

It is common sense thet a bigger guy will have the atvantage...... but I dont think it comes down to "simple physics"

Titanium is used and prefered in many places. Why would they use titanium rather than steel? Because titanium offers higher strength per weight than other metals and may offer better flexibliliy in certain scenarios than a hunk of steel would. So you are getting the same strength out of something that is smaller or lighter than the bigger heavier material. I do agree on the "basic physics" point of view...but I also realize there are ideas that can be considered "adanced physics" as well.

[Three Harmonies]

JJ-
Not sure I know how to take your tone. It is not a matter of right or wrong.

Mantid-
Lets not get crazy with it. You and I are not steel. Again, all things equal (skill set), the bigger, stronger will win 98% of the time. I mean really, what is their to argue about???
Thanks
Jake

[MightyB]

The only martial art that has any historical reference being used on the battlefield is Xing Yi.

Jake

yeah- well, I don't put much into mysterious "found scrolls" written supposeably by Yue Fei. I'd say that was more of the ol' style of Chinese marketing. You know- attributing a style to someone of historical significance. It's most likely that the guy who "found the scroll in the alter at the temple" actually created Xing Yi.

[Three Harmonies]

Actually XY has been proven to be used on the battlefield in terms of their spear work and what not. As well as their usage of Kao Die or "Knock Down" type throws. James Guo has done some extensive research (last I checked he was working on his PHD dissertation on the subject of weaponary etc.), and he shared some of his insight with me a couple of times.
So I think most others fall under what you are saying. XY is one of the only ones not too.
But we can all be wrong.....
Cheers
Jake

[Mi Hou Tao]

Mi, you make some good points but I cant totally agree with you. It is understood that the mantis has its own fighting theory, techniques, footwork...philosophy for the empty hand fighting. That is what makes it an individual "style" or "system" even though other styles use thier hands and feet as well.

Most people who have read a few magazines or books, like yourself, know that there were 18 weapons of shaolin...and were adopted by other systmes....etc.

But, the experienced martial artists knows that a particular style will at the very least have incorporated some of its own footwork into the weapons sets. Most legit styles have thier own fighiting theory or methods for each individual weapon. This doesnt mean it looks completely different than other styles....a staff is a staff and you can only use it so many ways.

So, if someone were to tell me that weapons were generic I would assume that individual has only done weapons training on a "forms" level with little understanding. I would also assume that the person doesnt understand their empty hand skills....since the you should be practicing fighting and drilling techniques with the weapons the same as you would for empty hand....and would hope could figure out it works the same for weapons.

So basically what your saying is..yes weapons dont come from mantis, but some aspect of mantis have been added in. You just proved my point.
Its inevitable the sets would change, but is this so much to do with "mantis footwork" or could it just be personal difference. You could argue till the cows come home over that.
To say weapons are not generic is like saying basketballs are not generic. The practitioner makes the style, a stick doesnt fight by itself. We all have our own characteristics in fighting, area we emhasise,etc. So i guess what you mean is weapon usage is not generic, in forms or in fighting.

You say most styles have their own theory or methods for weapons. why is this? weapons have their own theory and methods already, why start changing it? Aside from small changes in actions, It would seem to be more of a lack of understanding of the weapon that would lead to filling gaps with techniques from the hand style.
Its hard enough to find good teachers who can teach a complete hand system, let alone weapons with fighting applications and usage

As for the 18 weapons of shaolin, thats just what my system has, and a few that I know of. actually I didnt read it in a book, and from what little ive read, it seems quite difficult to find real info about them, and perhaps our 18 weapons are different from your 18 weapons, not to mention the extras.
In china you can find an assload of rubbish books about mythical figures waving weapons, but what benefit is there in reading them.

[MightyB]

Actually XY has been proven to be used on the battlefield in terms of their spear work and what not. As well as their usage of Kao Die or "Knock Down" type throws. James Guo has done some extensive research (last I checked he was working on his PHD dissertation on the subject of weaponary etc.), and he shared some of his insight with me a couple of times.
So I think most others fall under what you are saying. XY is one of the only ones not too.
But we can all be wrong.....
Cheers
Jake

That's basically what I heard too (XY was created from spear work). But I don't think it's anymore significant than any other style since basically all styles are derived from the battlefield in some way, shape, or form. What I mean is like XY - some aspect from the battlefield was taken and refined and given a name at some point of history. What that grew into may be way different than what it was, but at it's root it was something from combat. Let's look at the General's other style - Ying Jow Pai aka Eagle Claw. Yue Fei supposeably taught the 108 locking forms as basic training for his soldiers. The original Baba Gong (sp?). Some decendent of those original teachings merged the 108 techniques with Fan Tzi (an acrobatic kicking heavy CMA) to create what we now call Ying Jow Pai.

Using your logic from XY- couldn't we say then that Eagle Claw was directly decended from the battlefield?

[MightyB]

Now for the other topic at hand-

I can only go with what and how I learned, but... I learned from Sifu Chung, who learned from Chung Ho Yin, who learned from Won Hun Fun (who also taught Brendan Lai), who learned from Lo Kwan Yu (who also taught Chiu Chu Man - who taught LKW)--- and guess what? We all do the same weapons sets. They are the same across those branches. I pointed to two websites that have most of those listed out and they are in the system as taught from LKY.

To say that Mantis is only a hand form is a misnomer. That would be an incomplete representation of Mantis.

[mantid1]

Punching, kicking and joint locking didnt come from mantis either...it was borrowed from other styles to become mantis. Still punching, kicking and joint locking? Yes, but its own disticnt style.

I would like to think that the mantis practitiners would have a little insight or views of how the basic weapons can be applied as thier own particular style would apply them.....not 18 but at least the basic weapons.

I am not saying all mantis styles are like this....many probably do carbon copy forms...and it that case they are dance routines. I think Tainan was actually talking about fighting techniques...not routines.

So, if all styles after shaolin cant have thier own philosophy....how can shaolin?

We have to trace it all the way back to when the first cave man poked his foe in the eye with a stick, hit him over the head with a club, cut his throat with a sharp piece of flint or stabbed him with his spear.

We should look up the guys on the Geico comercials and study the original martial art. I wonder if they are into belts now?

[MightyB]

Mantid- don't know what you're trying to prove. The sets may or may not be unique to Mantis - the methodology behind the applications of those weapons are unique to mantis. The weapons sets are part of learning Mantis.

Often I feel that when people try to argue to have things ommitted from the "curriculem" it's because they are insecure with the fact that they don't know those things and therefore they don't have the complete system. You don't have to know everything in the system to start teaching- but a major part of your personal goals should be to try and learn as much about the system as possible and to be honest with yourself and your students in saying that there's much to be learned in Mantis and you don't have it all.


On a side note:

Just read Tainan's article - good article.

The short sticks that he's referring to in the article are taught as the form "Cern Gon" (shortened name and spelling is phonetic Cantonese). They are heavy - the video he associated is a two person drill that looks to be strongly based on the movements of Lok Hop Cern Dao (a double saber form). Cern Gon and Cern Dao are very different in terms of movement. True Cern Gon are heavy and use a special coordination of the whole body in their movement and cannot be swung at the rate that Cern Dao.

[mantid1]

I wasnt trying to prove anything. I just believe that an individual style or master could possibly have their own theory or method of using a weapon that may be just a little different than the people had three generations before.

I did discover something. I discovered why I stopped visiting forums.

Ill let the forum masters work everything out for themselves....Ill just continue to promote the CMA, teaching students and let the the world of "forum martial artists" continue without me.

[MightyB]

the point is that all of the mantis concepts are expressed in application- So Fot, Bo Fot, Sun Yin, Soft to defeat the hard / using hard to kill, attacking left then right, up and down, cats chasing dogs, sensitivity, clinging, on and on and on ---- every theory that's in Mantis applications is the same in how the weapons are used.

[Redfish]

I'd like to chime in on the are there 'mantis weapons' thing ...

Although I don't need to really add anything because ... argghh, agreeing with Jake again ... 3H said it pretty clearly in post #16. Also Mi Hou Tao.

The '18 weapons of China' were available at my teacher's school (our shigong). Then, when he was in his second phase of training, Mantis was in the morning, so he got to train all the evenings in the Singapore Jingwu with a great teacher Chia Shue Foy - basically rounding out and perfecting said weapons.

I'm no master or teacher, but the only thing 'Mantis' I see in those weapons forms is the occaisional mantis claw. But if you look at other clubs doing the same thing, they just use the gou shou, hooking hand, which is just the same meaning.

I don't want to be dismissive, but I think you can see much of the same principals, basics and stances across all 'shaolin kung fu'. I guess it's kind of tiring to argue the toss about it though. Reminds me of a funny quote from one teacher I know: "I used to tell everyone that kung fu is mainly the same, now I just say it's all different".

So yeah, go back to post #16 of you've jumped in at the latest page.

Also, I guess there's always the possibility that there are a bunch of 'Mantis Weapons' that I don't know about. Would love to see them on a vid if anyone can direct me to a link.

[MightyB]

Also, I guess there's always the possibility that there are a bunch of 'Mantis Weapons' that I don't know about. Would love to see them on a vid if anyone can direct me to a link.

http://www.martialartsmart.net/4543.html ;)

http://www.martialartsmart.net/kf200148.html Read Gene's article...

[Three Harmonies]

Redfish... agreeing with Jake:eek::eek:;):D
Thanks bro.
Jake :)