I hear yo ST. :D
here it is. Enjoy.
<<Thank you very much for your clear comments. Overall, we seem to be on the same page as your
comments generally reflect my own ideas on it.>>
You are most welcome. I agreed we are pretty much on the same page.
<<I remember our teacher used to make us do it 2-3 times also. The 1st time holding each
positions and the 2nd and 3rd times just going through the form with regular speed/power then
fast (but not so fast that you're hurrying through the form!). >>
That's the idea.
<<When doing tajimantis, our teacher always stressed the importance of each movement being fast
but still "crisp" and "sharp". But since taiji mantis is not my main style (I actually only
learned the baat da ma bo), I usually just do it once for the stance training which is, after all
, its main purpose.>>
Fluidity and speed acheived throught maximum economy of motion is key to TCPM. Like I said before
BDMB is to build the balance between leverage and speed. Strength (of the legs) is an integral
part of this balance not the other way arround.
<<About my 1st point: When you say people should hold each stance 1-3 min, I assume you mean this
for ALL stances and those should ALL be good, low stances (ie as low as your body can go without
compromising structure) throughout the set, right?>>
The 1-3 mins is just a general guideline for doing it in class. At home, you may do more as
training. The more you work on it the better you get. That's Kung Fu. I used to do it 45 mins
horse stance. But then at class you'd want to devote your time on the learning. A lot of people
don't understand this simple point. They hardly practice at home and wish to learn more in class.
That won't work.
<<I have got into some arguments over this with some of my junior classmates at the time.
Some people seem to believe that those two are not compatible. They say you either do the set
with perfect stances for 15-20 sec. or you do it for 1 min each but you keep your stances high
and are allowed to get up when the leg is tired... The idea being that over time, a student
would naturally come to achieve 1 min. for each stance. Personally, I think that is wrong.
How can you expect to achieve more by doing less!?! To me, you do the stances right and you
don't get up for a min. and that's it. Of course, I admit that when beginning, your legs are not
as strong and a person will get up from his stance from time to time but the goal should be the
same. I say: do not lower the standard so you can do it, but rather keep the standard where it is
and train harder to achieve it! They say it's a difference of teaching methods, I say it's a
difference of mentality. What is your opinion/experience?>>
Kung Fu simply is the chore, hardwork, and the merits that came from it. It is a LIFE STYLE not a
game/play So, you are right about having and maintain a minimum standard. But today, the
sport/entertainment of the younger generation is just too deeply entranched in Canadian culture.
*sigh*
<<About the 2nd point: I agree with what you wrote. I do my horse at different heights to train
different things/feel different structures. The parallel one is not to be used when moving but
strictly for training for the reason you mention ie too low and you can't move fast and smooth.
The structure of the horse is slightly different at every height. The high one is done with feet
parallel and knees out. The medium one is with feet almost parallel and knees natural
(neither pushed "in" or "out"). The low one is done with feet angled with the thighs and the
knees natural but with the waist "sunken in" or "rounded in" (I hate to describe this stuff,
when done correctly, one understand what I mean..) so that it feels like it is your body
structure/alignment that supports your body more so than exclusively your thigh muscles.>>
The feet parallel is a detail that a lot of people missed. It helps to "lock" the hips in place
(no slacking). Unless the student has a problem with the hips and/or knees the feet should always
be in parallel. This stablizes the hips and for proper power generation. The "rounded in" is known
as pelvic tilt position. The allows the tail bone to point directly to the ground and the spine
will align naturally strict. Needless to said this facility proper power generation. You are right
that it is not a mere local mucscular strength. It is skeletal-musculature.
<<About the 3rd point: I agree but do you keep them bent a little even for the 1st and 2nd stance
of the last section (ie the one-legged and the eagle stance; sorry, my teacher wasn't chinese and
we had to make up our own stance names...)? I ask since those two do not involve any hand
strikes or block hence no "crack of the whip", right? My understanding of it is that keeping the
arms straight in those stances trained and stretched the forearm muscles and tendons.>>
Ah... The one-legged Stance's hands position is also skeletal-musculature disposition. They are
protective measures beside helping the balance. They are bented at an angle that is "naturely"
strong similar to Hung Gar body mechanics principles. We do "stretch" in a sense but not obvious
to the point that it stresses the whole structure. It's hard to describe on-line.
<<About the 4th point: Thanks for the pointer. I will try to force my breathing down and just
keep working on it. I don't mind working on it as long as I know it is possible to achieve. >>
Breathing like everything else has to be natural. Avoid forcing anything that is most important.
If you develop abdominal breathing as your natural way of breathing. it will work wonder.
<<Besides the obvious hand positions/techniques, the only difference between the 1st and 2nd cat
stance is the opening of the hips, right?>>
Yes.
<<The first one is squarely [or just a slight angle) facing your opponent so the hips are
square/closed and the second one is done with the body turned sideways so the hips are open,
right? >>
Yes.
<<Gee, when writing this down, I feel like I'm being obsessed with details but aren't the details
what makes the difference in the end? >>
Well, as Sigung Chiu and Galen (my mentor) used to say, there are no secrets but details in Kung
Fu. Kung Fu mysticism did/does not fly with them. You are on the right track, my friend.
<<I mean, I trained in southern styles a lot longer than I was with my first teacher who taught
me the baat da ma bo so my fear is to do it like a hung gar stylist. I want to do the mantis set
like a taiji mantis guy. Plus, I know I will probably keep doing that form as long as I do kf
since I have already done it for so long. I have dismissed so many sets I learned over the years
that the few ones that I kept and train regularly are very important to me. Because of that, I
tend to focus on many small details.>>
I hear you. I applaud your effort in keep the BDMB and keep exploring the possibilties. I must
said you have a keen eye. Keep it up.
<<I know I cannot offer you much in return besides my gratitude and the assurance that your
comments are not wasted but I would greatly appreciate if you could provide the chinese
(cantonese or mandarin) names with their common english translation for each stance. I just like
to be able to call things by their names as opposed to by the names I made up for them.>>
It gives me a great pleasure in sharing already, so don't worry about it.I will try to get you a
translation later.
<<Thank you for your offer to email you but I would like to welcome any input from other
knowledgeable people as long as this subject is open and not personal. Though it seems that for
a basic set, not too many people seem to be able or willing to comment on it... You can email me
as well (my adress is in my profile) if you want or feel more comfortable to discuss in private.>>
Ah.. he who speaks know not. I love to hear other's view as well. Anyway, thanks for listening always
a pleasure to share.
Mantis108
Contraria Sunt Complementa