teaching choy lee fut and southern mantis

[rogerclf1]

I just wanted to hear other peoples opinion on a matter. I know a person who has been training in southern mantis and choy lee fut and wants to start up a class. The thing is he wants to teach both together instead of seperated. Can that even be done with so many differences between the arts? I am happy training where I am at, so I have no interest in training with this guy, but I was just curious if this would even be possible. I have known him for a couple years and I tried talking him into maybe teaching it individually, but he thinks he can do it.

[TenTigers]

no.
If you are smart, experienced, and flexible minded, then perhaps you can learn one, and then the other, but not together-especially if he's attempting to teach beginners.
The two systems are based on completely different structures, methodologies, power generation, etc.
You will end up with niether.
You may have a collection of forms and a handfull of exercises, but you will only be kidding yourself if you think that you will gain any true understanding of either art in this manner.

[rogerclf1]

I totally agree. I will just have to change his mind for him. Challenge match. LOL.

[sanjuro_ronin]

I would suggest CLF and after some time ( years perhaps) then go to SPM.
The CLF will build up a strong foundation and power core that, after slight modification, will lend itself nicely to SPM.

[rogerclf1]

Yeah he did learn them individually, so I have no idea how he thinks he can teach them that way.

[hskwarrior]

in my opinion CLF and Wing Chun are very complimentary to each other

[David Jamieson]

Not sure about those styles, but many styles can be trained simultaneously so long as the person has the time and patience to do so.

[TenTigers]

personally speaking, I believe Hung-Gar or even moreso, Hop-Ga / Tibetan White Crane make good foundational training for SPM. Hung-Gar due to the short hand techniques found in Fu Hok Seurng Ying Kuen and Ng Ying Kuen, and TWC due to its footwork and body movement. Both systems develop long chain power generation, which enables the short power to develop later.

[Brule]

in my opinion CLF and Wing Chun are very complimentary to each other

:confused:

Is SPM short for Wing Chun?

[PlumDragon]

Waaay too much stuff. Even a single of those systems has so many superfluous techniques and unnatural body postures (probably more so in SPM though) in them that it takes forever just to get down basic body mechanics and posture. And people studying a single of these arts intensively often dont have good reactions installed even after years of study, let alone studying both...

Train in both and not only will the students have too much material to make heads or tails of, but their mind/body will become confused as to what to use and when, even before stress has been applied to a drill or sparring.

[hskwarrior]

Is SPM short for Wing Chun?
Reply With Quote

i thought it stood for Southern Praying Mantis

[diego]

Waaay too much stuff. Even a single of those systems has so many superfluous techniques and unnatural body postures (probably more so in SPM though) in them that it takes forever just to get down basic body mechanics and posture. And people studying a single of these arts intensively often dont have good reactions installed even after years of study, let alone studying both...

Train in both and not only will the students have too much material to make heads or tails of, but their mind/body will become confused as to what to use and when, even before stress has been applied to a drill or sparring.

what about a street fighter who uses steroids to the point where his physique is at his genetic peak?... How hard would it be to adapt new forms of twisting the muscles. most kung fu guys are in ****ty shape to begin with so they take up kung fu for fitness...I know an Irish jailhouse boxer who fights for money with bikers that likes to bite while he jabs I don't think it would take more than three years for him to learn to fight with CLF. I'm not trying to present an argument only my dismay at the lame level of quality chinese martial instructionpresented to the masses. lol

[Shaolindynasty]

Waaay too much stuff. Even a single of those systems has so many superfluous techniques and unnatural body postures (probably more so in SPM though) in them that it takes forever just to get down basic body mechanics and posture.

Not true at least in Choy Lay Fut

If you train CLF properly with function in mind you should be pretty decent within 6 months. Train basic techniques solo, then with a partner in static drills, then semi free sparring then free sparring. Though the forms are nice and give you ideas to expand upon later they aren't a nessecity for gaining a basic level of proficiency.

If you don't follow a similar formula you could practice your whole life and never learn to defend yourself

BTW, what is the point of learning a system that takes almost your whole life to be able to execute basic body mechanics?

[TenTigers]

Waaay too much stuff. Even a single of those systems has so many superfluous techniques and unnatural body postures (probably more so in SPM though) in them that it takes forever just to get down basic body mechanics and posture. And people studying a single of these arts intensively often dont have good reactions installed even after years of study, let alone studying both...

Train in both and not only will the students have too much material to make heads or tails of, but their mind/body will become confused as to what to use and when, even before stress has been applied to a drill or sparring.

I am curious to know what in particular you feel are superflous techniques in SPM?
(although I do agree with your second statemnt.)

[Frost]

styles are taught together all the time and have even been blended together before to create new styles: hung fut, choyleefut, northern mantis, h*ll tony leung in the UK created steel wire southern mantis by combining chow gar and hung gar so it can be done and has been done, i suppose the question is does the instructor have the ability to combine the arts and teach them. If he does more power to him

[goju]

styles are taught together all the time and have even been blended together before to create new styles: hung fut, choyleefut, northern mantis, h*ll tony leung in the UK created steel wire southern mantis by combining chow gar and hung gar so it can be done and has been done, i suppose the question is does the instructor have the ability to combine the arts and teach them. If he does more power to him

i agree!

GASP!:eek::D

[PlumDragon]

I am curious to know what in particular you feel are superflous techniques in SPM? (although I do agree with your second statemnt.)Hi TenTigers,

So as to respect the wishes of those who taught me, please feel free to PM or email me (pd@plumdragon.org) and I would be happy to have a discussion with you off-forum.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Hi TenTigers,

So as to respect the wishes of those who taught me, please feel free to PM or email me (pd@plumdragon.org) and I would be happy to have a discussion with you off-forum.

No offense but if you didn't wanna discuss it in a public forum, why bring it up in a public forum?

[PlumDragon]

Fair question; perhaps I shouldnt have brought it up...

I suppose I wanted to weigh in and offer my opinion on the matter; if someone had asked me for a more detailed explanation of why I dont think the systems should be taught contingently, I would have probably just answered, as that was the topic of the thread. The question about superfluous "techniques" is a topic of a different nature and something Id be surprised if any exponent would come out and outline in any detail.

[SavvySavage]

no.
If you are smart, experienced, and flexible minded, then perhaps you can learn one, and then the other, but not together-especially if he's attempting to teach beginners.
The two systems are based on completely different structures, methodologies, power generation, etc.
You will end up with niether.
You may have a collection of forms and a handfull of exercises, but you will only be kidding yourself if you think that you will gain any true understanding of either art in this manner.

I must disagree with you on this point.

The internal people like to tighten their butts and tuck their tailbones under thereby straightening the lordodic curve of their lumbar spine. This is their "secret" to being rooted and powerful. Many styles have adopted this structure including some southern mantis groups. This so called "special" structure can adapted to any style. If the lumbar spine is straight then no force can be dissipated by the person bending his back when hitting for example. Whether or not this is healthy is questionable. That takes care of the power generation aspect.

The methodologies of these two styles may LOOK different superficially. One style trains with their arms connected already(spm) while the other starts at a distance(clf). This goes back to my argument that styles are fake. In sparring no one would be able to "see" this so called difference. They'd see two people hitting each other. It may be true that clf has more and bigger swinging motions and spm has smaller more forward motions. I must say that clf lends itself to free sparring better than spm. SPM gets messy with all the little circles and traps.

I am no expert on these two styles but I do feel that my opinion on styles only existing superficially to have some weight. If I am completely off about spm then please put up a clip of people free sparring from a distance "looking" like spm.

[SavvySavage]

All "styles" were created by guys who cross trained in many styles and creaed their own synthesis.

When people, who can speak multiple languages, speak it is often a dialect made up of the different languages they speak. "Chinglish" is an example. This dialect is neither of the two or three dominant languages but. Mix of the two. In the families I know the kids understand each other fine. It's the grown ups that have the trouble often forcing my friends to try to stick to one language.

Martial arts are no different. A choy lee fut/mantis man would be interesting and more well rounded than someone who only studied one of the styles provided that:
1. He train as hard as the single stylist
2. Had ample power, conditioning, etc.

[jdhowland]

I must disagree with you on this point.



The methodologies of these two styles may LOOK different superficially. .

I must disagree with your disagreement. TT wasn't saying that systems cannot be combined. I believe his point was that the styles were to be taught to beginners as separate entities. It's very confusing to the student and, again, they use different structures and different strategies.

Chan Heung, for example, was able to learn from three teachers and end up with a good self-consistent style. A good system comprises the combined experiences from many sources as filtered through the nervous system of one genius (look up the etymology if you think I mean "a smart person").

It isn't impossible to learn two distinct systems at the same time. Just very difficult and time consuming. And perhaps a disservice to the students.

Be well.
jd

[TenTigers]

I must disagree with you on this point.

That takes care of the power generation aspect.


that is describing only one type of strike, as tucking the sacrum describes only one aspect of rooting, however SPM generates power from many different angles through various "coils," and shifts, in a different manner than CLF.
Yes, we know that we all have two arms and two legs, and therefore in many cases, much of what we do will be the same, with differences being subtle and based on personal preferences. However, that does not negate that there are some styles that have developed a different method altogether, based on the weapons available at their desired range and outcome.
Will their fighting look different? Certainly. If both fighters are thoroughly trained to the point that their style is firmly ingrained in them, it will look very different. However, if both fighters merely practice some forms and a few drills, and mix that in with other stuff, what would you expect?
I think Sanjuro mentioned this-If you watch MMA, although many of the same techniques are used, you can see when a person comes to the ring with a strong Kyokushin or TKD backround, as opposed to Muay Thai. Sure, it may be subtle, or go completely unnoticed by the average viewer unschooled in these systems, but to a trained eye, it is obvious.
-and that is with two fighters using styles that share a great many similarities.

I agree with you, I am curious what a CLF/SPM stylist would be like.
Probably alot like Hung Kuen!:cool:

[jo]

Hung Gar and SPM are closer than CLF and SPM.

HG and SPM engage initially at a closer distance than CLF and CLF has the hands further away from the body's center than HG and SPM.

And while all three use waist and hip to torque the power out to the hands, CLF tracks a much wider arc to develop power as opposed to the rather short arc that HG and SPM employ.

So while its not impossible to learn CLF and SPM at the same time, trying to teach them simultaneously will have students learning skill sets, postures and fighting theory that are different ends of the power generating spectrum and IMHO will inhibit a person from fully developing their potential.

- jo

[taai gihk yahn]

I think you could do both at once - it's just a question of emphasis; if you break down the different skills and clearly understand the requirements of each, you could do it; and remember, CLF was made up of 3 parts and, AFAIK, the "Faht" aspect is all the shorter range palm work which isn't completely alien from SPM-type stuff;

the trick with teaching any curriculum is in clearly delineating what one is teaching and how one aspect of it relates to another (even if they are associated more by their differences than anything else);

I think that if the teacher was skilled enough in each and also knew HOW to teach, it would be do-able;

it's all human movement - it's just a question of how one engages the system;

[Frost]

I think you could do both at once - it's just a question of emphasis; if you break down the different skills and clearly understand the requirements of each, you could do it; and remember, CLF was made up of 3 parts and, AFAIK, the "Faht" aspect is all the shorter range palm work which isn't completely alien from SPM-type stuff;

the trick with teaching any curriculum is in clearly delineating what one is teaching and how one aspect of it relates to another (even if they are associated more by their differences than anything else);

I think that if the teacher was skilled enough in each and also knew HOW to teach, it would be do-able;

it's all human movement - it's just a question of how one engages the system;
very well put its all about human movement and as much as people like to believe it to be different, we all tend to move the same and have more simularites than differences

as for the picture at the botom of the post :eek:

[Jorge]

very well put its all about human movement and as much as people like to believe it to be different, we all tend to move the same and have more simularites than differences

as for the picture at the botom of the post :eek:


Does CLF contain Ha Hum Batt Boy? Or follow the principles of chum boy chum jeurng (sink the shoulder, sink the elbow)? If it doesn't then its definitely not like SM or short hand systems. Understand, that those principles are just some of our basics in understanding how to generate power from a close distance with ging.

Thanks,

Buby

[hskwarrior]

CLF was made up of 3 parts and, AFAIK, the "Faht" aspect is all the shorter range palm work which isn't completely alien from SPM-type stuff;

actually....the Fut in our CLF is from Fut Gar Kuen that was passed down from Monk Ching Cho. Chan Fam uses alot of the palms, but the Jeung Hung Sing lineage has more FUT GAR KUEN in it than anything.

[taai gihk yahn]

actually....the Fut in our CLF is from Fut Gar Kuen that was passed down from Monk Ching Cho. Chan Fam uses alot of the palms, but the Jeung Hung Sing lineage has more FUT GAR KUEN in it than anything.

cool; would you characterize the Faht / Fut stuff as being more like so. short hand (SPM, BM, etc.) or not?

[taai gihk yahn]

Does CLF contain Ha Hum Batt Boy? Or follow the principles of chum boy chum jeurng (sink the shoulder, sink the elbow)? If it doesn't then its definitely not like SM or short hand systems. Understand, that those principles are just some of our basics in understanding how to generate power from a close distance with ging.

Thanks,

Buby

hum hung baht bui is a principle found in many systems of TCMA, including the taiji I practice (it's principle #2, in fact); the same can be said about soi gin chum jow (#3 for us); so these are not exclusive to SPM and whatnot; in fact, they are concepts essential to any sort of efficient postural organization, martial or otherwise - you find the concept in things like Alexander Technique, just not articulated quite the same way; therefore, I would argue that they necesarilly have to be in CLF as well, in order for there to be effect alignment; however, I think that the way these principles are interpreted / applied in SPM as opposed to CLF takes on a different shape and emphasis...

[taai gihk yahn]

very well put its all about human movement and as much as people like to believe it to be different, we all tend to move the same and have more simularites than differences
the body is the body is the body, and what you do with it is based on what it is; so-called "internal practice" is not based on some esoteric, alien concept, but rather just one way of manipulating normal anatomy / physiology to get a specific result;


as for the picture at the botom of the post :eek:
also the body, and also about what you do with it; if you have any complaints, speak to the Senator (he's lurking around here somewhere...)

[hskwarrior]

would you characterize the Faht / Fut stuff as being more like so. short hand (SPM, BM, etc.) or not

yes....in fact...the older way of our gung fu via Professor Lau Bun pretty short handed. elbows close to the sides to protect your ribs as opposed to soo exposed.

you can see that fut gar kuen is short to mid range....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O4J_PaAfr0k

[Jorge]

hum hung baht bui is a principle found in many systems of TCMA, including the taiji I practice (it's principle #2, in fact); the same can be said about soi gin chum jow (#3 for us); so these are not exclusive to SPM and whatnot; in fact, they are concepts essential to any sort of efficient postural organization, martial or otherwise - you find the concept in things like Alexander Technique, just not articulated quite the same way; therefore, I would argue that they necesarilly have to be in CLF as well, in order for there to be effect alignment; however, I think that the way these principles are interpreted / applied in SPM as opposed to CLF takes on a different shape and emphasis...

Bro, I never said it's exclusive to SPM. Exactly, different shape and some shapes are more effiecent then others at close range. Atleast when it comes to generating ging. I guess what I'm asking, is for someone to point out those principles within CLF.


Bless,

Jorge/Buby

[Jorge]

yes....in fact...the older way of our gung fu via Professor Lau Bun pretty short handed. elbows close to the sides to protect your ribs as opposed to soo exposed.

you can see that fut gar kuen is short to mid range....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O4J_PaAfr0k

Thanks for sharing hskw! I learned something new. Never knew CLF played with elbows in. Thanks for the vid.

Does CLF hit with geng ging (shock power)? Is the vid. fut gar or clf?

Bless,

Jorge/Buby

[hskwarrior]

Thanks for sharing hskw! I learned something new. Never knew CLF played with elbows in. Thanks for the vid.


well...for many years, the primary branch of CLF that had all the publicity was the Chan Fam branch. Hung Sing people have stayed in the background for a long time. still, with certain techniques...the old was was elbow in and the hands were NOT stretched out like we see today. Fut San Hung Sing Kwoon still uses the elbow in method as well.

but im not speaking for all CLF just my lineage

at 1:13 you'll see the position of prof. Lau Bun's elbow.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TPdlx9E7tZ8&feature=PlayList&p=F09D6DE422B7A9E3&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=64

the previous video is of Fut Gar Kuen...Not Fut Jeung (Buddhist Palm)

[CLFNole]

Most of the branches utilize elbows. They might not play a major role in sets although ping jahn kuen translates to level elbow form.

Can't speak for other styles but shouldn't every style incorporate some long and short techniques to be somewhat complete?

[hskwarrior]

shouldn't every style incorporate some long and short techniques to be somewhat complete?

yup. but im not talking about usage of elbows...just their placement in a defensive stance

[Yum Cha]

Breadth vs depth seems to be a consideration.

Also, the recipe. Sanjuro made a point I agree with, start with CLF, finish with SPM. Some systems are better at different things, some more subtle, some more practical.

And, not everything goes together, i.e. Beer and Pizza, is a lot better than Beer and ice cream...

Both are fine arts, you'd have to be ambitious, or perhaps impatient, to want to tackle both. To each his own.