mantis/monkey

[mantid1]

I enjoyed watching the vids on monkey kung fu posted by pheonix. very interesting.

Watching the video I had to think that someone had put alot of thought into that system. But, I realize you have no idea of what the stystem is about just by watching a few forms. You have to see a breakdown of the curriculum to understand what the system is about. It would not be beneficial to role aroudn on the pavement like that in a fight.

I see people posting on translations of old books, peoms, stories.....

I have seen 18 different explanations of the 12 keywords......8 different explanations of the 7,8,8 & 12 and maybe 72 different variations of the 8 basic postures/stances.

Yeah, this is all cool and we sound like scholars when we speak about them to people on forums and our students.

mantis 108 once asked me "so, what is your system about and how do you get a beginner student to advanced level...you know point A to B....fighting not BS formsl? What is the process.....how do you tell your story".

I see people posting and talking about drills and two person things but I havent heard anyone describe at what level certain drills are taught and how they progress a student.

CCK The Mantis has what I think is 64 Sau Fa. Each one has a counter attack and if I am not mistaken one Sau Fa can be used as a counter to another. So, you have all of the the fighting technique/self defense and a counter to it. Each sau fa/fighing technique/ self defense can be used as a counter against another. I could be mistaken on some of this but I think I am fairly close. I believe they also include a few two person drills at certain levels.

You could work the Basics of the system along with the sau fa without learning one form and understand the essence of the system and how to use it .

My question is how many other systems break things down like this and how many out there just take drills out of forms and teach them randomly?

[EarthDragon]

The higher level systems/ styles are more intricate and therefore theres more to them.

Simpler styles not need as much complexity. I will use funakoshi's shotokahn an example. Its the most basic style of karate I have ever seen. Its forms are linear and very simple, even the BB forms are just a longer version of punch kick block. When you get into mantis its a hybrid of other styles adn therefore get pretty complex. To understand complexity you must break it down into smaller pieces, this can be endless..... thats my 2 pennies at least

[ginosifu]

Many well known systems like Northern Shaolin, 7 Star Praying Mantis, Southern Hung Gar etc have theories and principles. These theories and principles are the foundation of the forms. No form ever created a "style", they are more a expression of the systems theory and or principles.

Usually the Theory and Principle are located somewhere in each of the systems forms. Some systems only use 1 form like Hung gars "Tiger Crane". There certain schools that only practice just that 1 form, but all of the systems theory is in it.

Even the Praying Mantis form "Bung Bo" which is supposed to have all the keywords and should be able to stand alone as a system form. However many Mantis schools nowadays have 50 or more.

The Angry Monkey system I practice has principles and a keyword formula such as 4 Hands Theory.

There are specific techniques that a Sifu must give to beginner student before they understand all the theory and principle. Once they understand the theory and principles, the practice all of there forms and drills and techniques, eventually them to be able to extrapolate self defense techniques from most any of their forms.

ginosifu

[mantid1]

I dont know but I would think that a complex style should have simple answers and apps for self defense and fighting. What good is it if a new student cant benefit from it?

I think that you may be mistaken just looking at the Shotokan forms. I have studied Okinawan Karate for some time before and they are very complex systems when you get into the bunkai even though the forms may look simple.

I realize there certain things that a student should learn but my question is about the structure of the system.

[mooyingmantis]

I dont know but I would think that a complex style should have simple answers and apps for self defense and fighting. What good is it if a new student cant benefit from it?

I absolutely agree! If a student cannot defend himself within a few weeks or a few months at the least, the "system" fails.

Though I love forms for their encyclopedic nature and artistic beauty, I have ALWAYS emphasized simplicity in self-defense applications.

I believe that the "sou fa" of many systems are utterly impractical. Most styles seem to be designed to fight practitioners of their own style or similar styles. Both bunkai and ling forms are set up this way.

For example, If you train the mantis hook as a defensive move against an oncoming punch, you better be attacked by a similar Northern style practitioner dumb enough to pause before retracting his punch. A boxer will bust your head before you have a chance to hook his wrist.

Our gou lou chui method is used aggressively rather than defensively. Jump in, knock down his guard and blast his head is how we train it.

Many Chinese systems are like Japanese systems that developed in times of relative peace rather than times of war. During times of peace, one can dwell on minutae examinations of theory and technique. The longer the period of peace, the more complex a system's theories usually become. And the less effective the fighting style will be. What used to be visceral, becomes merely philosophical.

Many of the "old school" systems (e.g., Hung Gar, Tanglangquan, etc.) demonstrate the fact that they are really not that old due to the technical nature of their fighting approach. Had they been born of war and maintained with battle in mind, they would be more effective in battle.

Thus, these systems must be stripped back down to the basics to approach the effective fighting method they used to be.

The Roof-top Matches on YouTube show how far from reality many systems have gone.

[ginosifu]

Richard,

How do we realistically pick which principles, theory or techniques are best for practical self defense and which are flowery fists?

How do we pick which of these are best for the beginner student? The basics of any MA can be pretty simplistic and foundational but not practical.

I'll go with a basic Forearm Block Punch combo. Many Karate (and even kung fu) forms are filled with these simplistic techniques but they are smaller pieces of a larger picture.

In Hung Gar we teach Forearm Blocks first but even in the first few week or months we teach how to bridge from the block to Claw attacks and takedowns etc. A choke defense is taught in the first month that finishes with a double Tiger Claw to the throat.

In the end, how do we chose what is practical and what is foundational and what is needed more first?

ginosifu

[B.Tunks]

MM

I think what little rooftop match footage that exists is probably representative of nothing much more than some kids with little grounding attempting to apply their interpretation of their particular style. More akin to playing. I don't believe it is indicative of the entire state of play for kung fu in that era. There were already fairly intense high level full-contact bouts occuring throughout SE Asia and Taiwan at this time.

Thus, these systems must be stripped back down to the basics to approach the effective fighting method they used to be.

If the basics are already there and taught as foundation, why should the system be stripped back?

BT

[mantid1]

Ginosifu

Sounds like the hung ga you study does have a "systemized approach to combat" Which tecniques do you teach....well, that is up to the head master of the system or individual instructor.

How do you pick principles, well you dont have to. The principle is a result of the technique. They had to fight and work out techniques before they could apply a principle to it. I know of many people who have fought successfully without thinking of one principle.

How does a student know what is flowery or not, well you tell them a kick to the testicles is real and monkey steals the peaches is BS.

The real stuff is in the two person and fighting....they addes the flowery stuff to the form for art.

My basic question is how many mantis systems have set drills of techniques taught at a specific level with specific reasoning to develop a fighter not just random drills.

I see many lists of forms taught in progression but not much else.

[mooyingmantis]

Richard,

How do we realistically pick which principles, theory or techniques are best for practical self defense and which are flowery fists?

In the end, how do we chose what is practical and what is foundational and what is needed more first?

ginosifu

We only learn this through actually fighting. Theory is beautiful, until the fighting gets ugly.

Think back bro. In your 14 San Shou matches and 1 MMA fight, how many traditional techniques extracted from forms or drills did you use? Which worked? Which could also be used on a non-compliant aggressor on the street?



If the basics are already there and taught as foundation, why should the system be stripped back?

BT

If the basics are already there and taught as foundation, why is more needed? Other than for artistic expression.



How does a student know what is flowery or not, well you tell them a kick to the testicles is real and monkey steals the peaches is BS.

In PM "monkey steals the peaches" is a knee strike to the head. :)


The real stuff is in the two person and fighting...

I respectfully disagree. :o Most two person stuff is trained against the style you already practice. It rarely teaches one to fight against other styles or no style street smart techniques.


My basic question is how many mantis systems have set drills of techniques taught at a specific level with specific reasoning to develop a fighter not just random drills.

I see many lists of forms taught in progression but not much else.

Good question and good point!

My school practices specific drills that have been extracted from the various forms and that produce specific skill sets. The next level of drills builds on the one before it. After it has been thoroughly trained as compliant two man drills, students are expected to use the drills:
1. Spontaneously in sparring
2. In the self-defense circle.

In the "self-defense circle" the defender is surrounded by three to four aggressors who attack in random intervals with unexpected attacks.
For example:
1. The forward attacker does a punch toward the face.
2. The left attacker shoots for a double leg take-down.
3. The right attacker throws a kick and punch combo.
4. The rear attacker attempts a naked rear choke.

If you are asking for specific drills, I would be glad to list some of the ones that I teach.

[mantid1]

well, It all depends which style of Mantis you are doing with monkey steals the peach.....just like Mo chung da fu.....different in different systems.

I have to say I feel sorry for the students that has an insturctor that only teaches them to fight against only their system....that woudl be sad indeed. Coulnt last long...after they have killed eash other off no one left to teach!

We only have to arms and two legs and there are only so many things you can do. So a lead jab in seven star should look the same as in TJPF or Choy Li fut...a reverse punch woudl have to look eerily similar in hung ga as it would in muay thai....a jab cross jab combo would have to be similar across different styles because it is just that.


You said it best look at the san shou matches.

Doesnt really matter...against an unarmed oponnent I would just use a baseball bat... not much theory there but very effective:)

I guess my original post was to ask if other schools had a set curriculum other than just for forms. Trying to spark some thought here on the forum, thats all.

[B.Tunks]

M.

So everything outside of the basics is for artistic expression? I learned a different kind of Tanglang then.

[mooyingmantis]

M.

So everything outside of the basics is for artistic expression? I learned a different kind of Tanglang then.

I think we have all learned a different kind of Tanglang than was originally taught. :)

That doesn't mean it isn't worth learning and preserving. It just means that we must ensure that what we are passing on is still relevant as a fighting art. Not just as an artistic expression or as a sport. And I believe that each family of mantis still has the potential to be extremely relevant in today's world.

[B.Tunks]

I don't think any of it should be thrown away. As far as relevance, all we have to do is fight hard and regularly.

[mooyingmantis]

Thus, these systems must be stripped back down to the basics to approach the effective fighting method they used to be.

Brendan,
The above is what I said. It is not about throwing anything away. It is simply about finding our combative roots.

Perhaps I was unclear. And it is incumbent upon the speaker to make his ideas clear. So I must take the blame on that one.

What has been handed to us is clearly a treasure. However, not all heirlooms are the most practical for use. I simply think we must focus on practicality for combat.

[EarthDragon]

What has been handed to us is clearly a treasure. However, not all heirlooms are the most practical for use. I simply think we must focus on practicality for combat.

You all know how much I am about the fighting aspect of mantis, however after reading this thread I must say I have a large group of students men and women who are not fighters at all.
They have not been in a actual adult fist fight, they are not aggressive natured people and really have no intention of gettign into a fight.
They are taking classes for other reasons, health, bordeom, loosing weight, simply for the art, the culture, to get out of the house etc etc.

so while some focus on the combat side as many have said we must remember that not all MA are about practicality effectiveness and combat. just sayin

[mooyingmantis]

You all know how much I am about the fighting aspect of mantis, however after reading this thread I must say I have a large group of students men and women who are not fighters at all.
They have not been in a actual adult fist fight, they are not aggressive natured people and really have no intention of gettign into a fight.
They are taking classes for other reasons, health, bordeom, loosing weight, simply for the art, the culture, to get out of the house etc etc.

so while some focus on the combat side as many have said we must remember that not all MA are about practicality effectiveness and combat. just sayin

Absolutely! And that is why the whole art must be preserved!

I think my teen class is a good example of diversity. I teach three teenagers: Logan, Dominic and Sam.

Dominic is a very analytical, cerebral student. He loves theory and and the cultural aspects of TLQ. Dom spars because I require all students to be able to apply the theories in intense fighting situations. He will probably never be a "king of the ring". Yet his parents have noticed that he is tougher and more confident than the bookworm they first brought to me.

Sam is the youngest and smallest. He is kind of intimidated by the other two. He loves forms and does really well demonstrating them. So far I have only allowed him to spar with me. I want to build his confidence and let him practice his form combinations in a very "safe" fighting environment. Later, he will be required to fight the bigger guys. Sam may never be the school scholar or a "king of the ring", but he is no longer the shy couch potato his parents brought to me.

Logan, my son, is a neanderthal. He hates forms and rolls his eyes when discussions about culture come up. He just wants to fight. He loves drilling with Dom and I. He loves hitting people and isn't afraid to get clobbered back. In the last month and a half he has received a broken nose and a bruised sternum. He was mad because I made him take a week off sparring after each injury.

I require that each of these three learn the whole art. But I know that if I passed the art to only one of these three young men, I have no doubt that part of the art would surely be lost. However, together they carry the full art.

I think most schools are similar to mine. Everybody has their own reasons for joining. Some will enjoy parts of the curriculum that others eschew. But I still try to make each part relevant to all.

[ginosifu]

You all know how much I am about the fighting aspect of mantis, however after reading this thread I must say I have a large group of students men and women who are not fighters at all.
They have not been in a actual adult fist fight, they are not aggressive natured people and really have no intention of gettign into a fight.
They are taking classes for other reasons, health, bordeom, loosing weight, simply for the art, the culture, to get out of the house etc etc.

so while some focus on the combat side as many have said we must remember that not all MA are about practicality effectiveness and combat. just sayin

Yes, I agree many of us now have a varied smorgashborg of students. Even though I am not teaching Mantis, I can say that the way I do it is:

1. I keep a large class of everyday people who really only want health, fitness, self defense, friendship, something to do etc etc. In this class there is a group that likes like contact sparring. There are those who do not...

2. I keep a solid class of Shuai Chiao and San Shou for those who want to fight or grapple. This class is filled with adults and children. Kids love Shuai Chiao. Then there is is a group of young adults who like San Shou.

3. I have a small (usually 2-4 peeps) group of traditional students who train the old way. We do form, form applications, fighting drills, sparring, weapon form, 2 person sets etc etc. Some of them also like to spar and some like Shuai Chiao and some San shou.

I need to separate these folks or I would go nuts.

ginosifu

[EarthDragon]

I need to separate these folks or I would go nuts.

LOL:p I even have seperate days of the week. classical T-TH fighting M-W