Traditional 18 Forms

[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.co...L%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.