Can anyone help , why is it that the Hong Kong lineage lists many more forms than the lineages of mainland China ? nearly double ?
Development
FS,
It depends upon the lineage of HK 7*. Some have more forms than others.
The question is a tough one. Many HK practitioners hold that they have the art as passed down from Fan Xudong, the original 7* and the mainland lost forms. Others (mostly mainland practitioners) hold that Luo Guangyu changed the curriculum and created new sets to reflect that innovation.
Even among HK practitioners it is said that some teachers in Luo Guangyu’s lineage invented forms and that others dropped forms.
All that to say the debate is a hard and contentious one but those are the sides I have heard. Hope it helps,
Steve Cottrell
Hello,
the same conclusion like Mantisifu I got.
In the past I was wondering about the different curricili too. But now I think: what the problem?
You decide to follow your Master and he teach you what he knows. Normally it will last a livetime, no matter if it 25 forms or 100!
Instead of thinking about the other forms, that you don´t have in your linage, you should train the ones you got even more harder!
There are no secrets and no dooropener in just the forms you don´t got in your curriculum. Its all in your own system - you have to open your eyes, thats all.
Thats what I think today. (I don´t mean a special person, I want to describe the situation!)
Hello FEELERSTRIKE,
I agree with Sifu Cottrell and GBL.
What I have witnessed in the CMA community is a trend towards increased credibility being granted a line depending upon the number of forms known and practiced by that line. Our assumption, our supposition is that the more forms known and practiced the greater the knowledge of the system in that line. The number of forms in a line should not be a litmus test for credibility.
What I have found is this – some lines have tremendous fighting traditions while others enjoy somewhat lesser fighting traditions and it usually has nothing to do with the number of forms known and practiced by that line.
I have found that I can only study one form at a time.
Best Regards,
UM.
Many thanks to your replies MantisifuFW , GermanBaiLung and ursamajor , hello to you all from the U.K. I was never concerned with the amount of forms in our lineage I have always learnt what my Sifu has taught me . He is the best judge of my abilities .
It was just strange to see that most of the sites for the mainland lineages list only a small amount of forms where as we are a mainland lineage and yet we have many more forms . It made me wonder if nowadays the mainland is concentrating on certain forms only . Again many thanks for your thoughts and knowledge on this subject . We don’t get the chance to mix much with the wider P M community . I hope in the future this can be corrected .
( I look forward to the new issue of Mantis Quarterly , keep up the good work mantisifuFW )
On Target!
UM, GBL,
Thank you for making an excellent point. FS, IMHO only, Tanglang is a boxing art that is composed of techniques and principles. When they are followed and trained at to an adequate degree of physical ability, one does Tanglang. The set that one might play is an expression of that boxing art in a single given setting. Can one draw lessons from beyond the set? Yes, but that will ential going back to the principles and techniques of Tanglang to interpret what might be done.
On the other hand, there are some who interpret the system from the sets outward; seeing the sets as the expressions of masters for future generations. These are usually the styles of Tanglang with more sets. I do not question this view’s validity, I simply teach the way my teacher taught me because it seems both efficient and effective so I see no reason to change.
My sifu taught me that Tanglang predated and extended far beyond the sets. (Anyone having seen Lai Sifu play a set knows that he both valued them and excelled at their performance). So we practiced the techniques of Tanglang observing the expression of the principles in each and where they might, on occasion, mirrior the sets. Then we played the sets with an eye towards both technique and principle.
Anyway there’s my lenghty .02USD on it.
STeve Cottrell
P.S. FS, thanks for the encouraging words. We just added a Tanglang school in HK who promise some interesting articles…
My Sifu has always varied the forms taught to us rather than having a set list to learn so that the students can start with forms that are suitable for them so they can get a better grasp of what mantis boxing is about . I have seen to many people over the years who are fantastic form practitioners but who are unable to grasp the principles behind the moves and hence are unable to mantis box . Only in understanding the breakdown of the techniques in each form and why they can differ between forms can you really appreciate the art of mantis boxing . It is a lesson that has taken a long time for me to realise and only now I 'm starting to see why there are so many forms in the 7 star style .
Agreed
FS,
Indeed, the value of sets as teaching and training tools is without question. I too vary the sets from year to year that I teach to students at each level in order to give insight into the whole of the system. Sometimes I teach a specific set to a student to help them with body mechanics or to facilitate training to accentuate a particular strength.
Great to talk to you,
Steve Cottrell
Hello to the UK
Hello Feelerstrike,
first a warm welcome here from germany.
Second, I tried to wrote my post so that everyone can understand that I don´t adress to someone specific. It was just my thoughts aboutthat topic. But sometimes my english is not good enough to make that thinks clear … 
Originally posted by FEELERSTRIKE
I have seen to many people over the years who are fantastic form practitioners but who are unable to grasp the principles behind the moves and hence are unable to mantis box . Only in understanding the breakdown of the techniques in each form and why they can differ between forms can you really appreciate the art of mantis boxing .
I slightly disagree. I see students and students in there best believe to perform a form good. But it was clear there are only beginners, no matter if they are training for 5 or 10 years. Why? Because they lack of understanding the applications and the principles. If you don´t understand these things you will always perform your forms on a lower level. There is no life in the forms, you will see nice moves, fast hands but no fighting! thats the difference.
Conclusion: there will be only fantastic form practitioners for a public with no insight, when the practitioner was unable to grasp the princeples behind the moves!
If you grasp the principles you will see this imediatly!
Re: Development
Originally posted by MantisifuFW
[B]FS,
It depends upon the lineage of HK 7*. Some have more forms than others.
The question is a tough one. Many HK practitioners hold that they have the art as passed down from Fan Xudong, the original 7* and the mainland lost forms. Others (mostly mainland practitioners) hold that Luo Guangyu changed the curriculum and created new sets to reflect that innovation.
Even among HK practitioners it is said that some teachers in Luo Guangyu’s lineage invented forms and that others dropped forms.
All that to say the debate is a hard and contentious one but those are the sides I have heard. Hope it helps,
Steve Cottrell [/B]
drawing the same conclusions but maybe the drop out in mainland trace was related to the CR ( cultural revoloution and desrtuction of records) ??? Does anyone have dates on the form changes??
Blooming Lotus I have been wondering that myself , I know that the forms we have are what our lineage has passed down from generation to generation and like most lineages our previous masters have adjusted some movements in the forms and we have some forms that were made up by our great grandmaster . Being a mainland lineage I started to wonder why we have more forms than the present mainland lineages list . Did forms get lost in the C R ? After watching the latest vcd’s coming out of China they are so different from what we do and what I have seen before I have wondered if the forms have been standardised by the chinese government ?
Historical Research
FS,
The question you ask can only be answered by research that has access to traditional Quanpu, (the listings of forms in a system). Unfortunately many of the traditional Quanpu have been archived by the mainland government in an attempt to preserve deteriorating manuscripts. Others are closely held by their clans and are shown only to the most senior of the practitioners.
One can, at this point, only look at the evidence and use deductive reasoning. The problem is that this information is subject to our own bias. Such as, “Why does mainland Tanglang look so different from HK?”
The possible answers are:
- They were corrupted by the influence of modern Wushu.
- HK Tanglang was influenced by the converging of schools and styles that openly exchanged in that city’s martial society.
- LKY changed the system.
The debate still goes on today but take, for example, the difference in the height of stances. This kind of question can be answered by photographic evidence as was offered by the piotri of the Polish Mantis Boxing Society on this list. The picture was, I believe, from the 1960’s and the master is Lin Jingshan, quite advanced in age. Lin Jingshan’s stance is much lower than the HK verson commonly seen. At his age, after preserving the art for decades of Cultural Revolution pressure, I doubt that he adopted the Wushu verson for his last years. So, there is an indication that one master and probably his clan, had very low stances.
Some interesting facts to ponder:
-
Mainland Tanglang has no Mantis Exits the Cave and no Mantis Steals the Peach.
-
They do have many White Ape forms. Their White Ape Steals the Peach and our Mantis Steals the Peach are very similar. Our White Ape Steals Peach and Exits Cave look nothing like theirs.
-
On the mainland they have a saying “Mantis’ don’t steal peaches or exit caves”. They believe that LKY invented the White Ape forms used by HK and then used the mainland Exits Cave and Steals the Peach as the basis for his “Mantis” forms.
So the debate on how things changed goes on in both places, only from different perspectives.
Hope it helps, (a little)
Steve Cottrell
Thanks for your reply MantisifuFW , you have answered questions for me and made me ask others .
Is there a list available of the mainland China forms . After searching the internet I have found some forms listed but nothing on the different white ape forms that exist . This is what made me wonder . The H K lineages are happy to list their forms but the mainland lineages do not . Is there a list available of the forms that LKY is supposed to have created ? After years of being starved of information on this style I am know finding it more interesting than ever .
Not my position but…
FS,
Please understand, for many schools of HK Tanglang the idea that LKY changed or innovated anything is heresy. I do not want to take a position on this thing just to avoid the eventual private emails that come along. Here are some of the theories I have been told and that you can investigate as you wish:
- Mantis Exits Cave/ Steals Peach, HK version White Ape Exits Cave/ Steals Peach, Small Frame Fist, Large Frame Fist, Plum Flower Hand, Plum Flower Fist created by LKY. Also the the Luo Han Gong was added by Master Luo, Some say from the Shaolin temple, others say from Meihua or Taiji Meihua Tanglang.
I will say that they have not appeared in any listing of mainland 7*Tanglang I have seen. (This does not mean they are not there. I do not claim to have investigated fully).
- All the “second route” sets of White Ape forms, Plum Flower sets, and the Plum Flower Palm and kick sets, the Silky Connected Palm and Elbow sets created by Chu Chi Man .
(My own investigation has only revealed that WHF and CHun Chin Yee’s QUanpu are nearly identical with only those schools connected with CCM have these second routes or these other sets. They do not exist on the mainland in any school of Seven Star. What this means is up to the investigator and perhaps someone will produce evidence, (not more opinion, I have plenty of that on my own). 
- That the many White Ape sets on the mainland are a relatively new phenomena, (within the last 85 years or so). BTW that predates the Cultural Rev. by many years so they are not the result of “modern” influencesThey say the same thing about the sets listed above about LKY.
As I have said, the facts can be interpreted any way dependant upon one’s vested interest, (a hard thing to avoid).
Best of luck,
Steve Cottrell
Originally posted by FEELERSTRIKE
Thanks for your reply MantisifuFW , you have answered questions for me and made me ask others .
Is there a list available of the mainland China forms . After searching the internet I have found some forms listed but nothing on the different white ape forms that exist . This is what made me wonder . The H K lineages are happy to list their forms but the mainland lineages do not . Is there a list available of the forms that LKY is supposed to have created ? After years of being starved of information on this style I am know finding it more interesting than ever .
FS: sometimes you’ve gotta search, sub search tid - bits, relatives and so on…
I’m sure It’s out there!! the mission is just finding it 
blooming lotus,
Yes you’re right the cultural revolution certainly killed of many things. But in terms of tracing the origins of the specise, it is actually a mish mesh web as opposed to a well formed bonsai tree.
Why, because, many teachers learn a variety of northern styles and they influence how they play their mantis.
But fortuantely, all northern kung fu is pretty similar. I hadn’t been a big historian when I was prac. kung fu, just the ability to hit well and move well. Now that I have all the time on my hands I can afford to be more nostalgic.
nostalgic nothing. When we’re talking gongfu, to be serious, at some stage for accuracy and best information sake it becomes a point you need to work on. 
blooming lotus,
I find kung fu to be rather messy. For example in the place where Northern mantis originated - in Shandong, it was a place for ruffians, pirates, sailors, bandits and the like. they brought with them all sorts of fighting styles. Mantis was then tested along the silk roads where it encountered different tribes men, even possibly Russians.
In the end, it comes down to good body movement. What ever, you decide to term it, be it chi or biomechanics suit yourself. When I did northern kung fu, I did what was practical and excluded the fancyful names.
But then again I’m always happy to stand corrected by blooming lotus
Mainland Forms
FS
To return to your original question, I did some looking at forms I have seen or heard of on the mainland. What I see is that Mainland 7* by my reconing has about 31+ forms. This is not far from the corpus of WHF Tanglang and CCY. The difference being that most HK Tanglang teaches drunken sets, and the 14 Roads of LKY where the mainland school has the Tan Tui 12 roads, other differences have been discussed such as the number of White Ape sets the absence of any second route sets and no Ba Zhou set.
We are far more alike than different-though it can be said that mainland 7* of all branches and in all cities is more alike than they are to HK Tanglang. The debate on who changed is for others to debate, I do not have an answer on that score as much as I have observations.
Hope it helps,
Steve Cottrell
Originally posted by Ego_Extrodinaire
[B]blooming lotus,
I find kung fu to be rather messy. For example in the place where Northern mantis originated - in Shandong, it was a place for ruffians, pirates, sailors, bandits and the like. they brought with them all sorts of fighting styles. Mantis was then tested along the silk roads where it encountered different tribes men, even possibly Russians.
In the end, it comes down to good body movement. What ever, you decide to term it, be it chi or biomechanics suit yourself. When I did northern kung fu, I did what was practical and excluded the fancyful names.
But then again I’m always happy to stand corrected by blooming lotus [/B]
Ego!!
Stop loving my jazz so unbiasedly ha??!!! objectivity , even amongst those you seroiusly dig, is a ****her step to enlightenment and your own value!!
I realise that alot of styles went down and spread from here ( japan - sino war come CR period) and various places received various versions. It appears Hong Kong received ( re: - mantis and no doubt others) jazz we in the mainland no longer have circulating.
There’s valid discussion here, but crux is that War and War brought change, mainland deprived of info and puzzle pieces all over… can you put it back together on your own merit??? Now THAT is doing it real style 