To get back to the topic, if you want to put the real style back together you have to acknowledge the mess. You also cannot do so from a historian’s point of view or be nostalgic doing form no. 98 and then form No. 99 and learning all the fancyful names. no no no.
You gotta train and feel the essence of the system ie. how it works in combat. In doing so, it might bring one tiny step to what the prac. of those days would be experience - given that our lives are much more sedate.
Maybe you could try training in some northern kung fu to get the experience. Again I’m happy to stand corrected.
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 [/B]
there’s a discussion going on in "lingo question " thread that also has some good links.
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???
good point and one that I think Master Shr made this past week in regards to the exodus of teachers from mainland China to Taiwan.
it’s been scattered for sure and I think the most important thing is to make an effort to gather it all back again. but a lot of people will have to set aside their ego’s for information to flow.
it’s really not surprising when someone who has put their blood, sweat and tears into something HAS to hold on to it as ‘the one true’ style. It’s a terrible loss when you discover what you’ve been doing for a long time is possibly not what you were told it was.
For a long time, mantis has been passed on without firm records. In fact only the 1st form Bung Bu is consistent through out. The higher forms have their variations depending on which teacher you speak to.
So in coming down to what is the real deal, we look for the essence within the forms which should be shown in the fighting abilities of the students.
At the end of the day, people who train kung fu are fighters, that’s just what we do. right?
I am intrigued by your observations concerning Bengbu as the only consistent set throughout 7*. Perhaps the matter is one of degree. Please understand that I in no way want to be in a debate, only to share my experience.
To begin with, my own experience is indeed limited as I have trained only a few times in Qingdao, Yantai and Shanghai Qixing Tanglang. But I found that the forms we had in common all had about the same degree of similarity in movement. Their Bengbu was different from ours but I immediately recognised it as such and found many common movments. The same goes for Cha Chui, Dou Gang, `1st and 2nd Route Essentials.
There are profound differences in the Bai Yuan sets but is made up with in simialities with their Bai Yuan and our Tanglang sets. I would be interested in the lines you investigated. Perhaps we explored different groups and I would be very interested in the differences.
Oso,
As for the exodus to Taiwan, the main group who went there were mostly practitioners from the Qingdao/ Laiyang group, (there might have been others but my research is incomplete in this area) and not all of the significant practitioners left that city either. Nearly all of them who did leave were of Meihua lineage. Though there was a brain drain in that area, it did not leave those remaining without masters of great knowledge and ability.
7* on the other hand, remained nearly entirely on the Mainland overall and preserved their line there. Hence there not being 7* populations in Taiwan or elsewhere besides the HK variety in any great number.
There are many problems in such research. One is the size of the sample and the number of oral and written histories the researcher can obtain. Work continues…
I’m sure you realise , but the “exodus” was not only to Taiwan but everywhere from KG / Japan ?> Us and ****her… It is a definate mish to gather your facts vigilantly, but no doubt worth the reward, and for those that have been or are going there, everyone else 'd be seriuosly interested to hear a brief on your findings.
You are correct. Research will take time. Much of my work is built on the work of others and what I have been able to find out on my trips to China. Eventually I would like to explore the Japan connection particularly. What I have found so far is that Su Yu Cheong (of Taiwan) is probablly the father of the earliese Tanglang movement in Japan. However Sifu Phillip Man Chow of WHF line did a great deal at about the same time. So far, I have found no mainland influence soon after the revolution…but I am not finished by a long shot!
England has had early mainland influence but I have yet to do a lot of investigation there. It is the only mainland 7* I have found thus far in the early years.
That much remained on the mainland, however, is clear, however, with such knowledgable and powerful Tanglang men such as Ilya Profatilov and Brendan Tunks being the evidence.
I guess its hard to explain fully in words unless you can see the demo infront of you. In Bung Bu, depending on which schools you go to some movements are emphasised more than in others. I’m not familar with the “essentials set”, but I know depending on which teacher you go to they may emphasise on some forms and not others. However, I tend to break mantis down in terms of the usage as opposed to the number / names of forms. Tactics are covered in Bung Bu, then you’ll probably deal with close in fighting and then chasing down opponents etc…
I tend to look compare forms as the ‘text books’ you may use at a particular school versus other schools. You may cover different forms but essentially learn the same content - that is the important part I think.
Understood. I also approach applications and combat as you have described. I guess in many ways I am a “button sorter” in terms of analysis of form. Part of the curse of trying to do research is that you focus hard on nuance when in that mode.
I have always understood that the maternal mantis forms that the style originated from where beng bu , lan jie and ba zhou . If this is true , is ba zhou one of the missing mainland forms ?
Our late Grandmaster was one who fled mainland China in 1949 to go to Taiwan before finally arriving in the U.K. in 1970 . THis is why I am interested in the 'missing mainland forms ’ especially the maternal forms
By my research, from both HK sources and mainland, from Fan Xudong back, Qixing Tanglang Quan has had no set called Ba Zhou Quan. Does Qixing have eight elbows, short body strikes and short range strikes, indeed. By my research, it was added by Luo Guangyu.
My research is that from Luo Guangyu onward, HK Tanglang is a mixture of Qixing, Meihua and Guangbang Tanglang. As such there are versions of Bazhou Quan in HK that is not in Qixing Tanglang.
The questions about the origin and veracity of the legend and saying that Beng Bu, Lan Jie and Ba Zhou being the original sets are open to question. Some would immediately question the verse because some scholars hold that the name Lan Jie “Obstruct” is actually Luan Jie “Chaotically connected”. The difference in the name of the set immediately places the verse in, they would argue, a much later place than the actual form and its true name. (This is not my position but one that is out there).
Similarly one could argue that the inclusion of Ba Zhou, ( a Meihua set) means that the verse applies to the Meihua and derivative branches and their legend/history of Tanglang origin. The mixture of legends and verses from different branches, especially in Taiwan and Hong Kong virtual melting pots of Tanglang can obviously lead to confusion and LOTS of questions, which I have much more of than I have answers!
Please do not take the following questions as anything but the first parameters I would consider if I were doing the investigation.
That is about a 20 year timeframe. Given that the martial community there is so close, distance-wise, do you think that other influences other than those of the Qixing line could have been brought in, such as HK, (who’s influence was in TAiwan because the Taiwanese masters were very open and aggressive in their study of Tanglang)? To have remained untouched by such a gathering of talented masters would be possible but how likely? I certainly do not know but it is worth thinking about.
The first indicator is that if you have a Ba Zhou, (and if my research is true), then it is already certain that there are other influences present in your Tanglang, either HK or Taiwan Meihua.
Second, if you have a Tanglang Chu Dong and Tanglang Toe Tao Quan, then, (by my research), you have HK influence.
MantisifuFW ,
Again many thanks for your observations , and knowledge of the mantis system . It has again opened questions for me and no doubt many hours of research and debate in the upcoming winter months especially over a beer or two in the pub . As always the system holds many secrets to be discovered on every angle it seems ( many I have cracked ) .
My thanks to all who have put forward their knowledge to this question .
i was interesting about ba zhou and what i know there is no this kind of form in qi xing tang lang mainland (yantai). and it never exist in qi xing. it is only in meihua/ taiji meihua tang lang in mainland. of course short technics included body strikes, head, elbows etc. are important part of qi xing, but they are not taking together in one form. short technics you can find in all forms, but some only in zha yao for example.
