Author and age of 7 Star forms ?

Wai Jia: The Kung Fu Forum Northern Praying Mantis
1

I was talking with a fellow practitioner the other day and we got on about how old is 7 Star then automatically replied “centuries old” then realized I didn’t really know what was old and what was not with regard to 7 Star. In fact I couldn’t answer who wrote what form and when ?

So I am searching for information for each WHF book that I have (16 of them now) to find out who authored the form and when it was written ? If you know of a book or website or thread on this site that helps/answers please post.
If you know the author and date of creation for any of these forms please reply. I would very much appreciate hearing from anyone on this. Here is the list of books with English names:

  1. Four Direction Fighting
    2a. Concealing the Hard
    2b. 18 Ancestors
  2. Piercing Fist
  3. Monks Martial Breathing
  4. White Ape Exits The Cave
  5. White Ape Steals The Peach
  6. Plum Flower Fist
  7. Plum FLower Falling Leaf
  8. Plum Flower Hand
  9. 1st Set of Essentials
  10. 2nd Set of Essentials
  11. 3rd Set of essentials
  12. Drunken Monk
  13. Crushing Step
  14. Two Man Crushing Step
  15. Flying Goose Palm

thx in advance,
UM.

2

Just a Start

UM,

Not much of a start but here goes:

Lohan Gong, (Monk’s Strength) story goes that it was given to Fan Xudong via Shaolin and passed to LKY. Not found on the mainland in my studies, though I have heard a story or two of folks who did have it there. Others say it was added in HK by LKY.

Chop Choi (CHopping Fist) and Say Lo Bung Da(4 Directions running and hitting), both definately from Wang Yongchun. I have seen varing versions of both these sets from different students of WHF.

White Ape Steals Peach and Exits Cave, in LKY line it was LKY who revised these sets as they exist in HK Tanglang. Others have added their own varitions like Chu Leung due to his being influenced by the Yip Duk Monks. On the mainland, it would be best to ask Sifu Tunks.

Drunken Monk, Zui Lohan, some say added by WHF to the system. Others say added by LKY. I have stories on both sides. Not found on the mainland and exclusive to HK Tanglang. Again Chu Leung has added much to this corpus of knowledge.

Two Man Crushing Step-The idea of a Ling or matching side is argued by some to be an emphasis made by LKY. On the mainland, where it is found, the took it from LKY and brought it back from that line. Others say it was originally a part of Tanglang until the time of Fan Xudong, lost there but preserved by LKY. Here I am only presenting the range of ideas present.

Got to go. Hopefully others will add more. If not, I will give it a try later.

Steve Cottrell

3

Re: Just a Start

Originally posted by MantisifuFW

Two Man Crushing Step-The idea of a Ling or matching side is argued by some to be an emphasis made by LKY and the mainland folks, where it is found, brought it back from that line. Others say it was originally a part of Tanglang, lost and preserved by LKW. Here I am only presenting the range of ideas present.

Sifu Cottrell,

In regards to the Ling forms, I cannot say if it was an emphasis made only by LGY but I do know that in our WHF line, the ling forms were taught and held in high regard. WHF also authored many articles on the subject on Ling forms, the most commonly found article being in the preface to his Ling Bung Bo book. I am not sure though why you say the ling forms are lost and preserved by LKW, whom I can only guess to mean Sifu Lee Kam Wing. To my knowledge and recollection, I have not seen any forms lists for any of his schools that include any ling forms.

YM

4

OOPS

YoungMantis,

Forgive my mistake. I was just before class and miswrote. (Note to self, don’t post when in a great hurry), Please see my amended version where I state that LKY preserved the ling. This was my intent, to state that the two main theories on two man Bungbo and all Ling sets were that either LKY created the emphasis on Ling as a method of preserving the true meaning of the sets or that LKY was preserving the work of Fan Xudong. I did not wish to bring my personal bias into the discussion at this point.

I did not say that only the WHF line places such an emphasis on Ling because I have not examined the Ling components of either LKW or CCY and did not wish to be exclusive until I had complete information. If you have more information on these other branches, I would be appreciative if you could share this.

Again, that’s what I get for being in a hurry. I have amended my post to reflect my intent. Thanks for reading my post more carefully than I wrote it.

Steve Cottrell

5

Thoughts on Ling forms

I believe Ling form(s) most likely was/were introduced between late 1880’s and early 1900’s. IMHO, I think the first fully developed (lengthwise) ling form would most likely be Bengbu which made its debut in Yantai county, Shandong sometime after 1841 CE. However, I don’t believe the Bengbu is the first ling form of the system per se. It is quite possible that this methodology or rather this ling form in particular was developed with the help of Eagle Claw stylist(s). It is believed that Eagle Claw style has a long history in Shandong as well. I must clarify that there are 2 versions of this form, 7* & CCK TCPM, that I am aware of in exsitance today. They both reveal each style’s individual stylistic flavor and fighting approach. I believe that 7 Star’s version might have Eagle Claw influence while CCK TCPM is more akined to perhaps Taizu Men. CCK TCPM version is interesting in that it is reminiscent of the Taojie (steal intercept or Steal Connect) which is another 2 men form with lots of Chin Na techniques. The flavor and certain techniques of these 2 forms are amazingly similar. I am not sure of the origin of Taojie; therefore, I am not able to pin point the source of the inspiration for the CCK TCPM Bengbu 2 men version. Come to think of it neither can I figure out the true source of the 7 Stars version. :frowning: Given the existance of 2 very different flavor long forms, I can only say that ling form methodology would reveal the inner feelings or rather the point of view of the author, as Usar Major puts it, of the form. It reveals a level of reality that the author(s) of the ling form(s) saw as insight subject to his attributes which is then articulated and solidified with a counter side. It is simply an insight of mantis fighting in a neat nutshell. All I am saying is beware of focusing on the finger point to the moon. Not that the finger isn’t helpful btw. :slight_smile:

Mantis108

6

Ling

Mantis108,

Facinating post! What factors do you use in establishing the time for the innovation of Ling? Personally I value the Ling as part of my heritage in LKY/WHF Tanglang and believe that there is great insight to be gained in this aspect of training.

Steve Cottrell

7

others have added their own variations like Chu Leung due to his being influenced by the yip duk monks

I just want to say that CL did not “add variations” and was not “influenced” by the monks. This would imply that CL may have just learned a few things from them and then just added what he picked up to CCM’s forms. CL trained directly under 2 of the temple’s monks from childhood. He trained under them even while training with CCM. I believe he would still go back to the temple after leaving for New York whenever he went back to visit.

Whatever differences there may be between our forms, WHF forms and even CCM forms for that matter are not because CL added them but rather because that is how the form was taught by the monks.

I know that you did not mean it the way it sounded to me but I felt I needed to make the clarification nonetheless.

Also, while we are on the topic of ling I would like to share that in our line our Bung Bo has a 2 man fighting set ( I forget the chinese term ). The difference is that the ling is basicallly one-sided. By this I mean that in the Ling you have the person who is actually doing the moves to the form and the other person just basically extends his limbs out to facilitate his partner’s applications of said form. In the other version, both partners are actually using techniques evenly for attack and defense and both get to use Bung Bo alternatively. I don’t think this is exclusive to our line. I know there is a book ( in chinese ) that actually shows this form.

8

Originally posted by loki

Also, while we are on the topic of ling I would like to share that in our line our Bung Bo has a 2 man fighting set ( I forget the chinese term ). The difference is that the ling is basicallly one-sided. By this I mean that in the Ling you have the person who is actually doing the moves to the form and the other person just basically extends his limbs out to facilitate his partner’s applications of said form. In the other version, both partners are actually using techniques evenly for attack and defense and both get to use Bung Bo alternatively. I don’t think this is exclusive to our line. I know there is a book ( in chinese ) that actually shows this form.

Hmm, not sure what your version of Ling Bung Bo is like but in the WHF tradition, the Ling side of any of the ling forms be it Ling Bung Bo, Ling Daw Ghong, Ling Sup Baht Sao, Ling Tchahp Tchoi, etc.,is more than just “…extends his limbs out to facilitate his partner’s applications of said form”.

Yes, one side does the regular sequence of the solo form although sometimes the techniques do not look exactly as they do in the solo versions. But to say that the Ling side of these partner forms do nothing but facilitate the other side shows a lack of understanding and appreciation of the ling form usage and lessons.

There is so much more going on for the ling side. To think of them as simply a means to practise Bung Bo, Daw Ghong, or any of the other forms with a partner from beginning to end, is truly missing some great aspects of the forms. There are mantis attacks and counter-attacks, defenses and escapes. There are many lessons for the ling side on learning timing and how to counter-attack.

Your spin on the ling forms sounds like there is nothing to be gained by practising the ling side of these forms. I think it is far from it and the ling sides are almost if not as important as the regular side. For anyone that has learned and really practised any of the ling forms, they should understand what lessons I am talking about.

YM

9

YM ,

With the exception of “shows a lack of understanding” I can agree with the points you made regarding the benefits to both practitioners. That still does not negate the point I was trying to make, which is that there is another two-man (fighting) form which is different from the more common learned ling version. I cannot remember the chinese term for it right now but I will definitely ask Sifu tonight and get back to you on that , okay?

BTW, you don’t know me so don’t presume to know what I lack understanding in.

10

Originally posted by Young Mantis
[B]… There is so much more going on for the ling side. To think of them as simply a means to practise Bung Bo, Daw Ghong, or any of the other forms with a partner from beginning to end, is truly missing some great aspects of the forms. There are mantis attacks and counter-attacks, defenses and escapes. There are many lessons for the ling side on learning timing and how to counter-attack.

Your spin on the ling forms sounds like there is nothing to be gained by practising the ling side of these forms. I think it is far from it and the ling sides are almost if not as important as the regular side. For anyone that has learned and really practised any of the ling forms, they should understand what lessons I am talking about.

YM [/B]

Hello Young Mantis,

Without doubt your comments are accurate and reflect what is appropriate. IMHO the two-man fighting sets are invaluable contributors to our system.

However when reading loki’s post I could also see a value in this ‘one-sided place-holders’ ling form described – not as a final statement of the ling form itself (IMO we already have that)… but as an intermediary learning tool (no disrespect intended loki).

Let me explain using Bung-Bo 2 man as an example. I like to see students get ‘hands-on’ asap and the ling form is tremendous for this with one obvious caveat – it is very demanding of skills. It seems to me the value of a ling form with one person acting as a passive dummy is that it is entirely one-sided and would get the student ‘into the method’ without having to concentrate much on the opponent. Instead they could step through the form visualizing their technique emphasizing stepping, position, stance, timing, etc… against a meaningful target that in return is not trying to pound on them. This is somewhere between the common excercise of practicing a form against an invisible opponent and the full contact 2-man excercise of the ling form. I find that some students take to ling right away while others struggle with the concepts. If I had a tool such as the one loki described I might be able to improve their learning experience through use of ‘soft’ and ‘hard’ ling versions.

regards,
UM.

11

Originally posted by Young Mantis
I think it is far from it and the ling sides are almost if not as important as the regular side. For anyone that has learned and really practised any of the ling forms, they should understand what lessons I am talking about.

When I was learning the 2 man forms, the partner that got to learn the ling side, or in our terms - the “attacking side”, was considered lucky. It was the more advanced student of the partners that got to learn the attacking side first, and those learning the regular side were always envious(the junior student might not get to learn the attacking side until a year later).

Everyone wanted to be the one who got to learn the attacking side. If the partners were of relatively equal training level, one of them sometimes would defer the priviledge of learning the attacking side first to the other partner as a way to show respect and politeness to his kung fu brother. Later, that priviledged partner would return the favor by working extra hard to help his brother understand the subtle/hidden details when they switched sides.

N.

12

Loki,

You are right, I do not know you nor do I know what you have learned and understand about the system. But I found your remarks regarding the ling form to be quite flippant and off-handed. Perhaps you were trying to downplay the ling form to highlight the two man Bung Bo form you have in your lineage. As you gave me no other indication as to having an appreciation or understanding of the ling form, I commented on your statement.

You see, I happen to think very highly of the ling forms. I think it really displays the beauty of the praying mantis forms. That every move in the sequence of the form can link to another in a cohesive and logical progression. When learning the solo form, one might not truly see and appreciate this. When learning the ling form, and then further dissecting the ling form, so much more about the forms’ usage and design is revealed.

Your remarks regarding the ling side left me feeling you did not truly understand or appreciate this because they seemed so indifferent to these aspects of the ling forms. Perhaps you just don’t see them the way I do or perhaps your training of the ling form is different.

Oh, and I never tried to negate your statement about your other 2-man bung bo set. I don’t know why you made that statement. I have nothing to say about it since I do not know of it outside of your comments on it.

YM

13

Ok, all other discussion aside, sofar we have:

  1. Four Direction Fighting (Wang Yongchun -> WHF date unknown could be 20th century ?).

2a. Concealing the Hard (author and date of origin unkown).

2b. 18 Ancestors (author and date of origin unkown).

  1. Piercing Fist (Wang Yongchun -> WHF date unknown could be 20th century ?)

  2. Monks Martial Breathing (Fan Xudong via Shaolin and passed to LKY… does that make it a 19th century form ? 18??).

  3. White Ape Exits The Cave (through LKY date of origin unkown).

  4. White Ape Steals The Peach (through LKY date of origin unkown).

  5. Plum Flower Fist (author and date of origin unkown).

  6. Plum FLower Falling Leaf (author and date of origin unkown).

  7. Plum Flower Hand (author and date of origin unkown).

  8. 1st Set of Essentials (author and date of origin unkown).

  9. 2nd Set of Essentials (author and date of origin unkown).

  10. 3rd Set of essentials (author and date of origin unkown).

  11. Drunken Monk (added by LKY or WHF date unknown).

  12. Crushing Step (author and date of origin unkown).

  13. Two Man Crushing Step (as early as 1841 then through LKY).

  14. Flying Goose Palm (author and date of origin unkown).

thx,
UM.

14

Hi Sifu Cottrell,

My take on the origin and dates of form would be mostly from the Taiji/Meihwa side of things. Also available info on the net by Ilya Profatilov, Brendan Tunk plus Fernando’s Mantis Cave. Of course, private emails and personal contacts with Tainan Mantis and others provide great insights as well. So arguably, my “fact” might not be straight. :frowning: However, I believe it is important to keep track of the dates. So I would put together the Masters “supposed” living periods and try to cross reference it with the rest of the material. It helps to see whether there is a hole in a supposition.

For example, from Ilya’s research, we “know” that GM Liang Xue Xiang (CE 1810 - ?) taught Bazhou, Luanjie, and Bengbu. There are couple of Quanpu that are dated around his time. One of them is arround 1840-41 (?). BTW, it could be the later one that has the Bengbu. I will have to double check on the dates. It mentioned Bengbu. Zhaiyao didn’t seem to be in exsitance at that time or at least it would seem so as the document goes. So at age 30 GM Liang was teaching or has been teaching these stuff. Personally, I feel that Bengbu, and Luanjie for that matter, was born of Bazhou. The elbow technique that is found in CCK TCPM Bengbu echoes the one that is found in the Xia Bazhou as well. I persume a similar case can be established with other TJPM families’ “3 big forms”. In my mind, the Laiyang Bengbu would be the missing link of the evolution. Bazhou would be the mother of all TJPM forms instead of the Zhaiyao IMHO. The Qishou form (7 hands) would be an important strand of DNA of Mantis fighting also extracted from the Bazhou to teach basic fighting concepts for the novice. That’s kind of out of the scope for this discussion so I will leave it for now.

One of GM Liang’s students was Jiang Hualong (CE 1855 - 1924). This means that GM Liang could lived pretty long (upto 80-90 years old). It is said (oral transmission of GM CCK) that on GM Liang’s 70th or 80th birthday, 7 or more of his Kung Fu Master friends presented him with a gift - the Zhaiyao form (basically a bunch of different styles’ techniques)which he later reorganized into the Zhaiyao form (one form only) as we know it. This would make sense since in the old days to have a big celebration for 70th or 80th birthday was customery. Actually, I would think it’s more like 60th birthday but then that’s just speculation. By then Jiang would be around 20 some years olds. One thing of note is that many old masters that I know of in person including GM CCK were very active even at 70 or 80 years old. So it is entirely possible that he would teach Zhaiyao (the prototypical version) and then perhaps working towards fine tuning it even expanding it. We also know that Jiang and some other GM Liang’s students or grandstudents were teaching in Yantai city, the old capital of Shandong, where many other styles of Kung Fu including Eagle Claw, Monkey, Black Tiger, etc… were also taught.

By the time, GM CCK learned TJPM in Yantai, it would be around 1920-27. So it would seem that the TJPM 2 men Bengbu existed then.

This is a very breif account of my understanding to the subject. I understand this is straightly from a TJPM pov so…

Warm regards

Robert

15

Memories

Mantis108,

I understand and appreciate your noting the pov on the subject but the information is excellent! Thank you.

On another note, I remember, (I had to be eleven or twelve at the time), being told a greatly less detailed story of a great mantis master who was given the techniques of several systems as a gift. At the time it was just my being told about the Tanglang system as I was studying something else. I had actually forgoten the story until your post reminded me. It is interesting personally that now I am learning about the event.

Thank you for your willingness to take the trouble to share what you know with others.

Steve Cottrell

16

Well from a TJPM perspective, we have an explanation that might not make others happy nontheless it is an explanation for you.

<<<1. Four Direction Fighting (Wang Yongchun -> WHF date unknown could be 20th century ?).

2a. Concealing the Hard (author and date of origin unkown).

2b. 18 Ancestors (author and date of origin unkown).

  1. Piercing Fist (Wang Yongchun -> WHF date unknown could be 20th century ?) >>>

No comments

<<<4. Monks Martial Breathing (Fan Xudong via Shaolin and passed to LKY… does that make it a 19th century form ? 18??).>>>

The earliest written record available of 18 Lohan was about 1760s -1770s. That would make it older than the USA. The oral transmission would be even older.

<<<5. White Ape Exits The Cave (through LKY date of origin unkown).

  1. White Ape Steals The Peach (through LKY date of origin unkown).>>>

The white ape series could be of Baiyuan Tongbei variaty which became quite popular during late Qing dynasty (late 1700s to 1800s). I believe it is added to the branches of the system in Qingdao first and then Yantai later. branches that are not in contact with the Yantai or Qingdao (ie Laiyang) with the exception of Jiang Hualong’s branch don’t seem to have this series at all.

<<<7. Plum Flower Fist (author and date of origin unkown).>>>

no comment

<<<8. Plum FLower Falling Leaf (author and date of origin unkown).>>>

It would be Jiang Hualong and possibly together with Song Zide created in the late 1800s early 1900s.

<<9. Plum Flower Hand (author and date of origin unkown).>>>

No comment.

<<<10. 1st Set of Essentials (author and date of origin unkown).>>

See above post. It would be from GM Liang at around 1880 or 1890 CE.

<<11. 2nd Set of Essentials (author and date of origin unkown).

  1. 3rd Set of essentials (author and date of origin unkown).>>>

Not sure about the 7 Stars versions. The rest of the Zhaiyao would be from Jiang Hualong (said to have help GM Liang to develop 6 others).

<<<13. Drunken Monk (added by LKY or WHF date unknown).>>>

No comment

<<<14. Crushing Step (author and date of origin unkown).>>>

  1. Two Man Crushing Step (as early as 1841 then through LKY).>>

See above post. As early as 1830-40 for Bengbu and after 1850s for the 2 men.

  1. <<<Flying Goose Palm (author and date of origin unkown).>>>

It would seem that Flying Goose Palm has a complimentary set call the Descending Eagle Palm. Other than that I have no further comment.

Mantis108

17

Mantis 108,
Where did you get your date on Luohan Gung?

Luohan Gung has the technique Weituo Offers the Pestle.
This is the same move in Yi Jinjing with the same name.
Too much for coincidence.
Yi Jinjing appeared out of nowhere in the early to mid 1800’s.
Besides WHF’s book there isn’t much to link this to PM.
Maybe the manuscript of Wang Yifu which, as he wrote in the '30’s. PM is also known as Short Strikes of 18 Luohan

Ilya Profatilov credits Meihua Lu to Song Zide.
Ilya’s shrfu was Song’s grandson.
Song was Jiang Hualong’s literate childhood kung fu brother.
After training Song kept detailed notes and made a book.
I had the chance to read over this book while at Ilya’s home last year.
This gives the Meihua Lu story some bit of credibility, at least to me.

The other Plum Flower forms are almost surely added by Luo Guangyu as well as HK 7* White Ape forms.
Small an Large Frame, Goose Palm, 14 Roads.
But eager to hear proof to the contrary.

WHF’s student came to stay with my shrfu. I had the chance later to see my shrfu practicing Flying Goose Palm.
Very nice looking form.

Drunken Luohan is only called PM because it was taught by WHF.
Most likely he learned it in south as it has many points of Southern style.
I wrote details on this on a previous thread.

Four Direction Fighting.
Who says this is a PM form?
It is in other styles of Longfist.
Wang Songting taught it and he learned Longfistas well as PM.
But his version doesn’t look PM.
Sun Longzhai also taught it and he didn’t do PM.
More of the Mizhong Longfist style.

It seems as though Luo Guangyu learned it and changed it to more PM style.
Likely he did the same with Small and Large frame boxing.
Both forms start with unmistakeable Longfist and the become PM.
It is uncharactereistic of other PM forms that are verifiably old.

Concealing Hard is better called Avoiding Hardness.
Named after a single technique which is also known as dodging step.
The manuscript of the form reads like a keyword formula of PM:
adding,rolling, plucking, piercing, wrapping, hanging, sealing, stealin etc.

Interesting to note that the term fanche has to define two types of movement.
According to the writings of WHF this is because of the addition of Avoiding Hardness and Piercing Hand.
They have the Fanche technique which in Beng Bu was called "beng BU’
He changed the term in the form Beng Bu from “beng Bu” to “Fan Che”

Or is it possible that the term Fanche always had 2 different meanings?
Unlikely since WHF as well as manuscripts of mine define the term fanche very clearly.
It doesn’t mean the term fanche that is used in beng bu today .

So it seems that these forms were added at a later date. And other styles of PM stick to the old term Tsuo Chuei instead of Fanche.
WHF uses both terms.

Why is Piercing Fist dated to Wang Yungchun?

18

I am trying to stay away from this topic but I will at least address Cha Chui, Si Lu Ben Da.

Why is Piercing Fist dated to Wang Yungchun?

Because all of his students had the indentical form which was found nowhere else and passed successfully to their respective disciples.

The Si Lu Benda that is found in Mantis Boxing is a distinct Tanglang form regardless of its origin (granted it is Qixing).

Are Cha Chui and Xiao Huyan also not Tanglang forms?

Does not Meihua Tanglang retain many of its external influences?

If so, which Meihua/Taijimeihua/Taiji Tanglang forms are not Mantis forms?

19

Hi Brendan,
I like the news you have on Cha Chuei.
The form performs like 100% PM. I like it very much.

I can’t say the same for the Si Lu Beng Da and Hsiao Huyen forms I have seen.
They all look like PM forms with more Longfist added.

According to my Shrye Li Hongjie who learned it from Wang Songting.
This form was made up in the '30’s.

I have seen many versions of this form and it was brought to Taiwan by quite a few different Shrfu’s.
I suppose it was taught in many of the national MA schools in the 30’s.

Do you have reason to believe that these forms also date back to early 7* days?

20

Hi Tainan,

I can’t say the same for the Si Lu Beng Da and Hsiao Huyen forms I have seen.
They all look like PM forms with more Longfist added.

They certainly do.

According to my Shrye Li Hongjie who learned it from Wang Songting.
This form was made up in the '30’s.

A lot of evidence points to a recent origin.

I have seen many versions of this form and it was brought to Taiwan by quite a few different Shrfu’s.
I suppose it was taught in many of the national MA schools in the 30’s.

It was and Qingdao Guoshu academy was a major source.

Do you have reason to believe that these forms also date back to early 7* days?

Xiaohuyan is certainly earlier than the thirties but as far as myself possessing actual primary historical documentation about the entry period of both forms into the curriculum, no.
These two forms appear to be more of a Qingdao thing (especially Xiaohuyan) as far as Qixing goes, though both were/are also found in Yantai. Their era and location of entry into the system is disputed but tradition has them attributed to the Wang Yongchun period. Of course this is no ‘true’ historical evidence. Regardless, they are both now a part of the system.