End the Debate... What makes a Style?

Wai Jia: The Kung Fu Forum Kung Fu Forum
1

I have a proposition.

IMO Every “style” only has a few key identifying techniques. I studied 7* for years. As I look at it, to me 7* is only diu (hook), ou lou chou (hook, control, punch as one motion), tu sau (intercepting hand as a linking technique), and fan che (overhand strikes). (might throw in “waist chopping” or yu jom). Those are pretty much it as far as unique to 7* movements. Everything else is in everything else.

So here’s the proposition. To me, how can you say you’re 7* or a master of 7* if you cannot demonstrate the key movements under pressure? Makes things plain and simple - you are not a sifu if you cannot, you’re a LARPER. If all styles adopt this mindset, then TCMA is better for it. Instead we have so much garbage… too many forms and too much tea house philosophies that we think make a sifu. They don’t. Application of skill matters.

So, what makes a style? Do you agree with my opinion? Why, why not?

2

A car is only a car. it cannot drive itself. it is the PERSON that makes any style.

3

[QUOTE=hskwarrior;1030306]A car is only a car. it cannot drive itself. it is the PERSON that makes any style.[/QUOTE]

no answer…? you said nothing. The question is “What, for you, defines a style?”.

I don’t even think so much in terms of style anymore. Not being a BL wannabe, just saying that the concept of style isn’t defined very well and is more of a problem than anything.

4

[QUOTE=MightyB;1030301]

IMO Every “style” only has a few key identifying techniques. I studied 7* for years. As I look at it, to me 7* is only diu (hook),
[/QUOTE]

This exists in MANY styles

[QUOTE=MightyB;1030301]

ou lou chou (hook, control, punch as one motion),

[/QUOTE]

Seen eagle claw much :smiley: again, not “unique” to mantis

[QUOTE=MightyB;1030301]
and fan che (overhand strikes).
[/QUOTE]

According to late 7 star master Jew Luen, this is actually Faan Ji Myuhn technique, “stolen” for mantis :smiley:

There are only two “things”, things that work and the crap. I fyou claim to do “martial arts” you should focus on the things that work and be able to make them work. If you train them day and night and they can’t seem to work, maybe it isn’t you, maybe it is the technique

5

[QUOTE=lkfmdc;1030310]This exists in MANY styles

Seen eagle claw much :smiley: again, not “unique” to mantis

According to late 7 star master Jew Luen, this is actually Faan Ji Myuhn technique, “stolen” for mantis :smiley:

There are only two “things”, things that work and the crap. I fyou claim to do “martial arts” you should focus on the things that work and be able to make them work. If you train them day and night and they can’t seem to work, maybe it isn’t you, maybe it is the technique[/QUOTE]

not disagreeing on anything you said (7* is basically an old school MMA), but it’s the concentration on those techniques that I mentioned that IMO are what 7* is all about. Taking it a step further in the weird wacky world direction, the diu in 7* is in Judo:eek:

6

The glow…if you don’t have the glow…your style sucks!!

7

[QUOTE=MightyB;1030313]not disagreeing on anything you said (7* is basically an old school MMA), but it’s the concentration on those techniques that I mentioned that IMO are what 7* is all about. Taking it a step further in the weird wacky world direction, the diu in 7* is in Judo:eek:[/QUOTE]

I’ve trained fighters for 15 years now, so I’ve had hundreds so far. They all learned the same basic curriculum from me with the same basic drills yet all of them fought differently. Because they all have different things that appeal and/or work for them. So was each one a different “style”?

Styles came about because different teachers stressed what they liked and/or worked for them. new styles come from their students who had other experiences and were inclined to different directions. Today we are hung up on “styles” but really it’s all BS

8

And, if it don’t make you leviatate…i don’t want to learn it

9

[QUOTE=hskwarrior;1030317][/QUOTE]

are people so stupid they don’t bump hip to that suspiscious looking pole he’s holding? lol with the bar that goes back and forms a seat under him?

lol

actually, I’ve seen this scam before with an Indian Fahkir. There are many gullible and stupid over religious types who buy into this sort of nonsense like levitation, touch healing, faith healing etc.

Lazy minds produce these followers.

(I know you don’t buy that crap Frank, I’m just commenting on it. :slight_smile: )

10

actually, I’ve seen this scam before with an Indian Fahkir.

i’ve seen this as well before. They did a doc. on TV somewhere, can’t remember, that had the exact same “trick” performed. The funny thing, like you pointed out, was that a lot of people believed it.

11

Originally Posted by: David Jamieson (I know you don’t buy that crap Frank, I’m just commenting on it. )

LMAO…of course i NEVER believe the mumbo jumbo. plus i saw the documentary on how they actually do that hahahahahaha

12

What makes a style?
Take a system and add your personal style to it and voila, you have a style.
Mike Tyson had a style of boxing, as did Roy Jones Jr.
The moment anyone personalizes ANYTHING it becomes a “style” of doing that thing.

13

hence “my STYLE” :smiley:

14

[QUOTE=sanjuro_ronin;1030356]What makes a style?
Take a system and add your personal style to it and voila, you have a style.
Mike Tyson had a style of boxing, as did Roy Jones Jr.
The moment anyone personalizes ANYTHING it becomes a “style” of doing that thing.[/QUOTE]

but just for the sake of argument - there are people who earnestly want to represent TCMA and I think that’s all good. I just think that in order to do that, they really have to define why they think that they can apply whatever style name to what they’re doing.

I say that they should have to do it in a way other than memorizing forms or reciting terminology because that leads to flowery fists and embroidery kicks. But - in the TCMA world, so much emphasis is placed on forms knowledge, and jing, and internal cultivation, and - you name it… except, can that person do what’s in all of their darn forms? And the answer is most likely “no, they can’t”.

Brendan Lai was a bad @ss. He embodied 7* with basically one move which he mastered to perfection and could use it in about any situation and that was ou lou choi. If you were a kickboxer - he’d nail you with it. If you were a grappler - he’d nail you with it - if you did wing chun - he’d nail you with it - heck, if you claimed you did mantis - he’d nail you with it. He could nail anyone with it (and then he’d follow through with something nastier). That to me said more than anything that he was a master of mantis.

of forms, terminology, and whatever else mattered less than that one move.

15

My style is the bomb, the bomb, ba dang ba dang diggy diggy.

also, I have a 20 lb crowbar.

16

Brendan Lai was a bad @ss. He embodied 7* with basically one move which he mastered to perfection and could use it in about any situation and that was ou lou choi. If you were a kickboxer - he’d nail you with it. If you were a grappler - he’d nail you with it - if you did wing chun - he’d nail you with it - heck, if you claimed you did mantis - he’d nail you with it. He could nail anyone with it (and then he’d follow through with something nastier). That to me said more than anything that he was a master of mantis.

I have only seen clips of demos so I will take your word for that and more so, because I myself have seen just that, Judo guys that with one (main)throw can dominate the game, boxers that can win a championship on one hand and so forth.
So that would be Sifu Lai’s (RIP) style of 7* mantis.
He could represent ALL of 7*, but i doubt that he would have wanted to.
We represnet OURSELVES and OUR PERSONAL STyle, no one else.
My Hung Kuen is MINE and is very little like my Sifu’s, as is my kyokushin, hence MY STYLE of fighting.

17

in the TCMA world, so much emphasis is placed on forms knowledge, and jing, and internal cultivation, and - you name it… except, can that person do what’s in all of their darn forms? And the answer is most likely “no, they can’t”.

if the background of the teacher is only studio work, then his approach will always be based upon theory. BUT…and i confidently say BUT…there are those schools that that have taken their gung fu to the streets to test it out. some schools demanded that you do this. but then, i only hear this coming from the hardcore types, and the wannabe hardcore types. in between are the ones who focus on the great number of forms, stuff that only old people practice, esoterics, and all that other mumbo jumbo.

In my opinion, it was always the sifu’s who’ve been tied to the streets in one way or another who take their gung fu seriously. Brendan Lai was arguably one of the badest Preying Mantis people i’ve ever seen…IMO he was hard core.

its my opinion that MMA was a major wake up call for TCMA…those who don’t meet the demand will fade away. i think forms took over cause our societies went through a peaceful period. no fighting was needed therefor forms took over. how many you had, how pretty they looked, forgetting the greater importance of whether or not you can actually use what you’ve been trained to do.

My sifu aways said “it’s not about the quantity of forms, its how well you know whats in them”.

The name of my TCMA is Hung Sing Choy Lee Fut, but my personal style is Street mixed with the basic hands and footwork of HSCLF. I use what works for me. i never eliminate, but i modify certain aspects of my system to work for ME.

18

to be clear

I did not study under Master Lai. My 7* lineage is strictly Chung. I use Lai as an example because his ou lou choi was sooooooo fast mean and bad @ss. It was an offensive weapon, a defensive weapon, heck, I think he could use it to fix cars he was so good with it. But, I think as an example of representing a style - he had the right idea. It was with perfection of application under pressure. His forms were d@mn good, you can see for yourself on youtube. But his ou lou choi was unmatched in the mantis world.

19

[QUOTE=MightyB;1030464]but just for the sake of argument - there are people who earnestly want to represent TCMA and I think that’s all good. I just think that in order to do that, they really have to define why they think that they can apply whatever style name to what they’re doing.

I say that they should have to do it in a way other than memorizing forms or reciting terminology because that leads to flowery fists and embroidery kicks. But - in the TCMA world, so much emphasis is placed on forms knowledge, and jing, and internal cultivation, and - you name it… except, can that person do what’s in all of their darn forms? And the answer is most likely “no, they can’t”.

Brendan Lai was a bad @ss. He embodied 7* with basically one move which he mastered to perfection and could use it in about any situation and that was ou lou choi. If you were a kickboxer - he’d nail you with it. If you were a grappler - he’d nail you with it - if you did wing chun - he’d nail you with it - heck, if you claimed you did mantis - he’d nail you with it. He could nail anyone with it (and then he’d follow through with something nastier). That to me said more than anything that he was a master of mantis.

of forms, terminology, and whatever else mattered less than that one move.[/QUOTE]

In the 1800s and 1900s TCMA developed into forms based arts. Forms were the foundation of most TCMA, for good or for bad. The forms of Hung Gar, Choy Li Fut, Tanglangquan and Wing Chun can only be verifiably traced back to this period.
Does one really need to know the 600 Choy Li Fut forms or the 100 Seven Star forms to understand the style? Of course, those who learned all the forms swear you too must know them to be a master of that style. Though I definitely disagree. It only created a system of haves and have nots. I have it, thus I am special. You don’t have all the material, so you are not as special as me.

If Seven Star PM forms are anything, they are a constant rehashing of the same material. I’m not saying that is necessarily bad, it certainly emphasizes muscle memory. But drilling the same oft repeated techniques does the same thing.

IMHO an ability to demonstrate and successfully apply numerous examples of the “traditional” Twelve Keyword Theories of Seven Star PM is much more important than how many forms you can demonstrate. Application to me is EVERYTHING!

I think it will be interesting to see what will be considered TCMA in 2100 - 2200 C.E. and who the major movers and shakers will be considered to have been. Who today will be seen as the new Lam Sai Wing, Yip Man and Luo Guang Yu of our era?

20

[QUOTE=mooyingmantis;1030487]
IMHO an ability to demonstrate and successfully apply numerous examples of the “traditional” Twelve Keyword Theories is much more important than how many forms you can demonstrate. Application to me is EVERYTHING!
[/QUOTE]

This is something that I’m questioning now… I look at the 12 key words, the 8 hard, the 12 soft etc. and I think that it’s a lot of good “tea talk” for after class or for writing books. Really I think that the most important philosophy was - relax, use soft to lead the hard, but use hard technique to kill. Everything else was a good way to have conversation long into the night. This would be a good conversation on the mantis forum…

Anyway, like I said when I started the thread, what does it take to claim mantis? We use industry jargon, forms, etc… not a lot of live application. Sure people show application, but it’s pre-rehearsed. That’s not good enough for me anymore… it’s just not. I say master ou lou choi, diu sau, and tu sau… that’s mantis. No more, no less. If you can do those under pressure, consistently, and live - that’s mantis. So many techniques build on that foundation.