I would like to start a discussion (ok - I want all of your opinions) on 5 animals: Dragon, Tiger, Crane, Leopard and Snake.
What do they represent to you? What do they mean in realtion to fighting (ie combat) as well as in the way you “think” during your training? What kinds of emotions do they represent to you? etc, etc, etc…
“The Wolf does not regard the barking dog”
hello i havent really learned all the animals
what im goning to share is probably all wrong and hilariuos …but hey i have used it with great succsess against people both muay thai karate and tkd
Tiger:fierce strong when i use tiger techniques
i go berserk (only in movement not in my head well maybe alittle 
)
attack fast and strong ,hitting, tearing,takeedowns, tearing down the guard using all my strenght and fierceness to deafeat my opponent
crane :using more tactics fast techs counter attacking trapping defensive more deceptive handwork more vicious striking in a way some neat combos a softer way of fighting
i dont think i should go on
remember this is just the ramblings of a newbie
True gold fears no fire
5 Animals
Whyzyrd>I would like to start a discussion (ok - I want all of your opinions) on 5 animals: Dragon, Tiger, Crane, Leopard and Snake.
Good topic, good post. Hopefully it will be picked up on.
What I’ve seen & experienced leads me to believe the 5 Animals are multi-purpose. The characteristics, as understood by the human mind, can be formed into virtually limitless conceptual platforms.
These platforms are useful in deepening the understanding of a given art. In one sense, the 5 Animals can be regarded as the “raw elements” from which it is possible to create logical, rational, and coherent frameworks for developing skill and understanding.
The framework gives some sense of definition with regard to what the procedure is for that stage of practice.
By way of example, take the generally accepted notion of “Tiger” being indicative of actions that are powerful, attacking and relentless. If the framework I am employing states in part “Define, identify, and extract movements associated with the characteristics of Tiger (as defined above).” I would go into catalog of my art form (one of the sets) and perform this operation. Certain structures, postures, techniques, would meet the criteria and I would extract these movements.
The next step might be “In application, how do the extracted Tiger movements play.” The primary stepping patterns of the art would be incorporated and I might “play” the hands in concert with the stepping patterns in all 4 directions (or whatever geometric shape the art utilizes).
The next step could be to play the hands, in all directions through a series of formats based on “initiate movement vs. react-response†in the context of strikes outgoing from both sides and strikes incoming from both sides.
Since this has now shifted to an application based format (tactical vs. technical) I might then look into what I have in the way of Tiger flavored movements and identify those movements which provide a logical and practical counter to my movements.
I could terminate the procedure at this point. The next step could be to identify the antithesis to Tiger, which would be Crane (sticking with the criteria stated in the beginning) and start the procedure all over again.
Once I’ve concluded my exploration of Crane I might then play the 2 Animals against one another.
One format could be declaring my movements as one of the 2 Animals and looking for the complimentary or countering movements in the other and then “switching sides” so to speak.
Subsequent to the above I might explore what has been crystallized at this point in the format of free interchange between the 2 Animals, e.g., I might initiate movement in Tiger and then switch to Crane as I flowed through movements. This would result in some degree of understanding and skill within the overall framework as it applies to the 2 Animals.
Once the “perfect world” pairing and exploration of all 5 Animals has been accomplished I might then start all over with the context changed. Rather than examine a perfect “yin vs. yang” interchange I might select out the “second best Animal” to employ against the hand being focused on.
I could then use the same procedure as above until I would have played every hand against each of the others.
Once the above has been accomplished I would have passed through the matrix of my art at a level defined by the characteristics I associated with each Animal at the very start.
Now shift gears again, associate a different characteristic with each Animal (and you will have a different understanding of your system at this point) and go through the drill once again.
Using the 5 Animals as individual conceptual platforms in order to create frameworks for exploring, and acquiring skill is really limited by the imagination born out of understanding. John
Hung mei,
I read that and seriously did not gain anything could you make it simpler. So much jargon. Though I do realise that there is some depth to what you have said I just cannot determine where it is.
Thanks
Hungmei, if you would welcome critiqes on your thoughts that would be informative.~
My say:
The order for just fighting is Dragon, Snake, Tiger, Leopard, Crane. Dragon–attacks from side to side; is graplling(chin-na), strengthens the Spirit. Snake–attacks forwards and backwards (advancing/retreating); also grapples, but also strikes~; is for the Breath. Tiger–Strengthen the bones and is for the tendons(?). Leopard–cunning, with fire in the eyes, is for Strength (more powerful pound for pound(?)with it’s jumping capability than the tiger. Crane–strikes without getting hit; strengthens sinews (or ligaments or both) and the Labido.
I almost quote this from the book Five-Pattern Heun Kuen- Dr. Leung Ting(?).
I only have some concepts and how it seems.
I heard snake is fast, but I discout that as special. It is accurate, deliberate, antigrappling(counters getting grabbed, held (limbs)). Also, snake does not retreat. If you do Snake you get flexible.
Tiger, I get a determinedness. There’s a fighting and health aspect in which there is much tension (if not all tension when doing some Tiger).
Leopard has a lighter yet darker feel than Tiger. it is more than agressive. It is ruthless (I regard speed as a showing of this ruthlessness; not speed as an individual attribute.
Dragon is awareness and a light Spirit (alert conciousness)In less Americanized than some, movies, Bruce Lee has two claws facing each other with the backs of the hands up and down. This allows me to think of dragon as having, locking or trapping techniques for what I initially considered to be breaking, but control might be a reason also. The Bruce Lee claw position; I associate with doing something bad to the head or neck.
Crane is about evasion, non rushed pace. Evaluate and play with your opponent(s) because your perceptions allow you to know the opponents moves before they really act on them.
Relevantly, different schools have different methods for each of the five animals. And the attribute for that animal is determined by the school (Form).~
There is the fighting/health order of Tiger, Leopard, Dragon, Snake, Crane.
Very some such, perhaps might have been, likely say some, some not.
Trying to Make Sense
WenJin>Hung mei,
I read that and seriously did not gain anything could you make it simpler. So much jargon. Though I do realise that there is some depth to what you have said I just cannot determine where it is.
Sorry about that, language is a crappy medium for conveying TCMA concepts. Much cleaner to communicate through contact.
Okay, try this: 5 Animals have certain characteristics or traits associated with each of the Animals.
First, define each Animal by the characteristics as you understand them.
Then take a set from your system and apply the definition of each Animal, one at a time, and select out the posture-technique that meets the definition of the Animal you are working with.
Next, graft the Animal onto the foot patterns of your system. Static postures are useless in application, real world application requires you to be able to move.
Then in sequence - 1) Play the hands associated with the Animal you are focused on through the full range of your system, e.g., to the front, left & right, back. At this point I’m just looking to understand how my method uses a specific Animal to move in all 4 directions.
If this clarifies or helps let me know as there is no sense in going on if it just reads like garbage to you. If you want to proceed off list, as this might not be of interest to anyone else, let me know and we’ll go from there.
What I’m advocating is using the 5 Animals for creating a structured practice. A person could blindly follow a formula protocol forever and not get anywhere with their art. It takes the entire person (mind & body) to make sense of a TCMA. A lot of what the system is about is encoded; this is one way of decoding or unlocking the information. John
No_Know
Critique, corrections, whatever, are always welcomed by me. If I wanted to have perfect agreement with my opinions I would speak into a tape recorder and then play it back to myself
You can take the characteristics as you understand them and directly apply them in the framework I posted.
Without some sense of structure in practice and training the chances of really getting anywhere are very poor. Kind of like groping around in the dark hoping to find what you are searching for.
That was my main point and IMO the 5 Animals provide excellent material for building logical and reasonable practice regimens. John
Thank you John,
…now as to the topic of this thread, what do you have to say about the characteristics/attributes of the animals themselves; since you’ve given how to make every combination already.~
Very some such, perhaps might have been, likely say some, some not.
5 Animals
No_Know>…now as to the topic of this thread, what do you have to say about the characteristics/attributes of the animals themselves; since you’ve given how to make every combination already.~
Anything I have to say in this regard is irrelevant. The framework is designed to accommodate an individual and evolving understanding.
Whatever I “see” is the product of diligent practice, training, and real world experience over some small measure of time. What anyone “sees” is unique to them and is defined by cumulative life experience.
Formula or rigid protocols only serve as boundaries. It’s what happens inside the boundaries that matters and that is individual specific. John
Hungmei’s fourth reply to this thread
No_Know>…now as to the topic of this thread, what do you have to say about the characteristics/attributes of the animals themselves; since you’ve given how to make every combination already.~"
I haven’t given how to make every combination already. Supposedly you did (which by the way, is a formula~). As to on topic, my first reply to this thread addressed attributes and characteristics I thought of as acceptable standards, gave a source of that information and included general personal thoughts and hear-say thought on the five animal Dragon, Snake, Tiger, Leopard, Crane~.
“Anything I have to say in this regard is irrelevant. The framework is designed to accommodate an individual and evolving understanding.”
One might think that this is how you look like you’re saying something yet no_know about the topic matter of the FIve animals. One might wonder your purpose for bringing-up (even mentioning) that framework here. And evolving understanding of what?
"Formula or rigid protocols only serve as boundaries. It’s what happens inside the boundaries that matters and that is individual specific. "
The ozone layer is a boundry. Without it, things would get too mixed-up to be healthy. And since, according to you that which matters, happens within the boundries. You must therefore actually consider the boundries as (really) important. Which makes you a proponent of “formula or rigid protocols”.
Thank you, Hungmei.
Very some such, perhaps might have been, likely say some, some not.
No_Know 5 Animals
>I haven’t given how to make every combination already. Supposedly you did (which by the way, is a formula~).
What’s your point, that you read poorly? I stated “blindly following . . .”
>As to on topic, my first reply to this thread addressed attributes and characteristics I thought of as acceptable standards, gave a source of that information and included general personal thoughts and hear-say thought on the five animal Dragon, Snake, Tiger, Leopard, Crane~.
So? What you posted provided absolutely no systemic guidelines for meaningful exploration. Your post was “street knowledge” at best.
“Anything I have to say in this regard is irrelevant. The framework is designed to accommodate an individual and evolving understanding.”
>One might think that this is how you look like you’re saying something yet no_know about the topic matter of the FIve animals.
Sure, an idiot might well conclude just that. I’m not responsible for your lack of understanding.
>One might wonder your purpose for bringing-up (even mentioning) that framework here.
Because it converted commonly known characteristics into a method of determining application according to your current skill level.
>And evolving understanding of what?
Do the procedure and you will emerge with a different (evolved) understanding of your method.
"Formula or rigid protocols only serve as boundaries. It’s what happens inside the boundaries that matters and that is individual specific. "
>The ozone layer is a boundry. Without it, things would get too mixed-up to be healthy.
Poor analogy, struggling to appear clever are you?
>And since, according to you that which matters, happens within the boundries. You must therefore actually consider the boundries as (really) important.
Defined boundaries are important.
>Which makes you a proponent of “formula or rigid protocols”.
Erroneous conclusion as you’ve failed to address the “blindly following” element. A process is meaningful if you understand the process. Just doing it because “Sifu says so” will not get you beyond the level of craft.
>Thank you, Hungmei.
Your welcome and given the insolent tone of your post, coupled with your failed efforts at being “clever”, I’ve put you in the same category as the Trekkie Trolls and will no longer recognize you. John
">One might wonder your purpose for bringing-up (even mentioning) that framework here.
Because it converted commonly known characteristics into a method of determining application according to your current skill level."
Thread start:
I would like to start a discussion (ok - I want all of your opinions) on 5 animals: Dragon, Tiger, Crane, Leopard and Snake.
What do they represent to you? What do they mean in realtion to fighting (ie combat) as well as in the way you “think” during your training? What kinds of emotions do they represent to you? etc, etc, etc…"
"I could then use the same procedure as above until I would have played every hand against each of the others.
Once the above has been accomplished I would have passed through the matrix of my art at a level defined by the characteristics I associated with each Animal at the very start."
Yet for the person who started this thread, characteristics is what for which were seemingly asked.
"Okay, try this: 5 Animals have certain characteristics or traits associated with each of the Animals.
First, define each Animal by the characteristics as you understand them."
Again I gather that you are going from you vast knowledge and taken for grantedness that the animals have standard meanings~ which were understood prior to the starting of this thread, yet…“I would like to start a discussion (ok - I want all of your opinions) on 5 animals: Dragon, Tiger, Crane, Leopard and Snake.
What do they represent to you? What do they mean in realtion to fighting (ie combat) as well as in the way you “think” during your training? What kinds of emotions do they represent to you? etc, etc, etc…” It seems as though that is what for which was asked.
“Because it converted commonly known characteristics into a method of determining application according to your current skill level.”
I comprehended that what might be commonly known characteristics, might not be known for certain, by the originator of this thread. And the originator of this thread was asking for, “on 5 animals: Dragon, Tiger, Crane, Leopard and Snake.
What do they represent to you? What do they mean in realtion to fighting (ie combat) as well as in the way you “think” during your training? What kinds of emotions do they represent to you? etc, etc, etc…”
“So? What you posted provided absolutely no systemic guidelines for meaningful exploration. Your post was “street knowledge” at best.”
The clear blue sky is blue; the hard ground is hard and although your statements are likely true, the information which you point out that I did not provide (yet that you did), had not been requested relevant to this thread’s inquiry. Soooooo (needle-and-thread), it perhaps seem irrelevant that I did not provide it.
Perhaps some-such.
Very some such, perhaps might have been, likely say some, some not.
[This message was edited by No_Know on 09-09-01 at 08:05 PM.]
Just so you know I skipped straight to the bottom of this thread. Don’t listen anything No_know says. He doesn’t no jack about anything as him name implies.
So back to the original question. One thing that is not clear in the animal conception of kung fu is which came first the “animal” or the technique. There are many stories of Shaolin monks copying the movements of animals in order to improve their kung fu. However, it is more likely that the names of the movements were created then it was noticed that the movements resembled those of animals. Actually, it is probably a little of both.
Anyways, as far as CLF goes the animal movements could be characterized in this way:
Tiger:
Symbolically represents strength, yang.
Characterized by tearing,rending or jumping movements. Also techniques which utilize the “tiger claw” hand or fu jao. CLF has a whole form devoted to Tiger.
Dragon:
Symbolically represents the unseen or yin.
Characterized by the “dragon” stance or twisting horse stance. Because the dragon is unseen there are no techniques that are obviously dragon. Although, I have heard there is a CLF tiger-dragon form. Never seen it though.
Snake:
Symbolically represents chi.
Characterized by techniques that require little muscular strength but pin point accuracy (usually to vital areas like the eyes or throat). Also, techniques that use the “snake’s head” hand or “snake’s fang” hand. Low leaning horse stance is sometimes referred to as snake stance.
Crane:
Symbolically represents deception, evasiveness.
Characterized by soft, evasive techniques meant to confuse the enemy. Also, techniques that make use of the “crane beak” hand , “crane head” hand or crane wing movements. Also, lift leg stance is sometimes referred to as crane stance. CLF has a whole form devoted to this animal.
Leopard:
Symbolically represents tendon strength, stretching. Imagine a big cat stretching out. Characterized by long straight techniques which stretch the tendons of the arms. Also techiques that make use of a flat fist or “leopard’s paw” hand. The leopard is very sneaky but has more raw muscular power than the crane. Often blocking and attacking occur with the same hand. CLF has a leopard fist form.
I can’t speak for other styles. But the above describes CLF.
Peace
Fu-Pow
“Choy Lay Fut Kung Fu does not encourage its students to abuse or harm others with no reason. Nevertheless, in times when Kung Fu must be performed, Choy Lay Fut requires the student to change from a gentleman into a fierce and cold fighter.”
-Lee Koon Hung,
CLF:The Dynamic Art of Fighting
Fu-Pow & 5 Animals
Thanks for the heads up on No_Know. My ever growing “fan club” has prompted me to impose maximum monthly membership intake numbers and this month is all ready max’d out
Good question with regard to “Which came first . . .” and I think we can get beyond the “chicken or egg” trap.
In order to assign some characteristic to something, e.g., your well developed 5 Animals model, the internal frame of reference must be present in the viewer.
Kind of like “You got to own it, to recognize it” and the depth to which various TCMA systems have developed the 5 Animals concept probably indicates a bit of flow back & forth. The viewer would recognize certain characteristics inherent in a specific animal as held by his/her definition of the characteristic seen. Could well be the case that recognition of one characteristic led to discovering additional characteristics embodied by the animal. Even the mythical animals make for good models as they provide a ready made framework, or a coherent vehicle, for exploring your chosen art form.
Seems reasonable that whatever a person may believe about the 5 Animals, ranging from archetypes to abstract conceptual platforms, the format has served well for many years. John
““blindly following””, in which reply of this thread can that be found?
Very some such, perhaps might have been, likely say some, some not.
One might wonder how Fu-Pow’s say has any weight.
Very some such, perhaps might have been, likely say some, some not.
Fu-Pow’s Opinion Weight
Fu-Pow: Apparently a mutual admirer is dazed and confused regarding why your opinion should be afforded weight. She (No_Know) just doesn’t get it. Seems her feelings are hurt over not being allowed to “play” and continue to demonstrate her complete lack of knowledge and/or wit. “One might wonder how” . . . No_Know’s say has any weight in matters outside of beauty tips for the girls John
No_know is a troll. Someone’s alternate identity. Get a life No_know.
Fu-Pow
Troll-et
>No_know is a troll.
She is properly referred to as a “Troll-et”
>Someone’s alternate identity.
Got a few schizo types on this forum.
>Get a life No_know.
I think the whole lot of them should get their own forum and take turns flaming each other. That way Fukien, his electronic Uncle, No_Know, and some others can perform for their peers. Seems a shame for all their efforts to go unappreciated.
“Very some such nonsense, perhaps might have been a wannabe, likely say some idiots, some not registering any brain wave activity.” John
John Allen–Jack
That was a nicely done, play on words signature. Well done.
Very some such, perhaps might have been, likely say some, some not.