[QUOTE=MightyB;1082350]I would cut down on the emphasis on forms.[/QUOTE]
Agree! Forms can be replaced by combo drills.
[QUOTE=MightyB;1082350]Maybe there should be a limited number of base level core forms, but I don’t know what those are.[/QUOTE]
For 7*, I’ll suggest:
beginner: (Beng Bu)
intermediate: (Luan Jie)
advance: (Zhai Yao)
Thanks Gino. I understand MM’s position.
It’s shame that you have had both had a lot of negative experiences with martial arts politics.
BT
[QUOTE=MightyB;1082346]Machados teach Jiu Jitsu, but it’s not Gracie Jiu Jitsu. SBG teaches Jiu Jitsu but it’s not Machado JJ. All of those are based on Judo but they aren’t teaching Judo. Judo is based on a variety of forms of Ju Jitsu but it’s not Ju Jitsu. Ju Jitsu is definitely not Jiu Jitsu
7* isn’t Wah Lum. WHF 7* is different than PRC 7*. Tai Chi Mantis isn’t 8 Step. Pong Lai isn’t…
To pull concepts and your favorite forms while combining it with techniques from other styles and creating your own thing is all right and has been done for a long time. Time is the true test. Name it as something new and go for it. But, like I said, sell it on it’s merits without badmouthing where it came from.
When I sell television spots, I don’t trash talk radio or newsprint, I just push the merits of television. [/QUOTE]
Couldn’t have said any of the above better. Nice one.
BT
“Wang Lang … I am your father!!!”
for the record, let it be stated that the topic of “In the year 2100, Wang Lang Skywalker will lead the rebel mantis forces to victory over the Evil Political Alliance & Council of Mantis Illuminati (E.P.A.C.O.M.I.) with their secret army, a race of mantis-humanoid super commandos genetically engineered by the chinese communists, in an outer space battle brought about by the surrendering of Taiwan, the last rebel stronghold fighting the slavery of lineage” would make a great story!
I see most cma schools dwindling, and i feel richard’s post is a thought provoking one. I personally feel the essential forms as being essential to mantis. to stay until 2100, mantis has to fight. forget the art, it has to be able to scrap. does it need to cut forms? maybe not. But initially, combat and skill should be enforced instead of collection of material.
Get Oprah to promote mantis…everyone will want to do it.
I recently had a conversation with my Sifu about some of what has been stated here. As a student of any martial art, how much one “needs” all depends on what he/she wants from their practice. Our advancement system as passed down by WHF is influenced by the Jing Mo system. Can they advance simply by showing they have memorized the sequence of the required forms? No. They must also show a minimum proficiency in the execution of those forms to the standards of our school as well as the application of sahn sao techniques from our partner drills. Does every student who joins our school need to graduate or even reach advanced level? No. Do we expect everyone to strive to become disciples? Certainly not. It comes down to what their own personal goals are for studying Praying Mantis. But if that student wants to one day teach and represent our lineage, our style, then yes, we maintain that there is a minimum amount of knowledge, forms being only part of that knowledge, that the student must not only possess but show understanding and proficiency in. That doesn’t mean that evolution or development does not exist, it certainly does and I have experienced first hand how my Sifu’s teaching has evolved over the last 25 years.
[QUOTE=MightyB;1082098]
7* isn’t Wah Lum. WHF 7* is different than PRC 7*. Tai Chi Mantis isn’t 8 Step. Pong Lai isn’t…
[/QUOTE]
Perfectly said. Each has evolved in its own way and there is no way to compare or debate whether one is “more” valid than the other. Yes, we are all TLQ but each branch is practically a different system with different shen fa and fa jing. If we were to look at HK 7* Bung Bo and PRC 7* Bung Bo, I think almost all would recognize both to be the “same” form based on sequence. But how each practitioner would apply the techniques within I believe would be very different.
[QUOTE=mooyingmantis;1082098]If I teach Beng Bu (WHF version) exactly as I learned it from my instructor, I think most would agree that I am teaching tanglangquan. Correct me if I am wrong.
If I skip teaching the form, but still teach the combinations in the form, am I still teaching tanglangquan?
If I skip teaching the form and the combinations found within the form, but still teach the twelve keyword theories found in Beng Bu through the use of other combinations, am I still teaching tanglangquan?
If someone creates a new form that is faithful to one or all of the sets of keyword theories, and the eight hard and twelve soft principles, is it still tanglangquan?[/QUOTE]
If one omits the teachings of the past, then how will the future generations have any link to where the art comes from? I don’t understand the thought that the forms taught to me are no good and that I need to create new forms to reinterpret the principles. How then did I achieve my own understanding of TLQ? What epiphany could I have that can be so radically different that I am compelled to throw away the material that got me to that enlightenment and create something new for my descendants to follow?
Time and again I feel that it is those without a legacy to propogate that feels the need to discredit and disrespect lineage by equating it to politics and portraying it negatively.
Vance Young
[QUOTE=Young Mantis;1084017]If one omits the teachings of the past, then how will the future generations have any link to where the art comes from?[/QUOTE]
…
Well said Vance!
I think this is why ‘teachings of the past’ are so important.
Kevin
If Mantis has evolved to what it is NOW, why would ANYONE be against it evolving beyond what it is ?
[QUOTE=sanjuro_ronin;1084111]If Mantis has evolved to what it is NOW, why would ANYONE be against it evolving beyond what it is ?[/QUOTE]
Go play in your own park fool!!! 
Each school and teacher is unique and everyone has their own unique style. No need to change how they get there- which- if they’re traditional, is built on tradition.
Make up your own sh!t and name it, or accept how it’s been done and follow the tradition. Simple as that. Just don’t go claiming you’re something you’re not. EZ 'nuff.
[QUOTE=Young Mantis;1084017]I recently had a conversation with my Sifu about some of what has been stated here. As a student of any martial art, how much one “needs” all depends on what he/she wants from their practice. Our advancement system as passed down by WHF is influenced by the Jing Mo system. Can they advance simply by showing they have memorized the sequence of the required forms? No. They must also show a minimum proficiency in the execution of those forms to the standards of our school as well as the application of sahn sao techniques from our partner drills. Does every student who joins our school need to graduate or even reach advanced level? No. Do we expect everyone to strive to become disciples? Certainly not. It comes down to what their own personal goals are for studying Praying Mantis. But if that student wants to one day teach and represent our lineage, our style, then yes, we maintain that there is a minimum amount of knowledge, forms being only part of that knowledge, that the student must not only possess but show understanding and proficiency in. That doesn’t mean that evolution or development does not exist, it certainly does and I have experienced first hand how my Sifu’s teaching has evolved over the last 25 years.
Perfectly said. Each has evolved in its own way and there is no way to compare or debate whether one is “more” valid than the other. Yes, we are all TLQ but each branch is practically a different system with different shen fa and fa jing. If we were to look at HK 7* Bung Bo and PRC 7* Bung Bo, I think almost all would recognize both to be the “same” form based on sequence. But how each practitioner would apply the techniques within I believe would be very different.
If one omits the teachings of the past, then how will the future generations have any link to where the art comes from? I don’t understand the thought that the forms taught to me are no good and that I need to create new forms to reinterpret the principles. How then did I achieve my own understanding of TLQ? What epiphany could I have that can be so radically different that I am compelled to throw away the material that got me to that enlightenment and create something new for my descendants to follow?
Time and again I feel that it is those without a legacy to propogate that feels the need to discredit and disrespect lineage by equating it to politics and portraying it negatively.
Vance Young[/QUOTE]
Excellent thoughts Vance! This is the type of well thought out answer I was looking for and others have also given.
[QUOTE=Young Mantis;1084017]If one omits the teachings of the past, then how will the future generations have any link to where the art comes from? I don’t understand the thought that the forms taught to me are no good and that I need to create new forms to reinterpret the principles. How then did I achieve my own understanding of TLQ? What epiphany could I have that can be so radically different that I am compelled to throw away the material that got me to that enlightenment and create something new for my descendants to follow?
Vance Young[/QUOTE]
Yet Master Wong Hon Fan significantly changed the forms he was taught, repackaged them and taught them very differently. Master Jiang Hualong also significantly changed tanglangquan by mixing other styles into his tanglangquan, and by the time Wei Xiaotang finished developing Babu Tanglangquan, what are now considered core forms by other styles were discarded by Master Wei. What epiphany did they have?
I am NOT criticizing the work of any of these men. I just wonder how others responded to their efforts in their day and what makes them untouchable when future practitioners will certainly have to withstand criticism should they decide to modify what they learned and still call it tanglangquan.
I am also NOT criticizing how any instructor(s) today teaches tanglangquan today, lineage holder or not. The little criticism I have offered deals with attitudes, not individuals. Even if I am completely wrong in how I judge these attitudes, which is entirely possible, will the attitudes I mentioned advance mantis, hinder mantis, or be considered passe by the next generation. From the private messages I get from “lineage holding” friends, I think some of the attitudes I disagree with will die within the next 25 - 50 years at the latest. Then, what will we be left with??? That is part of the point of this whole discussion: what will be the face of mantis in 2100?
Richard
Much of the future of Mantis (or any style) still depends on what happens to our world in the next 90 years.
Lets back track about 300 hundred years. China was in political turmoil and rebel factions were fighting everywhere. I am not sure where firearms were at this point but hand to hand combat seemed prevelant.
I don’t know really what went on back then but I have a feeling that more realistic combat drills were used instead of forms training. I am not saying that forms were not played, but it would seem prudent to practice 2 person situational drills.
In the late 1800’s when firearms were prevelant and H2H combat was not quite the best way to fight against guns, I think that forms were now used for health, training, also promoting your school (forms might have been a good way to get people come train at your gym).
Getting back to the future? What does the future hold? Is our society going into a political upheval? Will we do something like egypt just did? Right now our society is calm and the focus of the poeple is more health and fitness. I think the future is still up for grabs.
ginosifu
[QUOTE=mooyingmantis;1084185]Yet Master Wong Hon Fan significantly changed the forms he was taught, repackaged them and taught them very differently. [/B]?[/QUOTE]
Would you mind sharing how you come to this conclusion? Do you have examples of forms that were “significantly changed” and “repackaged” and “taught differently” than how he learned them from LGY?
[QUOTE=Young Mantis;1084255]Would you mind sharing how you come to this conclusion? Do you have examples of forms that were “significantly changed” and “repackaged” and “taught differently” than how he learned them from LGY?[/QUOTE]
I was just about to ask what were the changes, but I see that Vance already did.
So I’ll add that for Brendan Lai, I know of just 2 specific changes he made in 2 forms. But maybe others know of more… me not being a forms guy.
And as far as a change to the system, Brendan Lai identified to us only one “change”. Which was more of an emphasis or focus even, rather than an outright change.
[QUOTE=Young Mantis;1084255]Would you mind sharing how you come to this conclusion? Do you have examples of forms that were “significantly changed” and “repackaged” and “taught differently” than how he learned them from LGY?[/QUOTE]
Certainly! Fair question.
Have you ever studied any of the Chiu Chi Man lineage forms? I am sure you know he was also a student of LGY. Their lineage’s forms range from slightly different to completely different forms of the same name. Examples: Black Tiger Crossing (slightly different) and White Ape Steals Peach (completely different form).
An instructor friend who originally learned the WHF versions of the forms is now learning the CCM versions of the forms. He also noted the differences between the two families.
There is no doubt the changes even go back to LGY, since HK mantis looks significantly different than Mainland mantis. Yet LGY was trained on the mainland. We know LGY created and modified forms during his time with the Jing Wu organization. Certainly you have noticed that LGY Lanjie looks almost nothing like Mainland Lanjie/Luanjie. Where did he get his epiphany (as you asked)?
I have no problem with any lineage, lineage founder, or lineage practitioner. But to try and pretend there have been no changes is naive at best and fraudulent at worst. Which again brings us back to: who will have the next epiphanies that change the face of mantis?
Gino,
Excellent post! Yes, nothing happens in a vacuum. Modern and future events are sure to bring changes.
[QUOTE=Young Mantis;1084255]Do you have examples of forms that were “significantly changed”?[/QUOTE]
If I’m still a form guy, I’ll change this move in Bong Bu. I just can’t see that I’ll use this move in combat. A right leg kick infront of your left leg will make more sense - pull your opponent’s right arm toward you, at the same time kick his knee joint.
Taught as a kick in some schools. But in other schools not a kick at all.
I think that we to realize that “FORMS” are not the system. Principle and theory and for mantis the maybe keyword formula are actually the system.
Forms are an expression of the system theory, but not the entire system. Every CMA going back to the beginning has had different like experiences, different body types, different perceptions of techniques. That is why you see everyone play the same form a bit differently.
I have some examples of the same form played from different students of the same master:
Northern Shaolin / Bak Sil Lum Pai
Wing Lam Sifu, student of Yim Shom Mo under Ku YU Cheong Lineage
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HXJhhEn3NJA
This is the same form but the next clip is from another student under Ku Yu Cheong, Leung Chi Cheung:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YEmlmxcJlQ8&feature=related
Both clips are Tun Da #6 of the Northern Shaolin System. They played differently but contain the essence of the northern style.
Southern Hung Gar
Frank Yee, Tang Fang lineage student doing Tiger and Crane form:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jOYR5FPeWbc&feature=related
Chu Chi Ling, Lam Tsai Wing lineage student doing Tier and Crane:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-VQW55fdJxA
Both lineages are student of Wong Fei Hung but the forms look a bit different but still contain the essence of Hung Fist.
Overall I think we all can say that every person puts their own personality into the forms. Over the years certain masters have changed some of the techniques in the forms to meet their needs or personalities. I doubt very seriously that today’s Bung Bo looks even close to the Bung Bo Wong Long created. Today’s Bung Bo most likely contains the “Essence” of Mantis and the “Key Word Formula” but it has changed over 300 years because of the different personalities of the masters.
ginosifu
[QUOTE=ginosifu;1084355]I think that we to realize that “FORMS” are not the system. Principle and theory and for mantis the maybe keyword formula are actually the system.
Forms are an expression of the system theory, but not the entire system. Every CMA going back to the beginning has had different like experiences, different body types, different perceptions of techniques. That is why you see everyone play the same form a bit differently.
I have some examples of the same form played from different students of the same master:
Northern Shaolin / Bak Sil Lum Pai
Wing Lam Sifu, student of Yim Shom Mo under Ku YU Cheong Lineage
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HXJhhEn3NJA
This is the same form but the next clip is from another student under Ku Yu Cheong, Leung Chi Cheung:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YEmlmxcJlQ8&feature=related
Both clips are Tun Da #6 of the Northern Shaolin System. They played differently but contain the essence of the northern style.
Southern Hung Gar
Frank Yee, Tang Fang lineage student doing Tiger and Crane form:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jOYR5FPeWbc&feature=related
Chu Chi Ling, Lam Tsai Wing lineage student doing Tier and Crane:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-VQW55fdJxA
Both lineages are student of Wong Fei Hung but the forms look a bit different but still contain the essence of Hung Fist.
Overall I think we all can say that every person puts their own personality into the forms. Over the years certain masters have changed some of the techniques in the forms to meet their needs or personalities. I doubt very seriously that today’s Bung Bo looks even close to the Bung Bo Wong Long created. Today’s Bung Bo most likely contains the “Essence” of Mantis and the “Key Word Formula” but it has changed over 300 years because of the different personalities of the masters.
ginosifu[/QUOTE]
VERY, VERY well said.
Forms catalogue a system and its core as passed down by THAT given Master.
Unless a form is done in such a way that it no longer looks like the core system, the differences are not that important.
[quote=ginosifu;1084355]i think that we to realize that “forms” are not the system.
[…]
forms are an expression of the system theory, but not the entire system.
[/quote]
qft!
+1
[QUOTE=ginosifu;1084355]Overall I think we all can say that every person puts their own personality into the forms. Over the years certain masters have changed some of the techniques in the forms to meet their needs or personalities. I doubt very seriously that today’s Bung Bo looks even close to the Bung Bo Wong Long created. Today’s Bung Bo most likely contains the “Essence” of Mantis and the “Key Word Formula” but it has changed over 300 years because of the different personalities of the masters.
ginosifu[/QUOTE]
Excellent point!
My past instructor weighs in at between 170-195 lbs. (my best guess). He is built lean, thin and with arms that feel like he has steel cable for tendons. I would say his frame is comparable to Master Wong Hon Fan.
I am 250 lbs. with a 48" chest, 38" waist and 41" hips. I am probably closer to Fan Xu Dong in build.
Try as I may, my performance of forms will never look like my instructor’s. I will issue power differently. I would be foolish to fight like he fights. Our body structures are too different. He is fast and stings! I am big and pound. He uses incredible speed and strategy. I use refined strength and strategy.
I think the above example shows one reason why styles/systems change with the individual. We each have different strengths and weaknesses based on how our bodies perform.