Some research notes concerning Tang Lang

Sal,

You read too much. There is a big difference between folk tradition and history and 95% of the theories you have relayed are unverifiable.

Redfish,

Who are these ‘modern Shandong scene’ exponents? Are you talking about competition wushu TLQ or are you referring to all TLQ currently found in Shandong? If so, what have you looked at, who have you felt or trained with whilst in Shandong (if you have had the chance)?

Re- Yu Qi: not everyone (in fact not many at all) believe Yu Qi is Wang Lang. There is no one consolidated Shandong view on any of this stuff. Historically the existance of Wang Lang is unverifiable. Some folk stories point to an alternative i.d but they are just that, folk stories. We will never know who he was and even if he existed. It has zero bearing on practicing the style itself so what’s the point? (Besides being a nice tourist draw to Laoshan) And on top of that, there has never been a consistent origin legend either pre or post war, across any of the branches. WL was from here, he was from there, he lived this period, he lived that period, he trained at this temple, at that temple, he fought this person, that person, on and on and on… Legends not facts.

One thing is for sure, there is very little evidence that TLQ as it has been known in the last 2 centuries originated in the Song.

bt

I’m just making discussion, so don’t get all belligerent with me, thanks.
If all you are going to contribute is “why bother discussing this”, then can you please go away so that people who want to discuss it can do so, thanks.

Again, I quote Illya:

“However, most likely, Wang Lang lived (if he ever existed) at the beginning of the Northern Song Dynasty (969-1126) dynasties, primarily because of the existence of one source, independent from Praying Mantis Boxing traditional history. This source is two books that survived the fire when Shao Lin monastery was burned down by Chinese militarists (warlords) in 1928. The first is “Records of Shao Lin Monastery” and the second is “Records about Shao Lin Boxing”. Both books contain the same data about significant events which took place in the monastery at the beginning of Song Dynasty.”

According to Illya, who had access to these 2 Shaolin sources, the “Records of Shao Lin Monastery” and the “Records about Shao Lin Boxing” repeat the same names of the 18 masters, albeit in a different order than the list of 18 masters that most Tang Lang people know. So, this would appear that either it is a independent source showing that the event indeed took place during the Song Dynasty
OR
the author of “Luohan Xing Gong Duan Da Tuo Pu” used these same sources to get his list from.

Either way they both say the same thing, except the Shaolin books say that the event happened in the Song Dynasty.
The names of the list are early Song Dynasty personages.

I don’t know whether Wang Lang is actually mentioned in the list that is in the Shaolin 2 books.

That’s one of the things I was alluding to.
That the origin for the Shaolin Xing Gang Quan is the same as what these two Shaolin books list and it is the same essentially as the list that Tang Lang origin gives.

But not necessarily if the event actually happened, does it mean that Wang Lang was there.
Whether it happened in Song era or not.

IF Illya has seen Wang Lang’s name amongst the list of the 18 masters in the Shaolin books, THEN that would prove “maybe” that Wang Lang was from Song era.

If his name was not amongst the 18, which Illya doesn’t say on his site if it was or not, THEN it ONLY proves, maybe, that the gathering of masters event happened in the Song dynasty, and other records show this as well, but not knowing if Wang Lang’s name is there in the Shaolin books, being independent sources, then no conclusion about when Wang Lang is from can be made.

So, maybe someone can contact him and ask if his name is there in the Shaolin sources?

He may read this forum, though I doubt it. Post a question on MQ forum, as I know he reads that one.
And before you go mouthing off to people, you may want to chill a second and consider what Tunks has to say. His understanding of both history and technique are second to no one in the Mantis world.

Cheers
Jake :slight_smile:

S,

How can you ‘prove’ something ‘maybe’?

If you want me to be more ‘productive’, I suggest you try and contact Prof. Meir Shahar at Tel Aviv for some answers, esp concerning happenings and personages of Shaolin Si.

Thanks Jake, though not altogether true regarding my knowledge.

bt

@ BT

I’m talking about the physical form of the movements and especially the forms themselves. I think everyone here has already discussed the clear differences. You can see similarities between Wong Hon Fun, Chiu Chi Man and our Lin Bo Yan families. You can see a different set of similarities between your school, Yu Tian Cheng and Chen le Ping, for example. There is another, third, clear difference with the modern wushu mantis form.

The former group has lots in common with other Shaolin styles such as Hung Gar, for example in the stances, stepping, like the warding off punch etc. The second group, based in Shandong, looks more like a unique style of movement.

This is pretty clear from my answer, in the context of what it was following on from. I’m sure it’s nothing new on this forum. Cotterrel just calls it Shandong mantis and Hong Kong mantis over on his forum, perhaps he can explain that to you better than I can? I don’t go fo that simple a view of it myself.

I’m 100% with you on your response to Sal.

@Sal

If you don’t know that Wang lang was mentioned in those books then why argue for a quote that says they are a source placing him in the Song.

There’s no logical through line to your posts at all and, as Tunks points out, no discerning between history, clues/threories or plain fantasy. It’s too hard for me to follow them. Sorry.

BT
Comparitively speaking…you are light years away from some :wink:
JAB :cool:

RF,

>I’m talking about the physical form of the movements and especially the forms themselves. I think everyone here has already discussed the clear differences. You can see similarities between Wong Hon Fun, Chiu Chi Man and our Lin Bo Yan families.

As you know, there are of course also differences.

>You can see a different set of similarities between your school, Yu Tian Cheng and Chen le Ping, for example. There is another, third, clear difference with the modern wushu mantis form.

OK, thanks for the clarification. You’re right. However, what about the similarities? Even in terms of forms, eg. Beng Bu, Duo Gang, Cha Chui and Tou Tao (BYTT from mainland and LGY line’s Tanglang Tou Tao), and depending on the clan, Shiba Suo (aka ‘sou’) and Shuang Cha Hua are all virtually the same. Also, in applications, the most important part of any martial system, the similarities are even greater.

>The former group has lots in common with other Shaolin styles such as Hung Gar, for example in the stances, stepping, like the warding off punch etc. The second group, based in Shandong, looks more like a unique style of movement.

That’s why I asked which particular schools you might have been referring to, because in my opinion those things are also definitely there. True, there are some schools in Shandong which ‘look’ a lot different from your own line (for example), in terms of stepping and certain ‘static’ postures etc, but I hold that there are some that look and in fact are quite similar. It could be argued though that there has been as much absorption of external flavours in Shandong TLQ (Tongbi, fanzi, luohan, bagua, xingyi, cha, sunbin etc) as there was in Shanghai and onwards with Yingzhao Quan in the Jingwu (and regardless of much some LGY descendants hate to hear it, of indigenous southern styles particularly after the move to HK)

>This is pretty clear from my answer, in the context of what it was following on from. I’m sure it’s nothing new on this forum. Cotterrel just calls it Shandong mantis and Hong Kong mantis over on his forum, perhaps he can explain that to you better than I can? I don’t go fo that simple a view of it myself.

I don’t really know what Mr Cottrell has to do with the discussion, though I suspect that this view stems from the Inside Kungfu article of several years ago (where he famously/infamously quoted one of my masters saying that what he was seeing resembled ‘nan quan’. What many people don’t know is that this comment was based on many years of seeing LGY line TLQ out of HK- regardless of its accuracy). I agree that it’s no simple matter but I also don’t think labelling things by place name does any harm as it’s common practice throughout all martial arts and always has been. I don’t know why you don’t go in for the use of place names, as it would make your description of differences between the above mentioned families much easier. I think you are right, there are differences and I also think geography plays a signifigant part. Even between cities as close as Yantai and Qingdao.

Now I’m beggining to sound just like every other internet authority. Thanks Redfish.

bt

Sal,

Regarding Shaolin Xingongquan:

In fact is of the same essence to what is known as Northern Shaolin art, often referred to as Shaolin Kanjiaquan. The key lineages in existance include those of Gu Ruzhang (such as those from Chan Kwok Wai, Wong Jack Man, etc), Yang Xiushan (Such as my own, Yu Hualong, Zhang Rusong, Guo Mingtang etc) and although they have order differences they are essentially the same. Excepting that Yan Xiushan’s line has some Bajiquan etc elements included and Gu Ruzhangs has other Nanjing/Liuhe etc elements included.

Of the ten series the third is Lianhuanshou also known as Tanglianshou orTanglangshou. It does not have any real Tanglang flavor as it maintains to its Northern Shaolin/Changquan type structure. The name arises because of certain techniques such as Gouloushou etc. I would tend to believe the adoption of these aspects later rather than earlier.

Regarding other assumptions:

I would agree that there is no logical inference from any of the pieces and would have to be strung more carefully and verifiably for the continual support of your “one” theories that are inevitably disprovable.

The 18 styles aspect:

There are some basic cultural understandings that would allow scrutiny of the numbers of things (18) the dates (Song etc) and worsely the identities (e.g. identity of fame used to depict method yet the timing of their life not necessarily the same).

To an earlier post on 7star Mantis and Shaolin influence:

Chachui, Xiaohuyan, SiluBengda are all sets in Yanqingquan (also named Mizongquan or in broad terms Shaolinquan). They have been mantisised but many elements are the same, thus Wang rongsheng’s influence is undisputed to that regard.

Kind Regards
Wu Chanlong

[QUOTE=Shaolin Master;747204]

To an earlier post on 7star Mantis and Shaolin influence:

Chachui, Xiaohuyan, SiluBengda are all sets in Yanqingquan (also named Mizongquan or in broad terms Shaolinquan). They have been mantisised but many elements are the same, thus Wang rongsheng’s influence is undisputed to that regard.

Kind Regards
Wu Chanlong[/QUOTE]

Mr Wu,

Nice one. I completely left out Mizong in my short list of influences.
Thanks,

BT

Sifu Tunks

Thanks for the reply.

I know what you mean. I saw, for example, a video of Yu Tianlu playing a Fan Che form and it’s pretty standard as far as stances and moves go. However, It looks to me that the footwork in our (Luo Guang Yu - Lin Bo Yan) family is quite different to that of the Shandong based clubs.

I don’t like that system of place names for Mantis that I brought up for a few reasons. The group of similar styles I mentioned gets called Hong Kong Mantis. However, Lin Boyan trained directly with Luo Guang Yu in Shanghai early on, then after he graduated eventually relocated to Malaysia and Singapore where he trained his next generation. Hong Kong was not in the equation at all.

If pressed to identify groups that appear more similar to each other and give them place names I usually come up with these:

  1. Post revolution mainland China Mantis
  2. Everywhere else Mantis.

And don’t forget I’m only talking about Seven Star.

And finally - Luo Guang Yu was from Shandong as is the known lineage of 7* so it’s all Shandong Mantis. Of course, we know what we mean and that’s just semantics - which is what a lot of this comes down to finally.

I think it’s an interesting conversation we’re having but I guess we are hijacking Sal’s thread/chaos.

RF

Fu Yu

Here is some of my research on Fu Yu (Chin.: ).
It has been posted on this site under my Chinese name Yaojin:

http://www.shaolin.cn.com/forums/viewthread/172/

This research (and text) was incorporated into this article:
http://www.shaolin.cn.com/site/article/venerable_fuyu.php/

r.

To an earlier post on 7star Mantis and Shaolin influence:

Chachui, Xiaohuyan, SiluBengda are all sets in Yanqingquan (also named Mizongquan or in broad terms Shaolinquan). They have been mantisised but many elements are the same, thus Wang rongsheng’s influence is undisputed to that regard.

Kind Regards
Wu Chanlong

Does anyone have videos online of Chachui or SiluBengda? Or know if there’s videos of the mizong quan versions of these forms out there? I learned a mizong quan set awhile back that looks like what I’ve seen of Xiaohuyuan (from what I’ve seen on videos). Just curious… I never learned the name of my mizong quan form, but after watching some vids, I assume it’s the same. Do most mantis lineages have these forms as part of their curriculums?