Southern Mantis - Why so secret?

Wai Jia: The Kung Fu Forum Kung Fu Forum
121

Steven T. Richards and JF Springer

Thank you both for your insights and experience.
I really like the way you have used thought processing as a major teaching tool.
Im starting to see a few similaritys between the way you teach and the way im taught, though obviously in different arts.
Im enjoying this discussion, its been very interesting and has really opened my eyes as to whats out there in the SPM world.
Still im hoping maybe some other pai’s would share some experience. Nothing you dont feel comfortable with but maybe just some of your own opinions and exposure.
Thanks again to everyone taking part:)
BTW anyone notice we broke the 2000 views mark last night! Thats a LOT of people reading about SPM:)
We should try and do the same for some of the other lesser known systems.

122

Jon

Thank you for the kind words. Your observation that what Steve has posted is reflective of how you are taught is no doubt right on point.

What Steve has done is provide a parallel framework to a certain oral tradition that tends to be more accessible to the western mind. His ability to do this is reflective of his high eyebrow skill and first rate intellect. It is also why I refer to him as my Si-Hing without reservation.

Going back to the point regarding the merits of the respective SPM Pai there are many “right” ways of doing something.

Specifically, what has been posted to date is neither novel nor new. IMO, if someone had the proper instruction and followed the advice of their Sifu to the letter they would get just as far in their system of choice without “knowing” any of this stuff. They would “realize” these things and most likely on an intuitive level. It works either way.

These types of posts may be of some value to those who have all ready traveled this road as it provides a vehicle for exploring their method for possible areas of improvement.

Once a person passes through the matrix of their system pure force of will and long hours of sweaty practice for the sake of practice tends to yield diminishing returns. It becomes necessary to identify where some appreciable degree of improvement might be made and focus on these areas. Everything else kind of falls into the “maintenance” category.

The other point I would like to make is that everything posted to date is contained in the poetic formulae associated with JL SPM. Poetry has a long history of being the medium of choice for passing along information within the oral tradition.

Hopefully, members of the Iron Ox, Chow Gar, and Chu Gar Pai will post some stuff explaining how they view certain aspects of their system.

Within the overall SPM family there is great diversity born from the same seeds. For those who seek the truth of the matter as it applies to them diversity is a richness that is cherished by all and opposed by none.

IMO, those who claim to have “the” way are either delusional fools or self-aggrandizing idiots and should be studiously avoided.

123

Hello Jon,

Thanks for your kind remarks.

I hope that other Pai will post too. Perhaps its because of the festive season and we can all look forward to more input from SPM practitioners of all levels of experience and opinion.

Jack has made kind remarlks too, but, for myself I have no problem in acknowledging anothers skill, knowledge and experince - and Jack has all three - in many areas greater than my own.

Jack raises a fundamental point re the variety of ways that SPM can be practiced and the ‘form’ that it can take.

For example, in watching GM Henry Poo-Yee, I can see the highest levels of refinement and skill. Same too for GM Mark Foon, for Chow-Gar Tong-Long GM Ip-Shui, and my Si-Fu GM Lee-Lien.
All very different from one another in structure, energy etc, but all authentic SPM.

It seems that the principles - which are ‘transcendent’ in a martial art, need to manifest themselves in the ‘person’ of a practitioner to become physically ‘real’. As we all come to the arts with our unique physical being, psychology, character and broader background - the principles will be expressed through that individuality, and therefore appear sometimes to be superficially different to those same principles as expressed by another practitioner.

Variety and diversification have always been good for any ‘system’, biolgical or cultural.

What should be questioned is the reducing tendency in some people to limit the definition of a whole group or family of martial arts Pai to but ONE version of its expression.

Where this occurs, there is often a claim made about ‘tradition’ and conservatism - purity even. If this arises from an individual or group who are non-Chinese (or non-Hakka in say the SPM sphere) then that suspiscion should be doubled. Often, far from being conservative, these people are ‘prospective’ in having a very definite goal in mind for themselves - namely the appropriation of the art to them, and to them alone. One such person posted some time ago on another board, and used the metaphor of fruit rolling away from the tree, and therefore being separated from nourishment by the roots. Obviously a deeply flawed metaphor. Fruit are round precisely in order to spread away from the tree, and to avoid their own attempts at growth being sucked out by the tree’s roots.

If middle generation disciples can allow themselves to speak out on forums (better still if elders can) then the more junior practitioners of our arts (who are the very future of TCMA) can enjoy contact with experience and learning that can only help them to flourish.

Knowledge and skill brings with it a responsibility to teach (IMHO), but also a responsibility to be accepting of others learning. If it is not, then we set a bad example, either by act, or by omission - as in the case of perhaps not utilising the media to communicate our art to our friends and brothers.

If those who hold responsible positions, authentically, do not do this, then the field will be left to others who would utilise the media to rot many hundreds of years of martial arts cultural development, and replace it with their own self-centred and self-serving agenda.

I do not believe that it is enough simply to ignore those persons who would damage martial arts - they must be resisted - and the best way to do that is to bring things out fully into the open, without prejudice and with an open and accepting heart.

124

Fruit

Steve - The fruit metaphor is interesting. Staying with it, as the fruit falls off of the tree and rolls some distance from the parent tree the seed contained within produces yet another fruit tree. This tree then becomes part of the orchard or grove. A peach seed does not produce a plum tree and what springs forth from the seed is but part of the greater whole.

I looked for the “peach tree” post and couldn’t find it. Regardless, he/she is undoubtedly an idiot in pursuit of something they can never have.

What all groups that lay claim to the false title of “The …” continually fail to realize is that they haven’t the capacity for surviving past one generation. Once the leader dies the greater whole absorbs, or outright rejects, what is left over and scatters it to the four winds.

Historically, the only way around this has been to break clean with the root source and openly declare a new system. Not really an option in SPM as it is first and foremost a part of Hakka culture.

There are always going to be those who crave and need attention above that which their skill level merits. That’s what the school house is for. Namely, a place where students of miscreants can provide the emotional “strokes” required by their depraved teachers.

As long as they keep it in-house the damage is confined to the students following their “false prophet” so to speak. IMO, a sad but true situation.

Then again, the standard caveat of “Let the buyer beware” has always applied in such matters. Or, as I’ve heard it expressed by someone I greatly respect “Sometimes you get what you paid for and sometimes you just get taken.”

125

Soft training in Chow Gar

Has anyone experienced the later soft trainings in Chow Gar? Info please.

126

Tit for Tat

JF Springer and Steven T. Richards,

This thread has a good viewing about southern preying mantis. Looking at it objectively though theyre is a lot of talk but very little said about SPM as an art.

You both mostly talk about veiled politics all the while calling for openess. You call for openenss but never come right out with it?

Your posts are repititive in that you say the same thing over and over about “false prophets” and “claims of tradition or purity” and “those who crave attention”.

Yet, When I look at it objectively its only you tooting your own horns even then about meaningless and repititive rhetoric nothing about SPM really. It really seems like you seek the most attention but I have yet to read much useful.

I’m not interested in your opinions of other people but I might be interested in your opinions or experience in SPM. So if you want to play my big brothers stop talking like little brothers.

Say what you mean if you have something to say. But if you really want to play “big brothers” to us all then why don’t you teach us something more than veiled politics and contentious ideas? What about some serious discussion about the art. Don’t you train or teach? Cant’ you express that in a useful way?

Now don’t misunderstand, I;m only posting my opinion, everyone’s got one and I guess they all count.

I can almost bet what kind of response I’m going to get? Anyone want to place odds on it?

127

Tit for Tat

Hey JF and Steven, one more thing guys. Its easy to see you support each other with praise for each others post like “exceptionally lucid” and “brilliant post” being passed one to another tit for tat.

Thats good i guess, but objectively It seems you somtimes get lost in the commaraderie more than the art.

Like reading above where you explain away the necessity of “doi chong” or “sombogin as a form”. I don’t know if thats just cause you don’t have much doijong or the three step form but I find it interesting that all styles of SPM, Chuk Lum, Chu and Chow and Ox style all have much of these and yet you would tell us that it is unimportant. Can you explain in useful terms your position? I was under the impression that Sombogin was the foundation and two man training was the road to SPM.

And what about the numerous styles from Fujian which all contain much doijong and three three step form? I suppose they could all be wrong about the necissity of those skills and you could be right? But objectively it seems a bit unbalanced that all SPM and many other related styles have doijong and sombogin but you don’t find it important?

Looking for objective openess about the training. Please refrain from all other replies.

128

Troll on Board

Steve - We’ll we knew it had to happen sooner or later. A gutless no name coward with no lineage, but a real macho job of handling horses. What a joke.

Rather than simply refute each and every error inundated “point” this loser attempts to make I’m using a new feature on the forum and simply blanking him out.

Good way to get rid of people whose Mommy didn’t even give them a name.

For all Trolls, I’m easy to find, don’t waste band width trying to flame me, just bring yourself on over and show me what you got.

129

likuei

If you have a look at the start of the thread you will notice im the one who orginaly put this thread up. I did so becouse i wanted to have a thread where people could discuss a bit of there training in spm and maybe shed some light on what there system is like.
I also made it VERY clear that people should post what ever they feel comfortable about and not post what they dont.
This was an open ended request and i personaly feel its been met very well.
Before people like Mr Richards spoke out i had very little idea of what spm was like. Now i feel like ive got a light idea of what they do. This is all i asked for, I never asked for an indepth look at what they do as i know this is not possible.
This thread however also is serving the purpose of providing different spm practioners with a way of comparing what they train with what another pai focuses on.

“very little said about SPM as an art.”

There are several posts which discuss power generation, forms, weapons and teaching methods.
Im not trying to argue and anyones opinion is welcome. Just please dont discourage people who are doing a great service from continuing.
I for one have read every post in this thread and am enjoying the back and forth between JF Springer and Steven T. Richards.
Please continue guys your doing well:D

130

Tat for Tit

Jon and gentlemen, My point is made exactly in JF’s reply and in your own words Jon, This Thread has 128 posts of which you said “several” in other words, not many, a few, very little have to do with anything other than idle chatter tit for tat.

My posts above were not meant to discourage anyone but rather encourage positive posts about SPM, not veiled politics and idle gossip about nameless prophets. etc, etc. etc. which leads those with little understanding of SPM to no good feeling, especially as in the case of such important issues as the importance of doijong two man training and the form sombogin for example.

All the sudden someone has a question or difference of opinion and what? Look at the insults hurled.

Who would want to learn from someone who teaches what JF Springer spouted above? Or even associate with his group? He made my point exactly. Obviously not much positive discussion can be made.

131

likieu,

You are way off point. Check my posts again. Nobody said that my or anybody elses views were objectively true. However, if somone raises a description about an particular approach to SPM that neccesarily means highlighting differences as well as similarities otherwise there is nothing at all to be learned or gained friom debate.

As for a critique of doi-chong that has been oferred and supported rationally as a debating point. I am well aware that others have a different perspective and that is to be enjoyed as a learning experience. At least from Jack Springers perspective (and my own) we offerred some rationale for that view.
Would you care to do likewise? As for the Three Step Formula, you are off point there too. There are discussions on its place in various arts/Pai in above posts; from different Pai, including a comparative position taken between SPM Pai and an alternatively named form, which although not called SBG, has the same formula.

Perhaps your emotions have gotten in the way of you reading the posts accurately.

The ‘political’ question was not vieled it was openly described. It is a sad fact that these things exist. Some people are literally in fear of aggressive partisan political groups in martial arts and as a result debate is stiffled. That is wrong and should be resisted.

My point is that the only way to learn from one another is to be as open as possible - and that there are some who don’t like that and would do whatever they can to prevent it.

Why not make a contribution and you can have the debate that you claim that you want. Otherwise it is little wonder that you may be suspected of trolling.

132

Hello Bao-Jong,

I think that it’s called ‘Silk Reeling Hand’s’ - not sure though.
Andrew, who has posted above, also Pazmoot, may be able to answer - both have Chow-Gar Tong-Long training.

I’ll try to get ‘Aussie John’ to post, he has much knowledge in CG and I’m sure that he could help.

Regards,

Steve.

133

likieu

Im sorry but you just did something i really HATE, i find it both rude and petty when people attempt to twist obvious words.

“My point is made exactly in JF’s reply and in your own words Jon, This Thread has 128 posts of which you said “several” in other words, not many, a few, very little have to do with anything other than idle chatter tit for tat.”

You say my own words then go on to quote ONE of them!
Come on really, if your going to say “in your own words Jon” then at least use more than just the one word “several”. This doesnt prove your point it just makes you look like your not in full control of your sences and are grasping at straws.
My point was that both Mr Richards and JF Springer had given very detailed information on there pai and yet you still accuse them personaly of… ill quote you exactly…
"You both mostly talk about veiled politics all the while calling for openess. You call for openenss but never come right out with it?

YOU havent given ANY information on yourself on your studies so what makes you think you have the right to accuse others of comming right out with it?

Troll…

134

Gentlemen

Let’s remain focused on the issues Jon’s original post raised and not get side tracked with nameless, no lineage, horse handlers.

The Troll’s question with regard to who would want to learn from me says it all. He/she hasn’t the guts to even post their name, or any verifiable personal information for that matter, and refuses to simply come see me in order to learn the truth of the matter for him/herself.

The Troll’s insistence on holding Som Bo Gin and the 2 Man set(s) as being the root of all JL SPM skill readily identifies his association and agenda.

The truth of the matter, to which I was privy long before their false prophet even got a smell of JL SPM, is simply this: SBG and the 2 Man set(s) represent initial indoctrination and transition platforms. They are held “sacred” by those who are outside the door and those who have never really been inside the door.

So much for Troll as by his own posts, as well as personal profile,
he is nobody who knows nothing and doesn’t dare face me, hence a coward.

Jon, perhaps you would consider formulating some questions based on the mechanics of power generation using your most excellent system of Hung Gar as a model for comparison and contrast.

How real, authentic, traditional JL SPM generates, manifests, receives and issues force is considerably different as each system’s way of producing power is intimately linked to its technical structures and tactical approach to real world combat.

135

Tit and Tat

JF and Steven,
Honestly, you may impress those who have no SPM and know little of it, but what you’ve said here mostly goes against authentic SPM of every branch and its history.

That you don’t know me puts me in a group with 95% of those here, so you can call me a troll along with all the rest. That doesn’t say anything about me but it says everything about you. Obviously, your hakka teaching isnt yet complete, as you don’t yet know what a horse handler is or does.

In example, JF you say, that two man training and sambochin is introduction and transitional. I would be interested to hear in any terms you choose what you consider “inner door”. In my opinion you have been mislead by someone.

With personal experience in three branches of SPM and not in the USA and at the risk of sounding like you and sometimes Steven, I’ll toot my own horn, I’ve been in Hakka doors you don’t yet know exist. You don’t know me and you don’t know my teachers.

I am closed door and clearly all branches of SPM at the highest level are founded on Sambochin (call it what you like) and their highest teaching is two man training. In example, Chuk Lam Mantis has 108 a two man set (first and its dimmak 2 man training second), Chugar has a series of two man vital point doijongs in advanced training, Chowgar may have the most number of doijongs not only for various attacking but also for body strengthening. Ever heard of Lee Kwun, partner with Yip Sui in his book? His advanced training is all doijong. Just a few examples.

To say that sanshu or freehand “pressure testing” is high level SPM without a foundation to build upon is putting the cart before the horse. 99% of the time trainees who try to freehand without much training simply revert to brute force with little or no skill coming out. They simply don’t know what to do and the result is one person holding out his hand while the other person applies one or more techniques. Obviously not useful training.

Chugar is an example where a number of chongs train muscle memory to react in attack, defend, counter attack in sequences of skill that use and return the partners power. Once the motions become automatic one may then freehand at any intensity and if equally skilled neither SPM partner can overcome but put someone with no experience or perhaps some other style and the natural skill of SPM comes out superior (usually).

There are not several ways of generating power in SPM there is only one way. Its a gentan ging from the ground up to the fingers. All else is just rhetoric of the same idea. The technical structure is not negotiable. Its the same in SPM as well as numbers of Fujian Chekiang Kiangsi styles.

Although I agree that tactical approaches vary from group to group I do also agree that the basic tactical approah of SPM is laid out in a Sambogin poem.

If you want to discuss the poem, In keeping with Hakka idea, if you know it then you start the poem and I’ll finish it.

Here again you call for openenss but continue your veil of politics. PLEASE TELL US who is your false prophet? Perhaps you are the coward, as you called me, since you continue to make such veiled references? Speak up JF.

Steven, you said above, “My point is that the only way to learn from one another is to be as open as possible”. As self proclaimed co-successor to a Hakka teacher I’m surprised to hear you say that as it goes against Hakka principle and family value. Why hasn’t any of your Hakka brothers or teachers called out for such openess to learn more? We didn’t see anything from your Co-successor-whys that? Does his opinion differ from yours?

My point for the board, is that usually in Hakka society those who speak dont know and those who know don’t speak (not always the case). Why don’t you see the senior Chinese from Steve’s group, or Chuk Lam, Chu or Chow or Ox speaking out in magazines or newspapers or chat sites? ITs because thats looked down upon especially by Hakka.

I don’t mind to post, my concern is that you cant really learn SPM from words to begin with. And when something useful and digestible is offered to those hungry, they eat it and then bite the hand that fed them. Thats why Hakka don’t usually care if you know anything or not.

JF and Steven. Please do answer the questions.

136

It Continues

I was forwarded a copy of the long winded Troll now claiming to be inside the door for 3 Pai. What a hoot!!!

He seeks answers to questions but provides none, even the basic ones. Specifically, his name and his socalled lineage.

The only question this loser wannabe has to answer is “When are you coming to cross hands with me, coward?”

137

Could someone be so kind as to go into the Hakka mindset that promotes all of this secrecy? I know the basic history of what happened to the people, but, WOW it seems from the posts here the Hakka people just don’t like anyone. That can’t be correct, can it?

138

FWIW; IMO: The real old time Hakka i.e something like over 50 years old were generally quite secretive about their arts. The secrecy was a tool of survival. Briefly, the Hakkas were once up more in the north and were defenders of the Ming dynasty. As the Ming dynasty declined and the 17th century advance of the northern Manchus(Qing/Ching) southward began to take place the Hakkas moved south fighting rearguard actions along the way and still participating with other groups in resisting the Ching.
The Ching were brutal in putting down rebellions sometimes with the help of turncoats- including members of the “literati”. hence Hakka insularity was part of their security. Add to this- as they settled in the south they were not always accepted by all the locals reinforcing their insularity. The literati snobs often looked down their noses at the Hakka in the social structure. But the Hakka survival is a story in itself. They had a tough work ethic
and migrated to other places even outside of China to Southeast and South Asia and many made good helping each other and still being wary of the outside world. So the true old time Hakka masters did not “completely” share their temple or family arts with other Cantonese. With time… nowadays folks claim entre into the Hakka world. These are empirical questions- not just matters of claim. Sure all kinds of folks practise arts influenced by the Hakkas in varying degrees.
and southerners and certainly not with non Chinese. In wing chun Paul Lam a student of Leung Sheung was/ is Hakka. He combined his personal knowledge of Hakka arts with what he learned in wing chun. He was one of the first to take wing chun to the UK. A friend of mine was his student. Lam went into food supply business but the business later failed due to “collectors”.
He also quit teaching kung fu.
Some Hakkas lacking education went onto various businesses including eateries to depend on their own resourceful ness. Paul
lam had polio as an youth. he made up for it by developing unusual elbow power easily overpowering many athletic prima donnas that he faced. As you can gather from the discussions that there are some Hakka practitioners who don’t bother with public discussions. With mixed marriages some of the insularity might change. But then sometimes forms of knowledge go to the grave with the knowledge holders. Life!

139

likuei,

Firstly, I am not self-proclaimed. if I was I’d be shut down long ago.

Secondly, I am authorised by Lee-Yin-Sing’s family to speak out on the net and in public on their behalf.

Thirdly, Som-Bo-Gin is not found in all branches of SPM, it is not in
Yeung-Kum’s Pai in the UK, Yeung-Kum was the inheritor of Wong-Yuk-Gong. It isn’t in LYS’s Pai either. As I’ve posted elsewhere and earlier on this thread, there is no ‘problem’ with SBG, or with Chong’s, simply that differences in emphasis exist between Pai over their imporatnce. SBG as a named set, differs enormously between Pai that use that nominalism, so much so that they are in effect different sets. The three step formula is however found in other Pai that do not use the name SBG - which has been discussed earlier in this thread - had you bothered to read it properly. If you claim to represent a Pai that thinks they(SBG and Chong’s) have a central place thats fine, glad to hear your opinion. If, however, you claim that ALL SPM Pai place a similar central place on them, then you are mistaken.

Open discussion would allow these differences to be debated. My point about dogma is that it brokers no opposition or contradiction to itself - everything has to be ‘like’ it, or it isn’t acceptable. Such an attitude does nothing for learning or friendship.

From the perspective of your Pai - and demonstrably, your understanding, your remarks about the sequencing and emphasis on learning are perfectly valid. I accept your differences with my learning, and will listen to them. If you cannot reciprocate that’s fine too - you speak then clearly for your own attitude and position.

I’ve a long history in martial arts for a westerner, coming up to 36 years. I’ve seen the value of different ways of training and accept the ones you mention as being valid in their context. However, lack of experience of the other method simply means that it will be misunderstood - particularly if the approach to its value is reactionary, emotive and ignorant.

By all means open up and tell it how it is for you. I’ll be very interested to hear about your training, experience and achievements. The only point at which I’d not welcome your opinions is if they become exemplary ignorrance. I’ve no time at all to waste on that.

If you have any doubts about me personally, come and see me. I do not hide, my contact details are available.

Kindest Regards,

Steve.

140

Thanks Yuanfen. I don’t think I’ll ever understand the Chinese. Oh well, they’ve been good to me so far.