Tai Zu Mantis style

Your quest for the original root system is really tired too

Reply]
What is wrong with wanting to know what the roots are of the styles we see today?

I think Sal has uncovered some really valuable insites to the origins of various styles.

I remember last time you filled a lot of pages with a lot of sh1t about taizu, and tongbei and mantis.

Reply]
Why exactly is his work Sh1t? He has a lot of info, and has put together a lot of data that really explains the evolution of a number of styles.

I have looked at his examination and comparison of various forms, and he IS right about the striking similarities. His logic also makes sense.

Have you done any work in this area that contradicts his findings? If so, I would like to examin it.

especially when you base most of it on stupid forms. Real amature

Reply]
The forms are living documents passed to us form ancient times, any good researcher would have to spend considerable time looking at thier construction.

Again, what have you done in the way of research in this area, and what are your findings? Do they contradict Sal’s? If so, how, and why?

Be specific, show us your expertise in these areas, don’t just slamm the guy and run away…that is hardly credible.

Your quest for the original root system is really tired too

Reply]
What is wrong with wanting to know what the roots are of the styles we see today?

I think Sal has uncovered some really valuable insites to the origins of various styles.

I remember last time you filled a lot of pages with a lot of sh1t about taizu, and tongbei and mantis.

Reply]
Why exactly is his work Sh1t? He has a lot of info, and has put together a lot of data that really explains the evolution of a number of styles.

I have looked at his examination and comparison of various forms, and he IS right about the striking similarities. His logic also makes sense.

Have you done any work in this area that contradicts his findings? If so, I would like to examin it.

especially when you base most of it on stupid forms. Real amature

Reply]
The forms are living documents passed to us form ancient times, any good researcher would have to spend considerable time looking at thier construction.

Again, what have you done in the way of research in this area, and what are your findings? Do they contradict Sal’s? If so, how, and why?

Be specific, show us your expertise in these areas, don’t just slamm the guy and run away…that is hardly credible.


Sals a cut and paste master. There is nothing insightful about what he writes.

What are the results of your research then?

How did you go about it. What are your conclusions, and how do they differ from Sals?

What is your area of expertise in Chinese martial arts?

What are your sources?

Well, Nate, because this is JUST an internet forum, a place to discuss things and ask questions and see what people have to say, if they want to participate in a discussion, not give away all your footnotes and source materials, etc., etc., in a public place, this ain’t no “Journal of Asian Martial Arts” or whatever.

I don’t know what you’ve said on the forums that is so original or insightful or much of anything other than a mundane comment here or there.

Sure I cut and paste in a forum, most people do, it’s the fastest way to learn more about the material that I “cut and pasted” from. Why else would I cut and paste it, to see what people have to say about it.
When people PM me for the source of something I said, I give it to them via PM, as it should be done in a public forum.
Its not like I can start transferring Chinese handwritten material into english and then immediately post it. No, I “play dumb”, come across stuff I have seen, and yeah, I cut and paste it so that a discussion can happen. I’m looking for a reaction from people.

But all my articles in various martial arts magazines from the 80s to now have been done with full research, I’m sure you never read them, since you are too cool to read martial arts magazines. Many well known masters respected them enough to have me judge their students at the Han Wei tournaments during the 1990s.

Nobody is ever going to present a full scholarly work with all their source material documented in a public discussion group, that’s nonsensical. I’m a professional writer for a living, writing under various different names, I’ve had plenty of scholarly articles published in various fields from technical writing about wireless computing to historical investigations to interviewing rock bands to writing business consultation advice to political rants to product reviews.

My original research comes from when there was no internet to cut and paste from, people weren’t using PCs everyday, and talking in discussion groups. I’ve got boxes and boxes of material from 8mm tapes, to videos, to taped interviews to manuscripts to whatever from material that I have gathered directly from TCMA people, many are now long dead, even stuff that was willed to me, starting back in the early 80s. People who entrusted me things that they didn’t even give their own students, which makes people jealous I guess, but they gave the stuff to me cause they felt their students didn’t give a crap about history of their style and why they do what they do and where it might have come from first and how it evolved from something else. I was one of the very first people in the USA during the late 80s and early 90s to translate lots of important information dispelling all the typical legends that were common. MY articles are the ones that have been the MOST cut and pasted from. Things people take for granted now I was writing about in the early 80s.

I have tons of rare stuff like old N Mantis masters on 8mm and video that goes way back that I would think someone like you would like to see. Various N Mantis teachers have looked me up and contacted me by phone and asked to be able to see the material once I transfer it all to DVD.

Everything I have learned from these TCMA people has never failed me in a fight. And I have fought plenty of times. I’m not afraid to fight, my well known great uncle was world champ in boxing in the 1930s, I learned to fight on the streets, I grew up fighting everyday of my life to and from school, everyday, a gauntlet of hell to deal with, in the 1960s and 70s in the heart of Newark NJ, even after being stabbed I clobbered the guy, I’ve picked up someone and swung his head into a tree, I learned how to live when it was kill or be killed times. I’m about 50 years old now and when I toured with my bands I’ve beat up people when necessary in various countries.

I practice TCMA for an hour every morning, an hour or two at lunchtime, and a few hours every night, then all day from 9am to 3-4 pm on sundays. I teach classes twice a week and still go go to learn more. I give seminars on my ideas and research, I invite masters to visit me so that I can show them directly what I am talking about, and I travel to see people who can’t travel to me. And, I play and tour with a band that plays all over the world, and have a family life. I think I have earned the right to be the way I am here.

I came across harsh in my post. I was venting from a bad day. I admit it and I apologize. But I still think you write a lot of nonesense online, and you just proved it again with that reply. I am sure you are great in person with a lot of experience, insight and skill, but it sure does not come across in your posts. To balance this whole thing out I sitll congradulate you on the effort that you do make, and of course encourage you to keep doing so.

Nate

Ok, now that that is over, does anyone have any info on the origin of those forms?

Sal, you mentioned 5th generation? If that is so, maybe these forms are a collection of someones Shaolin experiences form 100 or so years ago?

Maybe he learned traditionally, but never got the the fnal step of actually learning the form, so he combines all his techniques into one huge long set of Shaolin and other stuff?

okay, here is Li Cheng Xiang () doing Set #2, the one that appears to have the various N Mantis movements:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lrJ7d3pI9-g

[QUOTE=Sal Canzonieri;805727]okay, here is Li Cheng Xiang () doing Set #2, the one that appears to have the various N Mantis movements:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lrJ7d3pI9-g[/QUOTE]

Sal,

I can see one kick (repeated) and one hooking hand that are very consistent with TLQ. Importantly though, both movements are also common to Cha, Hua, Luohan, Sunbin and many other boxing styles. There are also about half a dozen other techniques that are played identically to some families of Tanglang but they are even more generic, appearing in nearly all northern systems. In fact, there is almost no technique or combination in this taolu that isn’t seen in multiple other systems. Having said that, maybe there is a close relationship, but if so, it would certainly not be exclusively with TLQ.

BT

Spot on Brendon. Dont know why Sal missed that.

Cha, Hua, Luohan, Sunbin and many other boxing styles.

Reply]
How old is Sun Bin? Is it Sung dynasty era right? I seem to remember it is one of the Tai Tzu based shaolin styles.

Louhan, and Cha fist are both styles Zhao Kuang Yin was exposed to. I think Cha Fist was present in pre, and early Sung dynasty military training. Maybe this set originally comes from someone who brought it back to their village after retiring from military service back then. If so, there probably would not have been a form, but a large arsenal of loose techniques. The form would most likely have been created in whatever village the soldier originated from, after he returned home, possibly may generations later.

Or maybe it is a mix of stuff various retired soldiers from different Garrisons brought home from the early Sung’s military and is just Called Tai Tzu because he was the Emperor at the time?

Another possibility is that this is a more modern choreographed set based in material from the 1700’s when Monks went to Shandong?

One thing that does not make a case for this being an actual Tai Tzu set, it is missing many signature moves of Tai Tzu.

For example, there is no Plow hammer. Although he does do a lot of punches with the lead hand in bow stance, he is holding his rear hand in a more generic chamber position, rather than extend and perform a full plow hammer. Maybe that is an intentional mark to the set? The other performance does the same thing though, so probably not.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qNO2zOok9pM

There is no General surveys his troops, or Golden Chicken on one leg, which is commonly seen in Tai Tzu sets as well.

Also, no “pounds Mortar”, which is seen in some variation in many Tai Tzu sets, or Tai Tzu derived sets (See Chen style).

There is no Phenoix spreads it’s winds either., which is also seen in many Tai Tzu, or Tai Tzu derived sets (Again see Chan style).

For comparison, here is the foundational Tai Tzu set. Notice all the common signature moves are in this set.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bg0AHeYAfWM&mode=related&search=

Now, you may have Tai Tzu sets that do not have them all, but i have yet to see a Tai Tzu set that does not have at least one…till these sets in question.

Also, the opening does not seem to be from the same family as openings common to Tai Tzu sets either.

Sal

I would have to agree with Mr. Tunks on this. I dont have the experience he has…but I can see Techniques in this last form that I have seen in various other styles.

I have been down the same journey that you have…but dealing with different styles.

I think it he end you may find a little mantis connection with this style. But, it may just be because it just so happens to share common techniques that are used by numerous other northern styles…with no real connection to mantis other than coincidence.

Another possiblility would be that the person who developed the forms knew some mantis forms. He then developed his own form using the moves out of the forms combined with others to make his form. The problem with this is that if he did not study the mantis style in depth learning theory…techniques…etc then all you have are empty moves that may look like mantis.

Knowing all of the forms of a system and understanding a system are two completely different things IMO.

The Chinese systems really like their forms…and I think this empty combination of techniques happen alot.

Traditional Mantis? Well, I have looked into many schools who teach traditional mantis. Most of them teach traditional forms and some drills or two person sets..but not alot of them get as in depth as I would like. So, I have to ask myself is this traditional or just another empty shell that is closer to what I think the ideals of mantis should be?

One of the few things that two different instructors from two different styles can agree on is how the third instructor from another style is screwing things up.

Have fun with your research…you may not find out exactly what you are looking for but I know you will learn alot on your journey.

I should let you know Im not a mantis guy and probably never will be…just sharing my observations.

[QUOTE=Qixing Tanglang;805750]Spot on Brendon. Dont know why Sal missed that.[/QUOTE]

DUHHHH! I didn’t “miss” it. Man, do you have to be a jerk for no real reason?

I just wanted other people’s opinions about this set.

I said the same thing in PM to RD months ago. As he can attest.

I just want to hear what someone else had to say.

It’s a strange set, so generic, agreed.
I wondered what the background on the set is, especially since the teacher says he is 5th generation, TZ Quan goes way back further than that.
I am trying to find out if the 1st generation founder pieced it together from other styles (mostly Shandong styles).
Because they are marketing the sets as being from ancient TZ Chang Quan and it looks like it is not.

[QUOTE=Royal Dragon;805758]Cha, Hua, Luohan, Sunbin and many other boxing styles.

Reply]
How old is Sun Bin? Is it Sung dynasty era right? I seem to remember it is one of the Tai Tzu based shaolin styles.

Louhan, and Cha fist are both styles Zhao Kuang Yin was exposed to. I think Cha Fist was present in pre, and early Sung dynasty military training. Maybe this set originally comes from someone who brought it back to their village after retiring from military service back then. If so, there probably would not have been a form, but a large arsenal of loose techniques. The form would most likely have been created in whatever village the soldier originated from, after he returned home, possibly may generations later.

Or maybe it is a mix of stuff various retired soldiers from different Garrisons brought home from the early Sung’s military and is just Called Tai Tzu because he was the Emperor at the time?

Another possibility is that this is a more modern choreographed set based in material from the 1700’s when Monks went to Shandong?[/QUOTE]

Sun Bin is a relatively modern style, named after Sun Bin in honor, developed by a bodyguard from Shandong. It is not TZ based, it is Tong Bei based.

There is no evidence that Zhao was exposed to Cha Quan, he never went to Shandong were Cha was practiced, and I don’t think there were that many Moslems in the military during Zhao’s time when he was a soldier.
Most of Cha Quan is typical long fist found in the Shandong area.
Anyways it was not called Cha Quan during his time period, it was called Jia Zhi (Frame) Boxing, and it was much different then.
If he came across any Moslem martial artists practicing Jia Zhi, they would have to be from Western China, which Jia Zhi was practiced.
It seems very doubtful.

The hooked hand thing that is done mostly in Cha Quan which people point to show that there must have been a connection to TZ Quan is also commonly done the same way in Shaolin Rou Quan 108 set, Shanxi sets, Sichuan sets,and other styles from the regions nearby each other in that area, where Zhao did go to when before he was a soldier and was wondering about picking up various martial arts techniques.

As I said a million times, soldiers who retired during the early Song dynasty mostly used what all soldiers learned Sword techniques transposed to the empty hand, which is in essence just Tong Bei. There are military manuals that exist from the Song period, mostly they talk about the soldiers weapons training and so on.
Empty hands was not emphasized.

Luohan was fairly common in the Henan region, and was pretty primitive back then.

What these video sets actually are will depend on what the 1st generation founder was doing.

I was interested in seeing if anyone recognized these sets or at least some sequences of their movements from something Mantis or something else.
Just asking, no theories up my sleeve or research into “the one true original style”.

JUST HAD A D AMN QUESTION AND WANTED SOME EDUCATED PEOPLE’S OPINION< but that seems to cause some people to get all upset for some weird reason.
(not meaning you, RD, of course, but you know who)

I said the same thing in PM to RD months ago. As he can attest.

Reply]
Yes I’ll testify to that, and he also pointed out the missing signature moves I mentioned above (although some are my own additions to list list of of missing moves).

My thought is these forms are a survey of common military techniques from the early, and pre Sung dynasty, all strung together in one long form, and thus named Tai Tzu because of the period they come from, and not any actual tie to Zhao Kuang Yin.

[QUOTE=B.Tunks;805744]Sal,

I can see one kick (repeated) and one hooking hand that are very consistent with TLQ. Importantly though, both movements are also common to Cha, Hua, Luohan, Sunbin and many other boxing styles. There are also about half a dozen other techniques that are played identically to some families of Tanglang but they are even more generic, appearing in nearly all northern systems. In fact, there is almost no technique or combination in this taolu that isn’t seen in multiple other systems. Having said that, maybe there is a close relationship, but if so, it would certainly not be exclusively with TLQ.

BT[/QUOTE]

Thanks, was of the same opinion, just wanted someone else’s opinion, just in case someone recognized the movements from something set they knew.
It is a very generic set, so whoever the 1st generation founder was 100 years ago or so, he developed it from basic long fist.

What is not cool is that it is being marketed as “Shaolin” Tai Tzu Chang Quan, and it might only remotely be so, just because it is Long Fist, which someone then says is automatically Tai ZU Chang Quan, taaa da!
Did the founder 100 years ago come from a Shaolin lineage? Who knows.
Around 1735-1765 a lot of former Shaolin monks left and moved to Shandong area, where they taught various Shaolin material. The Fan family bodyguard company, open since the 1700s were using the Hong Quan that they learned from these Monks.
The great Wang Zu Ping also learned Shaolin Long Fist from students of these ex-monks.
Some of these monks taught Jingang Quan, some Hong Quan, some Luohan Quan, some Black Tiger, and other stuff that influenced various long fist schools from Shandong, which already had their Cha Quan, Hua Quan, N Mantis, and other stuff that Shandong was already famous for.
These, especially Cha Quan and Hua Quan, probably mixed with the imported Shaolin material over time. I think that is what this “Shaolin TZ Chang Quan” stuff is most likely.

The Green Dragon school (yucch!) has a set of 3 “TZ Long Fist” that they sell, and it is clearly Southern CLF stuff and he even admits that it was Southern Five Animals sets, but they marketed it as TZ Chang Quan, just because it was Long Fist material. Totally deceptive way of selling it.

Could Tai Tzu hongquan be considered any Shandong longfist mixed Tai Tzu from Shaolin?