Just checking to see if this would work
Mantis108
Contraria Sunt Complementa
[This message was edited by mantis108 on 03-26-01 at 04:03 PM.]
It works!
So, for those Lung Ying and Bak Mei inclined folks. Here’s me doing the “Sarm Tone”. I am so inspired by the Heel Hook thread on the Kung Fu board that I think we should have a thread like that here. I will try to do a Sarm Tung Gwo Kiew technique thread later. Meantime, hope more of you guys would contribute more. Have a good one guys. 
Mantis108
Contraria Sunt Complementa
That’s you? You poor bastard
Just kidding 
Guns don’t kill people, I kill people
You da man Mantis!!
Wheres the basketball??,just kidding,
Maybe its the black clothes or the camara
angle,but shouldn’t you be tucking your butt in
just a little more?
Neat pic,is that Bai Mei Sam mun kuen set?
Kind of looks like “Jek Bo” with dragoon foot placement(advancing doulble tiger claw setting up for Bil jee pheonix eye?)
You got a web page with more pics??
Mantis, a thread about Sam Tong Gwo Kiew sounds good, go for it.
Mark S
Thanks guys
This move is taken from the Chat San Sau (seven loose hands) from Lung Ying.
-
Soy Kiew
Bui Gim
Kau Pek
Sarm Tone
Mor Kup
Larm Dah
Chong Tsui
These seven are the staple of Lung Ying. Many hands are in essence their variations.
The reason I am putting forth Lung Ying technical thread is that, I am inspired by the grappling threads on the Kung Fu board. I just think that the technology is available and we should make use of it. There are a lot of things we can show case. I must also say that Lung Ying in my hands is not 100% text book picture perfect. It is my believed that picture perfect is just that it is only found in picture. There is a bit of a paradigm shift in my Lung Ying, I have worked it through with respect to the western martial arts. The triangle stance as you can see here is more of a pivot as in western boxing’s footwork rather than a Kung Fu stance. That’s why it would seem my butt is not tugged in. Combat, to me, is dynamic and mobile. A small mass such as me is not going to stand there like a log of wood and let a much larger mass to charge at me. That is just insane egomaniac behavior. Using footwork, angles, and circular motions to out manoeuver my opponent, that’s what works for me. I hope that you would all enjoy and focus on technical discussions. I think it is about time we show the guys from other boards that we are not just doing lip service to practicing Kung Fu. Let’s have some fun.
Mantis108
P.S. Marks, thanks I will do that as soon as I have the pictures ready.
Contraria Sunt Complementa
Nice Pic !
Could you clear up a few things?
Who are you in combat with???
You said you have changed your lung Ying Footwork to a more weastern boxing type.
Did you not feel comfortable or less mobile with the traditional footwork???
Have you heard of the expression of “ben or Been Fa”?
Good questions, Cloud One
“Who are you in combat with???”
Not in this picture. I was referring to combat in general. Since I am ultra lightweight (yes mass is my handicap), I have to develope different strategy than my opponents. In class, I will have to sparr with students who are sometime twice my weight. Canadians are pretty heavy you know.
“You said you have changed your lung Ying Footwork to a more weastern boxing type.”
Not really changed but adapted the details. Especially put weight on the balls of the feet. I paid more attention to pivot with the balls of the feet, twist at the hips and snap at the shoulder. The elbows are not locked. These things can be found in western boxing and compliment Lung Ying very well. The stepping patterns remain the same.
“Did you not feel comfortable or less mobile with the traditional footwork???”
Don’t get me wrong, I don’t think the traditional footwork is less mobile. In fact, the stepping patterns is fantastic. It is just that “traditionally” the level of focus in having a strong solid stancework far outweights the building of a functional fluid footwork. That is of course my personal experience and is not to say other may experience the same.
“Have you heard of the expression of “ben or Been Fa”?”
I believe you are refering to changing/adapting… The anwser is yes and I have just used “Been Fa” in my footwork. 
Mantis108
Contraria Sunt Complementa
?
dude that looks like ernest morrow.
Mantis
MORE PICS
MORE PICS
MORE PICS
BRAVO!!!
THANK YOU
Great topic.
Mantis 108, I see you favor mobility over stability, which makes sense, but how does Chinese martial arts account for other small martial arts masters and “rooting”? What’s your opinion on this type of strategy?
rooting
Paul,
I don’t mean to jump in on mantis108 but this is something I’ve been thinking about a lot recently, although admittedly from the Hung Gar point of view.
Wouldn’t it seem that the rooting and mobility that was developed and refined, say 100 years ago, was largely based on similar body styles. Some anomalies can always pop up but without a significantly higher caloric diet most people in southern China were about the same build. As a counter point, take Lam Sai Wing with the obvious access to lots of pork, he turned out to be a pretty big person in comparison to his contemporaries.
Without getting off of topic here, I think my point may be that in modern times we have a huge variety in potential body styles for an opponent. So then ones focus may have to weigh heavier on what works for their specific body style and allows them the widest variety of responses.
In teaching I’m a big proponent of showing the “strict form” of each move for the purposes of instilling the essence of the system, yet at a later time when the student has matured there is the opportunity to modify the nuances based on their personal body style and the averages of potential opponents. (e.g. a 5’2" guy is going to fight taller people 90% of the time) But the teacher has to hold true to the “strict form” because the next student he teaches may be 6’2", and he needs a baseline from which to begin.
Anyway, I don’t want to sound preachy, I’m sure this is all pretty mundane. It just seemed to me that mantis108 has made those later modifications based on his personality and attributes.
This is an interesting thread, I look forward to your take on this.
More Great Questions
WuMan,
Who the person you were refering to? Sorry, I have no clue who he is.
tnwingtsun,
Thanks for the support. I will post more pictures as soon as I upload them.
Paul,
Rooting as a strategy is fine. IMHO, it is highly technical base though. We have to take into consideration that a small frame person may have a large mass, i.e. short but stocky. certainly, to move that heavy mass may burn out the exponent faster if he is on the move all the time. So rooting and take a more defensive measure (wait or draw) the opponent to come into striking or grappling range requires great skill. A novice may find himself undersiege with an adept opponent (isn’t this one of the reasons why the complains about KF not easy for beginners?). In close range combat, action has be fast and decisive because the margin of error is minimal and it can cost a great deal (may end up trading punches with opponent). To train that the effort is doubled that of a mobility base strategy.
Kozmo,
Welcome aboard. By all means, I am glad you jumped in. You have addressed a few points that I was going to make and I agree with you. I hear you on the strict form issue. At this stage, I should clarify that I am not currently teaching Lung Ying or Bak Mei. The artistic license (rather a technical one) is mainly exploring the frontier of these southern styles from my perspective. Many have wondered about these arts and it’s place in 21st century. Personally, I feel that the principles governing human motions are the same. What works for the western boxer should work for Kung Fu, and vice versa. The problem is where is the balance and how much would be absorded.
To All,
My goal here is not to preach a new style but to give a more comprehensive perspective or an user friendly approach to the general public so that someone may be inspired enough not to think that Kung Fu is ineffective. I am also doing these because the large number of people believe (rather convinced) that Kung Fu is not for training good figthers within a short time frame. To me that is an attempt to cover up weakness. Reality is that there is no way that Kung Fu has to take a back sit as training format. It is upto us to change that perception.
I have to thank everyone keeping the momentum going.
Mantis108
Contraria Sunt Complementa
show me a pic of you doing sipp batt moor?that would blow all are heads off.
good luck sir[by the look of your stance you have W/C philosophy]if you know ben fa i’ll eat my hat.
My Point of View
Mantis108, don’t mind I interject here?
Mantis108 wrote:
comprehensive perspective or an user friendly approach to the general public so that someone may be inspired enough not to think that Kung Fu is ineffective.
Kung Fu becomes ineffective because many older generations kept the details of the art really conservatively, only passing along the complete system to the selected few. On the contrary, it can also becomes ineffective due to the practitioners themselves not spending enough time practicing and contemplating.
Having said that, I strongly believe that the transmission of Kung fu is a two way process. The teacher has to be willing to impart his knowledge, be patience, knows the art well himself, has the training methods ready and possesses the quality of a good teacher. The student has to be diligent, intelligent, honest in his pursue and also mentally ready to absorb his teacher’s teaching. If these do not exist, then somewhere along the way, the teacher either gives up or the student’s skills become stagnant.
Mantis108 wrote:
I am also doing these because the large number of people believe (rather convinced) that Kung Fu is not for training good figthers within a short time frame.
A good fighter is easy to develop, but the question that I always ask myself is are we striving to just develop good fighter or REFINED fighter that can display the characteristics/flavor of the Kung fu system he has chosen. To preserve a system from dilution and yet retain its effectiveness, if given a chance, I would opt for the second choice.
Kung Fu means acquired skills, a good example will be the requirement of a proper body structure as stated in many martial maxims. These requirements are not natural to our body and has to be drilled over and over again until it becomes second nature. Even the vertical storing and releasing of power, or the Tun Tou Fou Chum body method is not something that can be achieved properly within a year or two. In the Xinyi boxing of the Dai Family, the fundamental stationary exercises to develop the above mentioned areas take three years of training before one even progress to learn any footwork. This kind of training is rigorous and repetitive, but I believe that it will prevent any “loophole” in the near future when a person continues to learn other aspects of the art, say weakness in the lower basin is attributed to the insufficient time spent on stance training.
Just my 2 cents.
Mantis
Very sorry, my brother got a hold of my password last night. Great topic man.
Thanks Mantis108, just wanted to see what your views were on training and using “rooting”. I think both mobility and stability are good, but each has their strengths and weakness.
What I’d like to know is, would you (as a shorter lighter martial artist) ever bother to train rooting skill and develop it for combat, or do you see it as a big disadvantage to your body type and a mobility strategy?
Jek bo forever !
Imo it’s not a choice between mobility or stability. In Pak Mei rooting and stability are trained from lesson one. Basic exercises train the stepping patterns without hand movements. Jek bo trains stability and root together with hand movements. Later forms increase the difficulty in the footwork and with this the mobility of the student. After learning the forms the student will choose techniques from the style which suits his/ her preferences and body posture.
Light people will choose mobile techniques with a lot of stepping in it. But when contact is made the stability comes in. Or like the poem sais : ‘six powers hold tight’. The root is firm as power is generated. So even when students choose different techniques to fit with their body posture the style is still the same.
Regards, La
Keep them coming…
Everyone,
Thanks and please keep the comments coming.
WuMan,
No problem and glad you like the thread.
Integraman,
Hey, my friend, I hear you. I understand where you are coming from. I would have to said Kung Fu for me at this stage is like a 2 wheel chariot driving through an uncharted field. Science and art of fighting (the 2 wheels) has to be developed evenly to get a smooth ride out of the chariot. This is even more difficult with the Lung Ying and Bak Mei since body mechanics and TTFC have to be unified to “express” power. We are dealing more than just power generation. That’s why the forms represent the style. The forms are the style and style is in the froms. But this is mastering the style. Unfortunately, there may be fewer than 20% of practitioners would want to devote and apply themselves. The other 80% is then disillusional with styles and claim that it simply BS. We see that happening here everyday on all the boards on the KFO. Could you blame them. No. Why? Because if my objective is to protect myself and my family, I will have to stick with Kung Fu more then 10 years to (MIGHT) be able to defend against some thugs who have little training (say boxing, BJJ, etc)or even no training? That DOES NOT sound right in any case. I personally take up Kung Fu because I believe that it is for fighting and for mastery. It is this double happiness (humor intended) that I go for Kung Fu. Fighting is not good and will not solve problem but it is not an excuse for us to let our skills degenerate. In fact we should alway find a better and more efficient way to deliver a life saving skill. Besides if we are so sure that our stuff work great then why not show them what we could do? I think that’s far more possitive than being ridiculed. Anyway, I think your points are valid concerns as well.
Paul,
I understand I missed your question. Yes, it is important as training to work with stances to better understand the relationship between center of gravity and body weight placements. Light weight or not this is the basic principle of Kung Fu. So it must be studied and trained throughly. Stance work and footwork can be view as the “stick and move” in Boxing. Stick/stancework/strikes and then move/footwork/mobility. I’d like to open another thread on that since this thread is getting long. Hope you don’t mind. I think we are touching on the subject of power generation through stancework and/or footwork. Power can be generated either through rooting or mobility or combination of both.
Lau
Long time no see. How’s it going? Impressive comment, my friend.
Mantis108
Contraria Sunt Complementa