BT
Are they similar to other styles’ version’s of the same (at least named) form? Or are these unique to the Mantis systems?
Thanks
Jake
[QUOTE=B.Tunks;882476]These are some of the main weapons of the TLQ families- Damo Jian, Baxian Jian, Qixing Jian, Tiangang Jian, Yuhuan Jian, Yanqing Dao, Yuhuan Dao, Liuhe Shuang Dao, Liuhe Gun, Taiyi Zijin Gun, Wulang Gun, Meihua Qiang, Liuhe Qiang, Qunqiu Dadao.
T[/QUOTE]Thanks . May I get an english translation of these forms ,please??
[QUOTE=tattooedmonk;882596]Thanks . May I get an english translation of these forms ,please??[/QUOTE]
Jake,
They bear very little resemblance to weapons matching their name (eg. baxian and damo jian, liuhe gun). Almost all of these weapons routines utilise yuhuan bu, qixing bu, gou shou etc. The spear forms, followed by the stick forms (and qixing jian, liuhe shuang dao) are a little more generic, but still pretty distinct. The versions of jian most closely match Tanglang shen fa, bu fa etc.
TM
Damo Jian- Damo (Boddhidharma) Sword
Baxian Jian - 8 Immortals Sword
Qixing Jian - Seven Star Sword
Tiangang Jian- Heavenly Stars Jian (from memory, TBC)
Yuhuan Jian - Jade Ring Sword
Yuhuan Dao - " " Broadsword
Yanqing Dao- Yanqing Broadsword
Liuhe Shuang Dao - Six Harmonies Double Broadsword
Liuhe Gun - " " Stick
Taiyi Zijin Gun - Taiyi Purple Gold Stick
Wulang Gun - 5th Son Stick
Meihua Qiang - Plum Blossom Spear
Liuhe Qiang - Six Harmonies Spear
Qunqiu Dadao Spring and Autumn Halberd/Long Handled Broadsword.
just my very minor .02 on PL: the one form I’ve learned from Shifu Scolaro that Shifu Brazier also does is a Shaolin 18 Stick: Shaolin Shi Ba Gun. (me and a student did a crappy rendition of the 2 man version at the MQ event in '05) I learned a spear set from Shifu Jim and a broadsword set but both were from his Wah Lum background and he taught them to me because I asked.(Thanks, J. !) Both good sets, imho irregardless of from where.
Shifu Kevin, i think, plays the jian and double single sticks a lot but that opinion (mine) is just based on the clips he’s given out and small comments he’s said about both.
if there is truth to the opinion that the empty hand largely derives from the old weapon work from waaaay back then the should obviously be a commonality to weapon sets across styles ??? right ???
BT
Thanks. I stand corrected.
Jake
All I can say is that there are a lot of weapons sets at our school (Chung) and there seems to be a progressive methodology in the order of how you learn them. The sets are consistent with what LKW and Tony Chuy teach. Also, in Shandung- The two handed jian is referred to as Mantis Sword.
http://www.northernmantis.com/forms.html#Weapons%20Forms
http://www.leekamwing.com/ (click the forms tab and scroll down to weapons)
There are a few two handed jian forms (though they are younger than the single handed versions). What is referred to as tanglang jian is a generic modern creation based largely on the double handed movements from damo jian and baxian jian (not all versions of either are double handed but still have some double handed or supported strikes).
BT
Wang Lang and his Pair of Swords
You may find this article interesting.
It starts off…
Mantis Boxing is based on chopping with the hands and forearms in moves such as beng (collapsing-the back fist) and pi (cleaving). These same motions are constantly seen in weapon techniques. Is Mantis Boxing closely tied to the techniques of chopping weapons? This month I uncover never before seen relationships between Mantis Boxing and paired weapons.
Buried in there is also…
[B]Short strikes are a key ingredient of what makes up not only the Mantis Boxing style but many other styles of martial art as well.
The theory of short strikes is also the underlying method of weapons. Recent discoveries have uncovered a new link between the short strikes of Mantis Boxing and that of weapons.[/B]
http://www.plumflowermantisboxing.com/Articles/WL%20swords.htm
As always, nice article!
Jake
I think a basic understanding of why mantis came about, according to legend of course, saw no need for weapons. Some martial arts that were more military in origin must have had weapons as a part of core training. For example the “koryu” styles of Japanese martial arts, created prior to self improvement and sport arts such as judo, generally had battlefield application. Students had to learn weapons because their opponents had weapons.
Reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koryu
Please excuse the Japanese reference, it’s been a recent point of interest.
For mantis, it was designed specifically for a smaller opponent to overcome a larger one. Assuming both Wang Lang and his brother (in law?) were already kung fu masters, things like weapons would have already been in their curriculum, yes?
All martial arts were created for a smaller, weaker person to overcome a larger, stronger opponent.
Jake
Thank you for the enlightenment.
I dont see what all the confusion is about, its pretty obvious that mantis is an empty fist system. all you need to do is look at the fact that it contains the basic 18 weapons of shaolin, and the fact that many systems have the same weapons and/or same forms. Sure maybe a few mantis hands have been thrown in where other systems would use a fist or non-mantis gou shou, but having a tattoo of bob marley on your shoulder doesnt make you a rastafarian.
Of course there are going to be some similar movements, duh, its fighting. hell, I could probably find similarities in synchronised swimming, doesnt mean weapons techniques were created by a bunch of freaky looking chicks bobbing around in pools
[QUOTE=Tainan Mantis;883851]You may find this article interesting.
It starts off…
Mantis Boxing is based on chopping with the hands and forearms in moves such as beng (collapsing-the back fist) and pi (cleaving). These same motions are constantly seen in weapon techniques. Is Mantis Boxing closely tied to the techniques of chopping weapons? This month I uncover never before seen relationships between Mantis Boxing and paired weapons.
Buried in there is also…
[B]Short strikes are a key ingredient of what makes up not only the Mantis Boxing style but many other styles of martial art as well.
The theory of short strikes is also the underlying method of weapons. Recent discoveries have uncovered a new link between the short strikes of Mantis Boxing and that of weapons.[/B]
http://www.plumflowermantisboxing.com/Articles/WL%20swords.htm[/QUOTE]
And lets be realistic here, a few characters about a mythical figure does not constitute anything.
Discovering a link between short strikes of mantis and that of weapons…hmm i wonder why, could it be that both are about beating the s**t out of people?
what next theyll be telling us they have discovered a mysterious link between baseball and softball.
let the hating begin..
I have to admit the size can give a person a big atvantage. But, it doesnt mean that the martial arts were developed for smaller people to defeat a bigger person. I am sure a bigger person would prefer to defeat a smaller one as fast as possible…so the arts will still benefit them. What do you consider bigger? Taller or stronger? What if a tall guy is fighting a shorter but stronger guy? Which one was the martial arts developed for?
Mi, you make some good points but I cant totally agree with you. It is understood that the mantis has its own fighting theory, techniques, footwork…philosophy for the empty hand fighting. That is what makes it an individual “style” or “system” even though other styles use thier hands and feet as well.
Most people who have read a few magazines or books, like yourself, know that there were 18 weapons of shaolin…and were adopted by other systmes…etc.
But, the experienced martial artists knows that a particular style will at the very least have incorporated some of its own footwork into the weapons sets. Most legit styles have thier own fighiting theory or methods for each individual weapon. This doesnt mean it looks completely different than other styles…a staff is a staff and you can only use it so many ways.
So, if someone were to tell me that weapons were generic I would assume that individual has only done weapons training on a “forms” level with little understanding. I would also assume that the person doesnt understand their empty hand skills…since the you should be practicing fighting and drilling techniques with the weapons the same as you would for empty hand…and would hope could figure out it works the same for weapons.
[QUOTE=Mi Hou Tao;884154]I dont see what all the confusion is about, its pretty obvious that mantis is an empty fist system. [/QUOTE]
Quoted for truth.
[QUOTE=mantid1;884165]I have to admit the size can give a person a big atvantage. But, it doesnt mean that the martial arts were developed for smaller people to defeat a bigger person. [/QUOTE]
Exactly. As was my point above, many martial arts were developed for the military, taught to soldiers for battlefield use. This fact alone speaks nothing of smaller vs larger opponents.
The only martial art that has any historical reference being used on the battlefield is Xing Yi. All other are pure speculation.
All things considered equal the bigger (height, weight), stronger opponent will always overcome the smaller, weaker opponent. That is just simple physics. The “un” equalizer if you will is skill. Hence the practice of martial arts. Skill and training gives the advantage to someone smaller.
Jake
I’m sorry, you’re right.
It is common sense thet a bigger guy will have the atvantage… but I dont think it comes down to “simple physics”
Titanium is used and prefered in many places. Why would they use titanium rather than steel? Because titanium offers higher strength per weight than other metals and may offer better flexibliliy in certain scenarios than a hunk of steel would. So you are getting the same strength out of something that is smaller or lighter than the bigger heavier material. I do agree on the “basic physics” point of view…but I also realize there are ideas that can be considered “adanced physics” as well.
JJ-
Not sure I know how to take your tone. It is not a matter of right or wrong.
Mantid-
Lets not get crazy with it. You and I are not steel. Again, all things equal (skill set), the bigger, stronger will win 98% of the time. I mean really, what is their to argue about???
Thanks
Jake