Where is stealing the Peach?....

Wai Jia: The Kung Fu Forum Northern Praying Mantis
21

Back up

Just a note to say that my research matches 100% what Brendan says.
The technique White Ape Steals the Peach is also in HK Zhaiyao #1 AKA 1st essentials.

In that book WHF states that the original name of the movement is zhaiyao and this is why these forms are called zhai yao.

In fact what he should have said is,“This movement is originally called White Ape Steals the Peach and is why that form has such a name.”

But he would have trouble there since in HK the form name White Ape Steals the Peach was changed to Mantis Steals the Peach.

Then, in HK a new White Ape Steals the Peach was made and since then the confusion has never stopped.

22

Steals The Peach

Shifu Tunks, Tainan Mantis, Greetings!

Thanks for both the backup and the historical information.

I do know that often Quanpu and names for movements differ. Just as there is a mantis movement called “Fainting lady crosses the bridge” and others common by one descriptive name in Quanpu but poetic name in other venues. It is a beautiful example of the artistic nature of Tanglang.

However, to return to RAYNYSC’s, original post. He says that there is a movement missing from WHF branch sets but that is present in the various other lines of Tanglang he has seen. I must restate that I have only heard of this specific ending in Chu Leung’s branch of CCM Tanglang. It is not present in the various lines of CCM Tanglang I have seen, (and I have seen a lot of them on tape and in person). I still want to know the other lines he has investigated as I do not know of others having this movement and would like to be informed on this also for my research.

And, there is the matter of two roads of White Ape Steals the Peach. Indeed, RAYNSC, there are two roads taught in the CCM/ Chu Leung, (hereafter as CL) branch. However on the mainland, this is not the case in any of the branches I have investigated. To restate the point made by Shifu Tunks and Tainan mantis, the actual set once called White Ape Steals the Peach is really our Praying Mantis Steals the Peach, (which has only one road also on the mainland and in the WHF branch). The set you know as White Ape Steals the Peach does not exist outside of LKY’s line of HK Tanglang.

But, since you bring it up, let me inform you that the other halves of the form you know as White Ape Steals The Peach were not retained in WHF’s curriculum even as second halves of many other sets were not. Additionally, in my research, these halves, much prized as an inheritance to those who have them, (and rightfully so), do not exist on the mainland at all.

To get to what I think is the heart of your focus on WHF’s inclusion or exclusion of things you find in your style of Tanglang, RAYNYSC, WHF retained in his Quanpu what he considered essential for a full comprehension of Tanglang. He simply considered the additional sets retained by the CCM branch unnecessary in this pursuit. Masters will differ and attempt to preserve their arts in different ways. CCM chose one way and WHF chose another. The more I study other lines of Tanglang, both among HK and mainland branches, the greater wisdom I find, (for me), in WHF’s approach. This does not invalidate CCM’s or CL’s approach. It is only to say that we differ.

There is MUCH more to say on all this, RAYNYSC, but I must teach class. I look forward to your information on the other branches you have seen that have this movement.

Again, great topic RAYNYSC,
Peace!
Steve Cottrell

23

Originally posted by RAYNYSC
[B]
What I was asking was where is the specific move which gives the form it’s name. It seem to be missing from the Wong Hung Fung version.

Peace [/B]

Originally posted by loki
[B]In our version of the form we do have a move which seems to be missing from the WFH version. BTW, I just finished watching a tape where I have the late Brendan Lai performing this very form. I also have an article by Jon Funk where he was photographed doing the entire form and I have seen his student Dwight Edwards doing the form as well as others. The technique in question does seem to be missing from the form.

but it would seem to me that at least the moves which give the form it’s name would be included in the forms providing the common thread throughout the different lineages.

[/B]

RAYNYSC & Loki, Please forgive the time and corrections I had to make to this post, I am just learning how to use this forum’s controls. However, to get to my point.

I hope that you have seen from the preceding conversations by both mainland and HK practitioners that your version of the “Stealing the Peach” movement, though logical and quite applicable, is specific to your branch alone and not shared by the rest of the community in this specific context. It is not the movement that “gives the form it’s name” for the overwhelming majority of the rest of the mantis community and as a movement is not in many of your fellow CCM branches. It is not “missing” from other’s versions of the set; it has been added to yours.

Though it is unavoidable and essential that we evaluate others through our own experience in Tanglang, I have learned repeatedly (and sometimes with great embarrassment) throughout my research both here and on the mainland that we cannot make our approach the benchmark of “correct” and all others as variations. We all stand equally as Tanglang practitioners and our skill and education in the art speak for us.

Please understand that I point this out with greatest respect for your efforts to understand the family of Tanglang, just as I would want to be respected. Be circumspect in how you go about it.

Sincerely,

Steve Cottrell

24

Originally posted by mantis108
[B]BTW, What do you both think of Sifu Lam’s book? I think it’s rather interesting to see my style’s forms written in that Quan Pu format. Also I would like to get your opinions on the 2 men forms curriculum in the last section of the book if you don’t mind. Thank you.

Mantis108 [/B]

Mantis 108,

I thoroughly enjoyed reading through the book. It was very revealing in terms of a clear look at the corpus of CCM Tanglang. It is interesting that the total sets are fifty three, as I count them for the CCM line, excluding such sets as Gong Lik Kuen. I had a good time comparing the lists of sets with the Lee Kam Wing curriculum and seeing where he placed his emphasis. Several of the second routes mentioned in LWK’s book are left out in LKW’s curriculum.

The Quan Pu format, that of having right’s and lefts’ really clearly spelled out was good for me since I don’t know many of the sets for CCM’s curriculum and certainly not for TJTL. The two person format seemed easy to follow though I was not familar with all the drills presented. I would really enjoy getting with someone one day just to walk through movements.

It is a great reference! Doubtful in my own present and future writing endeavors I will approach such complete and accurate coverage of my own line’s art. I wish someone would.

Great to hear from you,

Steve Cottrell

25

i’m not even finished reading all of this yet and i’m drooling. i had to express how lucky i feel to be privy to all of this information. so immensely kewl.

neil armstrong
ninjaboy’s a nick name

ps. great job on the quarterly sifu cottrell. thank you

26

I don’t have all the time in the world to spend time in front of this monitor but I would like to quickly say that the we refer to the cross arm pull as Bak Yune Chan Hak or White Ape Invites the Guest… will definitely be back to continue this debate. :slight_smile:

BTW, let’s not forget that CL’s lineage comprises of the CCM and Yip Min Duk monks lineages so Sifu Cottrell please don’t blame it all on CCM :wink:

27

k

done

couple of questions:

hey brendan, regarding the following paragraph,

“The movement ’ Stealing the Peach’ is not a groin strike in Shandong Tanglang. It is a jumping knee with a cross pull, and is definitely found in the form Bai Yuan Tou Tao (Jing Wu’s ‘Tanglang Tou Tao’) near the end of the third duan. This movement is found in other Qixing forms and is always called ‘Stealing the Peach’. The ‘peach’ represents the groin in some southern styles but is different in the case of Tanglang forms due to the actions representing specific sections of the white ape legend.
Another point of interest, literal or explanatory Quan Pu and classic four character Quan Pu often use totally different names fot the same technique or combination.
Hope this murks things up!
Brendan Tunks”

you mention that the move we’re talking about is a strike to the groin but that’s STILL not really WHY it’s called ‘stealing the peaches’?

what is the ‘white ape legend’?

neil

28

Steals The Peach

Loki,

I hope I have miscommunicated. I do not blame anyone or hold anyone in a negative regard. That there are differences between practitioners under the same teacher is a matter of proverb among traditional artists.

I have, (and do), thoroughly enjoy and learn a lot from these discussions.

Regards,

Steve Cottrell

29

do we know where LKY got the form we call ‘white ape steals peach’, or is that a whole other thread?

neil

30

Hi Neil and all,

>you mention that the move we’re talking about is a strike to the >groin but that’s STILL not really WHY it’s called ‘stealing the >peaches’?

Actually it’s generally a knee to the mid section, the throat or the face.

>what is the ‘white ape legend’?

Its a story about a person who was nicknamed Bai Yuan. It is a little long but basically it involves the young man in question looking after his poor blind mother in a cave. She is ill and he has to basically go through the motions of , leaving the cave, climbing the tree, moving the branches, stealing the peach, entering the cave, presenting the fruit/peach and in the Qingdao version (where the story is most often related), worship or show filial piety to his mother. He is witnessed by a scholar who also gives him a classic text which in turn he also presents. As a m,atter of a fact in Qingdao in some families, he sits on/guards the hill, bows to the north star etc, etc. This white ape also invites guests, amongst other ‘movements’ found in many forms of Tanglang.

There is a Bai Yuan Quan, but it is unrelated to Tanglang, more closely related to Tongbei/Tongbi.

Sifu Cottrell is right, the names often vary. Feinting Lady Crossing Bridge is also known as White Tiger Washes Face.
hope this helps,
Brendan

31

would someone please describe for me the actual physical movement involved in ‘feinting lady crosses bridge’ and/or ‘white tiger washes face’?

…with examples out of mutually played sets, in a perfect world…

neil

32

Feinting Lady

Sifu Armstrong,

The movement as I learned it so named would be the Arm Break/ hammer into the kneeling stance, movements 6 & 7 of White Ape Steals the Peach, just to keep with the theme of the thread.

Thank you for your kind ascessment of Mantis Quarterly. I am receiving many good comments from all over so it looks like our initial effort has gone well.

Good to hear from you,

Steve Cottrell

33

Hi Sifu Tunks, Sifu Cottrell et. all,

Sifu Tunks wrote:

Its a story about a person who was nicknamed Bai Yuan. It is a little long but basically it involves the young man in question looking after his poor blind mother in a cave. She is ill and he has to basically go through the motions of , leaving the cave, climbing the tree, moving the branches, stealing the peach, entering the cave, presenting the fruit/peach and in the Qingdao version (where the story is most often related), worship or show filial piety to his mother. He is witnessed by a scholar who also gives him a classic text which in turn he also presents. As a m,atter of a fact in Qingdao in some families, he sits on/guards the hill, bows to the north star etc, etc. This white ape also invites guests, amongst other ‘movements’ found in many forms of Tanglang.

I too have heard this story. Mainly the part about having to climb up the tree to steal a peach for his mother. Concerning HK White Ape Steals the Peach I had thought the form got its name from the first two opening moves. Just my own speculation as I am not familiar with all the names of the movements so I am often wrong.

As I know steals the peach form starts with a circle entering stance with a negative dieu sau to groin, followed by a press filing punch to head.

I had always associated the first movement as a low strike to make the opponent bend to block and then climbing up him to deliver the filing punch.

Like a ape that climbs from the bottom of a tree to snatch a fruit.

mantis_seeker

34

Re: Where is stealing the Peach?..and RAYNYSC

Originally posted by RAYNYSC
[B]I have a two part question for 7 star mantis practitioners.
The question is in reference to the form( Bak Yuen Tau Tou or White Ape Steals the Peach.) I have seen the form played by practitioners from various lineages, for some reason it seems that the move which gives this form it’s name is missing from the Wong Hung Fung version, Also, I’ve heard that there is actually two roads to this form…

Any info on this will be appreciated thanks in advance.

Peace [/B]

Colleagues,

I have seen RAYNYSC on the list but he has not yet replied to my request for information on the other families that may have the movement he originally was investigating. That he stated clearly that he had investigated multiple lines of Tanglang and found this movement everywhere but in the WHF line makes clear that he had obviously done his homework.

I would like to open this up for anyone else who might know of this movement, its origin and how many other lines have it. I thought that it was a product of the developments by Chu Leung, and, as has been stated by Loki, the influence of his training with the Yip Ming Duk monks, perhaps. As such, it should be found in only a few lines of CCM HK Tanglang and only with those connected with CL’s rare style of CCM Tanglang. My own research and knowledge of all other CCY and CCM lines show that this movement was not present, yet, RAYNYSC was very clear that he found it predominately among, at least, a majority of HK mantis clans.

As a researcher, I am very interested in finding answers as you all know. The implications of RAYNYSC’s assertions are fascinating. There could be another person who had contact with Yip Ming Duk monks, perhaps and that they are plentiful enough that his research revealed only those lines for study! There should be a great deal of information on these schools but I cannot find them. Without question, I have missed something and am very willing to be brought out of my ignorance.

Anyway, if others can help me in this investigation, until RAYNYSC returns and shares his information, please feel free to do so.

Thanks

Steve Cottrell

35

I would like to open this up for anyone else who might know of this movement , it’s origin and how many other lines have it.

The very first move of Moi Fah Kuen has this move. I believe all the lineages begin this form with that move. It is in many of the forms. I thought I had described the action well enough that most people would have understood what I was trying to describe. I used the opening of Chop Choy as an example except that the movement in CC is done in a hill climbing stance. I get the impression that the implication here is that the move is completely made up. I could be wrong but that is how I am compelled to understand the above quote.

As a matter of fact, It almost appears to me that although Mr. Cotrrell has been as euphemistic as possible he is inlcined to throw slight jabs at the CL line whenever it is feasible. Now it seems to me he is not even sure what move it is we are debating.

You state that Sigung CL’s mantis is rare. I’m not quite sure if I should take this as a compliment or something else. Nevertheless, the statement is true in the sense that CL’s line is not as widespread as the other lines but that will change eventually.

36

Loki,

I do not “take jabs” at any CCM Tanglang. Please show me in my post where I insulted CCM or his decendants and I will appologise immediately. I do not believe that you will see it. If you speak to your Sifu you will know that I have nothing but respect for CL, the CCM line and the art they practice. We do differ in many respects but there is no negative considerations towards that line of HK mantis now or ever.

I consider CL line of mantis “rare” in that it is a unique combination of influences not shared by Shakespear Chan’s line, Lee Kam Wing’s line, Lam Wing Kit’s line or others. (Nor any other branch of Tanglang, HK or mainland). If there is another word which you would prefer, I would use it but that it is distinct from the others is without question and this should be noted for technical accuracy. Secondly, it is not practices widely on an international scale as is Yantai Tanglang or LKW’s Tanglang.

As for the movement itself, I understood and appreciated your explaination. However, I thought I was clear in asking for information on other lines, (besides yours) that had this move in the same place as was indicated by RAYNYSC as a defining movement. That is the subject of the thread, that this movement as it appears in White Ape Steals the Peach as a defining movement, is present in all lines RAYNYSC investigated except the WHF line.

I believe you are reading things into my post that are not there. However, to return to the subject of the thread, again, do you know of other lines that have that movement in the same place as the defining movement described by RAYNSC? I am still interesed, still willing to learn.

I am sorry I have been misunderstood. I take issues with people not with the legitimate styles of kungfu they practice.

Steve Cottrell

37

It was not my intentions to end my last thread the way I did but I accidentally hit a button and poof! The thread went in, sorry.

Anyway, getting back to the topic at hand. To say that a move has been added by our clan simply because the TL people in mainland China don’t have it is irrellevant. They don’t have it so it must not have existed. Even if the original form did not have this move it does not negate the fact that the move as taught in our line gives the practitioner a , perhaps clearer picture of what the form is conveying. Not only this, but I am quite sure you would agree with me that many TL changes were made during it’s transition from the Mainland to HK. Does the fact that something is older make it better ? I know, I know, you said that the names of the form don’t have to necessarilly imply that a move has to be in the form which would demonstrate the essence of said form. I would have to disagree with that train of thought. Every form is meant to teach the student something specific. It is not meant to be merely a collection of techniques. The name of the form will indicate to the practitioner, once he has learned it what aspect of fighting in terms of theory, strategy, energy, technique, etc. is being stressed.

For example, Dar Gong ( Avoiding Hardness ) has specific moves where the practioner is taught to sidestep the opponent in a sideways angle so as not to receive his incoming force and throwing him. Moi Fah Kuen ( Descending Plum Blossom Fist ) has five continuous punches or blocks that are executed as you are going backwards that illustrate the precise movement of fists falling from above. There are many other forms I can use as examples ( about 30 that I personally know ) but time doesn’t permit me to get into those at this time. I think for now, this is enough to make my point. Have run out of time but will be back.

38

My apologies. I wrote my last post before I read your last response. Thank you for the clarification. Feel free to respond anyway. I am sure you will not miss the opportunity :wink:

Like I said before, gotta go.

39

Re: Re: Where is stealing the Peach?..and RAYNYSC

There were a few points brought up in this thread that I wanted to comment on but since Sifu Tunks and Sifu Cottrell already replied with comments similar to mine, then I will not repeat anything already stated. However, I do like to add a few things:

Originally posted by MantisifuFW
[B]

I would like to open this up for anyone else who might know of this movement, its origin and how many other lines have it. I thought that it was a product of the developments by Chu Leung, and, as has been stated by Loki, the influence of his training with the Yip Ming Duk monks, perhaps. As such, it should be found in only a few lines of CCM HK Tanglang and only with those connected with CL’s rare style of CCM Tanglang. My own research and knowledge of all other CCY and CCM lines show that this movement was not present, yet, RAYNYSC was very clear that he found it predominately among, at least, a majority of HK mantis clans.

[/B]

Well, over the years, I have had the chance to meet other LGY descendants in both Hong Kong and China. In Guangzhou, I met Grandmaster Kwok, Chi Sek who was a sihing of WHF and began his studies with LGY while LGY was still teaching in Shanghai. When I asked Grandmaster Kwok about the WHF books, he told that they are correct in line with LGY’s teachings. In addition, I also had the chance to meet some students of Grandmaster Chan Chun Yee in HK. CCY was also a student of LGY in Shanghai. They performed their forms exactly like the WHF students.

Concerning the differences between lineages and questions about what the CCM lineage has that the WHF lineage does not, this has existed for over half a century. As a matter of fact, in the case of the BYTT form, if you have the original printing of WHF’s book on BYTT and can read Chinese, he clearly addresses this issue in his preface. WHF states that the form is as presented in the book and that it has only 24 movements and that’s it. The preface implied that this debate was already an issue even before the book was written.

In regards to the book written by Sifu Lam, Wing Kit, I am not surprised with what he has listed as the curriculum for 7 Star Praying Mantis since he is from the CCM lineage. But to my knowledge, no other WHF classmate has what is listed as the first route of BYTT. I am not in a position to educate anyone over the Internet. For anyone who does have two routes to BYTT and can point out which technique gives the form it’s name, then well, I am happy for you, but I strongly believe that LGY did not teach BYTT with 1st and 2nd routes.

By the way, regarding form names, not every form has a specific move that gives the form its namesake. But for “Bahk Yuen Tao Toe”, anyone who has learned the 2-man form or “Ling Bahk Yuen Tao Toe” should know which technique gives this form its name.

NPM

40

I would like to clarify a few items that have been touched upon in this thread.

  1. Lam Wing Kit is a follower of the CCM line.
    This is not exactly correct. He follows both CCM and WHF lines. His Kuen Po matches WHF kuen po (as stated by Sifu Cottrell) exactly. CCM sets do NOT almost in every case. In fact an obvious example is that CCM doesn’t call the set “Sei Lau Bun Da” at all. It is called “Sei Lok Bun Da” in his kuen po. Additionally, I have CCM’s kuen po and there are many differences between these and Lam Wing kit’s. I would go as far to say they there are not written from CCM’s kuen po at all. However to re-state my post, the framework of these sets are all intact and recognizable. Lam Wing it is a scholar and as such garners his information from a number of sources. This is for the better I think as he does not have to pledge all to any line and can be objective.

  2. Chiu Leun / Chiu Chi Min differences:
    This has been addressed before internally among our brothers in this line. I have always given the following explainaton: When CCM taught at the begining of his mantis days he taught from the practice of daily memory and training. When he got older he taught from the kuen po. If small details or a move or two were left out they were not taught to later students. The older generation as I recall were all playing their sets like Chiu leun. The younger generation like Lee kam Wing. To put it into perspective. Chiu Leun was already teaching in the U.S. and had been a mantis disciple for 22 years when Lee kam Wing started his training. Therefore the training was different. This is not to say that LKW is not a valid master in his own right for certianly he is. His books and now tapes give a different perspective than there once was. But there HAS to be differences. This is true with most teachers that have been around for a while. They teach differently when they are younger. Then due to experience, and years the trainings changes. Sometimes a lot sometimes a little.
    Additionally, although it is an ugly topic, many of the “old school” teachers believed in a yat kup, yee kup saam kup method of teaching that has caused more than one bitter rivalry.

  3. Name of technique:
    What a branch chooses to call a technique cannot resonably be argued with. You say tomato I say tomato. It is true however that in OUR line there are movements included in each set that identify with the naming of the set. Additionally, as with keeping what I said before, CCM’s kuen po is riddled with poetic terms “white snake spits out tongue” (bak shr to sik), and yellow dragon explores cave (waan loong tam dung), white ape invites guest (Bak yuen cheng hak), Black tiger steals heart (Hak Fu Tau Sum) etc, etc, etc, something lacking in the Lam Wing Kit kuen po.

  4. Law gwong Yuk’s teaching’s:
    Chiu Chi Min has stated in the past that His sets were taught by LGY. LGY was known to have created sets. So since the HK group is the last group to be taught, who is to say that these sets that are not taught in China are not his. When LGY went back to China from HK he died. If LGY had lived longer perhaps there would be a larger kuen po all around. Although it is true that the Chiu Leun line specific has more sets than CCM due to the additional sets from the Yip Ming Duk monks, CCM has more sets than most other sects of seven star.

  5. Sifu Cottrell’s Posting:
    I do not consider Sifu Cottrells post insulting. He has every right to state his opinion based on his research. I have had many communications with him in the past and all have been good.
    He does have experience with our branch after his training with some of my younger brothers. It is unfortunate that for the most part my brothers are more adept in technique and inadequate in historical information. So ANYONE is within their right to ask questions about our line. And the questions are welcome. I don’t compare our line with others I simply state what I believe to be factual in regard to what I practice.