Yantai Beng Bu Genesis

Wai Jia: The Kung Fu Forum Northern Praying Mantis
21

Ling Beng Bu

Hi Kevin.

Your research on Ling forms is pretty consistent with opinion in China. As far as Shandong, Ling forms are not taught in the curriculum, though counters and defences for most techniques are taught individually and in drills as single movements or combinations (left and right sides). As far as I am aware it was an innovation of Luo Guangyu, but may also have made its way to the Jingwu in Shanghai at some stage (just as Luohan Gong made its way back to Shandong via H.K).
In my opinion Ling are good for developing some aspects of combat but are a hinderance in other areas. This is one of the reasons two man forms are often dispensed of in Shandong.
B.T

22

Thank you note

Hi Brendan,

Thank you for the clarification. No harm no foul. :slight_smile: Likewise, I am looking forward for future productive exchanges with a newfound Mantis brother.

Warm regards

Robert

PS Glad to see your sense of humor, my friend. lol…

23

Re: Yantai Beng Bu Genesis

Originally posted by mantis108
On the other thread, which is getting rather long, I shared the following:
<<<<Meanwhile no one exactly know what Li Sanjian taught but then by Wang Rongshang time Longfist forms would have been inseperable to the 7* system. From there Chaai Chui, HeHuJiaoJia and others were added. The main reason that there are so many forms and the high regard of form in 7* is IMHO mainly because of its Longfist background. .
Mantis108

Mantis108,

I cannot address the Taiji/Meihua sections of your history but I can speak to some of this section. In the time after Wang Rongsheng, Changquan was added to the Qixing Tanglang mix, to be sure. However, its effect was not to proliferate sets. Instead, its effect was, in my opinion, to open up the structure of Qixing in a way that does not happen with Meihua. In my interviews and training with Mainland Chuangtong Qixing Tanglang practitioners I heard it said often and was shown examples of this structural difference.

As for the proliferation of sets, most certainly there were sets created by Wang Rongsheng. However it is arguable that Luo Guangyu himself probably had around twentyfive sets at the most when he left Yantai for Shanghai and this generations after the addition of Longfist. Having spoken to the masters in Shanghai, Qingdao and Yantai, and having on occasion seen copies of their lists of forms I have arrived at this estimation by my own calculation but am open to others who have done similar research with all the branches that I have. However, more than that I have trained with them. Sets are there, for certain, but our time was spent in Jiben Gong, and Sanshou training overwelmingly with sets being a distant third.

As for the high regard for form training present elsewhere, I can only say that we do believe in performing the sets well. However the idea that by learning many sets one can learn to use Tanglang is an idea that belongs to some Qixing practioners (a minority I might add) but not to others.

Longfist does increase the number of sets, without question. So did the inclusion of Fan Che. That having many sets is a greatly desirable and positive thing is the perspective of certain lines of Qixing Tanglang and they must speak for themselves. It is not the perspective of most WHF or any mainland Tanglang practitioners I have met who’s number comprises the overwelming majority of Qixing Tanglang in the world.

The proliferation and collection of Qixing Tanglang sets is a phenomena that I am investigating. However, what I have found on the mainland is that no one engages in the collection of great numbers of sets. Instead, most have a modest number of sets that address different aspects of Qixing Tanglang that the Sifu wishes to teach.

I have more to say but the hour is late. I really enjoy your posts, your wealth of information and your willingness to share. It benefits us all.

Sincerely,

Steve Cottrell
P.S. This is a far more rough draft of a response than I usually post. I may amend it when I get some sleep.

24

Dear Sifu Cottrell,

I think your explanation of Longfist influence is excellent. “Structural differences” is great point! I could not have said it any better. I also agreed with Your views on the focus of Jiben Gong, SanShou, proliferation of sets, etc… Your rough draft presents valuable and organized information already. It is always a great pleasure to have generous sharing from you. I am looking forward to learn more from your insights. Thank you for giving up precious rest time [I know how it feels :wink: ] to help broaden my understanding.

Sincerely,

Robert Hui (Mantis108)

25

Re: Yantai Beng Bu Genesis

Originally posted by mantis108
[B]On the other thread, which is getting rather long, I shared the following:

<<<<I think a lot of the differences materialized because of the different methodologies which are based in the teaching philosophies of the various masters…

Meanwhile no one exactly know what Li Sanjian taught but then by Wang Rongshang time Longfist forms would have been inseparable to the 7* system. From there Chaai Chui, HeHuJiaoJia and others were added. The main reason that there are so many forms and the high regard of form in 7* is IMHO mainly because of its Longfist background. Later on Ling forms became another important feature of 7*…

The technical difficulty of Luanjie, which require the practitioner to be aglie, to have superb hand eye coordination and to have great finesse instead of brute and raw power, is understandablely hard for novice to attempt it as an entry level form.

Mantis108 [/B]

Mantis 108,

I decided to scrap my initial try and just start over…(sometimes wish that about a lot of things),

Okay here goes…Changquan as a major influence is inseparable from The Tanglang of Li Sanjian, as you say and all of Qixing Tanglang of every branch. It is, I would argue strongly, also inseparable from the Tanglang from Taiji/Meihua as well. The question, as I see it, is one of degree, training methodology, (as you have said) and the desired end product.

All Tanglang is first and foremost an outgrowth of Taizu Changquan (long fist) and Tongbei, (Tongbi or through the back boxing). Both of these systems exhibit a long range whipping power flying from the body’s core. The result of this is a devastating exponent of long range boxing.

When this is combined with Fan Che, a later addition to Tanglang the long range boxer is enhanced even further. I would assert also it helps create a formidable fighter even against multiple opponents.

So far we have been describing the same system in both TJMH and QX Tanglang. Historically Wang Rongsheng, a champion longfist boxer, then institutionalized this emphasis with the development of sets for what was to later be called Qixing Tanglang. I think the reason for this was that he and Li Sanjian believed that the longfist method, at which Wang was so adept, made training in the Liu He, (six harmonies) and Chang Jin (body core whipping energy) systematic, applicable and more easily reproducible. The result was to open the body of the practitioner first, then teaching the more difficult closer techniques and smaller body structure as an emphasis later.
(For those who might wonder, the closer, smaller techniques do not “replace” the larger. This is an error that many experienced Qixing Tanglang practitioners make. Long supports short. The Eighteen founding sources of Tanglang do not drop the first two and Fanche when they get to Duanda, (short strikes).

This is the foundation of Qixing Tanglang. It did not take away the short range fighting abilities. It did add sets, without a doubt but what it also did was to maintain institutionally this core heritage of Tanglang’s eighteen founding systems. Wang Rongsheng’s champion fighting skills were not eliminated by Li Sanjian when he defeated Wang. Instead, it was used, strengthened by the Tanglang of Li Sanjian.

The result is a different looking Tanglang initially, (because of Meihua’s Duanda emphasis initially). But I would argue that Taiji/Meihua can fight long even as I would argue that Qixing can fight short.

Hope this makes sense,

Steve Cottrell

26

Re: Apologies for unterrupting

Originally posted by Shaolin Master
[B]The problem is that there research is the most readily available and systematically organised for the western audiences. So although you can open eyes if there isn’t anything to feed off it will revert to the trained thought soon after.

cheers,
Wu Chan Long [/B]

Greetings Sir,

I agree. I am, (to the ire of many), a researcher who tries be as objective. I really do not care where research leads us, only that it is as nonpartisan as we can be and that we preserve it for future generations of ALL Tanglang, hence my trips to China.

Though my own interviews have shown many who dispute the history presently being presented, (even those among the Mainland Taiji/Meihua branch), as simply being not possible, I have not yet gathered sufficient information, other than interviews, to present a well documented and moderated response. What I have discovered is that the history is not at all as clear cut as many want to make it and that theories on both sides must be allowed to stand, and be discussed.

I too would like to see a more coordinated, cooperative history of both branches, dialogue between historians rather than the all or nothing approach we see in the West presently. I plan to present some of the interviews with Tanglang practitioiners on both sides in a future article for a start.

I appreciate your input to this conversation.

Steve Cottrell

27

Re: ling bengbu

Originally posted by Tainan Mantis
[B]In HK 7* PM ling beng bu starts with Luo Guangyu according to Huang Hanhsun/WHF, who goes on to quote him as saying it is the only ling form in PM.

Later ling forms in HK 7* seem to be created by Luo’s students, including WHF, and/or grandstudents.
[/B]

Greetings Tainan Mantis!

I just recently had a conversation with one of my Gongfu brothers about the value of the ling forms. He has done considerable research, much more than I with masters no longer with us, and states clearly that the Ling, specific to those sets Master Luo created, (a topic in hot dispute among HK practitioners), were all designed by Master Luo to be preformed with the Ling component present. Ling was the timing training element for the HK mantis component and preserved the clear meaning of the movement.

Ling was, I believe, one of many contributions Master Luo made to Tanglang and a major one. If it was the only set on the mainland that had Ling then it was the inspiration for Master Luo, a champion fighter, to bring to his curriculum.

Wish I had more than a perspective to give but here it is.

Steve Cottrell

28

Hi Sifu Cottrell

Thanks for sharing the more indepth view of the matter with me. I think the 18 styles and longfist/short strikes relations with PM merit their own threads. That way we can examin them closer. Personally, I think they are rather spicy topics. Also thank you the input on the ling Bengbu.

Warm regards

Robert Hui

29

Re: ling bengbu

Originally posted by Tainan Mantis
[B]
In HK 7* PM ling beng bu starts with Luo Guangyu according to Huang Hanhsun/WHF, who goes on to quote him as saying it is the only ling form in PM.

Later ling forms in HK 7* seem to be created by Luo’s students, including WHF, and/or grandstudents.
[/B]

Tainan Mantis,

The 7* Praying Mantis style as passed on by LGY is a very sophisticated system. The forms are well designed and thoroughly though out. They flow very smoothly all the while adhering to a specific theory or strategy.

To say that a form was designed without the ling side already in mind does not make any sense to me. How does the sequence of techniques make any sense if the applications were not taken into consideration when putting the form together? There is a definite and precise sequence that relies on a direct cause and effect relationship. Every technique in the form is followed by the next because of a specific counter or reaction from my opponent. It is because of that specific reaction that causes me to execute the next technique and then his reaction to my counter is followed then with another technique and so on…

Your implication that the solo forms were developed first and the ling forms a much more recent development leads me to ask:
Does the horse come before the cart or after?
Which came first, the chicken or the egg?

One of the greatest attributes of the Praying Mantis style as passed down by LGY is that every technique can be linked to another. So while it is certainly possible to find a way to link all the techniques of a solo form into a cohesive 2 man set, would it not seem more logical that this was already being done when the form was being designed in the first place? If the form is just a random collection of sahn sao, then I would not think the forms would flow as smoothly as they do.

To put it another way, just like my Sifu says, the ling forms are like the juice of the style. They give the practitioner an understanding of the form’s design but also help the student develop timing, distance, reflex, control and conditioning as well as practicing the applications at the same time. Without the ling forms, it is like buying an orange and not peeling the skin to find the juice inside.

YM

30

Young Mantis,
The forms connect together in ling format.
There is no doubt that everything can be connected logically.
And what you say makes perfect sense.

What I say is that before Luo Guangyu did “ling” who in PM did so?
You know I have learned many 2 man forms.
After a while I see how it is done and I make 2 man forms for Wah Lum and TKD.
They are logical too. And yet it is not part of their traditional method.

In our school we also learned another way to teach fighting.
When someone comes to my school to test my skill I find that it is not the ling training that allows me to win(sometimes I lose), but another method with very short drills and relies heavily on lu-lu and Fanche theory(not forms, but techniques)

I see that WHF and Sheng Hsiao, who he quotes, say the same thing about Lu-Lu and Fanche being so important(we can start another thread on this later). They don’t say you must have ling.

As you know WHF quotes Luo as saying only beng bu can ling.
Later WHF and others teach other ling forms.
Am I wrong here?

I am not saying ling is bad or wrong.
I only ask who taught it before Luo Guangyu.
So far the answer is nobody in PM. Only in some other styles.
This is what I have found from asking and reading and visiting.
If There is more info I will look objectively.

31

Ling/ Pi / Chai

Tainan Mantis,

Perhaps because we are looking so closely to the Ling, (which I agree with you as being a creation of Master Luo or at least that he was the one to institutionalize this aspect) that we (WHF practitioners) are neglecting to include that Master Luo also taught Pi and Chi. These aspects, that of breaking apart aspects of the sets and practicing them or of Chai which approaches sparring are indeed essential for the path he laid out for the aspiring boxer to acheive mastery.

It sounds like the things you are describing in your fighting training are inclusive of these aspects. The problem is for those schools that practice only the set or just the Ling and neglect the other aspects of training.

As I see it, one can and indeed most branches of Tanglang do learn the art without the formal and systematic pursuit of the Ling of a set. What it does for the LKY HK Tanglang practitoiners is to provide as seemless a path as possible.

I believe that Master Luo’s experience in the Qingwu and the times in which he was living made him extremely careful in his curriculum. Remember at that time the US, England, Japan, Germany, France and others were engaged in a unified project to wholesale discredit traditional Chinese Boxing and all who practiced through unfair and fixed competitive events, print media and social/ economic pressures. Those who pursued study of TCMA were swimming against the current, to be sure. Even Douglas Fairbane, of knife fighting fame and a respected military officer, came under ridicule for his own little known study of Chinese arts while in Shanghai.

I believe that the Ling was another way to ensure the success of the young striving martial artists and to enable organized training on a mass scale. In contrast, many schools in the past had engaged in a “weeding out” process, I believe that though still very challenging, LKY’s method helped to an even greater degree to develop the student.

By the way, you wrote an excellent article on Ling and other aspects of training for the Mantis Quarterly (insert shameless advertisement here, lol).

Steve Cottrell

32

Originally posted by Tainan Mantis

In our school we also learned another way to teach fighting.
When someone comes to my school to test my skill I find that it is not the ling training that allows me to win(sometimes I lose), but another method with very short drills and relies heavily on lu-lu and Fanche theory(not forms, but techniques)

I never said that we train fighting solely with the ling forms. In fact, I agree that short drills and sahn sao practice are a necessary component to fight training. It would not be efficient to practice the form applications solely with ling training. I would even say our training of sahn sao is more intense than our ling training but the ling forms add much depth to our understanding of each form and also the style as a whole.

Originally posted by Tainan Mantis

As you know WHF quotes Luo as saying only beng bu can ling.
Later WHF and others teach other ling forms.
Am I wrong here?

I do not agree with this translation and I think you mislead the other members of this forum by giving this partial interpretation of WHF’s quote of LGY. In the preface to his Bung Bo book, WHF does indeed quote LGY. He states:

[i]“Master Law often said: ‘All Praying Mantis forms can be done with partners, but (consider) Bung Bo can be explained with three formats, ling, pek, and chak.’”[/i]

Perhaps you interpret this as only bung bo has the ling format. But I do not believe WHF is quoting LGY as saying there is only ling bung bo. He states that there are three ways to practice bung bo and ling is one of three formats. It can be said that here, Bung Bo is used as an example or that only bung bo has all three of these methods. But it is not clear to me that there are no other ling forms other than ling bung bo.

In addition, in 1951 WHF published a book titled, “Assorted Essays of Praying Mantis Boxing”. In it he wrote an article titled, “3 Styles Originated From 1 Family”. In this article, WHF writes that both LGY and Yang Wei Sun were both closed-door disciples of Master Fahn Yook Tung. Every set passed down by these two masters can be done in it’s entirety with a partner just like commonly seen sparring sets of other styles and that without this knowledge, the fakes can not hide.

There is more information to support that ling bung bo was not the only ling form taught by LGY but I do not have time to get into it further at the moment.

YM

33

Yang Weixin

Young Mantis,

Thank you for the insightful post. I had completely forgotten about the passage you mentioned concerning Yang Weixin and his line (a mind is a terrible thing to lose).

When I was studying with some of his martial descendants this past summer I simply did not think to ask them about ling (I will pass this off to (1) jetlag, (2) that I was almost passing out in the 100+ temperature and (3) general exhaustion. I will make inquiries the next time I speak with them and get back with you!

I look forward to your information on the other sets! Thank you for being open with such important information.

Steve Cottrell

34

The WEI character

Steve and YM,
First off, this comparison of our definition of the facts, I believe, is worthwhile to the PM community.
I think we are mostly in agreement about everything except for one quote which I have included here.

YM,
You have included in your quote from GM Luo “…but(consider)…”

Which I translated as “however” or “only”
I am not purposely trying to mislead anyone, just trying to get a better understanding.

Maybe some of the other Chinese readers can offer their opinions on the enclosed quote as the meaning seems to hinge on this single character (which I have circled-WEI).

About your quote from “Assorted Essays…” I see that it is as you say.

I believe that I can summarize your thought as the following:
-There were ling forms since before Luo Guangyu.
-They were taught to a very small group of indoor disciples.
-They are taught more openly now than in the past.

Did I get it right?

Steve,
We look forward to hearing the results of your future research with Yang Weixin’s disciples.

35

Re: The WEI character

Tainan Mantis,

Let me first say that I did not mean that you have any intention of deceiving anyone in the forum with your comments. My comment was not to slander or attack your character in any way. You contribute much to the forum and through your posts, I can see that you are also a scholar in addition to a martial artist.

That said, let me clarify that I say you mislead fellow members of this forum because you often quote WHF under the assumption that anyone else with access to this information would interpret his writings the same way. First of all, I would guess the majority of the forum would not have access to this material so they would just have to take your word for what WHF says but as I have stated, it can be interpreted differently. You and I have shared discussions in other threads over this very matter. We read the texts differently, I think mostly because I read it being a WHF lineage descendant and you are not. There is a lot more information passed down from sifu to student than what is presented in the WHF texts.

Originally posted by Tainan Mantis
[B]YM,
You have included in your quote from GM Luo “…but(consider)…”

Which I translated as “however” or “only”
I am not purposely trying to mislead anyone, just trying to get a better understanding.

Maybe some of the other Chinese readers can offer their opinions on the enclosed quote as the meaning seems to hinge on this single character (which I have circled-WEI).[/B]

Here again we have a difference in reading this quote. You seem to choose to stress the second line with a word by word translation. I look at the quote as a whole. I do not feel the meaning of the quote hinges on the word “wei” but you do and place your stress there. In fact, I did translate “wei” as “but” and offered “(consider)” as an alternative, hence the parentheses. I am not saying either of us is right or wrong, we simply have different interpretations of the written text.

Originally posted by Tainan Mantis
[B]
About your quote from “Assorted Essays…” I see that it is as you say.

I believe that I can summarize your thought as the following:
-There were ling forms since before Luo Guangyu.
-They were taught to a very small group of indoor disciples.
-They are taught more openly now than in the past.

Did I get it right?
[/B]

I do not believe I ever said definitively that the ling forms came before LGY. Honestly, I can not know for sure. What I imply from the quote is that the forms taught by both LGY and YWS can be done as ling. Whether the forms were taught to them both that way or they together made innovations to the style while at Jing Mo I do not know. I have no idea who in that generation was taught or not taught what material. The quote only mentions these two names. I know you are a scholar and so conduct research and then make deductions based on your research. But I find it intriguing that you can take what I wrote about a quote and then feel you are able to summarize my train of thought on related matters. Nowhere in my post do I mention the points you bring up as following my train of thought and to answer your question, no, I don’t think you quite understood me.

Quite honestly, I had not ever examined these texts as detailed as I have in the last few days and for that I guess I should really thank you. But I didn’t make any jumps from what I read to what other people of the lineage may or may not have learnt or taught. I only know what was written, what was told to me by my Sifu, and what I have been taught by him. Ling form practice is definitely part of the WHF curriculum. According to my Sifu, most WHF lineage students would have learnt Ling Bung Bo. Those that were certified to teach certainly would have known Ling Sup Baht Sao, Ling Daw Ghong. Only a select few students would have been taught Ling Tchaap Tchoi, Ling Bahk Yuen Tchut Dhung, Ling Bahk Yuen Tao Toe,…

I am resolved that we may never come to agree on how to interpret WHF’s texts. We come from very different backgrounds and so differences of opinion of course will occur. It has been though interesting as always.

Gong Xi Fa Cai to you and your family.

Thank you Sifu Cottrell for your comments and compliments. I too lookk forward to hearing more about your experiences with YWS’s lineage descendants.

YM

36

Thanks all for the informative comments,

I think that a translation of WHF’s material would be a good idea.
Seeing how much discussion there has been on the significance of one sentence this project would best be coordinated among several people.

37

WHF Books

Tainan Mantis,

Indeed for over five years I have been working on a comprehensive translation of the books. I am far from finished. However, as there is so much interest in them, I am working now on a primer to teach people how to read Chinese through the books, using the limited vocabulary and the Wen Yanwen style.

The workbook, intended to teach a person from no knowledge of Chinese to being able to read the movement section of a couple of books, (application sections will be later) will be available by December 2003.

I just don’t have enough to do…

Steve Cottrell

38

beginning research

Hello Everyone,

I have noticed on the different boards that a number of you refer to research that you have done (are doing). First I must admit that I find that highly admirable, especially since I know from experience how difficult the research process is (different area though).

My question is, since I want to start my own research journey, how would I go about getting my hands on these different documents and information sources (since most College and public libraries don’t have it)?

Additionally, I have noticed at different times people calling to question one another’s source(s) of information. Has any though been given to contracting a PhD’ed historian to help validate the research and ensure the proper steps are followed, as well as help establish the validity of the documents being used?

I know it sounds like a lot of work, but it also appears that everyone really has the same goal in mind (thus worth the effort). If we can start putting out work(s) that follows the formal process (what you learn when getting your PhD), I believe it will start moving us all in the same direction and hopefully start clearing up some of the confusion. Plus it will provide a solid source of references for the generations that come after us.

Thanks,

Shen Bao Rui

39

What westerner has a PHD in Asian MA history?

From what I have found there is only a handful of people on the planet doing research of this type.

They are all MArtists as far as I can see.
In the past excellent research has been done in China and Taiwan, for the most part it has not been translated into English.
Also, even in Chinese, its implications have not been fully analyzed.

Albino, what style of mantis do you study?
Seems that would be a good place to start.

40

Albino_Mantis:

If you are in your local Border’s or Barnes & Noble, pick up a copy of The Journal of Asian Martial Arts. http://www.goviamedia.com/index.html

Look at the editiorial board and try contacting a few. You’ll find that many hold graduate degrees, some with doctorates in a variety of fields, and you can probably locate them and write to them. Academic careers don’t pay much—you buy a lifestyle and thats always an important factor to keep in mind but the work is always interesting because you determine what it will be.

Its a shame there is not more academic interest in this area and my biggest fear is that is shows of how little importance the martial arts were to China’s 16th, 17th, 18th, 19th, and 20th century. However, I am seeing a lot of primary mantis data (article in past issues of JAMA on Meihua Tanglang Quan) and other findings coming to light and that could always change things.

Having said that, someone’s got to do the job; why not you?