DeLamar.J
3rd Black Belt
I would imagine alot of great styles have been lost due to obsessive secrecy.
How much has been lost
- Thread starter lonecoyote
- Start date
Black Tiger Fist
Green Belt
Alot has been lost this is said all the time 7* has a right to think what he wants ,but it doesn't make it any less or more true.DeLamar.J said:
7*mantis,
I'll reply to your comments when i get time ,i'm at work now so can't really reply.
jeff
Thats fine, please dont think I'm trying to upset you or anything, but I'm trying to get you to see that just because it is said all the time, doesn't really mean anything. Lots of things get said alot, I'm trying to say that simply basing your belief on something because you have heard it alot if faulty.
7sm
7sm
Black Tiger Fist
Green Belt
No worries bro ,i'm not getting upset.:ultracool7starmantis said:
It's hard to express intent with words sometimes.
I see what you are saying and agree to a point ,but i happen to know fact in a couple of styles that stuff has been lost. I'm at work again so i can't really say much i'll try to respond to your comments within the next two days.
Don't worry about anything with me i don't get upset or into flame wars ,it's all good discussion with me.
jeff
How do you know for a fact? I thought there was no tangible proof in CMA, to know for a fact would be tangible proof.
7sm
7sm
Black Tiger Fist
Green Belt
I never said there was no "tangible" proof in CMA ,i only made a comment half heartedly joking about "tangible" proof within the TCMA community. You took it as me saying theirs no "tangible" proof.7starmantis said:
jeff
I'll admit I didn't read all the posts here. But I thought I'd offer something anyway. I remember reading stories about early masters of tai chi in some of my books. It sounds like they were able to perform some pretty amazing feats. I don't think anyone nowadays has been able to do the same thing. So if you believe the stories are true, you have to wonder why artists now can't do the same thing artists in the past could. Something had to have been lost along the way. *shrug* As I'm far from an expert on anything in this general area, I don't think I can say much more. But it seems to me that knowledge could have been lost if early masters with the highest level of knowledge were unable or unwilling to pass it all along to their students before they passed away. What's left for us may still be a high level, but it may not have the highest level of knowledge, what was kept until the very end of training. Just my thoughts.
Blooming Lotus
Purple Belt
chinese ma history 101.....( in extreme brief)
ma of all styles comming from 1 of 3 systems ( confucism, daoism and then buddhism in that order) was being played and practiced for over a thousand + yrs and used to survive the then fuedal societal set up in varying styles from different family and or organisation ( still called a family) to family. Early 1900's great war, china vs japan, russia steps in , japan runs away taking some styles with it and so is born anything Japanese ma styled aside from sumo ( originally sport) and samurai ( japanese warrior art). Russia looking good for a prime guanxi ( friendship / relationship ) seat with china , playing with WC playing Manchurians and adapting Mongolian styles + others including their own but with lesser numbers $$ and trade value for China , USA arrives with bigger guns and more shiney objects and trade bribes, so Chairman Mao ( chinese president at time) facing billions of ppl starving from draught, flood and so forth, decides to take the temp pacifying option and make happy with the US chasing Russia home with what ever they picked up whilst in north east china ( manchuria , now liaoning province). Mao in his fear, decided to call a reform against any possible future uprise and called a total ban and destruction of all four olds. 1 of those was expressive art ( being artisians and poets and gongfu opera troups gave cause for governmental ridicule, and ma as combat, all comprimised his authority). Death / destruction / imprisonment / tortures etc of all ppl and places remoted connected to perpetuating any of these so those who got word in time split for Hong Kong/ Korea/ Taiwan / and several other smaller but close countries taking whatever MA they could with them. Others decided to chance it and hid out in what was then remote mountain areas. The five that talk you about above were either indocrinated with shaolin vows and precepts or vewry closely affiliated. AS so we get the legendary " 5 elders of Wing Chun " .feel ree to google search on it , because there's stacks of info.......... if you have kazzar, all the better.
Shaolin, has what today been deemed with over 400 sub-styles and god knows how many forms per each of those. Confucism was the first to promote and claim ma formally followed by daoism ( with things like taiji and various grappling styles etc) then shaolin who married ma ( and other ) philosophies from the both , added some of it's own techniques and philosophies and so was born a whole new way of fighting.
I have no doubt that some styles have been lost and there is a great period of 1000-1500- 2000 yrs of chinese history that has been either destroyed or just previously believed to 've never existed in written form. In fact on my recent trip to china, local archaelogists found the "wu slips of chengsha" which are old records carved into little pieces of thin bamboo that pre-date anything else ever found. The records are mainly census style , but being they also list occupations, of which ma was legitmately for so many over those eras, I'm hopeful that there will be something of import to ma and establishing more solid roots, which because of the above is always going to speculative and a little dubious.
There were , and particularly in times throughout the japan-sino war and moreso durining the Cultural Reveloution, alot of masters and grrandmasters, including sole lineage holders who holed up and not trusting anyone enough to reveal they knew these "crimes ", as ma had been nationally deemed, nor finding a student fitting to carry that lineage, died with what they knew. Others passed it on to ppl who also took it elsewhere and adapted it to whatever skill strengths they had and fitting to their environment and what they deemed most usefuyl parts..like bjj, china > japan to brazil when same crazy laws passed as in China .....Gracies now literally amongst the very few still preserving the "original " adapted style .......
then you have Wingchun, which went from china to Hong kong, became triad lineage and branched from their " keep china whole and non gwailo" ( forgeiner) opposition.......
Or the mantis styles much the same and various qigongs etc ..... look at the internal skills of past reputations and the need and time to exclusion of all else they had to train those skills, still after 40 , 50 and 60 yrs , mastering only one or several. Of course today the need we have to practice and our dedcation to that practice, is nothing close to the life and death meaning it had for it's practioners back then, so to think we would gain the same competancy , ( or need the same competancy for that matter) is just a little unrealistic. And before anyone starts on about tere 2- 3 or even 5 hours of training they may do most days, I been to Tagou Wushu Guan ( housing and teaching over 8000 students as the biggest and most famous ma school in the world, directly several steps away from Xiaolin si ( SHaolin temple ) and even there for their 6 1/2 or 7 hr daily programme, their skill is nothing of what it was in old. How many ppl for basic comparison, have seen your shifu, or can yourself pull out a one fingered hand stand pushup. Even in the temple, there are police on site, thousands of visitors daily and very little secluded space, so even they at the moment , despite having the knowledge, can't train to the degree really required to preserve what is the base of the majority of our arts. They are seeking Unesco protection for shaolin as a living momunent though and with luck should be free to practice again in peace by 2008. BTW :- also looking to for the first time ever in shaolin history accept gwailo ( foreigners ) into the temple for full indocrination.
AS for wushu, when the CR ( cultural revolution ) was being played out, the government, having no great number of martially skilled armed forces themselves, enlisted the services of various skilled maers around the nation. They decided to allow them to use a certain range of skills and nothing more, and this is what is now called wushu and been hashed and rehashed until we are left with are todays wushu complusory sets. Wushu has turned largely gymnastic natured , and today, it's very little more than performance art . Even if you are amongst the non- mcdojo students from teachers subscribing to older forms, closer to its original state, it is once again, a very weak watered down imitation of arts that "ceased" to be. Awesome to watch and no doubt potenatially dangerous individual techs and aspects, but not what it's being taught as. Wushu comps are rarely one on one but displays of combat gymnastics forms.
It's an extremely complicated pandoras box you're opening, ( hence my own phd efforts ) but by all means research your hearts content. ....just don't forget to let us in on what you find
cheers
BL
ma of all styles comming from 1 of 3 systems ( confucism, daoism and then buddhism in that order) was being played and practiced for over a thousand + yrs and used to survive the then fuedal societal set up in varying styles from different family and or organisation ( still called a family) to family. Early 1900's great war, china vs japan, russia steps in , japan runs away taking some styles with it and so is born anything Japanese ma styled aside from sumo ( originally sport) and samurai ( japanese warrior art). Russia looking good for a prime guanxi ( friendship / relationship ) seat with china , playing with WC playing Manchurians and adapting Mongolian styles + others including their own but with lesser numbers $$ and trade value for China , USA arrives with bigger guns and more shiney objects and trade bribes, so Chairman Mao ( chinese president at time) facing billions of ppl starving from draught, flood and so forth, decides to take the temp pacifying option and make happy with the US chasing Russia home with what ever they picked up whilst in north east china ( manchuria , now liaoning province). Mao in his fear, decided to call a reform against any possible future uprise and called a total ban and destruction of all four olds. 1 of those was expressive art ( being artisians and poets and gongfu opera troups gave cause for governmental ridicule, and ma as combat, all comprimised his authority). Death / destruction / imprisonment / tortures etc of all ppl and places remoted connected to perpetuating any of these so those who got word in time split for Hong Kong/ Korea/ Taiwan / and several other smaller but close countries taking whatever MA they could with them. Others decided to chance it and hid out in what was then remote mountain areas. The five that talk you about above were either indocrinated with shaolin vows and precepts or vewry closely affiliated. AS so we get the legendary " 5 elders of Wing Chun " .feel ree to google search on it , because there's stacks of info.......... if you have kazzar, all the better.
Shaolin, has what today been deemed with over 400 sub-styles and god knows how many forms per each of those. Confucism was the first to promote and claim ma formally followed by daoism ( with things like taiji and various grappling styles etc) then shaolin who married ma ( and other ) philosophies from the both , added some of it's own techniques and philosophies and so was born a whole new way of fighting.
I have no doubt that some styles have been lost and there is a great period of 1000-1500- 2000 yrs of chinese history that has been either destroyed or just previously believed to 've never existed in written form. In fact on my recent trip to china, local archaelogists found the "wu slips of chengsha" which are old records carved into little pieces of thin bamboo that pre-date anything else ever found. The records are mainly census style , but being they also list occupations, of which ma was legitmately for so many over those eras, I'm hopeful that there will be something of import to ma and establishing more solid roots, which because of the above is always going to speculative and a little dubious.
There were , and particularly in times throughout the japan-sino war and moreso durining the Cultural Reveloution, alot of masters and grrandmasters, including sole lineage holders who holed up and not trusting anyone enough to reveal they knew these "crimes ", as ma had been nationally deemed, nor finding a student fitting to carry that lineage, died with what they knew. Others passed it on to ppl who also took it elsewhere and adapted it to whatever skill strengths they had and fitting to their environment and what they deemed most usefuyl parts..like bjj, china > japan to brazil when same crazy laws passed as in China .....Gracies now literally amongst the very few still preserving the "original " adapted style .......
then you have Wingchun, which went from china to Hong kong, became triad lineage and branched from their " keep china whole and non gwailo" ( forgeiner) opposition.......
Or the mantis styles much the same and various qigongs etc ..... look at the internal skills of past reputations and the need and time to exclusion of all else they had to train those skills, still after 40 , 50 and 60 yrs , mastering only one or several. Of course today the need we have to practice and our dedcation to that practice, is nothing close to the life and death meaning it had for it's practioners back then, so to think we would gain the same competancy , ( or need the same competancy for that matter) is just a little unrealistic. And before anyone starts on about tere 2- 3 or even 5 hours of training they may do most days, I been to Tagou Wushu Guan ( housing and teaching over 8000 students as the biggest and most famous ma school in the world, directly several steps away from Xiaolin si ( SHaolin temple ) and even there for their 6 1/2 or 7 hr daily programme, their skill is nothing of what it was in old. How many ppl for basic comparison, have seen your shifu, or can yourself pull out a one fingered hand stand pushup. Even in the temple, there are police on site, thousands of visitors daily and very little secluded space, so even they at the moment , despite having the knowledge, can't train to the degree really required to preserve what is the base of the majority of our arts. They are seeking Unesco protection for shaolin as a living momunent though and with luck should be free to practice again in peace by 2008. BTW :- also looking to for the first time ever in shaolin history accept gwailo ( foreigners ) into the temple for full indocrination.
AS for wushu, when the CR ( cultural revolution ) was being played out, the government, having no great number of martially skilled armed forces themselves, enlisted the services of various skilled maers around the nation. They decided to allow them to use a certain range of skills and nothing more, and this is what is now called wushu and been hashed and rehashed until we are left with are todays wushu complusory sets. Wushu has turned largely gymnastic natured , and today, it's very little more than performance art . Even if you are amongst the non- mcdojo students from teachers subscribing to older forms, closer to its original state, it is once again, a very weak watered down imitation of arts that "ceased" to be. Awesome to watch and no doubt potenatially dangerous individual techs and aspects, but not what it's being taught as. Wushu comps are rarely one on one but displays of combat gymnastics forms.
It's an extremely complicated pandoras box you're opening, ( hence my own phd efforts ) but by all means research your hearts content. ....just don't forget to let us in on what you find
cheers
BL
Nice post Blooming Lotus, and if I haven't already said it, welcome to MartialTalk!
I guess we have to make a distinction between what we are calling "lost knowledge" as well as agree to a definition of kung fu or "knowledge". Take the mantis style I study... I dont think that this style is merely the whole of its forms or techniques. I think it is more the principles behind the techniques or forms. The ideas and base to how to use your body is what mantis is about and I think that crosses over to other mantis styles and in some part to all CMA styles. When people say there have been great losses in kung fu they could simply be talking about forms or set techniques, and in which case I would agree. However the principles and ideas behind the forms are still there and have not been lost. I wouldn't agree that we have lost the principles that allowed people in years past to be able to use their kung fu in amazing ways. Someone also said here that they used to do amazing feats and now we do not posses the knowledge for that. I would say few posses the knowledge or even seek that knowledge, but its not gone forever like many believe. The idea behind kung fu has changed over the years because of its need or usefulness, but change does not require loss. Have there been great losses in kung fu since its beginning? Yes, I would say so, but not to the extent that we have lost secret kung fu powers or anything. If one puts the time and effort into their training, they can reach the same level of skill as those who came before us, we are not working with a lesser kung fu.
Grant it, studying something to use to save your life, and studying something as a pastime is very different, however I believe there are still those who train in kung fu with the same intensity and desire as those years ago. I dont believe these are the norm in CMA today, but they do exist. To say there is a loss of principles or loss of knowledge simply because time has past is uninformed.
7sm
I guess we have to make a distinction between what we are calling "lost knowledge" as well as agree to a definition of kung fu or "knowledge". Take the mantis style I study... I dont think that this style is merely the whole of its forms or techniques. I think it is more the principles behind the techniques or forms. The ideas and base to how to use your body is what mantis is about and I think that crosses over to other mantis styles and in some part to all CMA styles. When people say there have been great losses in kung fu they could simply be talking about forms or set techniques, and in which case I would agree. However the principles and ideas behind the forms are still there and have not been lost. I wouldn't agree that we have lost the principles that allowed people in years past to be able to use their kung fu in amazing ways. Someone also said here that they used to do amazing feats and now we do not posses the knowledge for that. I would say few posses the knowledge or even seek that knowledge, but its not gone forever like many believe. The idea behind kung fu has changed over the years because of its need or usefulness, but change does not require loss. Have there been great losses in kung fu since its beginning? Yes, I would say so, but not to the extent that we have lost secret kung fu powers or anything. If one puts the time and effort into their training, they can reach the same level of skill as those who came before us, we are not working with a lesser kung fu.
Grant it, studying something to use to save your life, and studying something as a pastime is very different, however I believe there are still those who train in kung fu with the same intensity and desire as those years ago. I dont believe these are the norm in CMA today, but they do exist. To say there is a loss of principles or loss of knowledge simply because time has past is uninformed.
7sm
Blooming Lotus
Purple Belt
Cheers7starmantis said:
Glad to be here
And I appreciate what you're saying there 7*M, but don't you think when you consider that each style and sub-branch does have a different aspect or many aspects philosophically as you were refering to, ( inspiring the concepts creating and supporting the forms and techs in that expression ) and some of those sub-styles have died out taking those philosophical aspects with them, and considering none of our arts are in their most orginal form, in loosing those and the branching out of the rest, throw in the numerous mcdojos so many unbeknownstly attend , stands to reason ( ?) there're some aspects that we miss out on??
Blooming Lotus
Purple Belt
Duibuqi.( I'm sorry ( blushes) ) A loong one, but a few good points to consider anyway.
Ok, I hate to call you on this 7 , but considering you're a mod and I have an hour up my sleeve, I'm sure you'll appreciate where I'm comming from.
cheers 7
BL
Ok, I hate to call you on this 7 , but considering you're a mod and I have an hour up my sleeve, I'm sure you'll appreciate where I'm comming from.
Do you think they reason they might not know or undrstand is because those aspects got lost before the art reached them?????7starmantis said:Using words like "most" is not accurate. Why do you believe most Chinese Martial Arts have no written records? There are plenty of written records dating far back into CMA history. You could go way, way back even in taiji and there are written records such as the Tao Te Ching, there are dynasty records dating even farther back. Its these misinformations and personal beliefs that create such a confusing history for new comers to try and wade through. Why is it so many people in todays society still do not know what kung fu or CMA is? Its because everyone has their own "feeling" or "belief" about what it is, or where it came from. Truth is simply not in the eye of the beholder.
Those written records you speak about , not neccessarily the tao te ching, but definately many other famous texts ( and wouldn't you know it, just went blank on names), like , what is that book on the qigong one mind method called??? THat has shaped alot of subsequent ma philosophical views and practice and pending who you talk to ( being the history with documentation) it came from daosit writtings or buddhist. But when you consider Lao Tzu ( though reputedly 40-50 yrs older ) and Shakyamuni Buddha spent time together trading philosophies on Emei shan for that period when they were ( being the spiritual pacifistic "religious" paramater creators they were ) again according to who you speak to, supposedly at war over the rights to the emei temple ( rolleyes), and taking into account that this type of spirituality and philoshophy was foreign to ppl of that time, it's understandable that facts would get misconstrued. ( btw : pls see "chinese whispers" )
When we're talking ma though, take WC history and the 5 elder myth. If you do your research, though still somewhat speculative, there is sufficient eveidence to support logic that they did indeed exist, which changes alot of aspects for alot of ppl. Take dimmak and Ng Mui . I know I have read and matched data to the effect of having her ( him by anothers story) create this art as part of what has since become yim wing chun . Look at chi sao applications, and how their strikes from that, greatly focus on those points that apparently don't even exist, and especially not in WC!!!??? Yet because those elders were underground avoiding attention and particularly from the government, of course the bulk of records are going to word of mouth. This type of senario is typical of soo many family styles and branches throughout that era, that alot of ppl find it hard to accept without written proof, therefore changing the art. It absolutel has bearing on what is considered legitimate aspects of the art and therefore included or not.
I'm of the school of thought that those kinds of lineage issues truly dont matter.
I tend to agree, but because I like to practice art as close to it's most original form ( even if that form is an adaptation of another base , like ninjutsu and cma rooting), for this reason, like pre-modern, I like to know....... there after, meiguanxi .
Its this need or wanting to have some part of some ancient mystical thing that causes problems in CMA. Too many people desire and search for some magical and mystical element to kung fu. Why must I be kidding? Are you saying it is inconceivable to think of tangible proof inside CMA?
You mean like the tangible proof that apparently doesn't exist on say various internal art skills .....like large golden bell or iron body against sword skill ....... or qingong ( lightness ) skills that soo many atest don't exist either....... ????? ( btw : what did you say practiced again??? ) :0
How many forms do you think 7* mantis actually has? You used the words, "so many". I dont obviously, since I mentioned LKW's newer forms and such. But the fact of whether or not mantis had less or more forms in its infancy has nothing to do with whether or not we have lost knowledge or techniques over the years.
What about the arguement of mantis rooting who and whereabouts and how it split, travelled and morphed ( hence the different branches) and what was actually the original form and what was an adaptation????............
lol...it's crazy stuff this origin arguement, and we can all argue to our hearts content, but fact is, we lack proof and until something turns up ( and fingers crossed on the wu slip translators finding something to support or discount one of us ( though there's a ***** load so don't expect the report by monday ) ), it's still largely just speculative heresay.
I'm not really sure how to describe our groundfighting techniques. They are probably very similar to many groundfighting techniques with the difference of our principles still applying to ground or feet fighting. There are locks, breaks, submissions, etc. Why would you be safe saying not as many as before? I'm not trying to say youre wrong, I just dont understand why you believe so strongly that what you are practicing is a weak watery carbon copy of what youre really wanting to study. Sorry, that was a bit sarcastic, I'm just not understanding why you so whole heartedly believe things were so much better and more effective and grander, just simply because it was many years ago.
..... THat's really interesting to hear you hear you say that. I was having a chat to a mantis friend of mine about to entre into his last formal lvl training on mantis concepts like in bat zhoa ( half considering it myself), and realised that is shares alot of conceptual similarities to xingyi and sth shaolin, possibley even slightly nthn shaolin , in the regard that it shares the tight waist small pressure and angle changes and moving things aside , joint manipulation and concepts of breakdown of opponents body ( wrist , below shoulders head ) similar to jin concepts....Of course in break down and with enough information / experience in each system the differences would no doubt become much more obvious, but what do you make of those similarities 7 *m??
Those not knowing isn't really proof. I mean, I'll give you that it could mean that, but it could also mean they were taught by someone who didn't know what they were doing, or maybe they didn't pay attention well enough. Maybe they just simply dont understand it. Those are all possible explanations, not just that the knowledge has been lost.
7sm
cheers 7
BL
Black Tiger Fist
Green Belt
That's what i was trying to convey.Blooming Lotus said:Cheers
Glad to be here
And I appreciate what you're saying there 7*M, but don't you think when you consider that each style and sub-branch does have a different aspect or many aspects philosophically as you were refering to, ( inspiring the concepts creating and supporting the forms and techs in that expression ) and some of those sub-styles have died out taking those philosophical aspects with them, and considering none of our arts are in their most orginal form, in loosing those and the branching out of the rest, throw in the numerous mcdojos so many unbeknownstly attend , stands to reason ( ?) there're some aspects that we miss out on??
I mean one example would be Red Sand Palm few have even heard of this skill ,even less would have a clue as to how to attain this skill.
There is no doubt much has been lost ,whether ppl choose to believe it or not doesn't make it any less so.
jeff
Oh sure, pick on the mod!! J/K:ultracool
I completely love discussing kung fu and cma in general, so I'm glad to have some activity here. I'll try to address your points one at a time.
I'm not quite sure I understand what your saying with this, could you explain a bit. WC chi sao applications are different from WC striking points? Sorry, I'm a bit daft today, its been a long day of training allready.
How could you say tangible proof doesn't exist on various internal art skills? Tangible proof of what "chi" is....thats a different story, but tangible proof that they work is easy to find. I guess we would have to get specific on what "internal skills" we are talking about. I'm not meaning the iron crotch or iron body against sword as that defeats the purpose and principles behind kung fu in my humble opinion. Iron body or lets say iron shin has very tangible proof, just have someone who practices it correctly and effeciently give you a tap on the shin, you see and feel the proof. The "internal proof" argument is one that is ongoing and to me quite boring, I'd rather be out training, but simply because there are some things that lack proof doesn't negate the proof of other said techniques.
What argument about mantis rooting? Most of the mantis practitioners I have come across including some such as Lee Kam Wing and Chan Poi all pretty much agree on the origins and lineages and such. The different branches are generally believed to be from different students. The fact that there are different branches and such just shows its evolution and change, not its degradation. I'm not arguing what is the original form, I'm simple saying that just because we may not practice the origing "form" doesnt' automatically mean we are practicing a lesser "form". Its a generality to say changed or morphed or different means lesser.
Exactly my point. We can't say we have lost anything if we dont know what was lost, and if we knew what was lost, it would cease to be lost wouldn't it. Its all hearsay. That was my point from the begining. Everyone says we have lost so much, but where is the proof? Like you said, there isn't any. On either side.
I think most kung fu systmes if taken to a deep enough level share lots of similarities. Let me explain that...At face value they look very different....then they begin to share similarities as you understand them better. Then as you get more advanced you see also their differences again. The fact that mantis shares some conceptual similarities to some shaolin is just some more tangible proof of mantis' creation. I will say this, the 7* mantis that I practice has alot more internal and even taiji like focus because of our exposure to taiji and wah lum mantis. I guess you could even say I practice on of those hybrids, we still train traditional 7* and its forms, but in fighting we add more emphasis on controling the center, yileding, being lower than your opponant, using pong and chi in a very physical non-spiritual way.(Thats a whole other thead) In my opinion the concepts and principles of mantis is what makes it mantis, not just simply its forms. The similarities should be there.
7sm
I completely love discussing kung fu and cma in general, so I'm glad to have some activity here. I'll try to address your points one at a time.
Blooming Lotus said:
I'm not quite sure I understand what your saying with this, could you explain a bit. WC chi sao applications are different from WC striking points? Sorry, I'm a bit daft today, its been a long day of training allready.
Blooming Lotus said:You mean like the tangible proof that apparently doesn't exist on say various internal art skills .....like large golden bell or iron body against sword skill ....... or qingong ( lightness ) skills that soo many atest don't exist either....... ????? ( btw : what did you say practiced again??? ) :0
How could you say tangible proof doesn't exist on various internal art skills? Tangible proof of what "chi" is....thats a different story, but tangible proof that they work is easy to find. I guess we would have to get specific on what "internal skills" we are talking about. I'm not meaning the iron crotch or iron body against sword as that defeats the purpose and principles behind kung fu in my humble opinion. Iron body or lets say iron shin has very tangible proof, just have someone who practices it correctly and effeciently give you a tap on the shin, you see and feel the proof. The "internal proof" argument is one that is ongoing and to me quite boring, I'd rather be out training, but simply because there are some things that lack proof doesn't negate the proof of other said techniques.
Blooming Lotus said:
What argument about mantis rooting? Most of the mantis practitioners I have come across including some such as Lee Kam Wing and Chan Poi all pretty much agree on the origins and lineages and such. The different branches are generally believed to be from different students. The fact that there are different branches and such just shows its evolution and change, not its degradation. I'm not arguing what is the original form, I'm simple saying that just because we may not practice the origing "form" doesnt' automatically mean we are practicing a lesser "form". Its a generality to say changed or morphed or different means lesser.
Blooming Lotus said:
Exactly my point. We can't say we have lost anything if we dont know what was lost, and if we knew what was lost, it would cease to be lost wouldn't it. Its all hearsay. That was my point from the begining. Everyone says we have lost so much, but where is the proof? Like you said, there isn't any. On either side.
Blooming Lotus said:
I think most kung fu systmes if taken to a deep enough level share lots of similarities. Let me explain that...At face value they look very different....then they begin to share similarities as you understand them better. Then as you get more advanced you see also their differences again. The fact that mantis shares some conceptual similarities to some shaolin is just some more tangible proof of mantis' creation. I will say this, the 7* mantis that I practice has alot more internal and even taiji like focus because of our exposure to taiji and wah lum mantis. I guess you could even say I practice on of those hybrids, we still train traditional 7* and its forms, but in fighting we add more emphasis on controling the center, yileding, being lower than your opponant, using pong and chi in a very physical non-spiritual way.(Thats a whole other thead) In my opinion the concepts and principles of mantis is what makes it mantis, not just simply its forms. The similarities should be there.
Most deffinitely! However, the fact that some have lost something isn't analogous to that "knowledge" being lost for everyone.Blooming Lotus said:Do you think they reason they might not know or undrstand is because those aspects got lost before the art reached them?????
7sm
I think its a generality we are dealing with. I'm talkignon a deeper level. Maybe people dont know what Red Sand Palm is, but they may know it as a different name. Look at the principles behind it...it could be practiced by someone else the same principles that you use, and called something completely different.Black Tiger Fist said:That's what i was trying to convey.
I mean one example would be Red Sand Palm few have even heard of this skill ,even less would have a clue as to how to attain this skill.
There is no doubt much has been lost ,whether ppl choose to believe it or not doesn't make it any less so.
jeff
I myself dont know what Red Sand Palm is, but does that mean I'm practicing something that is less than what was practiced by 7* mantis people 100 years ago?
Tell you what, explain to me in detail Red Sand Palm, and I'll see how it would relate to something I would use in 7*. If it doesn't , then its not that its lost, but that I'm simply not practicing that technique for my art.
7sm
Blooming Lotus
Purple Belt
You're right and I've always found myself that terminology in terms of grouping information ands lyrics etc is always a factor to sharing information and cross-referencing, but really 7, this just supports the "what has been lost" advocates.
But where to start???..............
Quote:
[7*
"I'm not quite sure I understand what your saying with this, could you explain a bit. WC chi sao applications are different from WC striking points? Sorry, I'm a bit daft today, its been a long day of training allready".]
Chi sao: what I meant was that the pliable points they use to push hands as opposed to direct striking are all based on chin na / yim Wing Chun points of cavity vulnerabilty and yes they're different ( insert concerned confused face here) ...... lil tired ha??? Check out this site for a don chi sao clip using chin na / dimmak wrist points ( click the "videos" prompt and open the ( I think it's ) don chi sao link. ( good site regardless ) http://detroitwingchun.com/video%20frames%20page.htm
quote
7*
"How could you say tangible proof doesn't exist on various internal art skills?"
lol.......... try saying that in some of the coversations I've had over the last 12 mths. Agree though, by all means explain if they ask, but in the end, ppl are just going to believe what they choose regardless and I'd rather be training myself .
quote 7*
"What argument about mantis rooting? Most of the mantis practitioners I have come across including some such as Lee Kam Wing and Chan Poi all pretty much agree on the origins and lineages and such. The different branches are generally believed to be from different students. The fact that there are different branches and such just shows its evolution and change, not its degradation. I'm not arguing what is the original form, I'm simple saying that just because we may not practice the origing "form" doesnt' automatically mean we are practicing a lesser "form". Its a generality to say changed or morphed or different means lesser. "
This argument : http://ezine.kungfumagazine.com/forum/showthread.php?threadid=32365&perpage=15&highlight=mantis%20in%20hong%20kong&pagenumber=3
And no -one said anything about lesser forms, I think the discussion is more about "origin" forms and stylings , and in those adapted and morphed forms ( regardless of improvement ) how much is lost and ommitted every time that happens???
quote 7*
" We can't say we have lost anything if we dont know what was lost,"
lol..... good point you make there
but have you ever had the feeling you just missed something????
quote 7*
"I guess you could even say I practice on of those hybrids, we still train traditional 7* and its forms, but in fighting we add more emphasis on controling the center, yileding, being lower than your opponant, using pong and chi in a very physical non-spiritual way.(Thats a whole other thead) In my opinion the concepts and principles of mantis is what makes it mantis, not just simply its forms. The similarities should be there."
I'll look forward to arguing with you on that new thread too, but to matters at hand, so what you're saying is mantis base concept is rooted elsewhere......... and so the conundrum continues
quote 7*
"Most deffinitely! However, the fact that some have lost something isn't analogous to that "knowledge" being lost for everyone."
no it isn't but how many of those "everyones" receive and practice them as all as a whole??
BL
btw : quote"I completely love discussing kung fu and cma in general, so I'm glad to have some activity here.".........
loud , clear and concur
But where to start???..............
Quote:
[7*
"I'm not quite sure I understand what your saying with this, could you explain a bit. WC chi sao applications are different from WC striking points? Sorry, I'm a bit daft today, its been a long day of training allready".]
Chi sao: what I meant was that the pliable points they use to push hands as opposed to direct striking are all based on chin na / yim Wing Chun points of cavity vulnerabilty and yes they're different ( insert concerned confused face here) ...... lil tired ha??? Check out this site for a don chi sao clip using chin na / dimmak wrist points ( click the "videos" prompt and open the ( I think it's ) don chi sao link. ( good site regardless
) http://detroitwingchun.com/video%20frames%20page.htmquote
7*
"How could you say tangible proof doesn't exist on various internal art skills?"
lol.......... try saying that in some of the coversations I've had over the last 12 mths. Agree though, by all means explain if they ask, but in the end, ppl are just going to believe what they choose regardless and I'd rather be training myself .
quote 7*
"What argument about mantis rooting? Most of the mantis practitioners I have come across including some such as Lee Kam Wing and Chan Poi all pretty much agree on the origins and lineages and such. The different branches are generally believed to be from different students. The fact that there are different branches and such just shows its evolution and change, not its degradation. I'm not arguing what is the original form, I'm simple saying that just because we may not practice the origing "form" doesnt' automatically mean we are practicing a lesser "form". Its a generality to say changed or morphed or different means lesser. "
This argument : http://ezine.kungfumagazine.com/forum/showthread.php?threadid=32365&perpage=15&highlight=mantis%20in%20hong%20kong&pagenumber=3
And no -one said anything about lesser forms, I think the discussion is more about "origin" forms and stylings , and in those adapted and morphed forms ( regardless of improvement ) how much is lost and ommitted every time that happens???
quote 7*
" We can't say we have lost anything if we dont know what was lost,"
lol..... good point you make there
but have you ever had the feeling you just missed something????
quote 7*
"I guess you could even say I practice on of those hybrids, we still train traditional 7* and its forms, but in fighting we add more emphasis on controling the center, yileding, being lower than your opponant, using pong and chi in a very physical non-spiritual way.(Thats a whole other thead) In my opinion the concepts and principles of mantis is what makes it mantis, not just simply its forms. The similarities should be there."
I'll look forward to arguing with you on that new thread too, but to matters at hand, so what you're saying is mantis base concept is rooted elsewhere......... and so the conundrum continues
quote 7*
"Most deffinitely! However, the fact that some have lost something isn't analogous to that "knowledge" being lost for everyone."
no it isn't but how many of those "everyones" receive and practice them as all as a whole??
BL
btw : quote"I completely love discussing kung fu and cma in general, so I'm glad to have some activity here.".........
loud , clear and concur
I'm really confused. What is your point with the chi sau argument? Those points are different from what? I watched the clip, but all I saw was chi sau drills, I dont quite get how that lends itself to something being lost. Because someone includes points of attack from something other than their system proves things have been lost? I'm not following your logic here. What are you saying?Blooming Lotus said:Chi sao: what I meant was that the pliable points they use to push hands as opposed to direct striking are all based on chin na / yim Wing Chun points of cavity vulnerabilty and yes they're different ( insert concerned confused face here) ...... lil tired ha??? Check out this site for a don chi sao clip using chin na / dimmak wrist points ( click the "videos" prompt and open the ( I think it's ) don chi sao link. ( good site regardless
That argument is moot compared to what we are talking about. We are not talking about what is the original forms, but how much knowledge has been lost over the years. What is original or brand spanking new, have nothing to do with our discussion. How much is lost and ommitted every time a new form is created is not only irrelevent since we are talking about one form, but absolutely impossible to track, or prove. One form doesn't make or break a system. We are not talking about what is original, but what was original that is now no longer around. I think your getting off track in the discussion.Blooming Lotus said:
Wha?? :idunno: Mantis base concepts are rooted elswhere from what? I can't follow what your saying. I didn't say mantis concepts were rooted anywhere, let alone elsewhere from something else. What I said was that the base concepts are what make mantis, not the sum of its forms.Blooming Lotus said:
Probably alot, but because some, or many practice something wrong, doesn't mean others have lost the knowledge those few lack.Blooming Lotus said:
Let me say this: I'm not concerned with what name a form is called by. I'm not concerned with what form may be included in Hong Kong and not in the mainland. I would prefer to train and leave the scholastic study to others. What concerns me is the principles and concepts of the system, and learning how to apply them. In my opinion one knows more kung fu if they can stand on their skill even if they no nothing of the origins and names of what they are doing. There is a long debate over whether you truly know a MA system if you do not know its origins, I'm of the opinion you most deffinitely can. When I look at our argument here, I'm talking about the knowledge or ability to apply the concepts and principles the mantis system was created around. I could really care less if all of my forms are original to the system. Forms are just one little tiny part of what I do and should be in any kung fu system. I do not think we have lost the ability to perform certain aspects of kung fu as some have said in this thread. I do agree that those who work or strive for that level of skill or few and far between, but I dont think it is lost forever.
7sm
Blooming Lotus
Purple Belt
lol 7*.....you're a funny guy........
quote 7*
"I'm really confused. What is your point with the chi sau argument? Those points are different from what? I watched the clip, but all I saw was chi sau drills, I dont quite get how that lends itself to something being lost. Because someone includes points of attack from something other than their system proves things have been lost? I'm not following your logic here. What are you saying?"
Okay point is that so many ppl swear that pressure point striking is no part of WC yet the majority of their strikes as you see in that clip, are geared toward pressure points ........ ( WT.???!!)
quote 7*
" That argument is moot compared to what we are talking about. We are not talking about what is the original forms, but how much knowledge has been lost over the years. What is original or brand spanking new, have nothing to do with our discussion. How much is lost and ommitted every time a new form is created is not only irrelevent since we are talking about one form, but absolutely impossible to track, or prove. One form doesn't make or break a system. We are not talking about what is original, but what was original that is now no longer around. I think your getting off track in the discussion."
fine.just stirring on that one really anyway lol........
quote 7*
"Wha?? :idunno: Mantis base concepts are rooted elswhere from what? I can't follow what your saying. I didn't say mantis concepts were rooted anywhere, let alone elsewhere from something else. What I said was that the base concepts are what make mantis, not the sum of its forms"
point here is that if mantis looks and plays like shaolin according to you showing an obvious connection and shaolin is older than than mantis........... I'm just doing math but I'm sure that there are many many shaolin do ers who'd likely stand up and testify they spawned you.
quote 7*
"There is a long debate over whether you truly know a MA system if you do not know its origins, I'm of the opinion you most deffinitely can."
I was just about to vehmently disagree , but I guess with enough experience, you're right , you can surely get a handle ( however personally interperated )
on their philosophy and easily enough understand how they intend to express it and with what movements or movement types so would likely gain competancy as quickly as you could remember a sequence or assimilate to the former. Boild statement, but I'm standing by it.
cheers 7*Mod
Blooming Lotus
quote 7*
"I'm really confused. What is your point with the chi sau argument? Those points are different from what? I watched the clip, but all I saw was chi sau drills, I dont quite get how that lends itself to something being lost. Because someone includes points of attack from something other than their system proves things have been lost? I'm not following your logic here. What are you saying?"
Okay point is that so many ppl swear that pressure point striking is no part of WC yet the majority of their strikes as you see in that clip, are geared toward pressure points ........ ( WT.???!!)
quote 7*
" That argument is moot compared to what we are talking about. We are not talking about what is the original forms, but how much knowledge has been lost over the years. What is original or brand spanking new, have nothing to do with our discussion. How much is lost and ommitted every time a new form is created is not only irrelevent since we are talking about one form, but absolutely impossible to track, or prove. One form doesn't make or break a system. We are not talking about what is original, but what was original that is now no longer around. I think your getting off track in the discussion."
fine.just stirring on that one really anyway
lol........quote 7*
"Wha?? :idunno: Mantis base concepts are rooted elswhere from what? I can't follow what your saying. I didn't say mantis concepts were rooted anywhere, let alone elsewhere from something else. What I said was that the base concepts are what make mantis, not the sum of its forms"
point here is that if mantis looks and plays like shaolin according to you showing an obvious connection and shaolin is older than than mantis........... I'm just doing math but I'm sure that there are many many shaolin do ers who'd likely stand up and testify they spawned you.
quote 7*
"There is a long debate over whether you truly know a MA system if you do not know its origins, I'm of the opinion you most deffinitely can."
I was just about to vehmently disagree , but I guess with enough experience, you're right , you can surely get a handle ( however personally interperated )
on their philosophy and easily enough understand how they intend to express it and with what movements or movement types so would likely gain competancy as quickly as you could remember a sequence or assimilate to the former. Boild statement, but I'm standing by it.
cheers 7*Mod
Blooming Lotus
AH ok. First, that would only prove that the people in the clip were using pressure points as part of their techniques, not that there was something missing in WC. Second, I didn't really see pressure point usage but rather strategic control usage. Meaning they used the bones in the arm to effectively lock and trap or control the opponent, it wasn't neccesarily all pressure points. There are many different schools of thought in every system, WC included. Because one teacher uses pressure points while others dont, doesn't really show anything except that one is accepting something different into their techniques. In my school we focus more on controlling the center than most 7* schools, does that mean there is something lost in 7* mantis?Blooming Lotus said:
OK, what does that have to do with the dicussion at hand? Mantis was created at shaolin and all mantis practitioners agree on that. I dont see the point. Lets be clear also on what I actually said. I said at a basic understanding they appear to have alot in common, but at an advanced level you see the real differences. I also said I believe all kung fu systems and styles share similarities in concept and principle to some degree.Blooming Lotus said:
7sm
Blooming Lotus
Purple Belt
sigh......... so when one school includes a tech and another doesn't the said technique is "not " lost to the non-practicing school and its students??? and what happens when those students get their belts open their schools and teach the same ommitted styles and forms??
I didn't say "all " either, I said "most" and those spots they're using to control are just coincidently where the pressure points lay........what a co-incidence........but no relation despite the reported history on it right.
Fair enough 7*
great discussion
blommong lotus
I didn't say "all " either, I said "most" and those spots they're using to control are just coincidently where the pressure points lay........what a co-incidence........but no relation despite the reported history on it right.
Fair enough 7*
great discussion
blommong lotus
ROFL
Like I said at the beginning, its a matter of defining "lost" I tend to define the word more seriously than simply "not practiced". Like I also said, there are those who dont know some techniques, but this thread is about a general los of knowledge, not simply some people who omitt certain techniques.
7sm
Like I said at the beginning, its a matter of defining "lost" I tend to define the word more seriously than simply "not practiced". Like I also said, there are those who dont know some techniques, but this thread is about a general los of knowledge, not simply some people who omitt certain techniques.
7sm
