anybody take Southern Mantis?

[bakxierboxer]

I don't agree; Northern Mantis looks like exaggeratedly copied mantis hooking motions--look at how the hand is formed--while Southern Mantis is so similar to other Southern styles, esp. the Hakka Kuen styles and styles of the phoenix-eye fist variety.

I know a minority of Southern Manti styles maintain that it was mantis-influenced like, but separately from, Northern Mantis, but the probable opinion is that it was intentionally misnamed.

This has not been my experience.

Northern Mantis has nothing at all like Mantid movements.
Mantids grip their prey and pull it into the center to eat it.
Go study a Mantis for a while.... better yet get some actual experience in TCMA animal styles.

 

[Carol]

Moderator Note:

Please keep the conversation polite and respectful.

Thank you,

- Carol Kaur -
- MT Moderator -

 

[exile]

Can I ask a couple of basic questions about these `animal' style CMA systems? This discussion kind of formalized in my mind some queries that I've wondered about for a long time....

First of all, specifically, what are the supposed attributes of preying mantises (or cranes, or tigers or...) that are taken to be reflected in the movements of the fighting style in question? How do mantises actually behave? I've observed them in my gardens for years... decades, actually... but mostly have only an idea of the stance, rather than their general pattern of movement. They seem to be in a perpetual `Fence' posture... but surely that can't be all they do. Has anyone observed mantises in the wild—what's their MO?

Second, more generally, when a style is depicted as X-animal, how much of X's behavior is understood to be part of the fighting method? Is it just a loose, not very literal rendition of one or two aspects of X's movements and pattern of defending itself—i.e., are just a couple of stylized resemblances enough to make the connection—or is the style supposed to reflect a fairly detailed observation of the animal's actual physical behavior?

The reason these seem important questions for an outsider like me is that some of the discussion above suggests that a mantid-style is so by virtue of some relatively specific mantis-like behaviors reflected in the fighting style. Saying that style Y is not a mantid style because it doesn't involve particular mantis-like movement certainly gives that impression, anyway... is this right? Or is being a mantid style a matter of descent from some earlier style classified as a mantid style for whatever reasons? Are we talking about animal behavior, or are we talking about lineagehere? Can anyone help with these questions?

 

[arnisador]

I don't think there's a single answer to your question. Dragon styles are clearly not based on the movements of the dragon, for example, but rather its spirit and presumed fighting style and attributes; while monkey styles often imitate a monkey to the extent of mimicking its non-fighting moves such as grooming behaviours and expressions. (See Paulie Zink's comments on imitating the spirit, movements, and bevahiour of monkeys in The History of Monkey Kung Fu by Paulie Zink and Michael Matsuda.) If you look at Shaolin Ten-Animal Form of Kwan Tak Hing by Dr. Leung Ting, you'll see some slavishly imitated animals, including a horse biting and an almost comic impersonation of a bear.

Some animal styles are based on an animal's fighting motions, such as a tiger's or eagle's claws or a snake's strike. Even there, for example, a tiger claws back toward itself or at least side-to-side/up-and-down, while a human tends to claw more forward based on musculoskeletal anatomy and lack of actual claws. Others are based on a mythical (as with the dragon) or romanticized notion of how the animal either fights or behaves.

I don't think lineage has as much to do with it. Many Okinawan Karate styles show traces of tiger and crane influence, but with few exceptions (Okinawan White Crane Karate being the only one that comes to mind), they aren't classified as animal styles. Similarly, Wing Chun has obvious animal techniques in it but isn't usually considered to be an animal style just because it inherited some techniques from a Shaolin animal base. Most of it is intent, in my opinion: Did the art's founder draw inspiration from, and attempt to imitate, an animal's movements, be they fighting movements or other movements, or its spirit? That's what makes it an animal style for me.

As to the mantis style itself, here's what Wikipedia says about Northern Mantis:

It was created by Wang Lang and was named after the praying mantis, an insect, the aggressiveness of which inspired the style.
[...]
The mantis is a long and narrow predatory insect. While heavily armoured, it is not built to withstand forces from perpendicular directions. Consequently, its fighting style involves the use of whip-like/circular motions to deflect direct attacks, which it follows up with precise attacks to the opponent's vital spots. These traits have been subsumed into the Northern Praying Mantis style, under the rubric of "removing something" (blocking to create a gap) and "adding something" (rapid attack).

One of the most distinctive features of Northern Praying Mantis is the "praying mantis hook"

Here the hook hand is, in my opinion, inspired by the mantis' hooked forelimbs but used in a way that befits a human's anatomy.

Here's what Wikipedia says about Southern Mantis:

Despite its name, the Southern Praying Mantis style of Chinese martial arts is unrelated to the Northern Praying Mantis style. Southern Praying Mantis is instead related most closely to fellow Hakka styles such as Dragon and more distantly to the Fujian family of styles that includes Fujian White Crane, Five Ancestors, and Wing Chun.

Southern Praying Mantis is a close range fighting system that places much emphasis on short power and has aspects of both internal and external techniques.

As in other southern styles, the arms are the main weapon
[...]
Like Wing Chun and Xingyiquan—other styles created as pure fighting arts

I am more-or-less in agreement with the descriptions at Wikipedia, despite my reluctance to use it as a source.

 

[exile]

I don't think there's a single answer to your question. Dragon styles are clearly not based on the movements of the dragon, for example, but rather its spirit and presumed fighting style and attributes; while monkey styles often imitate a monkey to the extent of mimicking its non-fighting moves such as grooming behaviours and expressions. (See Paulie Zink's comments on imitating the spirit, movements, and bevahiour of monkeys in The History of Monkey Kung Fu by Paulie Zink and Michael Matsuda.) If you look at Shaolin Ten-Animal Form of Kwan Tak Hing by Dr. Leung Ting, you'll see some slavishly imitated animals, including a horse biting and an almost comic impersonation of a bear.

Some animal styles are based on an animal's fighting motions, such as a tiger's or eagle's claws or a snake's strike. Even there, for example, a tiger claws back toward itself or at least side-to-side/up-and-down, while a human tends to claw more forward based on musculoskeletal anatomy and lack of actual claws. Others are based on a mythical (as with the dragon) or romanticized notion of how the animal either fights or behaves.

I don't think lineage has as much to do with it. Many Okinawan Karate styles show traces of tiger and crane influence, but with few exceptions (Okinawan White Crane Karate being the only one that comes to mind), they aren't classified as animal styles. Similarly, Wing Chun has obvious animal techniques in it but isn't usually considered to be an animal style just because it inherited some techniques from a Shaolin animal base. Most of it is intent, in my opinion: Did the art's founder draw inspiration from, and attempt to imitate, an animal's movements, be they fighting movements or other movements, or its spirit? That's what makes it an animal style for me.

As to the mantis style itself, here's what Wikipedia says about Northern Mantis:



Here the hook hand is, in my opinion, inspired by the mantis' hooked forelimbs but used in a way that befits a human's anatomy.

Here's what Wikipedia says about Southern Mantis:



I am more-or-less in agreement with the descriptions at Wikipedia, despite my reluctance to use it as a source.

Arnisador, many thanks—this is the sort of information I was looking for.

 

[Flying Crane]

To further attempt to answer your question, Exile, I'll comment regarding Tibetan White Crane.

The mythology surrounding the origins of the art are that a Lama was meditating by a mountain lake, and was disturbed by a loud racket. He discovered that a crane by the lake was under attack by a "mountain ape", which would most likely have been a macaque, as a species of this rather large monkey does inhabit Tibet. He watched the fight, how the two animals moved, and ultimatley, to the surprise of the Lama, the crane won the fight by pecking out the eye of the ape.

The Lama pondered the techniques he witnessed, and combined with his prior experience with martial arts, began to adapt movements from the two animals, gradually formulating a system.

It wasnt until generations later that the art became known as White Crane, but I think this is sort of a misnomer, as it should probably be called "crane and ape" or something. Prior to this, it was known as "Lion's Roar", as a Buddhist reference, then Lama Pai, or style of the Lamas, then Hop Gar, and finally White Crane. These other arts still exist as sister arts to each other that have simply branched in their own direction. Many similarities, but not identical.

Anyway, that is the mythology surrounding the arts origins, which may or may not have an element of truth to it.

We do see an interpretation of animal techniques within our arsenal, and the characteristics of our style. Our punching consists of long, swinging, bludgeoning strikes, that could be reminiscent of an ape. Or a crane flapping wings. Take your pick in how you want to interpret it. We run around and cover a lot of ground, and that is ape-like. We prefer to hit and run, and not really engage in a close, bound up fight, and that is crane like, as a crane stays out of reach to avoid being grabbed.

Our interpretation of a crane art is very different from Fukien white crane, and other white crane that I have seen referenced. Completely different technique and characteristics. So different animal arts do exist that share a name, but seem to have little in common in technique, characteristics, and approach. They just developed in different areas, under different circumstances, but they ended up with a similar name.

Interestingly, much of the white crane that is in Hung Gar's famous Tiger and Crane form comes from our system, but it seems that not all of it does. Wong Fei Hung, a famous Hung Gar man from the 1800s created this form. His father was friends with a Tibetan Crane guy, so Fei Hung learned some aspects of this art. These techniques found their way into his famous form, but there are also crane techniques within the form that are not very similar to what I know from our art. The techniques in the form that ARE from our art, might not even be immediately recognized by an uneducated outsider as "crane", as it doesn't look like a clear mimickry of a crane. The stuff that does look clearly like a crane is not found in our system, as far as I know, which could be flawed as I certainly do not know the entire system. But I suspect these techniques were taken from some other Crane art, or else they may have been simply Hung Gar's own unique interpretation of crane, independent of Tibetan, Fukien, or other methods. I shall have to ask my sifu for some clarification on this. Interesting stuff...

 

[exile]

To further attempt to answer your question, Exile, I'll comment regarding Tibetan White Crane.

The mythology surrounding the origins of the art are that a Lama was meditating by a mountain lake, and was disturbed by a loud racket. He discovered that a crane by the lake was under attack by a "mountain ape", which would most likely have been a macaque, as a species of this rather large monkey does inhabit Tibet. He watched the fight, how the two animals moved, and ultimatley, to the surprise of the Lama, the crane won the fight by pecking out the eye of the ape.

The Lama pondered the techniques he witnessed, and combined with his prior experience with martial arts, began to adapt movements from the two animals, gradually formulating a system.

It wasnt until generations later that the art became known as White Crane, but I think this is sort of a misnomer, as it should probably be called "crane and ape" or something. Prior to this, it was known as "Lion's Roar", as a Buddhist reference, then Lama Pai, or style of the Lamas, then Hop Gar, and finally White Crane. These other arts still exist as sister arts to each other that have simply branched in their own direction. Many similarities, but not identical.

Anyway, that is the mythology surrounding the arts origins, which may or may not have an element of truth to it.

OK, so there are references at a general level to fairly `broad-brush' characterizations of how the animals move in general.We're not talking minute ethology here, but something more large-scale.

We do see an interpretation of animal techniques within our arsenal, and the characteristics of our style. Our punching consists of long, swinging, bludgeoning strikes, that could be reminiscent of an ape. Or a crane flapping wings. Take your pick in how you want to interpret it. We run around and cover a lot of ground, and that is ape-like. We prefer to hit and run, and not really engage in a close, bound up fight, and that is crane like, as a crane stays out of reach to avoid being grabbed.

Right, that's along the same sort of lines.

Our interpretation of a crane art is very different from Fukien white crane, and other white crane that I have seen referenced. Completely different technique and characteristics. So different animal arts do exist that share a name, but seem to have little in common in technique, characteristics, and approach. They just developed in different areas, under different circumstances, but they ended up with a similar name.

Ah, the messiness of real life, eh? Maybe respectively different characteristics of `cranishness' were picked up the different styles that wound up calling themselves Crane.

Interestingly, much of the white crane that is in Hung Gar's famous Tiger and Crane form comes from our system, but it seems that not all of it does. Wong Fei Hung, a famous Hung Gar man from the 1800s created this form. His father was friends with a Tibetan Crane guy, so Fei Hung learned some aspects of this art. These techniques found their way into his famous form, but there are also crane techniques within the form that are not very similar to what I know from our art. The techniques in the form that ARE from our art, might not even be immediately recognized by an uneducated outsider as "crane", as it doesn't look like a clear mimickry of a crane. The stuff that does look clearly like a crane is not found in our system, as far as I know, which could be flawed as I certainly do not know the entire system. But I suspect these techniques were taken from some other Crane art, or else they may have been simply Hung Gar's own unique interpretation of crane, independent of Tibetan, Fukien, or other methods. I shall have to ask my sifu for some clarification on this. Interesting stuff...

Very! I've long been intrigued by the extensive involvement of animal references in the CMAs in particular, and I've always wondered if there's some particular aspect of Chinese cultural aesthetics that was responsible, or at least strongly contributed, to that. The vividness and relative elaborateness of these style names, compared with what I've always thought of as the fairly spartan names for the karate-based styles, reminds me of the general differences often noted between the rich decoration and elaboration tendencies in Chinese art forms, compared with the subdued and almost delicate analogues in Japanese aesthetics. I dunno, maybe that's stretching it a bit... but I keep seeing that same contrast in different aspects of Chinese vs. Japanese culture...

 

[Flying Crane]

OK, so there are references at a general level to fairly `broad-brush' characterizations of how the animals move in general.We're not talking minute ethology here, but something more large-scale.

Yes, I think this is accurate. Definitely some level of physical characteristic, such as Tiger methods include various use of the tiger-claw hand technique. But simply using a technique that includes a tigerclaw isn't enough to make it a "tiger style", or "tiger-influenced style". There needs to be more to it.

There needs to also be an element of the nature or "spirit" of the animal. Tiger is a ferocious, fearless animal. So Tiger Style, in addition to it's signature hand technique (not it's ONLY hand technique, of course), also is an agressive style characterized by fast, ferocious, driving attacks that don't end until the fight is over. Not a style to hesitate or wait or take one's time to feel out the enemy. Rather, lunge in with everything, take the enemy down and finish him and rip him up in a hurry. The spirit of the animal is displayed in the style, and outside of actual fighting, this is most clearly seen in the emptyhand forms. That is where both the physical techniques, and the spirit of the animal are practiced.

How deep into the minutae of these physical techniques and "spiritual" characteristics of the animal a style digs would probably vary from style to style. But both the physical technique and "animal spirit" need to exist on some level.

Ah, the messiness of real life, eh? Maybe respectively different characteristics of `cranishness' were picked up the different styles that wound up calling themselves Crane.

exactly my thinking. Perhaps under different circumstances and influences, different people arrived at different conclusions regarding the nature and technique of a crane. So their arts developed around these different notions.

Very! I've long been intrigued by the extensive involvement of animal references in the CMAs in particular, and I've always wondered if there's some particular aspect of Chinese cultural aesthetics that was responsible, or at least strongly contributed, to that. The vividness and relative elaborateness of these style names, compared with what I've always thought of as the fairly spartan names for the karate-based styles, reminds me of the general differences often noted between the rich decoration and elaboration tendencies in Chinese art forms, compared with the subdued and almost delicate analogues in Japanese aesthetics. I dunno, maybe that's stretching it a bit... but I keep seeing that same contrast in different aspects of Chinese vs. Japanese culture...

This might be a slight sidetrack, but I think is relevant to your comments here.

My kenpo teacher is a highly skilled caucasian who has been studying the art for over 40 years. He's been around long enough to have witnessed certain aspects in the development of the arts in the US, and he made a comment not long ago that I found very interesting.

He feels that for the first 30 years or so of the open teaching of Asian arts in the US, one huge hurdle in successfully passing the arts along to non-Asians has been the language. Certain notions in Chinese are very clear and understandable to native Chinese, but they don't translate well into English, and make it difficult for Non-Chinese to really understand the deeper meanings of the lesson.

He explained that for a time he trained in San Francisco under a famous Hung Gar teacher, who was born and raised in China and immigrated to the US as an adult. This teacher would try to explain the lesson, but he could not adequately interpret what he wanted to say into English. For his Chinese students, he could say it very easily, it was a notion that was ingrained into their culture, so to say it made sense to those students and they knew exactly what he meant. But that phrase, or a paraphrase of his message simply did not translate well, and he couldn't communicate it well to the English speaking students. So these students were often left with a more superficial understanding of the material, and that was frustrating to the teacher. In Chinese, they have elegant phrases that have meaning within the culture, and to one raised in the culture it is very obvious and clear. But to one raised outside that culture, it is very confusing.

Similarly, my kung fu sifu is an American born Chinese, but speaks several Chinese languages. He told me that when training under a certain famous sifu who was Chinese born and raised, he always felt he had an advantage over many of the other students, because he could speak with him in Chinese, and he could always understand the lesson more deeply.

So, sorry for getting a bit offtrack of the Mantis issue, but maybe these thoughts add to the greater picture a bit.

 

[NanFeiShen]

Can I ask a couple of basic questions about these `animal' style CMA systems? This discussion kind of formalized in my mind some queries that I've wondered about for a long time....

First of all, specifically, what are the supposed attributes of preying mantises (or cranes, or tigers or...) that are taken to be reflected in the movements of the fighting style in question? How do mantises actually behave? I've observed them in my gardens for years... decades, actually... but mostly have only an idea of the stance, rather than their general pattern of movement. They seem to be in a perpetual `Fence' posture... but surely that can't be all they do. Has anyone observed mantises in the wild—what's their MO?

Second, more generally, when a style is depicted as X-animal, how much of X's behavior is understood to be part of the fighting method? Is it just a loose, not very literal rendition of one or two aspects of X's movements and pattern of defending itself—i.e., are just a couple of stylized resemblances enough to make the connection—or is the style supposed to reflect a fairly detailed observation of the animal's actual physical behavior?

The reason these seem important questions for an outsider like me is that some of the discussion above suggests that a mantid-style is so by virtue of some relatively specific mantis-like behaviors reflected in the fighting style. Saying that style Y is not a mantid style because it doesn't involve particular mantis-like movement certainly gives that impression, anyway... is this right? Or is being a mantid style a matter of descent from some earlier style classified as a mantid style for whatever reasons? Are we talking about animal behavior, or are we talking about lineagehere? Can anyone help with these questions?

I cannot speak for the other Mantis styles, but, from some experience in Seven Star Mantis.
The hand "hooks" in certain postures, to resemble the front "claw" of the mantis, and the arms extend and pull in in the manner of the mantis. the constant "hooking" motion of the hand, develops the forearms, which become powerful and develop pulling power. The mantis has large "forearms" as well. Seven Star is quite different on the leg work though, according to Master Lee Kam Wing, the footwork is quick and agile, the way a monkey moves, almost "skips" from posture to posture.
A colleague of mine teachers a system with a number of animal style forms, and his version of mantis is quite different in structure, but the essence of his form is also the concept of powerful "pulling" actions combined with strikes utilising the hooked hand and striking with the point where the hand and wrist join.
His "snake" is very fast strikes towards "soft" targets, eyes, throat, and the arm movements mimick the snakes "swaying", with a sliding action over the opponents arms.
His "tiger" is low and powerful, with very powerful strikes and blows with the heel of the palm, while his "crane" has some very open type movements similiar in structure to a number of Taiji postures.
The impression that i have always had about animal style forms, is that the idea is to find the "spirit" or essence of movement of that particular animal in the form, and someone watching can see it in a good practitioners execution of the from.

 

[Karatedrifter7]

Yeah interesting, thank you.

 

[Flying Crane]

What mantis I have seen I believe was 7 Star, but there are a number of others: 8 Step, which i believe is based on 7 Star; tai mantis, wah lum mantis, come to mind. I don't know what these others look like at all.

The 7 Star that I have seen has very distinct mantis characteristics that have been described previously: the claw, the movement, etc. It is something that very clearly looks like the insect.

The little bit of what I believe was Southern Mantis that I have seen was very very different, in my opinion. It had a very strange way of moving, very strange hand techniques, something that in my experience, did not resemble the insect in the way 7 Star did. It did somewhat resemble Fukien White Crane and perhaps a little bit Wing Chun, but really it seemed like a different animal, all its own. But I suspect there may be other "mantis" aspects that Southern has chosen to focus on, in a different way from 7 Star. I just don't know.

This is what I was alluding to in my earlier posts. A different group of people, under different circumstances, could have focused their attention on other aspects of the insect, and designed an art around that. I hadn't heard that it was deliberately misnamed as a camoflage. I guess that is also possible, but I don't know and cannot comment.

 

[Mantis King]

Well...because it is. Southern Mantis Kung Fu is really Chow Gar (or one of a few other closely related variants, like Chu Gar), the Chow family art. It's a Hakka kuen system that, unlike Northern Mantis, is not based on mantis-style animal techniques. Instead, it's a dragon-themed system built on Southern styles like white crane, Ngo Cho (Five Ancestor Fist), etc. The name was chosen for political cover; the art was intentionally misnamed to disguise it from the Qing government by conflating it with the broadly popular I will not argue against the "political cover" story since it is so wide-spread.

OTOH, have you ever LOOKED at the two (North vs South) as regards their general appearance?
Northern Mantis MOVES nothing at all like a Praying Mantis, whereas Southern Mantis does a rather fine imitation of the Mantis' motions when fighting and "eating".
(And "eating" is a rather prominent type of movement within all "animal styles")Northern Mantis system.

First I’m not trying to start things but let’s get the facts straight guys. Please don’t talk about something you guys have any idea about. What you’re saying is someone that is looking at some site on the net and believing what it says and then you repeat it and think you know. Stop!

Northern Mantis does look and move like mantis: That’s a FACT! If you’ve never taken the art then you should not talk like you know. I have and can tell you it does.

Well...because it is. Southern Mantis Kung Fu is really Chow Gar (or one of a few other closely related variants, like Chu Gar), the Chow family art.

Wrong! That is not even close. Once again you must be looking on some site that says that. It is not Chow Gar its pronounced Chu Gar. It was Yip Sui that changed the name. And let’s get the facts straight Jook Lum came first. All the Chu gar, Iron ox, and the so called Chow gar all admit it in China. I have it all on video. It is the UK people that believe that Chow Gar came first. WRONG. 90 % have not even lived or visited the temples and looked at any of the records I have copies of them all. Oh yea! It depends on what dialect you use when you talk in Chinese do you speak it, No?, well in some dialects its pronounced CHU KA, or Chu Ga, or Chu Gar, or Chow Ga.

It's a Hakka kuen system that, unlike Northern Mantis, is not based on mantis-style animal techniques.

Wrong Again! Southern Mantis, body structure is based on the structure of the human body, and natural movements of man, but the hand movements are based on the MANTIS.

Instead, it's a dragon-themed system built on Southern styles like white crane, Ngo Cho (Five Ancestor Fist), etc.

Wrong! It is not based on a dragon style. And yes we have some similarity of dragon, crane, ect. But to say it is a dragon themed is not correct.

The name was chosen for political cover; the art was intentionally misnamed to disguise it from the Qing government by conflating it with the broadly popular Northern Mantis system.

Wrong Again!
Just because Wikipedia says: doesn’t mean its right. After reading it I can tell you it is wrong in so many ways.

Som Dot taught two people Lee Siem, and Wong Do Yuen (who latter was ordained Wong Long) Som Dot then told them to spread the art. There they both accepted a student named Chu Bot Long which later betrayed Lee and Wong and only used the Chu name to pass on what is called CHU GAR GAO today. Chu Bot Long later taught Chu An Nam, who taught Lao Sui who taught Chu Kwei, who was the father of Chu Kwong Hua in contemporary times
Later, as Wong Do Yuen and Lee Siem Yuen went back down the mountain, at the lower gate, a praying mantis insect popped out in front of them. Wong, being the first to step off the mountain, proclaimed the mantis must be a sign from Heaven and to avoid further persecution of Som Dot's Shaolin teaching, the Shaolin art of three orders should be called praying mantis.
At the bottom of the mountain, a man named, Choy Tit Ngau, (Ngau / Niu means Oxen) pleaded with sincerity to learn their Kungfu and the two of them taught him Som Dot's third order of Kungfu based on extremely forceful techniques.

Not knowing what to call the art, Choy, having no knowledge of the first or second order of Som Dot, eventually did the same as the Chu Clan and called the art Tit Ngau, or Iron Ox. Later Chung Lo Ku learned from Choy and passed on this teaching as Chung Gar Gao to Xu Ku and Xu Fat Chun. This Kungfu of the third order was taught at the bottom of the mountain.

This means FACT!!!

1st Kwong Sai Jook Lum

2nd Chu Gar or if you like you can call it Chow Gar(what ever it is the same)

3rd Iron Ox

 

[Karatedrifter7]

I appreciate the info on this, thank you.

Dave

 

[kagegakure]

may i ask, why do people get mad over this? Mistakes are mistakes and things in history are hardly ever true, as the saying says, "The winner wrote the history." Another question is, may i ask, why are the chinese martial arts split from north to south, or is that going waaay out there? When i think about an art. There are many cranes in the world and many cranes means many people get to see them which means someone can do whatever they want with something they've seen. SO there are different things that are supposed to be different ways or perceptions or perspectives (because that's what life is, a HUMONGOUS perspective) that are intended because the person was looking for that thing that makes his art complete. If its crane, may i ask (i hope i don't get shot for this) what's the difference? I mean besides the little nuisances (if your a not a tech guy, which is probably why i wrestle) then whats the difference? so...with that...I'll stop talking now...

 

[TenTigers]

From what I have seen thus far, Jook Lum seems to be more snake-like than anyting else. Chung Yel-Jung was called The Poison Snake, the staff is the Poison Snake Staff, the Butterfly Knives coil and spiral in a serpentine fashion, the "Hand" is often times referred to as the Poison Snake Hand. It strikes quickly,viciously,and slips and slides through the opponent's defenses at angles sometimes very sepentine,striking at vital points, with rapid-fire precision. The hands move independanltly of each other,each having a mind of its own. The body is coiled, closing off the points, yet delivering lightning quick strikes. The mindset of Jook Lum is also very snake-like. Cold-blooded,emotionless intent, focused totally on penetration of the target.
just my thoughts...

 

[Siem]

Kwong Sal Jook Lum Gee Tong Long Pai
Monks Lee Siem See and Wong may have been contemporaries of Som Dot. What is amazing is that Grand Master Lam Sang tained directly with Lee Siem See and inherited the Jeong Fong. www.jooklummantis.com

 

[Siem]

SharingMantis




Joined: 23Mar2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 16
Posted: 28Mar2007 at 6:43pm
Original hand sets from Lam Sang was Sam Bo Gin to begin with. Now almost everyone knows Sam Bo Gin. It's not a secret. Someone asked Lam Sang once"Mark Foon,teaches Sam Bo Gin this way, Ho Dun teaches it that way and so who is correct? Lam Sang answer was they are all correct. One likes this hand, the other likes that hand. However Lam Sang did stress the breathing, hitting out three times,and concentration on each finger etc. 18 points is another original. The only time Lam Sang was displeased was when an early deciple changed it completely. For example 18 point is done going straight,turn around straight line,and turn around again and close the set. One disciple made changes by saying he decided to put 108 footwork into 18 points, so the set comes out looking like your going from side to side with a few extra added fancy moves. According to Lam Sang this is not adapting, it is changing the system completly.
Originally weapons is a staff and a sword. Originally hand set is 108. Reach Siem Kuen and the set closes.Lam Sang only learnled half from his teacher.He completed the system under Lee Siem See (spelling by sound),and that is when he was giving the (Jeung Fong),by Lee Siem See.
Besides internal hands, their is also "San Far Shou", which is a flowerly hand. Or you can probably call it "Spreading Flower Hand". This was taught by a female, and is mainly used towards hitting the face. Lam Sang added this to the style. Most two man sets Lam Sang taught is never the same the second time around. Lam Sang used to say, "Anyone that thinks a set is supposed to look exactly the same as the sifu taught do not know".
Lam Sang always stress, being able to adapt on the spot. Easy said ,not easy to do. It's like you learn 26 letters of the alphabet yet by using those 26 letters, you are able to make sentences and paragraphs. This is adapt. Not coming out with letter number 27 and 28. This is complete change.
IP Logged www.jooklummantis.com

 

[jonbey]

Hi, I also do southern mantis - Chow Gar style - and I really enjoy it. Been doing it a few years now (cannot actually remember what year I started). For me it is just a "proper" martial art, in that you learn very practical techniques, you condition the body to receive strikes, the hands to make them, and has both internal and external exercises. Plus there is so much to it. Makes it a challenging style to learn. Many people are put off by it because of this, but any die hard kung-fu students should give a southern mantis style a go.

Don't ask me about the history / lineages etc. as that really is not an area I am all that knowledgeable in. As far as I know this article is pretty much relevant to Chow Gar and how it came to the UK

Hope this helps a little,

Cheers,

Jon.