The Complete Package

Black Tiger Fist

Green Belt
Joined
Jul 8, 2004
Messages
193
Reaction score
3
Location
Miami,FL
RHD said:
Cool, love to hear thier input!

As for the Wah Lum sets. I find this very interesting that mantis forms omit certain basics. I think it gives creedence to its origins as a system created by an already experienced fighter who would have known those things and have mastered them already. I may be wrong, but it would lead me to assume that mantis "back in the day" was something taught on the assumption that you already had the basics down. In other words, mantis was designed to "take it to another level". Very cool 7*, thanks for the tidbit. I can't say the same is true for Hung style, but I can say that I've been told over and over again that many of the greatest Southern style fighters of several different systems were Hung first.

Mike
Same was said for Black Tiger ,that is why Grandmaster Wong Cheung created and added new forms to Black Tiger ,so a newbie could adjust to the training.

Yeah you look at alot of southern style masters and Hung Gar is usually somewhere in their background ,no matter the style. Grandmaster Wong Cheung was also a Hung Gar master as well with his Black Tiger and Hung Fuit.


jeff:)
 
R

RHD

Guest
Black Tiger Fist said:
Same was said for Black Tiger ,that is why Grandmaster Wong Cheung created and added new forms to Black Tiger ,so a newbie could adjust to the training.

Yeah you look at alot of southern style masters and Hung Gar is usually somewhere in their background ,no matter the style. Grandmaster Wong Cheung was also a Hung Gar master as well with his Black Tiger and Hung Fuit.


jeff:)

What can I say Jeff? I wasn't really following this thread until a couple of days ago...I find this whole idea very interesting. Hmmmm maybe now that I have a good Hung base I should move on :idunno:

Mike
 

Black Tiger Fist

Green Belt
Joined
Jul 8, 2004
Messages
193
Reaction score
3
Location
Miami,FL
RHD said:
What can I say Jeff? I wasn't really following this thread until a couple of days ago...I find this whole idea very interesting. Hmmmm maybe now that I have a good Hung base I should move on :idunno:

Mike
Well Mike,

I'll give you this bit of advise...

Grandmaster Wong Cheung was known as a master of many different styles Hung Gar,Hak Fu Muhn,Hung Fut,Choy Lay Fut, Ba Gua just to name a few.Of all the styles he learned ,he loved only two and practiced them daily into his late 80's.

Those two styles were Hung Gar and Hak Fu Muhn ,so i think that says something for those two arts. He spent 70 yrs of his life doing nothing but training and teaching kung fu. Kung Fu was his life ,so i'd say those arts must be pretty special.:partyon:

jeff:)
 
OP
7starmantis

7starmantis

Grandmaster
MTS Alumni
Joined
Aug 13, 2002
Messages
5,493
Reaction score
50
Location
East Texas
Darksoul said:
All I know is that I love it, and training is more important to me than historical details. Its one of those situations where the point is to live in the moment, deal with here and now, right in front of you.
Here is the bottom line, Darksoul is correct. Its all about training. I said it before, but the history is of lesser importance to me than training, its interesting, but I stand on my own skill. That is something my sifu is very adamant about, he wants us all to stand on our own kung fu skill, nothing else. Good Post Darksoul.

Fumanchu said:
I did answer your question regarding my training. We do alot of random application work. In terms of forms, the orginal mantis kung fu started off with 3, Bung Bu, Laan Zhaat and 8 elbows. It remained this way for some time. We don't feel the need to make an association with the insect. What advantages do you see in making that association? Let me know if you have nay other questions and i'll try to answer them.
Actually you didn't, you gave some generic statements, but nothing that would help me understand your goals and reasons for training the way you do. I dont mind people having different opinions and beliefs about mantis, as I said, its more important to have good skill to me, but you have the opposite view from every 7 star practitioner I've ever met and yet you dont offer sources for your beliefs, or talk about your lineage, or even name your instructor. Thats fine man, dont get me wrong, but its just hard to really get your side of the view without any of that information.

Where do you get that the "original" mantis had only 3 forms, and that those three were the ones you mentioned? See, I can't discuss with you because without knowing sources and such, I'm just arguing my beliefs against your own personal opinions, and I'm not here trying to change your mind or anything like that, I'm just trying to nail down the truth, like most others, and hearing your side is interesting if I could hear it.

Making the association to the insect in my opinion is important to understand the principles of the system. Alot of the advanced techniques closely mimic the insect. What about the dil sau? Where did that come from? The joint breaks using dil sau and breaking with your forearm are very good techniques, but are very close to the insect. It really makes no difference to me if someone realizes the connection, but in my opinion to grasp and really understand how the system was created to work, and how and why things work the way they do, you need to understand that connection.

Fumanchu said:
With these 3 forms, mantis became famous during the 17 Century. It was only slightly later than Zaho Yao was added, this form means slightly different things to different branches. Some branches summerise the concepts within mantis whereas others summerise the key concepts within other northern systems. That's why i ask you 3 questions, why is it that zaho yao is associated at a beginner level in LKW's website? and what advantages do those other 30+ forms add to the original system? and when were those other forms added?
What are your sources for this? Where are you getting this information? Why do you believe it became famous with those 3 forms in the 17th century? I keep asking for sources because without them, how do you know why you believe the way you do? Is it just something you made up and decided to believe? Without any type of sources it seems that way.

1) You would probably need to contact Lee Kam Wings organization to ask them that question. I simply showed you their list as a reference. I'm sorry its been a long weekend; did we discuss what zaho yao was? I'm not familiar with that form, and its not on LKW's list either.

2) This question is hard to answer since we believe different things. I dont think all these other forms were "un-original" forms. Some yes, but not all of them. Many of the more advanced sets are very core to what mantis is about, without them youre only getting a surface grasp of mantis. The added forms, in my opinion are like saying something in another way to make it easier to understand. I may not quite get the application to a move in a set, but in a different set the same technique may be applied a little different, thus giving me the understanding I needed to really understand it. There are forms that focus on specific points as well, certain types of techniques, those give you training in techniques of different natures. I'm not such a historian that I have even spent alot of time on thinking why the added forms were added, I know they have helped increase my skill level in mantis, kung fu, and martial arts in general, so I enjoy them. If I could explain something to you in 3 or 4 words I wouldn't need 30 plus more, but if you didn't understand from those 4 words, I might need further explanation, right? Same thing with the forms and sets in my opinion.

3) Each form that was added can be traced. We know who added it, and generally when, why would that be important if lineage is of no consequence?

Fumanchu said:
We move from one technique to the next quite naturally when the situation arises. This is attained through our partner training ( this might be what you call jeet leem - i'm not familiar with the chinese translation for most thing) and exercises which improve body co-ordination. Tactics and strategy at a "beginner level" (actually it's more like intermediate kung fu) are derived from Bung Bu.
Maybe. Its sort of like push hands in taiji only with mantis principles and techniques.

RHD said:
As for the Wah Lum sets. I find this very interesting that mantis forms omit certain basics. I think it gives creedence to its origins as a system created by an already experienced fighter who would have known those things and have mastered them already. I may be wrong, but it would lead me to assume that mantis "back in the day" was something taught on the assumption that you already had the basics down. In other words, mantis was designed to "take it to another level". Very cool 7*, thanks for the tidbit. I can't say the same is true for Hung style, but I can say that I've been told over and over again that many of the greatest Southern style fighters of several different systems were Hung first.
Yes, but it can be hard sometimes for beginners especially if they have no martial arts background at all. We start people very slow in our school. The mantis techniques and concepts are very foreign and strange to beginners, they have to learn slow and see the reasons behind everything. Once they see that it works and how well it works, they begin to understand. Hung Gar is one of the systems that really intrigues me. If I were to leave mantis for some reason, hung gar would be my next choice. That or Eagle Claw maybe. Of all the southern styles, hung gar interests me the most; it also looks like one of the most fearsome. I'd love to learn some, and I probably will later on.

RHD said:
What can I say Jeff? I wasn't really following this thread until a couple of days ago...I find this whole idea very interesting. Hmmmm maybe now that I have a good Hung base I should move on
C:%5CDOCUME%7E1%5CCanion%5CLOCALS%7E1%5CTemp%5Cmsohtml1%5C01%5Cclip_image001.gif
Move on to what? What would be something that interests you enough to move on to? I know this, my sifu's sihing now teaches hung gar, and is also a sifu of 7 star under the KFE, and he has been doing hung gar now for many years. I dont think he will ever "move on". Its very interesting to see him combine hung gar with his mantis as well.

7sm
 
R

RHD

Guest
7starmantis said:
Of all the southern styles, hung gar interests me the most; it also looks like one of the most fearsome. I'd love to learn some, and I probably will later on.

Anytime you want to take a field trip to WI...

7starmantis said:
Move on to what? What would be something that interests you enough to move on to? I know this, my sifu's sihing now teaches hung gar, and is also a sifu of 7 star under the KFE, and he has been doing hung gar now for many years. I dont think he will ever "move on". Its very interesting to see him combine hung gar with his mantis as well.

7sm

Not much to choose from around here. I would be interested in some Southern Preying Mantis, Bak Mei, or Lung Ying. Lama sounds cool too, but there's nothing like that around here. Realistically I probably will never switch styles as I am still learning every time I train.

Mike
 
F

Fumanchu

Guest
Quote: "Actually you didn't, you gave some generic statements, but nothing that would help me understand your goals and reasons for training the way you do. I don’t mind people having different opinions and beliefs about mantis, as I said, it’s more important to have good skill to me, but you have the opposite view from every 7 star practitioner I've ever met and yet you don’t offer sources for your beliefs, or talk about your lineage, or even name your instructor. That’s fine man, don’t get me wrong, but it’s just hard to really get your side of the view without any of that information."

Reasons for training is for self-defence of which, mantis as a system is very practical as it doesn’t take a bias between say long or short range, light or heavy opponents, tall or short, striker or grappler. Applying the theory allows oneself to adapt to situations quite seamlessly. So I guess I try to do self-defence that covers a broad range of scenarios using a consistent theory. Does this answer your question? and youself - your motivation behind your training?

Quote: "Where do you get that the "original" mantis had only 3 forms, and that those three were the ones you mentioned? See, I can't discuss with you because without knowing sources and such, I'm just arguing my beliefs against your own personal opinions, and I'm not here trying to change your mind or anything like that, I'm just trying to nail down the truth, like most others, and hearing your side is interesting if I could hear it."


http://www.traditionalmantisboxing.com/id15.htm It say : During this time Liang Xuexiang developed Tanglang Quan theory and authored at least three known boxing manuals. The first was composed during the Xianfeng reign (1851-1862) and entitled "Boxing, Staff and Spear Fencing Manual" (Quan Gun Qiang Pu) and contained essential theory and the names of the three original Praying Mantis forms such as "Crash and Fill In" (Bengbu), "Chaotically Conneted" (Luanjie) also known as "Plum Blossom" (Meihua) and "Separating Body into Eight Elbows" (Fenshen Bazhou)……… The first person to compile a basic comprehensive manuals was Grandmaster Liang Xuexiang. He transmitted all his writings to Jiang Hualong. These contained essential theory and the names of some forms such as "Bengbu", "Luanjie" and "Bazhou"……… Song Zide and Jiang Hualong further developed theory and practice of traditional Tanglang Quan. They are credited with developing such open-hand form as "Plum Blossom Path" (Meihua Lu) which was later adopted by the other styles of Tanglang Quan. Grandmaster Song Zide also created the seventh form of the set called "Essentials" (Zhaiyao) as a combination of Tanglang Quan and "Ground Boxing" (Digong Quan). The seventh form of the"Essentials" (Zhaiyao) is one of the rarest forms and is taught only in its original fashion by Song Zide's grandson Grandmaster Wang Yuanqian

Quote: "Making the association to the insect in my opinion is important to understand the principles of the system. Alot of the advanced techniques closely mimic the insect. What about the dil sau? Where did that come from? The joint breaks using dil sau and breaking with your forearm are very good techniques, but are very close to the insect. It really makes no difference to me if someone realizes the connection, but in my opinion to grasp and really understand how the system was created to work, and how and why things work the way they do, you need to understand that connection."


About dil sau, (I hope this is the movement you’re talking about) is the principal of controlling your opponents elbow with your forearm. This principal and the smoothness of application is found in other northern systems as well - I see a closer relationship to these systems (Tai Chi as an example) as opposed to the movement of the mantis insect. Sure if the opportunity arises in breaking their joint, you can do so. Which advance forms are you referring to and what movements are you associating with the insect?

Quote: "What are your sources for this? Where are you getting this information? Why do you believe it became famous with those 3 forms in the 17th century? I keep asking for sources because without them, how do you know why you believe the way you do? Is it just something you made up and decided to believe? Without any type of sources it seems that way."

Some of the information has been addressed in that web site. (It is not my web site). The web site indicated that it wasn’t until the 5th generation that the original forms were put down on paper in the manual. Practitioners in the early days did not have 30+ forms to become competent fighters. In fact they may not even have zaho yao.

Quote: "1) You would probably need to contact Lee Kam Wings organization to ask them that question. I simply showed you their list as a reference. I'm sorry it’s been a long weekend; did we discuss what zaho yao was? I'm not familiar with that form, and it’s not on LKW's list either."

The name of the form is (Zhaiyao), sorry my bad translation. How does this form fit into your overall training?

Quote: "2) This question is hard to answer since we believe different things. I don’t think all these other forms were "un-original" forms. Some yes, but not all of them. Many of the more advanced sets are very core to what mantis is about, without them you’re only getting a surface grasp of mantis. The added forms, in my opinion are like saying something in another way to make it easier to understand. I may not quite get the application to a move in a set, but in a different set the same technique may be applied a little different, thus giving me the understanding I needed to really understand it. There are forms that focus on specific points as well, certain types of techniques, those give you training in techniques of different natures. I'm not such a historian that I have even spent alot of time on thinking why the added forms were added, I know they have helped increase my skill level in mantis, kung fu, and martial arts in general, so I enjoy them. If I could explain something to you in 3 or 4 words I wouldn't need 30 plus more, but if you didn't understand from those 4 words, I might need further explanation, right? Same thing with the forms and sets in my opinion."

Ok I see where you’re coming from – in terms of having a number of forms covering the same material but written differently. However, doesn’t it mean that if a student gets the material in a particular form, then there isn’t much value going through the same material in a different form. Better to move on with application / partner work? It’s like saying – I’m doing a first year English course at University and there are say 3 recommended text books covering the same topic of which a student needs to purchase 1. I understand some students may take to certain text books better than others, but you do not need to go through all 3. I also understand that each of the 3 text books might cover slightly different things, but that's fine - if you understand the material pertaining to that level of training, should be able to derive applications for the others, instead of having to be shown more applications that cover the same concepts.

Quote: "3) Each form that was added can be traced. We know who added it, and generally when, why would that be important if lineage is of no consequence?"
I had come across material where a number of forms from other styles were included into the mantis system from the branch that came through the Ching Woo association. However I’m not so concerned as to the lineage but as to the reason behind it. If the original system has functioned well with 3 forms, why add another 27+ to the system. To me that could completely become a different system from the original. Unless of course the 27+ forms were is the same material written in a different way, then it would make most of the newer forms optional in one’s training program. Do you see where I’m coming from?
 
OP
7starmantis

7starmantis

Grandmaster
MTS Alumni
Joined
Aug 13, 2002
Messages
5,493
Reaction score
50
Location
East Texas
Fumanchu said:
Reasons for training is for self-defence of which, mantis as a system is very practical as it doesnt take a bias between say long or short range, light or heavy opponents, tall or short, striker or grappler. Applying the theory allows oneself to adapt to situations quite seamlessly. So I guess I try to do self-defence that covers a broad range of scenarios using a consistent theory. Does this answer your question? and youself - your motivation behind your training?
Actually no. I didn't ask what your reasons for training where, I asked the reasons you trained in the manner you do. Why you practice only 4 forms and do not know what jeem leem is or practice fighting in that manner. I understand that we practice different systems, even though we both call ours 7 star mantis. My reasons for training are that kung fu and especially mantis is part of my life. It has been for a long time and will continue to be until I die. My job is even kung fu. I train for pure survival. I train to be the one going home after an altercation, plain and simple. I dont compete anymore because I find it contradictory to my training. Every now and again I'll do a tourney like the US Kung Fu Exchange Tourney in April this year, but just for fun and to support the KFE and Sigung Fogg.

Fumanchu said:
1.) That is an internet site, not something widely accepted as fact or viable source. I would be careful of believing everything I read on the internet. For example, I just read that a pregnant man gave birth in Utah this past week....fact now?

2.) That site gives credit to Wong Long for creating the system from the insect (which you dispute). Albeit quite proposturously it still links the creation of mantis to the insect.

3.) That site is for Taiji Mantis or Plum Blossom mantis which is different from what I study, I would expect there to be differences in their history and beliefs about the system. Its a different system. Is that site what you study?

4.) All of these things are against your point and yet you list it as your source. Why? It doesn't give great allegence to your opinions.

Fumanchu said:
About dil sau, (I hope this is the movement youre talking about) is the principal of controlling your opponents elbow with your forearm. This principal and the smoothness of application is found in other northern systems as well - I see a closer relationship to these systems (Tai Chi as an example) as opposed to the movement of the mantis insect. Sure if the opportunity arises in breaking their joint, you can do so. Which advance forms are you referring to and what movements are you associating with the insect?
No, your refering to Pak Sau. Dil Sau is the "mantis hand" with the fingers in a fist except for the thumb and forefinger. Resembles the "pinchers" of the mantis insect. Its also a quite diverse grab and strike/block. The pak sau does share some resemblanec to taiji, but the dil sau certainly does not. The advanced forms I'm refering to are forms like"Tong Long Chut Dong" and "Mui Fa Kuen" etc...

Fumanchu said:
The name of the form is (Zhaiyao), sorry my bad translation. How does this form fit into your overall training?
I still do not know what that form is. It is not listed on LKW's site as you said, and I do not know what it is. Do you know the translation into english for it?

Fumanchu said:
Ok I see where youre coming from in terms of having a number of forms covering the same material but written differently. However, doesnt it mean that if a student gets the material in a particular form, then there isnt much value going through the same material in a different form. Better to move on with application / partner work? Its like saying Im doing a first year English course at University and there are say 3 recommended text books covering the same topic of which a student needs to purchase 1. I understand some students may take to certain text books better than others, but you do not need to go through all 3. I also understand that each of the 3 text books might cover slightly different things, but that's fine - if you understand the material pertaining to that level of training, should be able to derive applications for the others, instead of having to be shown more applications that cover the same concepts.
Maybe that was a bad example. Some forms have some of the same techinques in them, but not all of them. There are advanced forms that have none of the techniques contained in the three forms you say are "original". Yes, some may have a few things that are similar, does that mean you skip it? If so your really cheating your kung fu training and yourself. Just because one form contains a technique that is in another form is no reason to skip that form, thats ridiculous. We start application and partner work within the first 6 months of a student training with us, that is where you really learn your forms, in jeem leem.

Fumanchu said:
I had come across material where a number of forms from other styles were included into the mantis system from the branch that came through the Ching Woo association. However Im not so concerned as to the lineage but as to the reason behind it. If the original system has functioned well with 3 forms, why add another 27+ to the system. To me that could completely become a different system from the original. Unless of course the 27+ forms were is the same material written in a different way, then it would make most of the newer forms optional in ones training program. Do you see where Im coming from?
I think your not understanding something. If a school that teaches mantis takes in forms from another system, they are not neccessarily adding forms to the mantis system, but adding forms to their school ciriculum. If that were true, my school just added several wah lum forms to the 7 tsar system, its simply not true. It doesn't work that way. The Chin Woo association is a big organization and does some mantis, but thats not all they do. They are a performance focused organization that has some mantis forms in thier cirriculum, nothing more. You still offer no sources that the "original system" had only 3 forms or that it functioned well with them alone. I see where your coming from with that argument, but its from a mistaken understanding of what I was saying. Not all forms are just the same material over again. Those advanced forms I mentioned contain different techniques or applications for techniques that are not in bung bu, or any of those other "original" sets.

7sm
 
F

Fumanchu

Guest
Quote: "Actually no. I didn't ask what your reasons for training where, I asked the reasons you trained in the manner you do. Why you practice only 4 forms and do not know what jeem leem is or practice fighting in that manner. I understand that we practice different systems, even though we both call ours 7 star mantis. My reasons for training are that kung fu and especially mantis is part of my life. It has been for a long time and will continue to be until I die. My job is even kung fu. I train for pure survival. I train to be the one going home after an altercation, plain and simple. I dont compete anymore because I find it contradictory to my training. Every now and again I'll do a tourney like the US Kung Fu Exchange Tourney in April this year, but just for fun and to support the KFE and Sigung Fogg."

Why do we train this way is because we believe that the 4 forms cover the theory behind mantis. The rest is working on application to put the theory into practice. I'm not familiar with chinese names, but our practice includes a lot of partner work and sparring. it does seem that our training objectives are the same.

Quote: "1.) That is an internet site, not something widely accepted as fact or viable source. I would be careful of believing everything I read on the internet. For example, I just read that a pregnant man gave birth in Utah this past week....fact now?
2.) That site gives credit to Wong Long for creating the system from the insect (which you dispute). Albeit quite proposturously it still links the creation of mantis to the insect.
3.) That site is for Taiji Mantis or Plum Blossom mantis which is different from what I study, I would expect there to be differences in their history and beliefs about the system. Its a different system. Is that site what you study?
4.) All of these things are against your point and yet you list it as your source. Why? It doesn't give great allegence to your opinions."

We're working off the internet. And not being a historian, I have not kept hard copies of records that support what I said. Therefore, I hunted around on the internet seeing that you were asking for some support of what I have said. No its not my website. Sure, some parts of the website don't support what I say, especially things about the origin of mantis is quite hazy at best. There areb other parts about running body guard for caraven runs which I had said earlier. As for the original forms, there isn't much distinction between the various branches of mantis such that the material covered would be similar although the order of moves wwould not be identical. There would also be some variation in technique ( examples shown in the form), but this provides the student with the same theory to work with.

Quote: "No, your refering to Pak Sau. Dil Sau is the "mantis hand" with the fingers in a fist except for the thumb and forefinger. Resembles the "pinchers" of the mantis insect. Its also a quite diverse grab and strike/block. The pak sau does share some resemblanec to taiji, but the dil sau certainly does not. The advanced forms I'm refering to are forms like"Tong Long Chut Dong" and "Mui Fa Kuen" etc..."

</FONT>You were referring to breaking. What are you trying to break with the "mantis hook", sure you can use the back of your wrist for a strike - but there isn't enough power to break joints. According to the site - Mui Fa Kuen is another name for Laan Dzeet.

Quote: "I still do not know what that form is. It is not listed on LKW's site as you said, and I do not know what it is. Do you know the translation into english for it?"

The translation into english is "summary". I didn't say that it wasn't on the LKW website. I said that I don't understand why they are doing this form at the beginner's level and then spread out over the course of their training. They concepts are very challenging - I don't think a beginner or intermediate student can get much out of this.

Quote: "Maybe that was a bad example. Some forms have some of the same techinques in them, but not all of them. There are advanced forms that have none of the techniques contained in the three forms you say are "original". Yes, some may have a few things that are similar, does that mean you skip it? If so your really cheating your kung fu training and yourself. Just because one form contains a technique that is in another form is no reason to skip that form, thats ridiculous. We start application and partner work within the first 6 months of a student training with us, that is where you really learn your forms, in jeem leem."

In my training, I don't run into this problem as such. Some times techniques may be similar but in a higher level form, you are getting to this technique from a more challenging position. The body movements is more demanding. Rather than having a glossery of techniqes, we focus more on body movement that gives rise to the class of techniques dealt with in the forms. To me, actual techniques in the forms are examples from the way I move my body. We start application work on the first day of training. This is done at the same time as form work.

Quote: "I think your not understanding something. If a school that teaches mantis takes in forms from another system, they are not neccessarily adding forms to the mantis system, but adding forms to their school ciriculum. If that were true, my school just added several wah lum forms to the 7 tsar system, its simply not true. It doesn't work that way. The Chin Woo association is a big organization and does some mantis, but thats not all they do. They are a performance focused organization that has some mantis forms in thier cirriculum, nothing more. You still offer no sources that the "original system" had only 3 forms or that it functioned well with them alone. I see where your coming from with that argument, but its from a mistaken understanding of what I was saying. Not all forms are just the same material over again. Those advanced forms I mentioned contain different techniques or applications for techniques that are not in bung bu, or any of those other "original" sets."

If you don't conseider internet as a source then there is little I can do. However, you can trace back to the first 3 manuals of the mantis system (as the site referred to). 2 were on weapons and one was on hand to hand combat - which contained 3 forms. Do you know about the original writing on the system? What new material would you be covering after 8 elbows, hard to imagine what's left?
 
OP
7starmantis

7starmantis

Grandmaster
MTS Alumni
Joined
Aug 13, 2002
Messages
5,493
Reaction score
50
Location
East Texas
Fumanchu said:
We're working off the internet. And not being a historian, I have not kept hard copies of records that support what I said. Therefore, I hunted around on the internet seeing that you were asking for some support of what I have said. No its not my website. Sure, some parts of the website don't support what I say, especially things about the origin of mantis is quite hazy at best. There areb other parts about running body guard for caraven runs which I had said earlier. As for the original forms, there isn't much distinction between the various branches of mantis such that the material covered would be similar although the order of moves wwould not be identical. There would also be some variation in technique ( examples shown in the form), but this provides the student with the same theory to work with.
The problem with the internet is there is no real verifiable proof. Anyone who wants to set up a website can, and can put pretty much whatever they want on it. Thats why people usually do not accept a website as a source of facts. There are exceptions, but it has to be a website that offers sources for what they are saying as well. The caravan guard part, we agree on. Youre saying there isn't much distinction between mantis styles so the material would be similar. Thats completely false. Look at Wah Lum vs. 7 star, or Plum Blossom vs. 8 step. The forms, and even concepts are very different. They are different styles using different forms. Bung Bo is only in 7 star. The theories are very different as well. Even between wah lum and 7 star there are some pretty big differences in theory in the advanced level. Look at the lineage between the site you listed and any 7 star school. There are none of the same names; the systems are different in many, many ways. The binding characteristic is the insect. All of the systems originated from the same person and held a connection to the insect.

Fumanchu said:
You were referring to breaking. What are you trying to break with the "mantis hook", sure you can use the back of your wrist for a strike - but there isn't enough power to break joints. According to the site - Mui Fa Kuen is another name for Laan Dzeet.
Yes, breaking. "Mantis catches cicada" position is grabbing of someones wrist with a dil sau and following up with a break on the elbow with your other hand also in dil sau. The break comes from the forearm, the fleshy/muscle or the forearm. Its a lever action, pulling with one hand while breaking with the other. As to the back of the wrist, there is plenty power to break a joint with it, if the joint is exposed. Although many other types of strikes would suffice. According to what site is Mui Fa Kuen another names for Laan Dzeet? Not on LKW site.

Fumanchu said:
The translation into english is "summary". I didn't say that it wasn't on the LKW website. I said that I don't understand why they are doing this form at the beginner's level and then spread out over the course of their training. They concepts are very challenging - I don't think a beginner or intermediate student can get much out of this.
See this is getting all mixed up. You said it was on LKW's site, I'm saying it wasn't. Its funny that you say a beginner or intermediate student couldn't get much out of it and yet Lee Kam Wing is basically accepted as the successor (arguable) to the 7 star mantis system. But I see your point, hence the reason we teach wah lum forms for our beginning students. Even our intermediate students only learn one 7 star form, the other few are wah lum. Remember mantis was created by an advanced martial artist for advanced martial artists to combat other advanced martial artists.


Fumanchu said:
If you don't conseider internet as a source then there is little I can do. However, you can trace back to the first 3 manuals of the mantis system (as the site referred to). 2 were on weapons and one was on hand to hand combat - which contained 3 forms. Do you know about the original writing on the system? What new material would you be covering after 8 elbows, hard to imagine what's left?
Then I guess there is little we can do. You refuse to acknowledge your teacher or lineage, you refuse to support your beliefs with facts or at least sources where you came up with your beliefs. This website is what made you come up with what you believe about mantis? I doubt it. You wont let us in on what you used to create your beliefs. I'm really not interested in going back and researching the "original manuals", I'd rather spend that time training. I guess it boils down to evolution. There have been forms added over the years by people, in my eyes this is proof of an alive, evolving system that continues to "continually change to break down its opponent". In your eyes, its unnecessary, unimportant. The few forms that have been added are very well worth adding in, again these are forms that were added by someone for there curriculum, you can't really change the original system, you can add to it. However, I just dont see that the original system had only those 3 forms you speak of, its incomprehensible to me. Hard to imagine whats left? How many internal strikes do you know from your forms? None, they aren't until "Da Goon". Is that something that was added to the system too? There are techniques that regardless of what you believe about their origin, are important to the system and to learning and applying mantis in a real life situation. The list goes on.

7sm
 
F

Fumanchu

Guest
Quote: "The problem with the internet is there is no real verifiable proof. Anyone who wants to set up a website can, and can put pretty much whatever they want on it. That&#8217;s why people usually do not accept a website as a source of facts. There are exceptions, but it has to be a website that offers sources for what they are saying as well. The caravan guard part, we agree on. You&#8217;re saying there isn't much distinction between mantis styles so the material would be similar. That&#8217;s completely false. Look at Wah Lum vs. 7 star, or Plum Blossom vs. 8 step. The forms, and even concepts are very different. They are different styles using different forms. Bung Bo is only in 7 star. The theories are very different as well. Even between wah lum and 7 star there are some pretty big differences in theory in the advanced level. Look at the lineage between the site you listed and any 7 star school. There are none of the same names; the systems are different in many, many ways. The binding characteristic is the insect. All of the systems originated from the same person and held a connection to the insect."

There are a couple of students who have done Plum Blossom in the class and they say that there are some differences in the way you work your way into your opponent. But it is essentially mantis, not entirely different. They feel some benefit in working on Plum Blossom, but it&#8217;s not like learning a whole new set of material again. Other mantis systems also have Bung Bu. Definitely the case in Tai Chi mantis. 8-step and 6-Harmonies combines. I think tong bei and Hsing I respectively. No matter how you wish to slice and dice it, the 2 cousin systems are related to mantis in any case. For example in 6 Harmonies, they don&#8217;t form the full dil-sau action , but in application wise it works the same way, the dil sau as the result of the follow through in the non committed grabbing action. The originators of these other strains of mantis have emphasised some features more than others, but essentially there isn&#8217;t much different.

Quote "Yes, breaking. "Mantis catches cicada" position is grabbing of someone&#8217;s wrist with a dil sau and following up with a break on the elbow with your other hand also in dil sau. The break comes from the forearm, the fleshy/muscle or the forearm. It&#8217;s a lever action, pulling with one hand while breaking with the other. As to the back of the wrist, there is plenty power to break a joint with it, if the joint is exposed. Although many other types of strikes would suffice. According to what site is Mui Fa Kuen another names for Laan Dzeet? Not on LKW site."

Breaking / controlling with the forearm need not be done with the formation of a dil sau action. Yes from a dil sau grab, you can slip into a wrist lock and depending on the situation you can break a wrist. As for striking with the back of the wrist, it&#8217;s intended as a last minuite action and not something you plan in advance. It&#8217;s more of a quick strike to save yourself and move on as opposed to a joint break. As for Mui Far Kuen &#8211; it is No. 14 on the list in LKW&#8217;s site.

Quote: See this is getting all mixed up. You said it was on LKW's site, I'm saying it wasn't. It&#8217;s funny that you say a beginner or intermediate student couldn't get much out of it and yet Lee Kam Wing is basically accepted as the successor (arguable) to the 7 star mantis system. But I see your point, hence the reason we teach wah lum forms for our beginning students. Even our intermediate students only learn one 7 star form, the other few are wah lum. Remember mantis was created by an advanced martial artist for advanced martial artists to combat other advanced martial artists.

No not really, go to LKW&#8217;s form list and count down to Number. 8,21,23, and 31 in the list. I know mantis is not a beginner system but it still begs the question as to how a student can start learning the form at a beginner level (in relation to the overall system). Regardless of LKW&#8217;s ranking, I&#8217;m trying to see the logic behind this as opposed to the title of a person.

Quote: "Then I guess there is little we can do. You refuse to acknowledge your teacher or lineage, you refuse to support your beliefs with facts or at least sources where you came up with your beliefs. This website is what made you come up with what you believe about mantis? I doubt it. You won&#8217;t let us in on what you used to create your beliefs. I'm really not interested in going back and researching the "original manuals", I'd rather spend that time training. I guess it boils down to evolution. There have been forms added over the years by people, in my eyes this is proof of an alive, evolving system that continues to "continually change to break down its opponent". In your eyes, it&#8217;s unnecessary, unimportant. The few forms that have been added are very well worth adding in, again these are forms that were added by someone for there curriculum, you can't really change the original system, you can add to it. However, I just don&#8217;t see that the original system had only those 3 forms you speak of, it&#8217;s incomprehensible to me. Hard to imagine what&#8217;s left? How many internal strikes do you know from your forms? None, they aren't until "Da Goon". Is that something that was added to the system too? There are techniques that regardless of what you believe about their origin, are important to the system and to learning and applying mantis in a real life situation. The list goes on."

The website was not the basis of my beliefs. You had asked for other evidence so I hunted around and found some for you. It does look like neither one of us is an historian, I also won&#8217;t know where to find the reprints of the original documents &#8211; even if I do, I would need someone to translate it into English. Certain parts of the body are more vulnerable than others, yes we learn to set up to hit the more vulnerable zones that can cause temporary trauma to the body. We learn that from Bung Bu but as we get higher we can reach these zones from more angles. Is that what you mean by internal strikes?
 
OP
7starmantis

7starmantis

Grandmaster
MTS Alumni
Joined
Aug 13, 2002
Messages
5,493
Reaction score
50
Location
East Texas
Fumanchu said:
There are a couple of students who have done Plum Blossom in the class and they say that there are some differences in the way you work your way into your opponent. But it is essentially mantis, not entirely different. They feel some benefit in working on Plum Blossom, but its not like learning a whole new set of material again. Other mantis systems also have Bung Bu. Definitely the case in Tai Chi mantis. 8-step and 6-Harmonies combines. I think tong bei and Hsing I respectively. No matter how you wish to slice and dice it, the 2 cousin systems are related to mantis in any case. For example in 6 Harmonies, they dont form the full dil-sau action , but in application wise it works the same way, the dil sau as the result of the follow through in the non committed grabbing action. The originators of these other strains of mantis have emphasised some features more than others, but essentially there isnt much different.
Yes, no one is denying that all the mantis styles are essentially mantis, I am saying there are some conceptual differences like you said about working your way into your opponent. This being the case, the different styles seem to have different beliefs of the creation and spreading of mantis. Well, I'll say this, no matter how you slice and dice it, the mantis systems are related to the insect as well. Do you believe the same way about tiger, and eagle claw and such? That the names of the animals were given after the systems were created?

Fumanchu said:
Breaking / controlling with the forearm need not be done with the formation of a dil sau action. Yes from a dil sau grab, you can slip into a wrist lock and depending on the situation you can break a wrist. As for striking with the back of the wrist, its intended as a last minuite action and not something you plan in advance. Its more of a quick strike to save yourself and move on as opposed to a joint break. As for Mui Far Kuen it is No. 14 on the list in LKWs site.
Your correct, there are many forearm locks and breaks without the dil sau, but the one I was speaking of is using the "backside" of the forearm, the actual brachio-radialis muscle. This is a break that requires you to flex that muscle, and coincidentally, the flexing of that muscle requires a downward flex of the wrist.....dil sau. Anything can be done another way and not using the dil sau is possible, but that is what makes it mantis, and that is the connection to the insect we were talking about. As far as last minute strikes and not planned strikes. Nothing you do should be planned in advance. Everything should be decided upon by your opponent. If youre planning a particular strike, youre forcing it and thus giving your opponent an opportunity to feel that and use it against you. Everything should be a last minute strike, decided upon by your body, from feeling and "listening" to your opponents movements. Everything is a quick action then moving on to something else. Anything else is contrary to mantis principles. And no you are incorrect about Mui Fa Kuen, your looking at mui fa lok (mui far lo kuen #14) which is a different form. Mui Fa Kuen is more like #34 or so on his list.

Fumanchu said:
No not really, go to LKWs form list and count down to Number. 8,21,23, and 31 in the list. I know mantis is not a beginner system but it still begs the question as to how a student can start learning the form at a beginner level (in relation to the overall system). Regardless of LKWs ranking, Im trying to see the logic behind this as opposed to the title of a person.
The question has already been answered by yourself and by me and we pretty much agree. I said that we teach wah lum to our beginner students to combat this. It gets them in shape, gets them used to moving with mantis techniques, and sets them up to start learning the "beginning" 7 star forms. What logic are you failing to see? That the 4 routines are separated into 4 forms? Why is that a problem? I have a hard time believing that your routine set is really a combination of all 4 of these forms. Its probably something a little different. To combine all four of those sets into one would be a very long set. It could be done, just very long.

Fumanchu said:
The website was not the basis of my beliefs. You had asked for other evidence so I hunted around and found some for you. It does look like neither one of us is an historian, I also wont know where to find the reprints of the original documents even if I do, I would need someone to translate it into English.
I think we are approaching a stand still. I did not ask for other evidence, I asked for your specific sources. I dont think that website had anything to do with your forming your opinions, did it? Do you have a website, or your school have a website? Evidentially you didn't use the original documents as your sources either, since you said you would have to search for them and then translate them. What I was asking was the specific info you yourself used to make your opinions. If you dont want to answer that question, just say so, its cool.

Fumanchu said:
Certain parts of the body are more vulnerable than others, yes we learn to set up to hit the more vulnerable zones that can cause temporary trauma to the body. We learn that from Bung Bu but as we get higher we can reach these zones from more angles. Is that what you mean by internal strikes?
Not at all.

7sm
 
OP
7starmantis

7starmantis

Grandmaster
MTS Alumni
Joined
Aug 13, 2002
Messages
5,493
Reaction score
50
Location
East Texas
Fumanchu, I do have a few questions. What about stance work? Do you spend much time on training in stances? What about horse stance? Do you spend much time sitting in horse stance by itself?

Just curious,
7sm
 
F

Fumanchu

Guest
Quote: "Yes, no one is denying that all the mantis styles are essentially mantis, I am saying there are some conceptual differences like you said about working your way into your opponent. This being the case, the different styles seem to have different beliefs of the creation and spreading of mantis. Well, I'll say this, no matter how you slice and dice it, the mantis systems are related to the insect as well. Do you believe the same way about tiger, and eagle claw and such? That the names of the animals were given after the systems were created?"

I guess we&#8217;re talking about the size of the difference. To put the differences into perspective, there is a greater variation between players then there is between systems. Yes, I agree in the differences in beliefs about the system&#8217;s creation, there is also variation in beliefs (of creation) within the same style. As a result, I don&#8217;t try to relate the systems to the insect. Correlating the system with other northern systems seem a more practical approach. I have not seen or tried out tiger or eagle claw to comment. From what I&#8217;ve read, eagle claw was developed prior to mantis. Questions I like to consider is &#8211; relationship between eagle claw and long fist? And did eagle claw make use of the tai chi type ideas (or those of later northern systems) in controlling an opponent? If not then what circumstances led to the change in strategy? Or rather, why did eagle claw emphasise so much on the committed grab - as application would suggest that it is not easy grabbing this way?

Quote: "Your correct, there are many forearm locks and breaks without the dil sau, but the one I was speaking of is using the "backside" of the forearm, the actual brachio-radialis muscle. This is a break that requires you to flex that muscle, and coincidentally, the flexing of that muscle requires a downward flex of the wrist.....dil sau. Anything can be done another way and not using the dil sau is possible, but that is what makes it mantis, and that is the connection to the insect we were talking about."

That movement is just a way of increasing the speed of bringing out the elbow. With some healthy imagination, some people thought that it looked like a mantis that&#8217;s all. You can also derive the same speed by flexing the wrist back to drive the elbow forward. Both movements are used by the system. Doesn&#8217;t make sense to name the system by one move instead of the other.

Quote: "As far as last minute strikes and not planned strikes. Nothing you do should be planned in advance. Everything should be decided upon by your opponent. If you&#8217;re planning a particular strike, you&#8217;re forcing it and thus giving your opponent an opportunity to feel that and use it against you. Everything should be a last minute strike, decided upon by your body, from feeling and "listening" to your opponent&#8217;s movements. Everything is a quick action then moving on to something else. Anything else is contrary to mantis principles."

Yes I agree that strikes should not be planned. I think I chose the wrong wording, the dil sau strikes are usually associated with a change in your intended strategy. Although you don&#8217;t plan a particular strike, you should have a strategy in getting your opponent to move the way you want him to.

Quote: "And no you are incorrect about Mui Fa Kuen, your looking at mui fa lok (mui far lo kuen #14) which is a different form. Mui Fa Kuen is more like #34 or so on his list. "

Ok, in that case Laan Dzeet (Mui Fa Kuen) is considered to be a fairly advance form given that it is this far down the list. I agree the body movements are very demanding.

Quote: " The question has already been answered by yourself and by me and we pretty much agree. I said that we teach wah lum to our beginner students to combat this. It gets them in shape, gets them used to moving with mantis techniques, and sets them up to start learning the "beginning" 7 star forms. What logic are you failing to see? That the 4 routines are separated into 4 forms? Why is that a problem? I have a hard time believing that your routine set is really a combination of all 4 of these forms. It&#8217;s probably something a little different. To combine all four of those sets into one would be a very long set. It could be done, just very long."

Yes I know and agree that mantis is not a beginner system. We learn long fist prior to mantis. Nonetheless, we don&#8217;t learn that ZY form at bung bu level, because it is too advanced for a Bung Bu student. No the ZY routine that we do is fairly short. It is one routine instead of 4. However, the ZY routine in say Tai Chi Mantis (I think) is very long. Why? because some branches of mantis take ZY as a summary of the main ideas of northern systems in general as opposed to being a summary of just the mantis system. How did this occur..... basically, kung fu ppl have friends, they cross train and exchange ideas.... such that in some cases the "summary form" is a compilation of those ideas expressed in techniques.

Quote: " I think we are approaching a stand still. I did not ask for other evidence, I asked for your specific sources. I don&#8217;t think that website had anything to do with your forming your opinions, did it? Do you have a website, or your school have a website? Evidentially you didn't use the original documents as your sources either, since you said you would have to search for them and then translate them. What I was asking was the specific info you yourself used to make your opinions. If you don&#8217;t want to answer that question, just say so, its cool. "

Unfortunately I don&#8217;t have a website and neither does the school I train in. You&#8217;re right I didn&#8217;t use the original documents. It&#8217;s not like I don&#8217;t want to give you specific info, I just don&#8217;t have the info with me.

Quote: "Not at all."

What do you consider internal strike?

Quote: "Fumanchu, I do have a few questions. What about stance work? Do you spend much time on training in stances? What about horse stance? Do you spend much time sitting in horse stance by itself?"

Yes, we spend quite a lot of time training static stances as well as applying them for lower body control of our partner. Yes we train in the horse stance as well as moving from that position to other stances and returning to the horse stance. And yourself?
 
OP
7starmantis

7starmantis

Grandmaster
MTS Alumni
Joined
Aug 13, 2002
Messages
5,493
Reaction score
50
Location
East Texas
Fumanchu said:
I guess were talking about the size of the difference. To put the differences into perspective, there is a greater variation between players then there is between systems. Yes, I agree in the differences in beliefs about the systems creation, there is also variation in beliefs (of creation) within the same style. As a result, I dont try to relate the systems to the insect. Correlating the system with other northern systems seem a more practical approach. I have not seen or tried out tiger or eagle claw to comment. From what Ive read, eagle claw was developed prior to mantis. Questions I like to consider is relationship between eagle claw and long fist? And did eagle claw make use of the tai chi type ideas (or those of later northern systems) in controlling an opponent? If not then what circumstances led to the change in strategy? Or rather, why did eagle claw emphasise so much on the committed grab - as application would suggest that it is not easy grabbing this way?
Thats absurd. To say there is more differences between me and my training partner (sihing) than there are between what you and I study? Simply not the case. I've never found a mantis person who doesn't relate the creation of their system to the insect, before you that is. Correlating to other northern systems is more practical in what way? Practical to what? Eagle claw was developed before mantis, and mantis and taiji at the same time, so eagle claw is a much older system than tai chi? What answers or information are you looking for by asking those questions? What is the point of asking about eagle claw and relationship to long fist? How could eagle claw make use of tai chi ideas if its older than tai chi itself? What application proves grabbing with the hold hand is harder than any other type of grab?

Fumanchu said:
That movement is just a way of increasing the speed of bringing out the elbow. With some healthy imagination, some people thought that it looked like a mantis thats all. You can also derive the same speed by flexing the wrist back to drive the elbow forward. Both movements are used by the system. Doesnt make sense to name the system by one move instead of the other.
No, actually in that move I described, the elbow is not used and is not needing to be "out". So the dil sau is what people used to name the system "mantis"? Explain how to achieve a break by flexing the wrist back? Flexing your wrist backwards is opening up your hands and allowing a great chin na or wrist break. Why would you flex your wrist backwards at all? I dont think I understand that at all. I'm sitting here trying it and I dont see an application at all for it. The dil sau flexes the muscle of the forearm thus providing the breaking point. Now, you said it yourself, it makes no sense naming the system after one move, so why do you still believe that is what they did? Youre contradicting yourself.

Fumanchu said:
Yes I agree that strikes should not be planned. I think I chose the wrong wording, the dil sau strikes are usually associated with a change in your intended strategy. Although you dont plan a particular strike, you should have a strategy in getting your opponent to move the way you want him to.
Having a strategy in getting your opponent to move the way you want them to goes against the core concepts and principles of the mantis system as well. You should have enough feel to sense your opponents movement, thus creating your technique, not the other way around.

Fumanchu said:
Ok, in that case Laan Dzeet (Mui Fa Kuen) is considered to be a fairly advance form given that it is this far down the list. I agree the body movements are very demanding.
Again, Laan Dzeet and Mui Fa Kuen are completely different sets.

Fumanchu said:
Unfortunately I dont have a website and neither does the school I train in. Youre right I didnt use the original documents. Its not like I dont want to give you specific info, I just dont have the info with me.
You dont have to show me the actual info, just tell us what info you used. You still refuse to do so.

Fumanchu said:
What do you consider internal strike?
I dont train by choosing what I think fits a certain box and then calling it that. I dont pretend to have the knowledge or skill to do so. An internal strike is a huge technique in tai chi; I thought you would know of it. Its used in 7 star normally right after a break or lock and is usually aimed around the ribs, stomach, chest, duntien, etc. Its not to break or bruise, but it moves the opponent by moving their center and also damaging internal organs. Its hard to explain.

Fumanchu said:
Yes, we spend quite a lot of time training static stances as well as applying them for lower body control of our partner. Yes we train in the horse stance as well as moving from that position to other stances and returning to the horse stance. And yourself?
Yeah, we do alot of stance work, more moving in and out, and from stance to stance...the transition is the important part. We also do horse stance, in fact we have to hold it for different lengths of time as we progress. Just curious as to if you included that in your training. How long have you been training?

7sm
 
F

Fumanchu

Guest
Quote: "That&#8217;s absurd. To say there is more differences between me and my training partner (sihing) than there are between what you and I study? Simply not the case."

I think the build of a person is more important in terms of dictating how mantis is being used rather than the branch he trains in. If your students movements are to mirror the instructor then I think your students are not optimising the system to suit them as an individual.

Quote: "I've never found a mantis person who doesn't relate the creation of their system to the insect, before you that is. Correlating to other northern systems is more practical in what way? Practical to what? Eagle claw was developed before mantis, and mantis and taiji at the same time, so eagle claw is a much older system than tai chi? What answers or information are you looking for by asking those questions? What is the point of asking about eagle claw and relationship to long fist? How could eagle claw make use of tai chi ideas if it&#8217;s older than tai chi itself? What application proves grabbing with the hold hand is harder than any other type of grab?"

There&#8217;s always a first for everything - can you see the logic behind what I'm saying? The practical reason I though would have been apparent. It&#8217;s a matter of getting a better understanding of how things work. For example you have a steam engine that makes electricity and a nuclear reactor, you would want to find the common principals given that they have the same objective. As for tai chi and eagle claw, some of the principals of controlling an opponent may be evident before it became tai chi. I look at people who do wrestling or BJJ, they don&#8217;t instantly reach in for a grab, they use their palm&#8217;s forearm and body to position their opponent. Ok what they do is not called tai chi, but the objectives are similar and so is the body mechanics. Hence my question on eagle claw. I wonder is it really an emphasis on the actual claw? All applications against a non-cooperating partner would show that grabbing with 5 fingers is much harder to pull off than the mantis non-committal grab &#8211; just try it.

Quote:" No, actually in that move I described, the elbow is not used and is not needing to be "out". So the dil sau is what people used to name the system "mantis"? Explain how to achieve a break by flexing the wrist back? Flexing your wrist backwards is opening up your hands and allowing a great chin na or wrist break. Why would you flex your wrist backwards at all? I don&#8217;t think I understand that at all. I'm sitting here trying it and I don&#8217;t see an application at all for it. The dil sau flexes the muscle of the forearm thus providing the breaking point. Now, you said it yourself, it makes no sense naming the system after one move, so why do you still believe that is what they did? You&#8217;re contradicting yourself."
By flexing the dil sau this way will move the elbow out in the same way as flexing the wrist backwards. You can say in both instances your wrist joints would be vulnerable &#8211; but by that point, your opponent wouldn&#8217;t be in a position to grab and do a joint lock on to you. If you are in position to break an opponent&#8217;s arm, you would almost have total control over your opponent. I don&#8217;t think dil sau is the centre piece of mantis or that the inventor(s) built a system around dil sau which came about from observing an insect. Some people may have called it mantis because it vagely resembles that insect as an after thought that sounds quite cool. But I think this is about as far as it goes.

Quote: "Having a strategy in getting your opponent to move the way you want them to goes against the core concepts and principles of the mantis system as well. You should have enough feel to sense your opponent&#8217;s movement, thus creating your technique, not the other way around."

No it&#8217;s not, you don&#8217;t go into battle without a plan. In a battle, there is the strategic and the tactical level. You see someone with broad shoulders top heavy and gauging from the way he walks, I&#8217;m sure you would take that knowledge into consideration before the &#8216;shooting&#8217; starts.

Quote: "Again, Laan Dzeet and Mui Fa Kuen are completely different sets."

From the other web-site it says that both names are interchangable. It may be a matter of opinion. But I&#8217;ll be surprised if a school doesn&#8217;t cover the concepts of Laan Dzeet in some form or other. My question is at what level in the list of forms.

Quote: "You don&#8217;t have to show me the actual info, just tell us what info you used. You still refuse to do so."

It&#8217;s not that I refuse to. I don&#8217;t remember. Like I said I haven&#8217;t kept records. If I knew we would be having this conversation I might have :)

Quote: "I don&#8217;t train by choosing what I think fits a certain box and then calling it that. I don&#8217;t pretend to have the knowledge or skill to do so. An internal strike is a huge technique in tai chi; I thought you would know of it. It&#8217;s used in 7 star normally right after a break or lock and is usually aimed around the ribs, stomach, chest, duntien, etc. It&#8217;s not to break or bruise, but it moves the opponent by moving their center and also damaging internal organs. It&#8217;s hard to explain."

I see what you mean. Moving someone&#8217;s centre as well as opening up hits that may or may not include breaking something first is taught right from long fist applications. I don&#8217;t consider this as an advance objective although one&#8217;s proficiency improves with training.
Quote: "Yeah, we do alot of stance work, more moving in and out, and from stance to stance...the transition is the important part. We also do horse stance, in fact we have to hold it for different lengths of time as we progress. Just curious as to if you included that in your training. How long have you been training?"

Yes, stance work is important and I&#8217;ve been training for 4.5 yrs. How about you?
 
OP
7starmantis

7starmantis

Grandmaster
MTS Alumni
Joined
Aug 13, 2002
Messages
5,493
Reaction score
50
Location
East Texas
Fumanchu said:
I think the build of a person is more important in terms of dictating how mantis is being used rather than the branch he trains in. If your students movements are to mirror the instructor then I think your students are not optimising the system to suit them as an individual.
I guess thats a matter of opinion, but the differences in concept and theory between mantis systems is quite large compared to the differences in the way I do a certain technique as compared to my sihing who is 5 inches shorter than myself. With my sihing and I, we are both trying to achieve the same thing. With me and a person from another style (me & you for example) we are not even trying to accomplish the same thing. The mere nature of practicing differently is going to show those differences.

Fumanchu said:
Theres always a first for everything - can you see the logic behind what I'm saying? The practical reason I though would have been apparent. Its a matter of getting a better understanding of how things work. For example you have a steam engine that makes electricity and a nuclear reactor, you would want to find the common principals given that they have the same objective. As for tai chi and eagle claw, some of the principals of controlling an opponent may be evident before it became tai chi. I look at people who do wrestling or BJJ, they dont instantly reach in for a grab, they use their palms forearm and body to position their opponent. Ok what they do is not called tai chi, but the objectives are similar and so is the body mechanics. Hence my question on eagle claw. I wonder is it really an emphasis on the actual claw? All applications against a non-cooperating partner would show that grabbing with 5 fingers is much harder to pull off than the mantis non-committal grab just try it.
There is a first for everything, but no I dont see your logic behind it. You said that the name mantis was given after seeing the dil sau, then said it was ridiculous to assume a whole system was named after one technique. That would mean mantis was not named for the dil sau and you would be incorrect. If your incorrect about how mantis received its name, then the only other option is that it was related to the insect. I think I see where your going with the relating everything to tai chi, but shouldn't you be relating everythign to eagle claw, since you believe it was created first? Your using visibal, body techniques to classify systems together. The intent of BJJ and Taiji are different. How mnay BJJ practitioners do you know that refuse to lift weights or do strength training? How many Taiji? See, there are fundamental differences to the intentions and concepts of the systems. To classify everything as relating to tai chi is incorrect. Taiji doesn't aim to control the opponent as much as refuse to accept the opponents attack. On the surface it seems that taiji is seeking to control the center of the opponent, but at deeper understanding, it is seeking to disrupt the opponents control over their own center, not neccessarily take control themselves. In catching someone's center, your not attempting to hold control over "it", but keep them from having control themselves. That is what causes the lack of balance that allows you to throw, strike, or attack in any way. If the intent was to hold control, you wouldn't need to follow up with an attack at all.

As to the 5 finger grab, I have tried it, we do many eagle claw type grabs in the mantis system, and to be honest they are much more "natural" than 3 or 4 finger grabs. There is simply a different intent in the types of grabs. The dil sau type grab is for plucking so you can release into an attack, or for "dragging" your opponents punch. The full grab is used for more controling intent, locks, breaks, even some plucks. Its based on feel. Your quick release isn't so much planned out before hand as it is feeling your opponent resisting your grab, then you can release quickly and normally get an open attack. What are you classifying as the "mantis non-commital grab"?

Fumanchu said:
By flexing the dil sau this way will move the elbow out in the same way as flexing the wrist backwards. You can say in both instances your wrist joints would be vulnerable but by that point, your opponent wouldnt be in a position to grab and do a joint lock on to you. If you are in position to break an opponents arm, you would almost have total control over your opponent. I dont think dil sau is the centre piece of mantis or that the inventor(s) built a system around dil sau which came about from observing an insect. Some people may have called it mantis because it vagely resembles that insect as an after thought that sounds quite cool. But I think this is about as far as it goes.
Ok, we must be mis-understanding each other. What do you mean by flexing the wrist backwards? Imagine a waiter carrying a serving tray. The hand is open, the fingers pointing towards the body, the palm is up. That is a backwards wrist flex from dil sau. The only application I see to that is if you are allready in a wrist lock which is flexing your wrist backwards, you could then yield inside and use your elbow to strike, but it would be very hard to pull off. Now, that same movement, with the palm facing the ground and closed in a fist is different, that is used in mantis, but its a different break from the dil sau. The dil sau is a horizontal break, while that break would be a verticle one (coming from underneath). Another thing is that to have total control over your opponent is to win the fight. At that point, why would you do a break? Most techniques do not require total control of your opponent, not at all. When I do an elbow break for example, the other arm, torso, both legs, are all still not in my control. Now I have disrupted the opponents center or balance most likely, but that doesn't not equate to me being in total control of my opponent. If I'm in total control of my opponent, I can just hold them there until they decide to give up, thats a win in my book.

No one said dil sau was the center piece of mantis, and I think your right, the "inventor(s)" didn't build a system around the dil sau. Whats your point? If thats the case, they must have built the system around something else....what? What would lend all these techniques to resembling the mantis insect? What could they have built the system around that still gave all the mantis type techniques? And why dont other systems have these mantis like techniques, if they weren't related to the insect? No other systems use the dil sau, why not? Take Tai Chi for example. If you say they came about at the same time and mantis was not created from the insect, why doesn't tai chi have some of the "mantis" moves? It seems to me that people with equal skill levels at the same general region at the same general time could both see the application in a mantis technique, why dont they use it as well?

Fumanchu said:
No its not, you dont go into battle without a plan. In a battle, there is the strategic and the tactical level. You see someone with broad shoulders top heavy and gauging from the way he walks, Im sure you would take that knowledge into consideration before the shooting starts.
Are we talking sparring here or pure self defense street application? If your attacked from behind, or from a blind spot, what do you do to get the time to figure out your strategy or measure up your opponent? Ask for a time out? At that point it has to be about pure reaction and "listening" to your opponents intent. If I have good feel I can still get the jump on him/her. Now, if we both agree that situation could happen in one of our lifetimes, then we must agree that training for it is a smart idea. If that is a good idea, then we must spend time learning those techniques or principles used in that situation. If we must learn those principles and techniques, why would we spend time on opposing principles or techniques? Not to be cheesy and quote Bruce Lee but, " Any technique, however worthy and desirable, becomes a disease when the mind is obsessed with it". To think of the outcome can loose you the fight without one punch being thrown.

Fumanchu said:
From the other web-site it says that both names are interchangable. It may be a matter of opinion. But Ill be surprised if a school doesnt cover the concepts of Laan Dzeet in some form or other. My question is at what level in the list of forms.
What website? I know both forms, laan dzeet and mui fa kuen. How can they be the same then? What does it matter what level in the list laan dzeet or any form is? Laan dzeet is normally an intermediate level form I believe.

Fumanchu said:
Its not that I refuse to. I dont remember. Like I said I havent kept records. If I knew we would be having this conversation I might have :)
So you dont know why you believe this way, its just allways been so?

Fumanchu said:
Yes, stance work is important and Ive been training for 4.5 yrs. How about you?
I've been doing CMA since I was 7, but at this school for about 4 years now. I took some time off in college and such. I've studied a couple different systems.

7sm
 
F

Fumanchu

Guest
Quote: "There is a first for everything, but no I dont see your logic behind it. You said that the name mantis was given after seeing the dil sau, then said it was ridiculous to assume a whole system was named after one technique. That would mean mantis was not named for the dil sau and you would be incorrect. If your incorrect about how mantis received its name, then the only other option is that it was related to the insect."

I&#8217;m going by stories that the dil sau position looks like the insect. Whether it does or doesn&#8217;t look like the insect is debatable depending on which impressionist artist you speak to. What I&#8217;m saying is that the relationship between the system and the name have no practical significance. A bit like saying I play for the Chicargo Bulls. There&#8217;s no relationship to the animal, it&#8217;s just a name / mascot to go by.

Quote: "I think I see where your going with the relating everything to tai chi, but shouldn't you be relating everythign to eagle claw, since you believe it was created first? Your using visibal, body techniques to classify systems together."

The reason why I try to relate it to tai chi is because the smothering hands / arms in tai chi seeks to control an opponent and it&#8217;s very useful to do this in setting up a grab. In most cases (as in the wrestling example I&#8217;d pointed out), it is a precursor to a grab. This raises an obvious question as to whether eagle claw used the same principals as well. If not then why? Is it because the system was used by soldiers in armour which limited their movement &#8211; I don&#8217;t know, I&#8217;m open to suggestions?

Quote: "The intent of BJJ and Taiji are different. How mnay BJJ practitioners do you know that refuse to lift weights or do strength training? How many Taiji? See, there are fundamental differences to the intentions and concepts of the systems. To classify everything as relating to tai chi is incorrect. Taiji doesn't aim to control the opponent as much as refuse to accept the opponents attack."

Why would BJJ players refuse to lift weights as part of training? Tai Chi players will benefit from doing strength training just the same. Both systems try to apply the best leverage &#8211; which includes controlling an opponent&#8217;s centre. An extra bit of bulk and strength might be what it takes to tilt the balance in your favour. Of refusing to accept attack, Tai Chi is just as aggressive as any other Northern Kung fu style that I&#8217;d mention. I agree if you apply the rules and environment of a ring combat, intention changes somewhat &#8211; such as willingness to go to the ground.

Quote: " On the surface it seems that taiji is seeking to control the center of the opponent, but at deeper understanding, it is seeking to disrupt the opponents control over their own center, not neccessarily take control themselves. In catching someone's center, your not attempting to hold control over "it", but keep them from having control themselves. That is what causes the lack of balance that allows you to throw, strike, or attack in any way. If the intent was to hold control, you wouldn't need to follow up with an attack at all."

Whether you control an opponent&#8217;s centre or cause him to lose control is like saying the cup is half empty or half full. Same thing. That&#8217;s what players do in wrestling or other grappling systems, keeping you opponent off centre and in some cases strikes are acceptable.

Quote: "As to the 5 finger grab, I have tried it, we do many eagle claw type grabs in the mantis system, and to be honest they are much more "natural" than 3 or 4 finger grabs. There is simply a different intent in the types of grabs. The dil sau type grab is for plucking so you can release into an attack, or for "dragging" your opponents punch. The full grab is used for more controling intent, locks, breaks, even some plucks. Its based on feel. Your quick release isn't so much planned out before hand as it is feeling your opponent resisting your grab, then you can release quickly and normally get an open attack. What are you classifying as the "mantis non-commital grab"?"

Isn&#8217;t the 5 finger grab a progression from a mantis hook (non-commital grab using the 2 last fingers)? To engage say a straight punch, don&#8217;t you think that the mantis hook is by far much more easy to pull off and leaves you less exposed if you miss compared to attempting a 5 finger grab on your opponent&#8217;s forearm?

Quote: " Ok, we must be mis-understanding each other. What do you mean by flexing the wrist backwards? Imagine a waiter carrying a serving tray. The hand is open, the fingers pointing towards the body, the palm is up. That is a backwards wrist flex from dil sau. The only application I see to that is if you are allready in a wrist lock which is flexing your wrist backwards, you could then yield inside and use your elbow to strike, but it would be very hard to pull off."

No you don&#8217;t flex your wrist this way if someone is attempting a wrist lock &#8211; the opponent will reverse the motion and lock you the other way. You use this motion as a very close range strike or to cut off a movement / potential movement. It&#8217;s not that hard to pull off although it is an advance technique.

Quote: "Now, that same movement, with the palm facing the ground and closed in a fist is different, that is used in mantis, but its a different break from the dil sau. The dil sau is a horizontal break, while that break would be a verticle one (coming from underneath). Another thing is that to have total control over your opponent is to win the fight. At that point, why would you do a break? Most techniques do not require total control of your opponent, not at all. When I do an elbow break for example, the other arm, torso, both legs, are all still not in my control. Now I have disrupted the opponents center or balance most likely, but that doesn't not equate to me being in total control of my opponent. If I'm in total control of my opponent, I can just hold them there until they decide to give up, thats a win in my book."

Yes I agree, one works better horizontal and the other vertical. Doesn&#8217;t it boil down to bio-mechanics of how people move as opposed to likeness to an insect? I know, if you have total control you might not need to break. That&#8217;s why I&#8217;m saying that there aren&#8217;t many opportunities to do a break. If someone is being uncooperative it&#8217;s not easy to break a joint.

Quote: "No one said dil sau was the center piece of mantis, and I think your right, the "inventor(s)" didn't build a system around the dil sau. Whats your point? If thats the case, they must have built the system around something else....what? What would lend all these techniques to resembling the mantis insect? What could they have built the system around that still gave all the mantis type techniques? And why dont other systems have these mantis like techniques, if they weren't related to the insect? No other systems use the dil sau, why not? Take Tai Chi for example. If you say they came about at the same time and mantis was not created from the insect, why doesn't tai chi have some of the "mantis" moves? It seems to me that people with equal skill levels at the same general region at the same general time could both see the application in a mantis technique, why dont they use it as well?"

Well the system was built from long fist theory and co-developed in the 17 century with other northern systems that I had mentioned previously. Personally I see techniques resembling the insect to be quite superficial, debatable and requires a stretch of one&#8217;s imagination. I look at these systems, first and foremost a combat system, which means I look at how they try and accomplish what they set out to do. There are heaps of moves that are similar between mantis and taichi. Forward pressure with your arms, wedging off an opponent, dragging opponent off balance, pulling, pushing, tripping, shaking, leaning. Look at Hsing I theory, Pi Gua and Baji, similar stuff.

Quote: "Are we talking sparring here or pure self defense street application? If your attacked from behind, or from a blind spot, what do you do to get the time to figure out your strategy or measure up your opponent? Ask for a time out? At that point it has to be about pure reaction and "listening" to your opponents intent. If I have good feel I can still get the jump on him/her. Now, if we both agree that situation could happen in one of our lifetimes, then we must agree that training for it is a smart idea. If that is a good idea, then we must spend time learning those techniques or principles used in that situation. If we must learn those principles and techniques, why would we spend time on opposing principles or techniques? Not to be cheesy and quote Bruce Lee but, " Any technique, however worthy and desirable, becomes a disease when the mind is obsessed with it". To think of the outcome can loose you the fight without one punch being thrown."

If you&#8217;re surprised then you have to deal with whatever it is, be it on the street or in training. But it doesn&#8217;t mean you don&#8217;t size up an opponent if there is opportunity to do so and neither does it detract from going by feel when the shooting starts. The basic premise of self defence is to keep one&#8217;s eyes open and recognise potential dangers. Doing so doesn&#8217;t mean we lose our ability to go by feel but we rather not walk into an ambush, which we might have to fight our way out of. I don&#8217;t see what I&#8217;d said as opposing principals, it&#8217;s a matter of getting better awareness of one&#8217;s surroundings. My question to you is why limit this awareness to the point of contact?

Quote: "What website? I know both forms, laan dzeet and mui fa kuen. How can they be the same then? What does it matter what level in the list laan dzeet or any form is? Laan dzeet is normally an intermediate level form I believe."
That website &#8211; I&#8217;d only referred to one. They could be the same form under a different name. It matters where on the list Laan dzeet sits, because if it&#8217;s to close to the top &#8211; it would stop making sense (because it is an intermediate level form). If it&#8217;s too far to the bottom, then I would question what the forms in between bung bu and laan dzeet are all about.


Quote: "So you dont know why you believe this way, its just allways been so?"

I haven&#8217;t kept records of the stuff I&#8217;d read. It&#8217;s like I read about the earth quake in Kobe some years ago but I don&#8217;t remember from what source.

Quote: " I've been doing CMA since I was 7, but at this school for about 4 years now. I took some time off in college and such. I've studied a couple different systems."

Sounds good, seems you have studied mantis about the same time as I have. What is your take on mantis&#8217;s effectiveness compared to other systems you&#8217;d done?

 
OP
7starmantis

7starmantis

Grandmaster
MTS Alumni
Joined
Aug 13, 2002
Messages
5,493
Reaction score
50
Location
East Texas
Fumanchu said:
I'm going by stories that the dil sau position looks
like the insect. Whether it does or doesn't look like the insect is
debatable depending on which impressionist artist you speak to. What I'm
saying is that the relationship between the system and the name have no
practical significance. A bit like saying I play for the Chicargo Bulls.
There's no relationship to the animal, it's just a name / mascot to go
by.

lol, so you have to be an impressionist to see the resemblance to the
insect? Wow, there are alot more impressionist in the world than I had
first thought. There is nothing debatable about the resemblance to the
insect. There is no stretch of imagination. Ok, I can see that you dont
have to relate the mantis system to the insect to understand it, or to
learn it, but you dont have to relate shooting a free throw to playing
basketball either, but its still a part of it.

Fumanchu said:
Why would BJJ players refuse to lift weights as part of
training? Tai Chi players will benefit from doing strength training just
the same. Both systems try to apply the best leverage - which includes
controlling an opponent's centre. An extra bit of bulk and strength
might be what it takes to tilt the balance in your favour. Of refusing
to accept attack, Tai Chi is just as aggressive as any other Northern
Kung fu style that I'd mention. I agree if you apply the rules and
environment of a ring combat, intention changes somewhat - such as
willingness to go to the ground.

Thats exactly my point, why would a BJJ player refuse to lift weights?
They need muscle and strength in what they do, taiji doesn't need to use
muscle strength. Your incorrect about taiji using strength and muscle.
Also taiji is not about using leverage as much as balance. If you use "a
bit of extra bulk and strength" in your taiji you are not only going
against the very core of taiji, but if playing against a skilled taiji
player, probably going \to get your butt kicked. In mantis and taiji we
wait for the opponent to try and use their strength or muscle, that
"tightness" opens up alot of attacks, throws, and controlling moves.
What is it CMC says, never use more than 4 oz. of pressure in tiaji? SO
lifting weights would definitely contradict that wouldn't it? No one is
saying taiji isn't agressive, how did you get that?

Fumanchu said:
Whether you control an opponent's centre or cause him to
lose control is like saying the cup is half empty or half full. Same
thing. That's what players do in wrestling or other grappling systems,
keeping you opponent off centre and in some cases strikes are
acceptable.

Again, thats not entirely true. Its not sematics, its intent. Me having
control over you and me disrupting and causing you to loose control are
two completely different things. Yes, one involves doing the other, if I
hav control over you, you have deffinitely lost control yourself, but to
disrupt your control doesn't allways mean I have control over you
myself. Its a deep conceptual difference that is really covered in some
of the more advanced mantis sets and drills, thats why I say your
missing out by not having them in your system.

Fumanchu said:
Isn't the 5 finger grab a progression from a mantis hook
(non-commital grab using the 2 last fingers)? To engage say a straight
punch, don't you think that the mantis hook is by far much more easy to
pull off and leaves you less exposed if you miss compared to attempting
a 5 finger grab on your opponent's forearm?

No, not at all. First of all, the "mantis hook" doesn't use just the
last two fingers. There is nothing that leaves you less or more exposed
after missing between the full grab and "mantis" grab. A grab is a grab
as far as leaving yourself exposed. It boils down to intent again. A 5
finger "eagle claw" type grab is used for locks, breaks, controls, grabs
involving pressure points, etc. The "mantis" type grab is used for quick
grab, or plucking, or quick trapping. There is a conceptual difference
in the grabs and why you would use one as apposed to the other. To say
its better to throw one out and use one entirely (100% of the time) is
wrong, and is throwing away principles and techniques of the mantis
system.

Fumanchu said:
No you don't flex your wrist this way if someone is attempting a wrist lock - the opponent will reverse the motion and lock you the other way. You use this motion as a very close range strike or to cut off a movement / potential movement. It's not that hard to pull off although
it is an advance technique.

I simply said I didn't see why you would ever flex your wrist in that direction for any application, unless you were allready in a wrist lock which was causing you to allready be flexed in that direction, then you could yield in towards your body and tyr to use the elbow as a strike. You just contradicted yourself again. You were the one who said flexing your wrist backwards was a great technique to use as a break. I dont see that, you wouldn't have any pictures or video to show me that application would you? I dont seem to be understanding what your talking about.

Fumanchu said:
Yes I agree, one works better horizontal and the other vertical. Doesn't it boil down to bio-mechanics of how people move as opposed to likeness to an insect? I know, if you have total control you might not need to break. That's why I'm saying that there aren't many opportunities to do a break. If someone is being uncooperative it's not easy to break a
joint.

Yes, it boils down to the way your opponent has moved or shifted their weight, not in likeness to the insect. I think you are misunderstanding the relationship we put between the insect and our techniques. The relationship isn't one that makes us choose which technique to do, but rather in the conception of the technique itself. Which technique to do at what time is completely up to how your opponent moves or attacks. There isn't any reason to do certain techniques just to resemble the mantis insect. Also, uncooporative is the only way I train, and using mantis principles and steal their attack actually makes breaks relatively easy on resisting opponents. Breaks are hard to begin with, but a resisting opponent who doesnt understand feel often times makes them easier for you.

Fumanchu said:
Well the system was built from long fist theory and co-developed in the 17 century with other northern systems that I had mentioned previously. Personally I see techniques resembling the insect to be quite superficial, debatable and requires a stretch of one's imagination. I
look at these systems, first and foremost a combat system, which means I
look at how they try and accomplish what they set out to do. There are
heaps of moves that are similar between mantis and taichi. Forward
pressure with your arms, wedging off an opponent, dragging opponent off
balance, pulling, pushing, tripping, shaking, leaning. Look at Hsing I
theory, Pi Gua and Baji, similar stuff.

Yes, but there are similar moves between taiji and lots of systems. There are similar moves between a great many CMA systems.

Fumanchu said:
If you're surprised then you have to deal with whatever it is, be it on the street or in training. But it doesn't mean you don't size up an
opponent if there is opportunity to do so and neither does it detract from going by feel when the shooting starts. The basic premise of self defence is to keep one's eyes open and recognise potential dangers. Doing so doesn't mean we lose our ability to go by feel but we rather not walk into an ambush, which we might have to fight our way out of. I don't see what I'd said as opposing principals, it's a matter of getting better awareness of one's surroundings. My question to you is why limit this awareness to the point of contact?

I'm not limiting awareness to the point of contact, but I'm not limiting self defense to awareness only, either.

Fumanchu said:
That website - I'd only referred to one. They could be the same form under a different name. It matters where on the list Laan dzeet sits, because if it's to close to the top - it would stop making sense
(because it is an intermediate level form). If it's too far to the
bottom, then I would question what the forms in between bung bu and laan
dzeet are all about.

That website shouldn't be taken as fact. There are two forms which are seperate, I know them both.

Fumanchu said:
Sounds good, seems you have studied mantis about the same time as I have. What is your take on mantis's effectiveness compared to other systems you'd done?

I find mantis to be way more practical and straightforward than most other systems I have trained in. I'll study mantis for the rest of my life.

7sm
 
F

Fumanchu

Guest
Quote: "lol, so you have to be an impressionist to see the resemblance to the insect? Wow, there are alot more impressionist in the world than I had first thought. There is nothing debatable about the resemblance to the insect. There is no stretch of imagination. Ok, I can see that you don&#8217;t have to relate the mantis system to the insect to understand it, or to learn it, but you don&#8217;t have to relate shooting a free throw to playing basketball either, but its still a part of it."

Yes, I think I&#8217;ll make a terrible artist albeit not a very imaginative one. But you&#8217;re right, as long as you can get it to work and you can relate it in a way which help you improve then I think if Wong Long were here and reading this now, he would be happy.

Quote: Thats exactly my point, why would a BJJ player refuse to lift weights? They need muscle and strength in what they do, taiji doesn't need to use muscle strength. Your incorrect about taiji using strength and muscle. Also taiji is not about using leverage as much as balance. If you use "a bit of extra bulk and strength" in your taiji you are not only going against the very core of taiji, but if playing against a skilled taiji player, probably going \to get your butt kicked. In mantis and taiji we wait for the opponent to try and use their strength or muscle, that "tightness" opens up alot of attacks, throws, and controlling moves. What is it CMC says, never use more than 4 oz. of pressure in tiaji? SO lifting weights would definitely contradict that wouldn't it? No one is saying taiji isn't agressive, how did you get that?"

Balance and leverage are closely related. It comes down to the pivot point, centre of mass and length of lever. Even tai chi players use muscles to move. How else do we move if not with our muscles. It depends of what muscles we use to create the tightness at different parts of our body. We try not to present our tight parts for the opponent to work from. Also we relax before he realise that it is tight. A skilled opponent would also be doing the same, it comes down to who is better. I don&#8217;t know who CMC is. But you can feel being pressured going up against a good tai chi player. If you&#8217;re not pressuring your opponent to defend, how then can you be aggressive?

Quote: "Again, thats not entirely true. Its not sematics, its intent. Me having control over you and me disrupting and causing you to loose control are two completely different things. Yes, one involves doing the other, if I hav control over you, you have deffinitely lost control yourself, but to disrupt your control doesn't allways mean I have control over you myself. Its a deep conceptual difference that is really covered in some of the more advanced mantis sets and drills, thats why I say your missing out by not having them in your system."

The end result of the disruption is control. Wrestlers do that although their approach would change somewhat depending on the rules such as the ability to strike. If you see Greco-Roman wrestlers square off, there is the "game" where they see if they can cause the opponent to make a mistake or say over extend etc&#8230; It is not a conceptual difference &#8211; the intent of control is always there but strategy is required.

Quote: "No, not at all. First of all, the "mantis hook" doesn't use just the last two fingers. There is nothing that leaves you less or more exposed after missing between the full grab and "mantis" grab. A grab is a grab as far as leaving yourself exposed. It boils down to intent again. A 5 finger "eagle claw" type grab is used for locks, breaks, controls, grabs involving pressure points, etc. The "mantis" type grab is used for quick grab, or plucking, or quick trapping. There is a conceptual difference in the grabs and why you would use one as apposed to the other. To say its better to throw one out and use one entirely (100% of the time) is wrong, and is throwing away principles and techniques of the mantis system."

I agree with you the usage of the 2 grabs are different. In the "mantis hook" I use the last 2 fingers as a final impulse to take the opponent&#8217;s balance in the case of dealing with a straight punch as an example. How do you use the mantis hook for grabbing? I&#8217;m also saying that it is virtually impossible to do a 5-finger grab against a straight punch say a boxer&#8217;s jab. If you miss it will leave you exposed. Not so with the mantis hook because if you miss you&#8217;ll end up in the dil sau position with torque stored in your waist and elbow to move off.


Quote: "I simply said I didn't see why you would ever flex your wrist in that direction for any application, unless you were allready in a wrist lock which was causing you to allready be flexed in that direction, then you could yield in towards your body and tyr to use the elbow as a strike. You just contradicted yourself again. You were the one who said flexing your wrist backwards was a great technique to use as a break. I dont see that, you wouldn't have any pictures or video to show me that application would you? I dont seem to be understanding what your talking about."

I guess it&#8217;s a bit hard without a picture &#8211; guess you&#8217;ll just have to make do with a thousand words. All I&#8217;m saying is you can flex your wrist forward or back. Flexing back allows you to drive the elbow and forearm forward more. You can use this for hitting deflecting, breaking etc&#8230;

Quote: "I find mantis to be way more practical and straightforward than most other systems I have trained in. I'll study mantis for the rest of my life."

I also think that mantis superseeds other systems that I'd learned or come across.


 

Latest Discussions

Top