# The Complete Package



## 7starmantis

In the most recent issue of Inside Kung Fu (released yesterday) there is a nice 5 page article called, "Seven Star Mantis, The Complete Package". Its a good piece and was written by Sifu Jeff Hughes a good friend and one of the Sifus in the US Kung Fu Exchange I train under. It talks about the system and some of its principles which are often not understood by many mantis practitioners anymore. It has severla pictures of Sifu Hughes as well as my sigung Raymond Fogg. Its a very well writtne article and even talks a bit about the UKFE and mentions my sifu when talking about the structure as he is the Vice President.

Anyone read the article? Its pretty good at explaining some of the deeper mantis principles. Its an interesting read and could make for some good discussion here.

7sm


----------



## WLMantisKid

I might have to stop by my local Barnes and Noble to pick that up then, thanks for the info!


----------



## r6racer

Yah I went into barnes and noble and picked it up yesterday. I thought it was a really good article, but i guess im slightly biased cause I just started studying 7 Star Praying Mantis. :ultracool


----------



## 7starmantis

Thats cool, who are you studying under? 

7sm


----------



## r6racer

Im studying at the NTKFE.  Sifu Curtis Medley teaches my class.  I have had 2 classes so far and I love it, Im in the gray level class which is some basics and lots of conditioning, and Im way outta shape, Im short of breath after like the first 10min LOL.


----------



## RHD

7starmantis said:
			
		

> In the most recent issue of Inside Kung Fu (released yesterday) there is a nice 5 page article called, "Seven Star Mantis, The Complete Package". Its a good piece and was written by Sifu Jeff Hughes a good friend and one of the Sifus in the US Kung Fu Exchange I train under. It talks about the system and some of its principles which are often not understood by many mantis practitioners anymore. It has severla pictures of Sifu Hughes as well as my sigung Raymond Fogg. Its a very well writtne article and even talks a bit about the UKFE and mentions my sifu when talking about the structure as he is the Vice President.
> 
> Anyone read the article? Its pretty good at explaining some of the deeper mantis principles. Its an interesting read and could make for some good discussion here.
> 
> 7sm



Yeah it was a good article.  Informative, and had some interesting historical background.

Mike


----------



## 7starmantis

r6racer said:
			
		

> Im studying at the NTKFE. Sifu Curtis Medley teaches my class. I have had 2 classes so far and I love it, Im in the gray level class which is some basics and lots of conditioning, and Im way outta shape, Im short of breath after like the first 10min LOL.


Thats awesome, welcome to the exchange! I train in Tyler under Sifu Jones. Curtis is a good teacher. Will you be attending Sigung Fogg's Workshop this year? If so I'll actually get to meet you there.

7sm


----------



## Black Tiger Fist

Yeah i saw the article

I was wondering how long it would be before you spoke of it here :ultracool lol

Good article though.

jeff


----------



## r6racer

Yah I will be up at the workshop, looks like I joined just in time to make it.


----------



## 7starmantis

I needed to type out this article in its entirety, so I thought I would post it here, for those who haven't seen it to read and comment on.

*Seven Star Mantis: The Complete Package*_ - by Sifu Jeff Hughes_

The legendary Wong Long, creator of the famous northern shaolin seven star praying mantis system of kung fu, developed his system while spending his days at the Shaolin Temple.
Taking the best techniques from 17 other styles of the time, Wong created one of the most effective fighting systems ever developed in China. Some of these techniques include the long fist of tai cho, short fist of Un Yian, monkey style of Sun Tan and the throwing strokes of Wai Tek. Combined with the movements used by the praying mantis insect, these techniques gave birth to the seven-star mantis system.
The northern mantis system remained in the Shaolin Temple for several generations until a wandering Taoist monk names abbot Sheng Hsiao Tao Jen came to visit the sacred grounds. After mastering the mantis style, Tai Jen left the temple and became the first person to disseminate this style throughout China.

*"Li the Lighting Fist"*
Tao Jen handed over the system to Li San Chen, who established a security service called the "Pui Kuk." Li was revered in Northern China and was known to thieves as "Li the Lightening Fist." His skills were so great he was never defeated. When Li was much older, while searching for a worthy student, he met Wang Yung Sheng, a national boxing champion. Before he taught Yung Sheng, Li challenged the young champion to a friendly match. Yung Sheng couldn't even touch the much older master; Li simply seemed to vanish every time Yung attacked. Once Li touched Yung Sheng, Li was immovable. Yung Sheng eventually became the third successor of the mantis system.
Wang passed his teaching on to Fan Yuk Tang, who weighed over 300 pounds and was known for his iron palm skills. He achieved widespread fame in China by accepting an open challenge from a Russian fighter in the early 1870's. Traveling to Siberia, Fan defeated the Russian champion along with several other challengers. Fan's disciple, Lo Kwan Yuk, earned the title of fifth successor of the system.
In 1919, after leaning of Lo's reputation as a fighter, the committee of the Shanghai Chin Wu Athletic Association, hoping to fill the position of chief instructor, sent a representative to Shantung to invite Lo to Shanghai. Lo accepted the position and trained many successful students. His fighting techniques proved themselves again when one of his top students, Ma Ching Hsin, took first place at a national Chinese boxing competition.
The next successor, Chao Chi Man, was already an accomplished martial artist when he met Lo. The late grandmaster Chao Chi Man joined the Hong Kong Chin Wu Association in 1924, where he studied the shaolin tan tui style for six years. He also trained in eagle claw and tai chi chuan. When Lo was honored as one of the "Four Super-Lords" of the Chin Wu Association, Chao Chi Man began to follow him. In 1930, Chao Chi Man committed his studies to seven star mantis kung fu.

*Opening the "Closed Door"*
Chao Chi Man disseminated the seven star system to his nephew, Chiu Leun, who already had a background in mantis style through his apprenticeship at a temple with the "Big Monk" and the "Little Monk." Chiu Leun spread the art to America when he relocated to New York's Chinatown. It was here that sifu Raymond Fogg began his studies under the grandmaster. Fogg, one of the few "closed-door" disciples, dispersed the art first in Washington, D.C., and later in Texas.
As taught by grandmaster Chiu Leun and master Fogg, the seven star system is a complete fighting style with many empty hand, weapons, and two-person sets. Iron palm and iron arm training constitute just part of the advanced training instruction, along with the lo han qigong set.
The art of chi sau or "sticky hands" is widely known in wing chun and in the push hands on tai chi chuan. Mantis chi sau is similar, but has specific guiding techniques and principles. Chi sau allows a practitioner to elevate his techniques through the skill if touch, which allows one to "measure" and "listen" to his partner or adversaries intentions.
When learning chi sau, you must learn to follow the other's movement without leading. The is done with great patience and complete trust in your sifu's guidance. Much time should be taken to slow one's movements, calm the spirit, and fully "hear" one's opponent. This calmness eventually can be carried into a full-speed, full-power combat. Other important principles to remember in chi sau include saying relaxed yet "full" and constantly moving with no wasted movements. Use weight to follow up strikes and always keep one's body sensitive. The slightest touch can lead to the hand slipping away.

*The Key to Mantis*
Achieving high-level mantis chi sau skills can only be accomplished by placing emphasis on the training of the system's drills and techniques, and working long hours on forms, which include chin na jointlocking, throws, and groundfighting. Chi sau helps a practitioner successfully apply the technique's forms, which ultimately hold the key to the knowledge handed down form master to student. Tong Long practitioners are famous for blocking a punch and then following the arm into a "hook," where they can pluck or redirect their opponent before striking. When using chin na jointlocks, mantis stylists break and/or quickly move on to a strike or throw. Using chi sau skill, one can find his competitor's center and throw him off balance. Chi sau, along with rolls, can be used to escape chin na. To make all strikes count, aim at sensitive areas and pressure points.
It is important to remember the "rules governing wushu:" when you get hurt, dont let your opponent know; use deception to vary your techniques. Kung fu us based on circles, so try to make your strikes go in circles or in an arc. When in combat, use your spirit and facial expressions. Mantis hops and other mantis footwork, such as chien (dodging) and sim bo, are used in a controlling manner to gain momentum. Ja bo, which is similar to bagua's walking circle, teng (jumping) and chi jert "sticky feet" are important parts of mantis footwork. 
In combat, "body handling" or controlling the opponent's elbow must not only be learned, but also mastered. When grabbed, yield and twist, using circular motions in the direction of the force. Then follow then attack. Collapsing techniques can be both offensive and defensive in nature.

*Effective in Combat*
Chi sau heightens a martial artist's sense of awareness and increases contact reflexes. One purpose is to sense for centerline mistakes. Along with the fighting drills, these principles allow a practitioner to incorporate a series of techniques into his mantis repertoire. Other chi sau drills include choi som sau, noi gwa sau, and jim lim sau. These drills, combined with strict adherence to the 12 principles of attack and defense and eight hard and 12 soft principles, allow a student to understand why the mantis system is so effective in combat.
Fogg was introduced to chi sau in Washington, D.C., where he studied the mantis system under sihing Randy Burly. He later trained mantis fighting under Chiu Leung and in mantis boxing under sifu Henry Chung. He said chi sai training helped him develop sensitivity.
"In kung-fu, one must learn to listen with their arms, hands, and body," Fogg explained. "In a fight, most of the damage will be done in close quarters. That is, the range of touching, which allows one to use all of the sensitivity developed in the chi sau or jeem leem."
Scratching the surface of seven star praying mantis is easy, Fogg added, What separates the beginner from the advanced student is his understanding and mastery of the eight hard principles and 12 soft principles.
"Well, it becomes obvious that the 12 are more important to obtain. Furthermore, becoming one with the 12 soft principles is a much harder task to accomplish than becoming one with the hard principles," Fogg noted. "Many practitioners lack the patience required to understand the importance of the soft and without understanding it becomes even harder to achieve."
Still, a mastery of chi sau techniques adds to the mantis practitioner's arsenal of weapons, Fogg insisted.
"Learning and achieving aspects of chi sau (jeem leem), I became more confident in my skills and found that my growth could be infinite."
 _ Published in the October release of Inside Kung Fu Magazine._

7sm


----------



## Blooming Lotus

Awesome article 7* !!! Probably the best piece I've read in months.

Soo many discussions that could come out of it, so cheers! I appreciate that. 
Mantis is looking better everyday and not that I want to jack your thread but I _am _albeit decided on spending some time on it, though looks like it could clash with ninjutsu ( also on the agenda). What do you think?? Maybe that's another thread.

Moving on though, I find it extremely interesting to learn the different forms and styles mantis has come in contact with ( and how that did or didn't effect its developement ) and what was it exactly you were saying about non -shaolin roots ???

lol..... 

Also have an interest in monkey style and looked soo hard for tam tui while in china but no joy and shaolin priority. Do you know how much of these have actually been adopted by mantis??

Once again, extremely cool stuff . cheers!

Blooming Lotus


----------



## 7starmantis

Blooming Lotus said:
			
		

> Soo many discussions that could come out of it, so cheers! I appreciate that.
> Mantis is looking better everyday and not that I want to jack your thread but I _am _albeit decided on spending some time on it, though looks like it could clash with ninjutsu ( also on the agenda). What do you think?? Maybe that's another thread.


Yeah, I think alot of CMA can clash with JMA if only in concept and intent. I will say this, its not something you could expect to "try" for 6 months and expect to have gained a good level of skill in. 



			
				Blooming Lotus said:
			
		

> Moving on though, I find it extremely interesting to learn the different forms and styles mantis has come in contact with ( and how that did or didn't effect its developement ) and what was it exactly you were saying about non -shaolin roots ???
> 
> lol.....


Um, I didn't say anything about non-shaolin roots. Maybe someone else. In fact it was developed to fight against shaolin, so there would deffinitely be some similarities on a basic level.



			
				Blooming Lotus said:
			
		

> Also have an interest in monkey style and looked soo hard for tam tui while in china but no joy and shaolin priority. Do you know how much of these have actually been adopted by mantis??


How much of what? Pretty much it was only footwork and such that was really developed from the monkey. There aren't really monkey forms or anything like that in mantis.

7sm


----------



## Black Tiger Fist

The two go together so well.

I myself at one time really wanted to learn 7* because of the mixture of the two.

but alas i found my true calling with Black Tiger.artyon: 


jeff


----------



## Blooming Lotus

7starmantis said:
			
		

> *Seven Star Mantis: The Complete Package*_ - by Sifu Jeff Hughes_
> 
> The legendary Wong Long, creator of the famous northern shaolin seven star praying mantis system of kung fu, developed his system while spending his days at the Shaolin Temple.
> 
> 
> So he was staying there while planning there demise.....  right.because the monks were obviously a huge antogonistic threat
> 
> btw : chin na is from shaolin and so is qigong ( Ie : iron skill)
> 
> *"Li the Lighting Fist"*
> The late grandmaster Chao Chi Man joined the Hong Kong Chin Wu Association in 1924, where he studied the shaolin tan tui style for six years.
> 
> and this is interesting ...no ??
> 
> Considering mantis chi sao version and that chi sao is WC thing...........  What else did mantis find down there???
> 
> 7sm


Btw : I never said I thought I'd have a black belt in 6 mths, but If I want to learn I will until I know.

BL


----------



## Blooming Lotus

7starmantis said:
			
		

> How much of what? Pretty much it was only footwork and such that was really developed from the monkey. There aren't really monkey forms or anything like that in mantis.
> 
> 7sm


Where did i read that tan tui and monkey style were mantis components????.....god knows what rearch tangents I go on while half asleep ( blush).......  beg to differ though and now I just have to find the freakin link again..........

the article does say that mantis was comprised of melding techs from various existing systems + preying mantis insect combat techs though so for now at min it's a "slight" corroboration anyway.

BL


----------



## 7starmantis

Blooming Lotus said:
			
		

> So he was staying there while planning there demise..... right.because the monks were obviously a huge antogonistic threat


I guess you dont accept this part of mantis history, thats ok. The answer is actually yes, but not in the way your assuming. His planning was to beat them in hand to hand combat (kung fu) not kill them. Its possible to want to beat someone and still have them as a friend. He developed mantis to allow him to best his monk brothers, so obviously he wasn't trying to kill them all since he stayed there.



			
				Blooming Lotus said:
			
		

> btw : chin na is from shaolin and so is qigong ( Ie : iron skill)


Ok, I think that is pretty widely accepted. I dont understand the point. I agree with you there, why would that be a surprise to you? You keep holding on to some belief that I'm saying mantis has no connection to shaolin, I never said that. 



			
				Blooming Lotus said:
			
		

> and this is interesting ...no ??
> 
> Considering mantis chi sao version and that chi sao is WC thing........... What else did mantis find down there???



Chi Sao is a WC thing by its name. Mantis "chi sao" is more appropriately called jeem leem as the articles talks about later on. Your also taking one person and accepting what he did as the basis of the whole system. Its not interesting that he studied tan tui, lots of people study other systems. My sigung was a master instructor in wah lum at one time, that doesn't change 7* or its principles.



			
				Blooming Lotus said:
			
		

> the article does say that mantis was comprised of melding techs from various existing systems + preying mantis insect combat techs though so for now at min it's a "slight" corroboration anyway.


Thats true. 

7sm


----------



## Blooming Lotus

What I'm saying 7* is that if your system is rooted in shaolin, and you don't have much information about that system, with your philisophical tangents and theories yourself, how do you propose to understand the off-shoot??  Meiguanxi. I Promised you mods I wouldn't argue ( translation : discuss)  , so consider that comment retorical.  



cheers anyway 7star

Blooming Lotus


----------



## 7starmantis

Blooming Lotus said:
			
		

> What I'm saying 7* is that if your system is rooted in shaolin, and you don't have much information about that system, with your philisophical tangents and theories yourself, how do you propose to understand the off-shoot?? Meiguanxi. I Promised you mods I wouldn't argue ( translation : discuss) , so consider that comment retorical.


 First, as a mod, I want discussion in here more than anything. Rude, argumentative, or insulting behavior does not equal discussion, so feel free to discuss as much as you like. Its when things cross the line that I will have to act.

 Second, it makes no matter to me if you accept 7* having roots in shaolin, because simply put, I'm not too impressed with what I've seen under the name shaolin. Nowadays anyone and everyone claim shaolin, its a catchphrase now. Mantis in general was created at or around shaolin temple and intended to fight against shaolin, thats the basis. I'm not quite sure what you are referring to as my philisophical tangents, but I dont have any need or desire to learn alot about "shaolin". Mantis is not an off-shoot of shaolin, so it really matters little to me. What I do and what I see other do who claim they are training in "shaolin" are very different, and to be honest, I would rather keep it that way.

  7sm


----------



## Blooming Lotus

You're right .the name shaolin is being mcdojoed and exploited and use under false pretenses all over the place,  and I guess that's why they've or are in the process of , seeking copyright protection on the name.  I really can't comment too much though not having studied mantis myself so I'm going to go study / train some more and get back to you  

btw 7, if an argument is a debate is a discussion of different perspectives..........  then why shouldn't that be encouraged???? Doesn't matter.I don't _have _to participate I guess.


----------



## Fumanchu

Mantis originated around the shandong region as opposed to the shaolin temple. True that it is related to long fist - but this is from the Islamic community as opposed to buddist. 

You can probably say that mantis and tai chi originated about the same time ans there is significant degree of cross pollination between the two. There is also close ties to less ancient martial arts style such as baji, hsing i and tongei.


----------



## 7starmantis

Welcome to MartialTalk Fumanchu. Its good to have you on the boards, make yourself comfortable and please feel free to ask if you have any questions. You will find some very knowledgeable and experienced people on this board.

 As far as mantis' origination, what sources are you using? Its pretty widely accepted that Wong Long (creator of mantis) stayed at and trained at shaolin temple. In fact its accepted by many that he created mantis specifically to defeat his shaolin monk brothers. Many believe to this day that mantis is the only system developed to fight against shaolin. So its connections to long fist or shaolin styles of any kind are more in defending against rather than using. Also I'm not quite sure I understood you, but your saying mantis is islamic rather than buddist in nature?

 I've never heard that about mantis and taiji being originated at the same time. I would be interested in knowing where you got that as well. There are significant degrees of "crosspolination" between most internal CMA and tai chi. mantis does have alot of "internal" qualities.

 Dont get me wrong, I'm not trying to attack you or even say your wrong, I'm just interested in where you are getting your sources from.

  7sm


----------



## ninhito

Hey i have a question is there any Mantis in the Detroit, Michigan area? I havent found any and i have searched, O and how do you find a dojo in someone's backyard?


----------



## 7starmantis

ninhito said:
			
		

> Hey i have a question is there any Mantis in the Detroit, Michigan area? I havent found any and i have searched, O and how do you find a dojo in someone's backyard?


 How close is that to Midland? Master Henry Chung is in Midland. I would say some of the best mantis around.

 7sm


----------



## ninhito

I have never heard of Midland, Michigan so i guess there isnt a person around here who knows seven star mantis.


----------



## Blooming Lotus

alot of ppl with "back yard dojos" just advertise as a school.  To find out where they're operating from, you'll just have to call them I suppose.


----------



## ninhito

o so they would be schools uuum how do i find them i mean if there out of detroit the yellow pages that i have dont cover them?


----------



## Blooming Lotus

I don't know about Detroit, but here, alot of the ones you see in the yellow pages are actually instructors operating out of their homes.  Failing that, try your local china town or local papers and newsletters etc.  Also try under health centres / gyms / clubs and associations etc.  



So you actually _prefer _a backyard training gig??  Curious.


----------



## ninhito

Well with a back yard training uuum environment you get a one on one type atmosphere with your instructor.  I mean if you have alot of students then its kinda hard to look at one student and see the problems, ya know.  I would love to try and do that i mean there should be other students but not like a normal classroom (30+ students).


----------



## Blooming Lotus

Fair enough and good luck with that,  but I think we're bordering on a thread jack, so back to the topic...........


----------



## Fumanchu

7starmantis,

Thanks, As for the relationship between mantis and tai chi, geographic proximity, looking at the theory and application it's similar as well. They both originated about the same time. 

If you compare the fighting theories behind mantis and chinese straight sword, they are similar. I would think that whoever (person or group of people) who invented mantis were skilled with the straight sword.

I don't think mantis was designed specifically to defeat shaolin monks per se. The mantis system is good in providing entries into an opponent. from that point on you can follow in with basic punches and kicks. For example looking at the first form in mantis - bung bu, it is all about strategy. Mantis was used by body guard of government officials and to protect caravens against bandits on the silk roads. I see this as "practical history". whether someone used it to defeat some shaolin monks is less relevant to me.

Not saying that mantis is islamic. What i'm saying is that tan tui orignated from the islamic group of people in china. This style of fighting later evolved in the hands of people who practiced the daoist religion to systems like baji etc.... mantis was yet another evolution. However there is no practical relevance between the fighting system and the religion those particular people were practicing in those days.


----------



## 7starmantis

Fumanchu said:
			
		

> 7starmantis,
> 
> Thanks, As for the relationship between mantis and tai chi, geographic proximity, looking at the theory and application it's similar as well. They both originated about the same time.


 Do you mind sharing the sources you used to come to this conclusion? I've never heard anyone say they believed mantis and taiji originated around the same time. In fact, mantis is generally accepted as being alot more recent than alot of other CMA. It would be interesting to see your sources.



			
				Fumanchu said:
			
		

> If you compare the fighting theories behind mantis and chinese straight sword, they are similar. I would think that whoever (person or group of people) who invented mantis were skilled with the straight sword.


 What exactly do you mean? What theories? I dont see how that lends itself to taiji and mantis being created at the same time. If anything it helps the opposite belief since taiji would have to allready have been created if he was skilled in it and then creating mantis. There are similarities between mantis theories and taiji, however that same similarity is shared with many other CMAs. 



			
				Fumanchu said:
			
		

> I don't think mantis was designed specifically to defeat shaolin monks per se. The mantis system is good in providing entries into an opponent. from that point on you can follow in with basic punches and kicks. For example looking at the first form in mantis - bung bu, it is all about strategy. Mantis was used by body guard of government officials and to protect caravens against bandits on the silk roads. I see this as "practical history". whether someone used it to defeat some shaolin monks is less relevant to me.


 So you dont accept the generally accepted history of the mantis system? Thats ok, what do you accept as the history of mantis creation then? So your summing up the whole system with, "its good in providing entries into an opponent"? Thats a little understated isn't it? Have you studied mantis kung fu? I'm not following what your saying about Bung Bo being about strategy. The "practical history" of mantis is great, and I'm with you on it meaning more than defeating some monk, but just because it doesn't mean alot to you or I doesn't mean it didn't happen. 



			
				Fumanchu said:
			
		

> Not saying that mantis is islamic. What i'm saying is that tan tui orignated from the islamic group of people in china. This style of fighting later evolved in the hands of people who practiced the daoist religion to systems like baji etc.... mantis was yet another evolution. However there is no practical relevance between the fighting system and the religion those particular people were practicing in those days.


 Mantis is just another evolution of tan tui? I'm not sure I understand what your saying here either.

   7sm


----------



## Blooming Lotus

doesn't tam tui have shaolin rooting itself??  Maybe that's the association???


----------



## Fumanchu

Quote: "Do you mind sharing the sources you used to come to this conclusion? I've never heard anyone say they believed mantis and taiji originated around the same time. In fact, mantis is generally accepted as being alot more recent than alot of other CMA. It would be interesting to see your sources."

Conclusion is from seeing the similar concepts that are being applied in both the tai chi and mantis systems. The way you engage an opponent&#8217;s force and disrupting their balance is the same. I would say that in the tai chi form they practice a larger range of movement for more of the time. But in application you might be shortening the movement depending on what you encounter.


Quote: "What exactly do you mean? What theories? I dont see how that lends itself to taiji and mantis being created at the same time. If anything it helps the opposite belief since taiji would have to allready have been created if he was skilled in it and then creating mantis. There are similarities between mantis theories and taiji, however that same similarity is shared with many other CMAs. 


Well if you look at the way you work the angles with a straight sword and the empty hand tech in mantis, they&#8217;re both very similar. So the upward cutting action with the straight sword which uses considerable wrist action is similar to the wrist strike in lann zhaat. Both are used in fast-reaction situations. There&#8217;s other examples.

Quote: "So you dont accept the generally accepted history of the mantis system? Thats ok, what do you accept as the history of mantis creation then? So your summing up the whole system with, "its good in providing entries into an opponent"? Thats a little understated isn't it? Have you studied mantis kung fu? I'm not following what your saying about Bung Bo being about strategy. The "practical history" of mantis is great, and I'm with you on it meaning more than defeating some monk, but just because it doesn't mean alot to you or I doesn't mean it didn't happen." 

The monk-history of mantis may or may not be true. I don&#8217;t know how reliable the records are. Providing good entries into opponents is not the only thing that mantis is good at, but it is definitely one of the advantages of the system. Yes, I do mantis, as a general benchmark of where I&#8217;m at, I&#8217;m working on the baat zhao routine. If you look at the first line of bung bu, it contains the ways of creating the angle, closing into an opponent &#8211; this is what I mean by strategy. Mantis doesn&#8217;t teach you basic punch and kicks &#8211; this is considered assumed knowledge which a student would have experience from learning tam tui and basic pad work. Mantis at the bung bu level provides the strategy from which you can more effectively deploy the "kicks and punches"


Quote: "Mantis is just another evolution of tan tui? I'm not sure I understand what your saying here either."

What I&#8217;m saying is, the origin of mantis is probably derived from tam tui and other systems such as baji and piqua. I think it is simplistic to say that it came about all of a sudden when a monk observed a bug and came up with this fighting system. I think it is more likely that the person or group of people who arrive at this system were skilled in the above northern systems as well as the straight sword. I would even go so far to say that the name "mantis" was coined after the creation of the system when someone discovered that the hook hands looked somewhat like the bug.


----------



## 7starmantis

Fumanchu said:
			
		

> Conclusion is from seeing the similar concepts that are being applied in both the tai chi and mantis systems. The way you engage an opponents force and disrupting their balance is the same. I would say that in the tai chi form they practice a larger range of movement for more of the time. But in application you might be shortening the movement depending on what you encounter.


 So your belief of the time of creation of the mantis system is based simply on your own observances to similarities betweeen mantis and taiji. Its good that you see these similarites and are looking that deep into the sets, but its not really any kind of source, its just your opinion. 




			
				Fumanchu said:
			
		

> Well if you look at the way you work the angles with a straight sword and the empty hand tech in mantis, theyre both very similar. So the upward cutting action with the straight sword which uses considerable wrist action is similar to the wrist strike in lann zhaat. Both are used in fast-reaction situations. Theres other examples.


 Good observation, mantis does make use of many angles as well does most usage of the gim. The wrist action is very similar, but is actually different. In the form it is a soft point strike with the fingers, which involves not only wrist movement, but applied force to the fingers. The cut with the gim is more relient on the wrist alone. Very good observation again, but nothing that shows mantis and taiji to have been created at the same time. If anything it shows that one influenced the other, not that they were created at the same time.




			
				Fumanchu said:
			
		

> The monk-history of mantis may or may not be true. I dont know how reliable the records are.


 I can agree with that, but then the "practical-history" may or may not be true as well. Discounting one also discounts the other. 




			
				Fumanchu said:
			
		

> Providing good entries into opponents is not the only thing that mantis is good at, but it is definitely one of the advantages of the system. Yes, I do mantis, as a general benchmark of where Im at, Im working on the baat zhao routine. If you look at the first line of bung bu, it contains the ways of creating the angle, closing into an opponent  this is what I mean by strategy. Mantis doesnt teach you basic punch and kicks  this is considered assumed knowledge which a student would have experience from learning tam tui and basic pad work. Mantis at the bung bu level provides the strategy from which you can more effectively deploy the "kicks and punches"


 "Closing the gap" as many call it, is a great aspect of the mantis system, but pales in comparison to many of the more advanced principles and concepts in mantis. I wouldn't describe mantis' strogest points using the argument of "closing the gap"; many systems provide that quite effectively as well. I dont agree with the "kicks and punches" you spoke about. While mantis doesn't focus heavily on punching and kicking (the reason we teach wah lum sets first in our school), it does teach different ways of punching \and kicking. The basic knowledge is assumed, however new ways of punching adn kicking are taught to relate more to the system. Few martial arts teach hueng choy, bong choy, mantis hand type punching. These are learned in mantis itself. How to punch and kick without hurting yourself, and with sufficient power, is asumed. 




			
				Fumanchu said:
			
		

> What Im saying is, the origin of mantis is probably derived from tam tui and other systems such as baji and piqua. I think it is simplistic to say that it came about all of a sudden when a monk observed a bug and came up with this fighting system. I think it is more likely that the person or group of people who arrive at this system were skilled in the above northern systems as well as the straight sword. I would even go so far to say that the name "mantis" was coined after the creation of the system when someone discovered that the hook hands looked somewhat like the bug.


 So you do not accept mantis history. Has your sifu spoke about the history? Does he feel the same as you? If you studied the accepted history, Wong Long (creator) was believed to be a very well rounded and highly skilled martial artist. So you saying they were probably skilled in northern arts and even the gim, is quite along the lines of the accpeted history. Its interesting that you also believe the name "mantis" was given after the system was created. How do you explain the "mantis catches cicada" positions and the "wind movement" the southern mantis guys perform? 

 May I ask who you study under and how long you have studied mantis? Your profile only lists TKD. What style of mantis are you studying?

  7sm


----------



## Fumanchu

Quote: "So your belief of the time of creation of the mantis system is based simply on your own observances to similarities betweeen mantis and taiji. Its good that you see these similarites and are looking that deep into the sets, but its not really any kind of source, its just your opinion." 

Yes I guess it is just my opinion as I can&#8217;t provide you with documents that support my view. I tend to classify martial arts in terms of their underlying concepts. If they are similar and belong to the same geographic region, then it is likely their development is linked. After all, martial arts evolve to "solve-problems" affecting people in a given period of time, that&#8217;s also why I feel tai chi and mantis appeared around the same time.

Quote: "Good observation, mantis does make use of many angles as well does most usage of the gim. The wrist action is very similar, but is actually different. In the form it is a soft point strike with the fingers, which involves not only wrist movement, but applied force to the fingers. The cut with the gim is more relient on the wrist alone. Very good observation again, but nothing that shows mantis and taiji to have been created at the same time. If anything it shows that one influenced the other, not that they were created at the same time."

Not really, the soft point strike with the fingers (in the hook configuration) is only touched on in the Zhao Yao form &#8211; last form of mantis. The wrist is used a lot more as to attack soft points at very close range in Laan Zhaat, which is developed from Bung Bu. The formation of the mantis hook also provides speed in the elbows in protecting your soft abdominal parts or to increase the explosive speed in elbow strikes. The hook itself as I use it, is the full range of a grappling move, which you may or may not get into depending on how the opponent response. The control with the hook is similar to the way tai chi or baji controls with the hands &#8211; although in their form they don&#8217;t create the hook position. In most practical situations you don&#8217;t need to form the full hook position in grappling.

Quote: "I can agree with that, but then the "practical-history" may or may not be true as well. Discounting one also discounts the other." 

Quite possibly yes. But I think records that enough people use mantis for bodyguard duties or to protect valuable cargo is more reliable than one person&#8217;s creation from one source for one purpose (to defeat shaolin).

""Closing the gap" as many call it, is a great aspect of the mantis system, but pales in comparison to many of the more advanced principles and concepts in mantis. I wouldn't describe mantis' strogest points using the argument of "closing the gap"; many systems provide that quite effectively as well. I dont agree with the "kicks and punches" you spoke about. While mantis doesn't focus heavily on punching and kicking (the reason we teach wah lum sets first in our school), it does teach different ways of punching \and kicking. The basic knowledge is assumed, however new ways of punching adn kicking are taught to relate more to the system. Few martial arts teach hueng choy, bong choy, mantis hand type punching. These are learned in mantis itself. How to punch and kick without hurting yourself, and with sufficient power, is asumed." 

I agree, that within the mantis system there are specialised hits to get the harder to reach targets. But they do not substitute the bread and butter kicks and punches. Generally the more specialised strikes are initiated when you (as a mantis practitioner) know that your basic punches are not going to strike the target. The more sophisticated hits are generated in mid-stream of doing more basic techniques. 

"So you do not accept mantis history. Has your sifu spoke about the history? Does he feel the same as you? If you studied the accepted history, Wong Long (creator) was believed to be a very well rounded and highly skilled martial artist. So you saying they were probably skilled in northern arts and even the gim, is quite along the lines of the accpeted history. Its interesting that you also believe the name "mantis" was given after the system was created. How do you explain the "mantis catches cicada" positions and the "wind movement" the southern mantis guys perform? "

I&#8217;m not sure what my instructor accepts. From what I know we&#8217;re discovering more about kung fu history as China is opening up more to the world. I haven&#8217;t really dealt much with the historical aspects. Sure Wong Long may well be a person or might be a representation of the "type of people" who developed mantis. Who knows, but I think the important thing is to be able to see the relationship between mantis and other northern arts and the gim in our own training in mantis. Mantis catches the cicada position is the full-movement of a smothering hand action. This action is used by baji and other northern systems but is not represented as the full-movement in the forms as it is in mantis. Southern Mantis developed independently to northern mantis. The only thing similar between the 2 is the name.


Quote: "May I ask who you study under and how long you have studied mantis? Your profile only lists TKD. What style of mantis are you studying?"

I&#8217;ve been doing mantis for 4.5yrs now. The system is the seven star branch.


----------



## Black Tiger Fist

7starmantis said:
			
		

> Many believe to this day that mantis is the only system developed to fight against shaolin. So its connections to long fist or shaolin styles of any kind are more in defending against rather than using. 7sm


 
Developed to fight against shaolin is being too broad.

There are way too many styles that were taught at shaolin to make a statement like that.That is another one of those legend half-truths type statements. Wong Long used mantis to defeat the monks that he was training with ,noone has ever determined or has it ever been stated what style(s) those monks were skilled in.





jeff


----------



## 7starmantis

Fumanchu said:
			
		

> Yes I guess it is just my opinion as I cant provide you with documents that support my view. I tend to classify martial arts in terms of their underlying concepts. If they are similar and belong to the same geographic region, then it is likely their development is linked. After all, martial arts evolve to "solve-problems" affecting people in a given period of time, thats also why I feel tai chi and mantis appeared around the same time.


 Its good to have your own opinions and beliefs about your system, but dont expect everyone to agree if its something you have come up with on your own. There are people who do and have done alot of research on the history of MA and CMA and each specific style. To disagree with the agreed upon history by these guys is fine. In fact, I dont place much emphasis on history, as I would much rather be out training instead of talking about it. My only question, is what do you say about all the research that has been done and the accepted history of mantis? Why do so many people believe something so different from you?




			
				Fumanchu said:
			
		

> Not really, the soft point strike with the fingers (in the hook configuration) is only touched on in the Zhao Yao form  last form of mantis. The wrist is used a lot more as to attack soft points at very close range in Laan Zhaat, which is developed from Bung Bu. The formation of the mantis hook also provides speed in the elbows in protecting your soft abdominal parts or to increase the explosive speed in elbow strikes. The hook itself as I use it, is the full range of a grappling move, which you may or may not get into depending on how the opponent response. The control with the hook is similar to the way tai chi or baji controls with the hands  although in their form they dont create the hook position. In most practical situations you dont need to form the full hook position in grappling.


 I'm sorry, I must have misunderstood what technique you wre refering to. The attacks with the wrist ( where your hand is in a dil sau, and you actually make contact with the back of the wrist) you are correct about, but that technique shares no similarities to taiji. I thought you were refering to the finger strike at the beginning, where you are blocking with both hands in pak sau, then strike under the armpit with your fingers. That techniques does share a resemblance to the uppward cutting movements of the gim. Still, none of this lends itself to both systems being created together, or at the same time. In fact, most 7 star mantis schools do not emphasize as much "taiji principles" such as disrupting the center, staying lower than your opponant. That is why I was interested in knowing your lineage. May I ask again who you study under?




			
				Fumanchu said:
			
		

> Quite possibly yes. But I think records that enough people use mantis for bodyguard duties or to protect valuable cargo is more reliable than one persons creation from one source for one purpose (to defeat shaolin).


 Thats doesnm't make any sense though. Your going to blindly accept one part of the history and not another part, because you personally have an emotional reaction to one part. I dont mind people having different beliefs about the history of mantis, most of it is hearsay at best anyway, but to just pick and choose what you are going to believe by what sounds good to you, is, in my opinion nieve. I do think you should read up more on the accepted history of mantis, no where does it talk about only one source, he used techniques from the insect, then monkey footwork, then later on 17 techniques from other systems. Remember, he was a skilled MAist before developing mantis. 




			
				Fumanchu said:
			
		

> Im not sure what my instructor accepts. From what I know were discovering more about kung fu history as China is opening up more to the world. I havent really dealt much with the historical aspects. Sure Wong Long may well be a person or might be a representation of the "type of people" who developed mantis. Who knows, but I think the important thing is to be able to see the relationship between mantis and other northern arts and the gim in our own training in mantis. Mantis catches the cicada position is the full-movement of a smothering hand action. This action is used by baji and other northern systems but is not represented as the full-movement in the forms as it is in mantis. Southern Mantis developed independently to northern mantis. The only thing similar between the 2 is the name.


 It is important to see relationships between different systems and your own, however be careful assuming those relationships lend some type of heavy connection. To see a similarity and immediately claim the two systems were created together, is jumping the gun a little bit. Where in taiji is the dil sau? Or the wrist locks and breaks as in the beginning of Da Goon? There are similarities, and there are differences. saying the similarities mean simultaneous creation is the same as saying the differences mean they are from different countries of origin. Without research and any type of proof its hard to make any concrete statements in CMA history. 
 I didnt say anything about similarities between northern and southern mantis, I just said they both use techniques from the mantis insect. 

 Let me say this. I am impressed with your level of observance into the systems, many dont take the time. However, be leary of coming to hard concrete facts in your head because of those observations. Like mantis kung fu, be soft and yield. Dont assume your answer is the only one because you have come to it by yourself. 




			
				Black Tiger Fist said:
			
		

> Developed to fight against shaolin is being too broad.
> 
> There are way too many styles that were taught at shaolin to make a statement like that.That is another one of those legend half-truths type statements. Wong Long used mantis to defeat the monks that he was training with ,noone has ever determined or has it ever been stated what style(s) those monks were skilled in.


 How so? What does the amount of styles taught at shaolin have to do with it? Ok, so wong long defeated the monks he was training with. I dont think determining the exact systems is needed. Were these monks shaolin monks? Where they at a shaolin temple? Then would not his new system have defeated shaolin arts? No one is saying the only use for mantis is to defeat said certain specific styles. What I said was that it is generally accepted that mantis was created to fight against shaolin arts. If you buy any of the accepted history, that statement is correct. 

      7sm


----------



## Fumanchu

Quote: "My only question, is what do you say about all the research that has been done and the accepted history of mantis? Why do so many people believe something so different from you?"

I don&#8217;t know why people believe different things from me. But I can try to explain why I believe what I do. It is more likely that a martial art is composed by 2 or more persons. You need at least one partner to test out your techniques and that partner would have to be quite competent as well. Though the act of testing, the partners would be able to refine their ideas. I don&#8217;t think the generation of ideas would be one sided (ie by one person and the other person is just a test dummy). This seems more logical than to think that someone sat in a cave, observed an insect and came up with a new system.

Quote: "I'm sorry, I must have misunderstood what technique you wre refering to. The attacks with the wrist ( where your hand is in a dil sau, and you actually make contact with the back of the wrist) you are correct about, but that technique shares no similarities to taiji. I thought you were refering to the finger strike at the beginning, where you are blocking with both hands in pak sau, then strike under the armpit with your fingers. That techniques does share a resemblance to the uppward cutting movements of the gim. Still, none of this lends itself to both systems being created together, or at the same time. In fact, most 7 star mantis schools do not emphasize as much "taiji principles" such as disrupting the center, staying lower than your opponant. That is why I was interested in knowing your lineage. May I ask again who you study under?"

Same body movement underpinning the "rounded feeling" in tai chi and the wrist strike. Tai chi may not have the exact hand configuration but the body movement behind that move is similar. What makes the move work is not so much that the point of your wrist hits the target precisely &#8211; that may / may not happen. But the rounded feeling in your arms supported by your body that creates a "wedge". Oh yes, heaps of what mantis does involves staying lower compared to your opponent and slicing hits upwards or taking away their balance &#8211; by wedging and / or sweeps. That includes getting your opponent to cross their own centre. The objectives of control is similar to tai chi. In the opening moves when you have side stepped your opponent &#8211; you say that you launch finger strikes to the armpit. We&#8217;re not that precise &#8211; using the straight punch instead of a finger strike. That&#8217;s because we treat the whole flank of the opponent as a legitimate target as opposed to one particular point. As for the lineage, my instructor&#8217;s instructors were from Taiwan originally.

Quote: "Thats doesnm't make any sense though. Your going to blindly accept one part of the history and not another part, because you personally have an emotional reaction to one part. I dont mind people having different beliefs about the history of mantis, most of it is hearsay at best anyway, but to just pick and choose what you are going to believe by what sounds good to you, is, in my opinion nieve. I do think you should read up more on the accepted history of mantis, no where does it talk about only one source, he used techniques from the insect, then monkey footwork, then later on 17 techniques from other systems. Remember, he was a skilled MAist before developing mantis."

It is not really an emotionally reaction as such. There are more accounts from different sources of bodyguards of important people who know mantis then there is verifiable evidence of the system&#8217;s creation. So the conclusion I come to results from a balance of available facts as opposed to emotion. I&#8217;m not sure about 17 techniques. Mantis does not lend itself to techniques as such, the basis of it&#8217;s body movement comes from earlier northern systems such as long fist, baji etc. 



Quote: "It is important to see relationships between different systems and your own, however be careful assuming those relationships lend some type of heavy connection. To see a similarity and immediately claim the two systems were created together, is jumping the gun a little bit. Where in taiji is the dil sau? Or the wrist locks and breaks as in the beginning of Da Goon? There are similarities, and there are differences. saying the similarities mean simultaneous creation is the same as saying the differences mean they are from different countries of origin. Without research and any type of proof its hard to make any concrete statements in CMA history. I didnt say anything about similarities between northern and southern mantis, I just said they both use techniques from the mantis insect."

I don&#8217;t think Tai Chi misses out on getting into positions where you can do joint locks. Both mantis and Tai Chi attampt to control an opponent without having to lock on to one specific point in a grabbing action. Sure part of the act of controlling may lead to a grab and hold, but that results from an interplay between what you do and what your partner is doing at that time. In most situations (in tai chi or mantis), the control techniques allow you to disrupt the opponent and give you an advantage. What is Da Goon? Is it a form?


----------



## 7starmantis

Fumanchu said:
			
		

> This seems more logical than to think that someone sat in a cave, observed an insect and came up with a new system.


 Your combining two different stories about different things. I can accept that you have your own beliefs, your welcome to your own opinions as are we all.




			
				Fumanchu said:
			
		

> In the opening moves when you have side stepped your opponent  you say that you launch finger strikes to the armpit. Were not that precise  using the straight punch instead of a finger strike. Thats because we treat the whole flank of the opponent as a legitimate target as opposed to one particular point. As for the lineage, my instructors instructors were from Taiwan originally.


 First, we must be talking about different forms. Your describing Bung Bo? I was speaking of a different form. nevermind. Bung bo does side step and use a straight punch. I didn't say anything about only one particular point being a legitament target, but being precise is very important in the higher levels of the mantis system. With the 8 points of attack and some of the more serious attack points, presicion is very neccessary. 

 I'm sorry, I wasn't asking as much about where your instructor was from, but who your instructor was, I may not have been clear.




			
				Fumanchu said:
			
		

> It is not really an emotionally reaction as such. There are more accounts from different sources of bodyguards of important people who know mantis then there is verifiable evidence of the systems creation. So the conclusion I come to results from a balance of available facts as opposed to emotion. Im not sure about 17 techniques. Mantis does not lend itself to techniques as such, the basis of its body movement comes from earlier northern systems such as long fist, baji etc.


 So would you mind sharing those accounts from important people now? What are the available facts? You said earlier you had no sources for your beliefs. If you do, I would be interested in seeing them. 




			
				Fumanchu said:
			
		

> I dont think Tai Chi misses out on getting into positions where you can do joint locks. Both mantis and Tai Chi attampt to control an opponent without having to lock on to one specific point in a grabbing action. Sure part of the act of controlling may lead to a grab and hold, but that results from an interplay between what you do and what your partner is doing at that time. In most situations (in tai chi or mantis), the control techniques allow you to disrupt the opponent and give you an advantage. What is Da Goon? Is it a form?


 I didn't say taiji missed out on chin na techniques. In true martial application there are many in taiji. I'm not sure what you mean about mantis not having any grabbing action, there is alot of grabbing in mantis. The difference is that the garb is a "non commital" type of a grab where you can let go quickly if needed. 

 Da Goon is a form, you might know it as Dou Gan Quan or Dore Kwan Kuen. Its one of the first forms in the system, I think maybe #4 or so.

  7sm


----------



## Fumanchu

ok, here goes with regard to a brief history. similaritiy between styles and the recorded history places tai chi, mantis, hsingi at round the 1600s. Baji was mentioned in the Ming Dynasty 1368-1644. It does cover the 1600 period but may be developed up to 200 yrs earlier than mantis. Given that all these styles occurred in neighbouring provinces, it is hard to imagine that they sprung up in isolation or that they had a "secret lineage" for many generations before the 1600s. It seems reasonable there is significant co-development between these systems at around the same time.

Yes, it is the non-commital grab that I was also referring to - i wasn't saying there isn't any grabbing action, but that control does not always require grabbing as in tai chi.

No, I haven't come across the form "Dou Gan Quan" or "Dore Kwan Kuen", what material do they cover? 

I don't know what 8 points of attack is. Yes I agree that certain strikes at the advance level work best if done with precision. Finger strike to the face would at least distract your opponent. Some times the blade of the hand can slip in towards the throat. But the fact is if you miss you do not damage your hands. There seems to be too many hard things around the arm pit to do finger strikes there. Not good if you miss and hit the ribs. i find that the more advance hits focus on zones as opposed to point strikes.


----------



## 7starmantis

Fumanchu said:
			
		

> ok, here goes with regard to a brief history. similaritiy between styles and the recorded history places tai chi, mantis, hsingi at round the 1600s. Baji was mentioned in the Ming Dynasty 1368-1644. It does cover the 1600 period but may be developed up to 200 yrs earlier than mantis. Given that all these styles occurred in neighbouring provinces, it is hard to imagine that they sprung up in isolation or that they had a "secret lineage" for many generations before the 1600s. It seems reasonable there is significant co-development between these systems at around the same time.


 Thats great, but I was asking to see the sources your were using to come to those conclusions.



			
				Fumanchu said:
			
		

> No, I haven't come across the form "Dou Gan Quan" or "Dore Kwan Kuen", what material do they cover?


 Dore KWan Kuen is the cantonese spelling while Dou Gan Quan is the mandarin. Of course there are millions of variations, we use Da Goon. Its the fourth form in the system and translates to "Avoiding Force". 



			
				Fumanchu said:
			
		

> I don't know what 8 points of attack is. Yes I agree that certain strikes at the advance level work best if done with precision. Finger strike to the face would at least distract your opponent. Some times the blade of the hand can slip in towards the throat. But the fact is if you miss you do not damage your hands. There seems to be too many hard things around the arm pit to do finger strikes there. Not good if you miss and hit the ribs. i find that the more advance hits focus on zones as opposed to point strikes.


 If your aiming for the armpit and you miss and hit the ribs, your should really spend more time practicing. Thats a big margin of error. Plus, in mantis its never just a strike, in the form you have blocked with pak sau, performed a grab, raised the arm, lowered your center, plucked the punch, and then an almost crane's beak type finger strike to the soft armpit. It does take conditioning of the hands. Mantis people usually do alot of finger conditioning and even finger-tip pushups which will really strengthen and condition your fingers for strikes like that.
 The more advanced hits focus specifically on points and not zones. Zones are in the begining and for less advanced, once you start getting to the really advanced striking points and forms, it gets very, very precise.

 I guess you dont care to answer the question about with whom you train. Thats ok, but let me give you some advice. On the internet in general and especially on this board, and even more with me, facts are needed. Refusing to give sources, or talk about your training only shadows you with doubt and makes people write you off. I'm not saying this is the case with you, but the mere nature of internet communication demands some type of source or proof.

   7sm


----------



## Fumanchu

Quote: "Thats great, but I was asking to see the sources your were using to come to those conclusions."

I haven&#8217;t kept a record on the sources of information. It&#8217;s from web sites I&#8217;ve read about on the internet and normal history books that talk about the different time periods of dynasties in China. I admit it is not a formal study by any stretch of the imagination. One thing I should add is that in both the recorded history and folklore the above systems are attributed to skilled practitioners in their own rite and have had involvement in the military. We know that during this period coincided with the change in political parties (so to speak) from Ming to Ching. It makes sense that some of the former high-ranking soldiers you can say lost their jobs or resigned. At a practical level, these soldiers having been "made redundent" still have mouths to feed and bills to pay thus plying their kung fu skills as bodyguards / martial arts teachers / security officers. The development of these systems might have been based on concepts found within the military training in the Ming Dynasty. Of course being &#8216;freelance agents&#8217; after their military service the founders can spend more time developing on those ideas thus resulting in the various branches of northern systems we see today. 

Quote: "Dore KWan Kuen is the cantonese spelling while Dou Gan Quan is the mandarin. Of course there are millions of variations, we use Da Goon. Its the fourth form in the system and translates to "Avoiding Force". "

That sounds interesting. We only learn 4 mantis forms in our study of this system. Bung Bu, Lan Zhaat, 8-elbows and Zah Yao - which contain the refined concepts of the system.

Quote: " If your aiming for the armpit and you miss and hit the ribs, your should really spend more time practicing. Thats a big margin of error. Plus, in mantis its never just a strike, in the form you have blocked with pak sau, performed a grab, raised the arm, lowered your center, plucked the punch, and then an almost crane's beak type finger strike to the soft armpit. It does take conditioning of the hands. Mantis people usually do alot of finger conditioning and even finger-tip pushups which will really strengthen and condition your fingers for strikes like that.
The more advanced hits focus specifically on points and not zones. Zones are in the begining and for less advanced, once you start getting to the really advanced striking points and forms, it gets very, very precise."
Ok I see where you&#8217;re coming from now &#8211; as you basically have control of your opponent. If I&#8217;ve got an opponent&#8217;s weight going up and I&#8217;m going down, I would love to go after their centre of balance either going after their mid section or below. I&#8217;m not so sure about going up for an armpit strike &#8211; this is because if you&#8217;re bringing a person&#8217;s weight up, they could quite easily lift their knee up as well. Best to have your forearm to wedge off the potential knee or to take out their balance as you go down. Even in a grappling situation, your opponent will still be moving around quite a bit. I don&#8217;t think I&#8217;ll have the accuracy to strike specific points even with another 10 years of training. Sure if it&#8217;s a stationary target it would be easy &#8211; as it is easy to hit a stationary pad. When the target moves, as I see it the concepts in the higher forms allow you to chase down the target &#8211; so that you can target the zones more of the time (as opposed to missing them). I don&#8217;t see higher forms as hitting smaller targets as such.

Quote: "I guess you dont care to answer the question about with whom you train. Thats ok, but let me give you some advice. On the internet in general and especially on this board, and even more with me, facts are needed. Refusing to give sources, or talk about your training only shadows you with doubt and makes people write you off. I'm not saying this is the case with you, but the mere nature of internet communication demands some type of source or proof."

I&#8217;m not sure if my instructor wants his name to be mentioned on the net. Hopefully the content of what I write will be enough for you to determine whether it is worth your time or stuff that should be written off.


----------



## 7starmantis

Fumanchu said:
			
		

> That sounds interesting. We only learn 4 mantis forms in our study of this system. Bung Bu, Lan Zhaat, 8-elbows and Zah Yao - which contain the refined concepts of the system.


 Yeah, I figured as much. So you dont train in 7 star mantis but in a system that also touches on mantis, is that correct? Such as a shaolin system that uses many of the different animals, giving you exposure to tiger, eagle claw, mantis, snake fist, etc... 
 There are different accepted forms in the 7 star system, but one of the major worldwide accepted lists is Lee Kam Wing's. You can find a list on his website. Remeber, others claim different forms and such, but his is one of the main accepted lists.




			
				Fumanchu said:
			
		

> Ok I see where youre coming from now  as you basically have control of your opponent. If Ive got an opponents weight going up and Im going down, I would love to go after their centre of balance either going after their mid section or below. Im not so sure about going up for an armpit strike  this is because if youre bringing a persons weight up, they could quite easily lift their knee up as well. Best to have your forearm to wedge off the potential knee or to take out their balance as you go down. Even in a grappling situation, your opponent will still be moving around quite a bit. I dont think Ill have the accuracy to strike specific points even with another 10 years of training. Sure if its a stationary target it would be easy  as it is easy to hit a stationary pad. When the target moves, as I see it the concepts in the higher forms allow you to chase down the target  so that you can target the zones more of the time (as opposed to missing them). I dont see higher forms as hitting smaller targets as such.


 To block a strike originating from your chest area, to the armpit of the opponant (more or less a straight line) it would be simple impossible to block that with a knee, its basically a physical impossibility. If your were very low and striking up the possibility exists, but thats where feel comes in, if they do, you have your forearm, and elbow there to block, parry, yield, etc. Thats the whole martial arts thing, if they block you move to something else. It doesn't take 10 years to get that type of accuracy, you said the secret yourself, control. One you gain control of the opponant, stirking with accuracy is alot easier. That type of precision is vital in the upper level technqiues and forms in the 7 star system. You dont see that in the higher forms, because we are talking about different forms. The higher forms I'm speaking of, you dont learn in your training. 




			
				Fumanchu said:
			
		

> Im not sure if my instructor wants his name to be mentioned on the net. Hopefully the content of what I write will be enough for you to determine whether it is worth your time or stuff that should be written off.


 Thats fine, there are Private Message here as well. Also, what reason would one not want there name mentioned as the teacher of a certain person? Nevertheless, I'll respect that. I'm not trying to decide if I should write you off or not, by knowing who your teacher is, I was simply curious as to your lineage, training methods, and style you are studying. Many lineages have differences, and knowing who you are under can help me understand what your saying a bit better, thats all. I will decide wether its worth my time by reading your posts alone.

   7sm


----------



## Fumanchu

Quote: "Yeah, I figured as much. So you dont train in 7 star mantis but in a system that also touches on mantis, is that correct? Such as a shaolin system that uses many of the different animals, giving you exposure to tiger, eagle claw, mantis, snake fist, etc... There are different accepted forms in the 7 star system, but one of the major worldwide accepted lists is Lee Kam Wing's. You can find a list on his website. Remeber, others claim different forms and such, but his is one of the main accepted lists."


The 4 forms comprise the mantis system that we train as well as 2 long fist forms. Yes, I had a look at your list, you do have many weapon sets, whereas we have a form or 2 for each of the gim broadsword and staff. You seem to split "ba elbows" into 2 sections. You also do Bung Bu which is a beginning form. Interesting though you split Zhai Yaio into the beginner / intermediate-higher / higher levels. We do Zhai Yaio as one form at some stage after ba elbows. The concepts in this is actually rather advance. I was hunting around and found this website users.aol.com/beishaolin/qixing.html. Noticed that your list does not include "Intercepting" or "Laan Dzeed" (No.29 on that list) in your training. Is this named as something else or the material is being covered by other forms in your program? In our training, that&#8217;s the 2nd form we learn in mantis.

Quote: "To block a strike originating from your chest area, to the armpit of the opponant (more or less a straight line) it would be simple impossible to block that with a knee, its basically a physical impossibility. If your were very low and striking up the possibility exists, but thats where feel comes in, if they do, you have your forearm, and elbow there to block, parry, yield, etc. Thats the whole martial arts thing, if they block you move to something else. It doesn't take 10 years to get that type of accuracy, you said the secret yourself, control. One you gain control of the opponant, stirking with accuracy is alot easier. That type of precision is vital in the upper level technqiues and forms in the 7 star system. You dont see that in the higher forms, because we are talking about different forms. The higher forms I'm speaking of, you dont learn in your training."

You&#8217;re right, it&#8217;s not to block the armpit strike but rather to knee someone in the face when they are going down. What type of training do you do to get this level of accuracy? For me, there are many occasions where a sparing partner&#8217;s last minute reaction will cause a clean hit to become a glancing blow to a much larger target area like the abdomen. Would these precision strikes be taught after ba-elbows?

Quote" "Thats fine, there are Private Message here as well. Also, what reason would one not want there name mentioned as the teacher of a certain person? Nevertheless, I'll respect that. I'm not trying to decide if I should write you off or not, by knowing who your teacher is, I was simply curious as to your lineage, training methods, and style you are studying. Many lineages have differences, and knowing who you are under can help me understand what your saying a bit better, thats all. I will decide wether its worth my time by reading your posts alone."

In terms of training methods we do quite a lot of application work. I just counted.... your system has over 90 forms. It takes us close to a year to learn one form because each mantis form represents a significant advancement in the complexity of movement. How much would one be expected to cover in say 5 years?


----------



## 7starmantis

Fumanchu said:
			
		

> The 4 forms comprise the mantis system that we train as well as 2 long fist forms. Yes, I had a look at your list, you do have many weapon sets, whereas we have a form or 2 for each of the gim broadsword and staff. You seem to split "ba elbows" into 2 sections. You also do Bung Bu which is a beginning form. Interesting though you split Zhai Yaio into the beginner / intermediate-higher / higher levels. We do Zhai Yaio as one form at some stage after ba elbows. The concepts in this is actually rather advance. I was hunting around and found this website users.aol.com/beishaolin/qixing.html. Noticed that your list does not include "Intercepting" or "Laan Dzeed" (No.29 on that list) in your training. Is this named as something else or the material is being covered by other forms in your program? In our training, thats the 2nd form we learn in mantis.


 That list is just Lee Kam Wing's accepted list. Its not my schools list or the only accepted 7 star forms, there are other forms that are accepted by other lineages as well, like jung jeet (Laan Dzeed). LKW's list showed 82 sets and the qigong set. Many of those are weapons sets and 2 man sets. My school uses many of LKW's and Chiu Luen's as well. The Gim isn't really used as a "mantis" wespon, but we do many gim forms. We use many of the 118 chinese weapons including, staff, spear, cern sau do, hook sword, daggers, flute, etc... I'm not really sure what "ba elbows" is. I do know Laan Dzeed (lung jeet) we do that set in my school.

 You still didn't answer my question however. Do you study a kung fu system that touches on many animals including the mantis? What is your specific style of CMA? There are many who just study kung fu and it touches on many different systems. Nothing is wrong with that, I'm just curious as to what exactly you study. 
 



			
				Fumanchu said:
			
		

> Youre right, its not to block the armpit strike but rather to knee someone in the face when they are going down. What type of training do you do to get this level of accuracy? For me, there are many occasions where a sparing partners last minute reaction will cause a clean hit to become a glancing blow to a much larger target area like the abdomen. Would these precision strikes be taught after ba-elbows?


 Well in lung jeet its not a kneeling strike, but a strike from chut sing ma (seven start stance) so being kneed in the face is still pretty out of the question. There are many strikes from kneeling stance where being kneed is a real possibility, but in mantis we use the pluck and body control to decrease that possibility. Accuracy is taught in our forms, and learned through jeem leem (chi sau). Its not percision strikes per se, but just control over your body enough to have accuracy. There are many times the opponant moves, but you should feel that and also change your attack. One of the whole basis to our strikes is the pluck and gaining control, without that, it would be hard to be precise. 




			
				Fumanchu said:
			
		

> In terms of training methods we do quite a lot of application work. I just counted.... your system has over 90 forms. It takes us close to a year to learn one form because each mantis form represents a significant advancement in the complexity of movement. How much would one be expected to cover in say 5 years?


 The 7 star mantis system does have many forms. What a student covers in 5 years is completely up to the student and his/her ability, and desire, and training. We start all of our students off learning wah lum forms first. They dont even learn their first 7 star set until about a year into it. Then it generally progresses one set in 6 to 8 months. Depending on the form and the student. 

 I would love discussing mantis with you, but it seems you are not willing to answer questions, without that it would be hard for us to really discuss things.

 7sm

   7sm


----------



## Black Tiger Fist

7starmantis said:
			
		

> How so?
> 7sm


Because there were so many arts being taught at shaolin ,not every monk trained in all of the styles being taught. So it could be that Wong Long defeated monks that only knew Cha Fist or Hua Fist.



			
				7starmantis said:
			
		

> What does the amount of styles taught at shaolin have to do with it?
> 7sm


How can you say it was created to defeat Shaolin arts ,if you don't know what style(s) those monks knew? It might have been created to just deal with one particular style.






			
				7starmantis said:
			
		

> Ok, so wong long defeated the monks he was training with. I dont think determining the exact systems is needed.
> 7sm


Well, if you're going to make a statement like "it was created to defeat shaolin arts" ,you need to know what arts you're talking about.

Don't you think?





			
				7starmantis said:
			
		

> Were these monks shaolin monks?
> 7sm


Who knows actually?

You as well as i know that alot of CMA knowledge is based in myth and legend.

There is no mention of their skill level they could've been lay monks as well.It also doesn't mention if they were warrior monks ,so who's to say...





			
				7starmantis said:
			
		

> Where they at a shaolin temple?
> 7sm


That's what the story claims...



			
				7starmantis said:
			
		

> Then would not his new system have defeated shaolin arts?
> 7sm


Not really,

It might have defeated a shaolin art or a mixture of a few there of ,but to say it defeated shaolin arts is just wrong.




			
				7starmantis said:
			
		

> No one is saying the only use for mantis is to defeat said certain specific styles. What I said was that it is generally accepted that mantis was created to fight against shaolin arts. If you buy any of the accepted history, that statement is correct.
> 
> 7sm


I never said anything about defeating specific arts ,i just said to say it was created to defeat shaolin arts without knowing what arts is leading ppl with hear say.

Yes that is accepted that it was created to fight against shaolin arts ,but because ppl accept that theroy ,doesn't make it fact.



jeff


----------



## Blooming Lotus

I can't disagree with 7* s point, because literally, monks in training and from the age of 6 are still loosely deemed as monks at shaolin, though not officially until some 20 yrs later. ?Most monks have a good grasp of most or many of the shaolin styles and forms and excel at a small few. 

On lay monks though, and speaking of having the information, shaolin monks prctice a branch of buddhism called mahayana or ch'an , and don't have lay monks except your 30th generation su s ( like your shi suxi s, shi meaning enlightened one, and the begining all docrinated monks names, the next syllabal representing their generation , xi in this case being his name and given by the monk bestowing the discipleship and meaning "joy" ) who are just too old to practice as rigorously, and lay disclpes are lay in terms of vows and ascetic committment as opposed to secular and not in gongfu practice as it is integral to the belief system and one of the three defining "gems of shaolin"  practice ( dharma and doctrine ( scripture) , gongfu, and sangha ( community).

To say one art or style could defeat all monks of shaolin, is extremely general and unreasonable. To be clear, and correct me if I'm wrong, I don't think that's what any of you have been saying. To say that it was used to combat the styles of a certain few ( also at times used by non- temple or non-indocrinated gongfu practitioners including imperialguards and armies who often used some of those styles or parts of against Chinas citizens and courts men who hired these practioners for protection ) and spending time training with those styles and gravitating toward a defence for what he met , that system becomming mantis is certainly a viable and credible theory.



cheers

Blooming Lotus


----------



## RHD

Though I generally despise IKF magazine, I went back and reread that article.  It's really one of the better ones written about the PM stlye.  I was curious though about the 12 principles of attack.  They are mentiontion, but never listed or discussed.  I wonder if these relate at all to Hung Gar's 12 bridges?

Mike


----------



## Fumanchu

Quote: "That list is just Lee Kam Wing's accepted list. Its not my schools list or the only accepted 7 star forms, there are other forms that are accepted by other lineages as well, like jung jeet (Laan Dzeed). LKW's list showed 82 sets and the qigong set. Many of those are weapons sets and 2 man sets. My school uses many of LKW's and Chiu Luen's as well. The Gim isn't really used as a "mantis" wespon, but we do many gim forms. We use many of the 118 chinese weapons including, staff, spear, cern sau do, hook sword, daggers, flute, etc... I'm not really sure what "ba elbows" is. I do know Laan Dzeed (lung jeet) we do that set in my school. You still didn't answer my question however. Do you study a kung fu system that touches on many animals including the mantis? What is your specific style of CMA? There are many who just study kung fu and it touches on many different systems. Nothing is wrong with that, I'm just curious as to what exactly you study. "

Ba elbows is the English translation as shown in the table in LKW&#8217;s web site that you referenced to - Yat Lo Bau Chau, Yi Lu Ba Zhoug Routine 1 of Ba Elbow Yee Lo Bau Chau Er Lu Ba Zhoug Routine 2 of Ba Elbow. Sorry, I didn&#8217;t know you were asking me that question on animals, I thought you were making an anology with how shaolin schools train. No, I study mantis (do not do any other animal styles). To us, the name mantis is only an incidental matter and we don&#8217;t try to find a relationship with other animals or the physical relationship to that insect in particular. Specific style is Seven Star Mantis, which we do about 70% of the time. The rest of the time touches on other Northern systems such a long fist, baji, piqua and some people do tai chi. I would have thought the straight sword adapts well to mantis and vice versa, curious that you say that the gim isn&#8217;t really used as a mantis weapon. It does seem you spend quite a lot of time on weapon's training. 

From my understanding, the original mantis system originated with only a few forms, how did it eventually end with with such a large number of hand to hand forms and do you think that they are necessary for a student to understand the system?

Quote : "Well in lung jeet its not a kneeling strike, but a strike from chut sing ma (seven start stance) so being kneed in the face is still pretty out of the question. There are many strikes from kneeling stance where being kneed is a real possibility, but in mantis we use the pluck and body control to decrease that possibility. Accuracy is taught in our forms, and learned through jeem leem (chi sau). Its not percision strikes per se, but just control over your body enough to have accuracy. There are many times the opponant moves, but you should feel that and also change your attack. One of the whole basis to our strikes is the pluck and gaining control, without that, it would be hard to be precise. "

Ok I see where you&#8217;re coming from. I&#8217;m not familiar with "chi sau", in terms of the progressing in learning, where does this form sit in between Bung Bu, Laan Dzeed and Ba Zhoug?

Quote: " The 7 star mantis system does have many forms. What a student covers in 5 years is completely up to the student and his/her ability, and desire, and training. We start all of our students off learning wah lum forms first. They dont even learn their first 7 star set until about a year into it. Then it generally progresses one set in 6 to 8 months. Depending on the form and the student. I would love discussing mantis with you, but it seems you are not willing to answer questions, without that it would be hard for us to really discuss things."

Yes that&#8217;s pretty much the case in the classes I attend, we progress at our own rate. Do all students progress through the same sets or would different sets be skipped by different students if those sets cover the same material as other sets that a student might have done?


----------



## Blooming Lotus

ba elbows literally translated is 8 elbows ( 8 = ba as in bagua 8 diagrams) and in this case likely ( though don't quote me)  refers to branches of mizong elbows also comming from shaolin gongfu.



It is a shame you don't recognise or associate with other animal gongfu systems, because in acknowledging the shaolin root aspect of mantis ( or partial root as the case may be), and being shaolin gongfu is based on the five animals ,  as with the mantis sets / forms origins that were  queried earlier in the thread, IMO you tend to miss out on some important concepts.  When you understand that the forms I just spoke of were created from drunken shaolin monkey , quite clearly an animal form, I think the rest explains itself.

respectfully

Blooming Lotus


----------



## Fumanchu

Blooming lotus

Yes, I know that is the English translation and, I refer to it as 8 elbows in one of my earlier posts. Subsequently I called it ba elbows as a matter of consistency in the discussion with regard to the web site 7 staramntis referred me to. As for Mizong, my understanding is that it is one of the later compilations of long fist. Some sources say that it came about in the 18 century founded upon ideas from earlier northern systems like Hsing I, Baji, mantis etc&#8230;. The term drunken to me is not to be taken literally, but rather embodies the idea of unpredictable footwork and efficient ways of moving. There are of course other drunken sets within certain systems that are purely for display / demonstration only and serves no combat purpose. As for 8 elbows, the footwork expends on what you learn in Bung Bu (first form of mantis) combined with improved torque in your movement, which you learn in Laan Zhaat. The idea behind 8 elbows is that it lets you reach the similar targets, as you would do in Bung Bu, but from an otherwise less advantageous position. As for the link between Shaolin and mantis, it is likely that mantis found it&#8217;s way to Shaolin sometime after its creation as it did find it&#8217;s way to HK, US, Taiwan etc. But it is unlikely there is a Shaolin origin to mantis, as I pointed out earlier, the founders of these northern styles were from the military as opposed from the monastery.
As for missing out on concepts &#8211; not sure what concepts you&#8217;re referring to.


----------



## Blooming Lotus

lol at the irony of your last statement .  : ) 

Drunken gongfu is definately a combat branch of martial artistry and it certainly has both dynamic feet and hands and is today still being performed and trained at the shaolin temple. Drunken monkey, and many monkey sub -styles have regularly been used in tournies and comps ( for example taixingpek kwar from Grandmaster Chan who also took the shaolin monkey and added it to his own hongkong style to acheive undefeated ring victory for many many years.   Most tournie events today though that are including styles  are as you said, largely display and performance which is likely where the confusion lays.  Longfist was originally from shaolin as far as I know, and again still practiced as at shaolin and throughout shaolin gongfu schools world wide as a defininitive form and any branch or sub branch of longfist is still rooted back in that system.  

As we have all repetitively said, history is dubious and often has many conflicting  versions.  One is that mantis was created at shaolin temple or with the assistance of  monks who sparred and trained with the founder.  If you read the links I posted to the mantis forms origin query , you'll see other ppl have traced the same connection between the styles.


cheers 
Blooming Lotus


----------



## Fumanchu

Monkey / Drunken Monkey or 5 Animal Shaolin tries to imitate the movements of the subject matter. Imitation of mantis insect is not something that Mantis tries to do. I agree that historical accounts can be dubious and often have many conflicting versions. Therefore to determine the account that is most reasonable we have to look at the underlying objectives and theory behind the systems as a means of determining their association in their past. Accordingly, it is unlikely that mantis originated from the Shaolin temple. Mantis could have found its way to the temple sometime after its creation (as I said earlier) and became a separate branch that is taught in conjunction of other Shaolin forms. Longfist does not have a Shaolin origin. It originated from the Islamic provinces of China somewhere in the North West.


----------



## Blooming Lotus

It's funny you should mention that, and again with the dubious history reporting, and not to thread-jack 7*M s thread ( and probably a conversation best left for elsewhere), but there are current rumours and stories flying about academic scholarly historian circles at the moment of all sorts of gongfu having actutal origins right throughtout that whole table including Russia and so forth.  Interesting to see who has proof where ha . 
Regardless, I'll bear in mind what you've said for future cross -referencing anyway.

Cheers Fumanchu

Blooming Lotus


----------



## Black Tiger Fist

7starmantis said:
			
		

> We start all of our students off learning wah lum forms first. They dont even learn their first 7 star set until about a year into it. Then it generally progresses one set in 6 to 8 months. Depending on the form and the student.
> 7sm


Okay, 7* i have aquestion for you.

Why is it that you guys are taught Wah Lum forms?


I don't mean to start any trouble ,but it is widely known that Grandmaster Chan Poi created many of the Wah Lum forms taught within their system himself after his sifu had passed. He did learn some from a few of his seniors ,but this is not to say anything negative about Chan Poi because he is a remarkable martial artist ,but it is also known that many of the forms he created were done basicly for show.

So how does this help students with learning 7* Mantis?

jeff


----------



## 7starmantis

RHD said:
			
		

> Though I generally despise IKF magazine, I went back and reread that article. It's really one of the better ones written about the PM stlye. I was curious though about the 12 principles of attack. They are mentiontion, but never listed or discussed. I wonder if these relate at all to Hung Gar's 12 bridges?


 I dont know, but I would assume they probably do have some similarities. There are 12 soft and 8 hard principles in the mantis system, I would imagine there are similarities on both the hard and soft principles. I'll have to ask my sifu now, since his kung fu brother teaches hung gar. 



			
				Fumanchu said:
			
		

> Ba elbows is the English translation as shown in the table in LKWs web site that you referenced to - Yat Lo Bau Chau, Yi Lu Ba Zhoug Routine 1 of Ba Elbow Yee Lo Bau Chau Er Lu Ba Zhoug Routine 2 of Ba Elbow. Sorry, I didnt know you were asking me that question on animals, I thought you were making an anology with how shaolin schools train. No, I study mantis (do not do any other animal styles). To us, the name mantis is only an incidental matter and we dont try to find a relationship with other animals or the physical relationship to that insect in particular. Specific style is Seven Star Mantis, which we do about 70% of the time. The rest of the time touches on other Northern systems such a long fist, baji, piqua and some people do tai chi. I would have thought the straight sword adapts well to mantis and vice versa, curious that you say that the gim isnt really used as a mantis weapon. It does seem you spend quite a lot of time on weapon's training.


 Oh, yes, I see now. All 7 star shcools I've ever seen teach those as two sets, 1st routing (Yut) and 2nd routine (Ye). I dont really know how else to discuss with you since you are not willing to answer any questions about your instructor or training. I've never seen or heard of any 7 star people who train as you do with only 4 forms, I've also never heard of any 7 star schools that try hard to make no connection whatsoever to the mantis insect. That is why I was curious to know your lineage. I'm not saying your wrong, or not studying true mantis, but its hard to discuss further without some sort of understanding of what you do. I dont spend much time on weapons at all. Probably 15% of my training or so, maybe. 




			
				Fumanchu said:
			
		

> From my understanding, the original mantis system originated with only a few forms, how did it eventually end with with such a large number of hand to hand forms and do you think that they are necessary for a student to understand the system?


 Where did you get that understanding from? I dont know that I think it is neccessary to know every 7 star form accepted by any 7 star school in the world, but I do think it would take more than just the 4 basic forms you guys train in to really understand the system. There are principles and techniques, and concepts you are missing that are very core to the system. 



			
				Fumanchu said:
			
		

> Ok I see where youre coming from. Im not familiar with "chi sau", in terms of the progressing in learning, where does this form sit in between Bung Bu, Laan Dzeed and Ba Zhoug?


 Chi sau or more appropriately "jeem leem" is how you being learning how to use mantis in real situations, how to move from one techinque to the other, how to develop "feel" and learn to attack and control your opponents center as well as your own. Its mentioned in the artilce at the beginning of this thread.Its not a form, but a method of fighting. It starts very slow and picks up speed, power, and so forth and so on. Its one of the things I feel if you are missing you are not getting even a small glimpse of understanding of the system itself.




			
				Fumanchu said:
			
		

> Yes thats pretty much the case in the classes I attend, we progress at our own rate. Do all students progress through the same sets or would different sets be skipped by different students if those sets cover the same material as other sets that a student might have done?


 All students progress through the same sets, if they didn't they wouldn't be getting a grasp of the entire system. Sets aren't skipped, because there aren't other sets that include the same things. You can't just rip out pieces of mantis and expect to understand the whole system. You have to include everything, even groundfighting. 




			
				Black Tiger Fist said:
			
		

> Okay, 7* i have aquestion for you.
> 
> Why is it that you guys are taught Wah Lum forms?
> 
> 
> I don't mean to start any trouble ,but it is widely known that Grandmaster Chan Poi created many of the Wah Lum forms taught within their system himself after his sifu had passed. He did learn some from a few of his seniors ,but this is not to say anything negative about Chan Poi because he is a remarkable martial artist ,but it is also known that many of the forms he created were done basicly for show.
> 
> So how does this help students with learning 7* Mantis?


 Our beginner students are taught wah lum, because like we dicussed earlier, mantis (especially 7*) has a tendency to leave out core MA basics like punching and kicking. Learning 8 basic stances, and 8 basic kicks, and 8 basic punches, etc...(all wah lum) give a new MA student the basics they need to train in mantis. It helps them start getting the mantis movements down and get their balance, strength, cardio, and start getting the hang of things. Chan Poi's history is of no consequence to me. Wah Lum is a hard system to learn and is very good. It is more flashy, but its also a bit more basic as a whole and helps you "ease into it" if you will. Wah Lum is still mantis, so it helps by getting a student who has never done any martial arts used to the movements and all of mantis kung fu. 

     7sm


----------



## Darksoul

-I can relate to this, having not done martial arts in a number of years, its good to go back to basics, and thats where Wah Lum forms come in. After having been a "slug" for so long, its like relearning how to move. Remember that Mantis was once taught, as the story goes, as a higher level of kung-fu in the temple. A certain amount of training is required if one wants to progress to higher levels, practice forms that are more complicated, and Mantis can be quite complex to a newbie. 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. 


A---)


----------



## Fumanchu

7starmantis,

Quote: "Oh, yes, I see now. All 7 star shcools I've ever seen teach those as two sets, 1st routing (Yut) and 2nd routine (Ye). I dont really know how else to discuss with you since you are not willing to answer any questions about your instructor or training. I've never seen or heard of any 7 star people who train as you do with only 4 forms, I've also never heard of any 7 star schools that try hard to make no connection whatsoever to the mantis insect. That is why I was curious to know your lineage. I'm not saying your wrong, or not studying true mantis, but its hard to discuss further without some sort of understanding of what you do. I dont spend much time on weapons at all. Probably 15% of my training or so, maybe." 

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.

Quote: "Where did you get that understanding from? I dont know that I think it is neccessary to know every 7 star form accepted by any 7 star school in the world, but I do think it would take more than just the 4 basic forms you guys train in to really understand the system. There are principles and techniques, and concepts you are missing that are very core to the system." 

They are not basic forms. Each form covers a significant degree of advancement from intermediate level kung fu to highly advanced. That's why we feel we have the core of the system. If we had been training 4 forms that are of Bung Bu level then no, we wouldn't have got the core of the system. 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?

Quote: "Chi sau or more appropriately "jeem leem" is how you being learning how to use mantis in real situations, how to move from one techinque to the other, how to develop "feel" and learn to attack and control your opponents center as well as your own. Its mentioned in the artilce at the beginning of this thread.Its not a form, but a method of fighting. It starts very slow and picks up speed, power, and so forth and so on. Its one of the things I feel if you are missing you are not getting even a small glimpse of understanding of the system itself." 

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. 


</FONT>


----------



## RHD

7starmantis said:
			
		

> I dont know, but I would assume they probably do have some similarities. There are 12 soft and 8 hard principles in the mantis system, I would imagine there are similarities on both the hard and soft principles. I'll have to ask my sifu now, since his kung fu brother teaches hung gar.
> 
> [/size]   Our beginner students are taught wah lum, because like we dicussed earlier, mantis (especially 7*) has a tendency to leave out core MA basics like punching and kicking. Learning 8 basic stances, and 8 basic kicks, and 8 basic punches, etc...(all wah lum) give a new MA student the basics they need to train in mantis. It helps them start getting the mantis movements down and get their balance, strength, cardio, and start getting the hang of things. Chan Poi's history is of no consequence to me. Wah Lum is a hard system to learn and is very good. It is more flashy, but its also a bit more basic as a whole and helps you "ease into it" if you will. Wah Lum is still mantis, so it helps by getting a student who has never done any martial arts used to the movements and all of mantis kung fu.
> 
> 7sm



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


----------



## Black Tiger Fist

Darksoul said:
			
		

> -Remember that Mantis was once taught, as the story goes, as a higher level of kung-fu in the temple. A certain amount of training is required if one wants to progress to higher levels, practice forms that are more complicated, and Mantis can be quite complex to a newbie. A---)


 
You know i was actually expecting someone to say that alot earlier in this thread. That is why i said that saying it defeated shaolin arts was not correct.

At onetime Black Tiger was also seen as the highest level of shaolin training. I'm sure that there are other styles that would also make that claim. Black TYiger at one point after Su Hak Fu created it ,it was only taught to shaolin monks ,until he opened a school in canton.




			
				7starmantis said:
			
		

> Our beginner students are taught wah lum, because like we dicussed earlier, mantis (especially 7*) has a tendency to leave out core MA basics like punching and kicking. Learning 8 basic stances, and 8 basic kicks, and 8 basic punches, etc...(all wah lum) give a new MA student the basics they need to train in mantis. It helps them start getting the mantis movements down and get their balance, strength, cardio, and start getting the hang of things. Chan Poi's history is of no consequence to me. Wah Lum is a hard system to learn and is very good. It is more flashy, but its also a bit more basic as a whole and helps you "ease into it" if you will. Wah Lum is still mantis, so it helps by getting a student who has never done any martial arts used to the movements and all of mantis kung fu.
> 
> 7sm


Well, I did not bring it up to make an issue of Wah Lum ,I was just curious as to why you guy's taught it ,and you answered my question.

Like i mentioned Chan Poi is an awesome martial artist and i have nothing but the utmost respect for him.

jeff


----------



## Black Tiger Fist

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


----------



## RHD

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

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.artyon: 

jeff


----------



## 7starmantis

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. Its all about training. I said it before, but the history is of lesser importance to me than training, its 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 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.

 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 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. 

 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. 

 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


 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 dont think he will ever "move on". Its very interesting to see him combine hung gar with his mantis as well.

  7sm


----------



## RHD

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 dont think he will ever "move on". Its 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


----------



## Fumanchu

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&#8217;t mind people having different opinions and beliefs about mantis, as I said, it&#8217;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&#8217;t offer sources for your beliefs, or talk about your lineage, or even name your instructor. That&#8217;s fine man, don&#8217;t get me wrong, but it&#8217;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&#8217;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)&#8230;&#8230;&#8230; 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"&#8230;&#8230;&#8230; 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&#8217;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&#8217;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&#8217;s been a long weekend; did we discuss what zaho yao was? I'm not familiar with that form, and it&#8217;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&#8217;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&#8217;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&#8217;re coming from &#8211; in terms of having a number of forms covering the same material but written differently. However, doesn&#8217;t it mean that if a student gets the material in a particular form, then there isn&#8217;t much value going through the same material in a different form. Better to move on with application / partner work? It&#8217;s like saying &#8211; I&#8217;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&#8217;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&#8217;s training program. Do you see where I&#8217;m coming from?


----------



## 7starmantis

Fumanchu said:
			
		

> 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?


 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:
			
		

> http://www.traditionalmantisboxing.com/id15.htm


 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 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?


 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 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.


 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 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?


 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


----------



## Fumanchu

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?


----------



## 7starmantis

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. That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re saying there isn't much distinction between mantis styles so the material would be similar. That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. 



			
				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 someone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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. 



			
				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*. It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. 




			
				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 won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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t see that the original system had only those 3 forms you speak of, its incomprehensible to me. Hard to imagine what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.

  7sm


----------



## Fumanchu

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?


----------



## 7starmantis

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 it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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t 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, its intended as a last minuite action and not something you plan in advance. Its 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 LKWs 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 youre planning a particular strike, you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s 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 LKW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s ranking, Im 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. It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. 



			
				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 wont 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 don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t 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


----------



## 7starmantis

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


----------



## Fumanchu

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?


----------



## tmonis

This is a heavy post. Lots of info on this one.


----------



## 7starmantis

Fumanchu said:
			
		

> I guess we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s creation, there is also variation in beliefs (of creation) within the same style. As a result, I don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ve 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?


 That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'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s 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 that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t 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 dont think I understand that at all. I'm sitting here trying it and I don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re 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 dont 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 opponents 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 dont have a website and neither does the school I train in. Youre right I didnt use the original documents. Its not like I dont want to give you specific info, I just dont have the info with me.


 You dont 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 dont train by choosing what I think fits a certain box and then calling it that. I don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s used in 7 star normally right after a break or lock and is usually aimed around the ribs, stomach, chest, duntien, etc. Its not to break or bruise, but it moves the opponent by moving their center and also damaging internal organs. Its 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


----------



## Fumanchu

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?


----------



## 7starmantis

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:
			
		

> There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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t instantly reach in for a grab, they use their palm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  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 wouldnt be in a position to grab and do a joint lock on to you. If you are in position to break an opponents arm, you would almost have total control over your opponent. I don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.


 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 its not, you don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m 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 Ill be surprised if a school doesnt 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:
			
		

> Its not that I refuse to. I dont remember. Like I said I havent 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 Ive 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


----------



## Fumanchu

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?


----------



## 7starmantis

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 dont
have to relate the mantis system to the insect to understand it, or to
learn it, but you dont 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


----------



## Fumanchu

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.


----------



## 7starmantis

Fumanchu said:
			
		

> 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t know who CMC is. But you can feel being pressured going up against a good tai chi player. If youre not pressuring your opponent to defend, how then can you be aggressive?


 Balance and leverage are closely related, yet not the same. Yes, taiji players use muscle to move, yet not to fight. Its sort of a conundrum isn't it? Thats why taiji is so hard to truly understand. CMC is Cheng Man-Ch'Ing, thats who I was referring to. This tightness you are talking about is the death of your taiji. Tightness doesn't exist in taiji. There is a point to give yee or "tightness" as you say in mantis fighting, but its fake yee, just hard enough to get them to resist, then you quickly collapse and attack. Going up against a good taiji player, you think you feel pressure, but if you resists with pressure, it should be gone. Resisting with pressure goes completely against taiji principles as well as mantis. Its a common misconception that you can not be aggressive without being "tight" or using your "muscle" or "strength". It depends on how well you understand or define aggressive. What exactly is aggressive to you? You dont have to resist pressure with pressure; you yield and allow their pressure to move past you, and then attack. You allow them to "empty" their attack, and then attack. I'm curious as to how or what principles you guys use when fighting. It seems all the principles and concepts I know from mantis are opposite to what you know as mantis. Your statement about resisting pressure with pressure is fundamentally wrong and really opposite of what mantis is about. Can you tell me anything about your lineage at all? I mean I know you dont want to mention your teachers name or something, but I'm really curious to know what lineage youre from, its interesting. 



			
				Fumanchu said:
			
		

> 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 It is not a conceptual difference  the intent of control is always there but strategy is required.


 Again, not true at all. The end result of disruption is simply impeding the opponent's control. I can kick over a heavy bag and it will fall, but thats not the same as controlling where it lands. Knocking your opponent off balance, and having control of their balance are two completely different things, and are both used in mantis in different situations.



			
				Fumanchu said:
			
		

> 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s balance in the case of dealing with a straight punch as an example. How do you use the mantis hook for grabbing? Im also saying that it is virtually impossible to do a 5-finger grab against a straight punch say a boxers jab. If you miss it will leave you exposed. Not so with the mantis hook because if you miss youll end up in the dil sau position with torque stored in your waist and elbow to move off.


 First, the "mantis hook" or dil sau is a grab and can be used like you said at the end of a straight punch. What I am saying is that the dil sau is using all but the first finger and thumb. Its like making a gun with your hand, the three coiled fingers are used to grab. Its funny, I've done a "full" grab against many straight punches, the technique that you say is virtually impossible. There is no difference in action between a "full" grab and the "mantis" grab. The only difference is in intent. There is nothing that will make you more vulnerable by missing a "full" grab as opposed to the "mantis" grab. Thats ridiculous. I dont even understand how you can say that. What makes you more vulnerable if you miss the "full" grab? Whats different in the "full" grab to the "mantis" grab? The only differences being a finger and a thumb. 



			
				Fumanchu said:
			
		

> I guess its a bit hard without a picture  guess youll just have to make do with a thousand words. All I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


 Yes, and flexing your wrist backwards is not only unnatural, but opens the fingers up, exposes the underside of the wrist, and leaves the hand virtually un-usable, unless your making a palm strike from underneath. Youre talking about an elbow break and I was talking about a forearm break, different techniques. The elbow break is useful, but not with the backwards flexed wrist with open fingers and exposed wrist. 

 May I ask where you train as in where in the world? Your profile says china, but also says youre a yellow belt and train in TKD by getting high kicks. Why is your profile so different form what you train? 

  7sm


----------



## Fumanchu

Quote:"Balance and leverage are closely related, yet not the same. Yes, taiji players use muscle to move, yet not to fight. Its sort of a conundrum isn't it? Thats why taiji is so hard to truly understand. CMC is Cheng Man-Ch'Ing, thats who I was referring to. This tightness you are talking about is the death of your taiji. Tightness doesn't exist in taiji. There is a point to give yee or "tightness" as you say in mantis fighting, but its fake yee, just hard enough to get them to resist, then you quickly collapse and attack. Going up against a good taiji player, you think you feel pressure, but if you resists with pressure, it should be gone. Resisting with pressure goes completely against taiji principles as well as mantis. Its a common misconception that you can not be aggressive without being "tight" or using your "muscle" or "strength". It depends on how well you understand or define aggressive. What exactly is aggressive to you? You dont have to resist pressure with pressure; you yield and allow their pressure to move past you, and then attack. You allow them to "empty" their attack, and then attack. I'm curious as to how or what principles you guys use when fighting. It seems all the principles and concepts I know from mantis are opposite to what you know as mantis. Your statement about resisting pressure with pressure is fundamentally wrong and really opposite of what mantis is about. Can you tell me anything about your lineage at all? I mean I know you dont want to mention your teachers name or something, but I'm really curious to know what lineage youre from, its interesting." 

Balance and leverage is interconnected. In the end muscles contrect and relax that's how people move and fighting is a subset of movement. Aggressiveness starts with an intent. How we use these principals, we just do I guess. If we need to apply pressure we do, if we need to change angles we do, it seems to work. Hold that lineage question for the time being, because I feel regardless of lineage, body mechanics is universal - we just try to find the best way of moving. To say I will never counter pressure with pressure is cutting out an option entirely regardless of what CMC says. For example if someone is trying to do a tackle on to you - you need to counter his pressure until such time you can redirect it. Otherwise he will have you pinned.

Quote: "Again, not true at all. The end result of disruption is simply impeding the opponent's control. I can kick over a heavy bag and it will fall, but thats not the same as controlling where it lands. Knocking your opponent off balance, and having control of their balance are two completely different things, and are both used in mantis in different situations."

Yes you've impeded your opponent's movement so now you have the upper hand - ie. in control of the situation. In some cases you might even be able to direct his fall other cases not so.

Quote: "First, the "mantis hook" or dil sau is a grab and can be used like you said at the end of a straight punch. What I am saying is that the dil sau is using all but the first finger and thumb. Its like making a gun with your hand, the three coiled fingers are used to grab. Its funny, I've done a "full" grab against many straight punches, the technique that you say is virtually impossible. There is no difference in action between a "full" grab and the "mantis" grab. The only difference is in intent. There is nothing that will make you more vulnerable by missing a "full" grab as opposed to the "mantis" grab. Thats ridiculous. I dont even understand how you can say that. What makes you more vulnerable if you miss the "full" grab? Whats different in the "full" grab to the "mantis" grab? The only differences being a finger and a thumb." 

How do you grab a straight punch? where is your hand if you miss the grab? The first point of contact with the mantis hook is actually some where along your forearm and the 2 finger hook just slips in and causes temporary disruption - that's how we use it. Is that how you use it? There is much advantage in doing this than a 5 finger grab.

Quote: "Yes, and flexing your wrist backwards is not only unnatural, but opens the fingers up, exposes the underside of the wrist, and leaves the hand virtually un-usable, unless your making a palm strike from underneath. Youre talking about an elbow break and I was talking about a forearm break, different techniques. The elbow break is useful, but not with the backwards flexed wrist with open fingers and exposed wrist. May I ask where you train as in where in the world? Your profile says china, but also says youre a yellow belt and train in TKD by getting high kicks. Why is your profile so different form what you train?"

Yes certain parts are exposed but the danger shouldn't be there when you're doing it. There is quite a bit of tension in your waist where you can move off from that position. I'm not that precise as to whether it is the lower part of the fore arm of elbow that hits the target. In a practical situation something around there might hit a target. Where I train in the world shouldn't matter much, it's about body movement. That's why I have not focused on where you train, who your instructors are etc. I go by the logic of what you write. I don't train TKD anymore and not fond of high kicks. Mantis superseeds other stuff I'd done before.


----------



## 7starmantis

Fumanchu said:
			
		

> Balance and leverage is interconnected. In the end muscles contrect and relax that's how people move and fighting is a subset of movement. Aggressiveness starts with an intent. How we use these principals, we just do I guess. If we need to apply pressure we do, if we need to change angles we do, it seems to work. Hold that lineage question for the time being, because I feel regardless of lineage, body mechanics is universal - we just try to find the best way of moving. To say I will never counter pressure with pressure is cutting out an option entirely regardless of what CMC says. For example if someone is trying to do a tackle on to you - you need to counter his pressure until such time you can redirect it. Otherwise he will have you pinned.


 Interconnected maybe, not the same though which was my point. I'm not disputing that moving or fighting uses muscle. Your misunderstanding what I'm trying to say, which is why I keep saying your missing some of the upper level principles and concepts contained in the advanced mantis sets and drills. Cutting out what option? The option of overcoming your opponent with more force than they are using? Thats a viable option, but not in mantis or generally in most CMA. If someone is trying to do a tackle on you, you are going to trust that you are stronger than them and try to resist their tackle? Thats exactly what most grapplers want you to do. Explain how he will have me pinned if when he attempts the tackle I'm not there? Once you resist wit pressure he has you, if you yield and move out of the way and let his pressure or energy go by, your safe and he is in a bad situation. You better do alot of strength training if youre going to go head to head with grapplers and heavy groundfighters. The point is though that your incorrectly associating this resisting technique to taiji and mantis, it is far against both systems principles. Bottom line. You keep saying "Body Mechanics" is where its at. Lets get something straight, you can't see my body mechanics via the internet and I can't see yours, so lineage, teachers, and such are important to help us understand in which manner we train. What we write here may or may not be an exact representation of what our teachers are teaching us, or even the way in which we train. As you spend more time on the internet, you will understand that there are lots of people who write things that have no truth or fact behind them. That being said, there are also lots of people who write truthfully, but because of the nature of internet communication, you can't see what I'm talking about, you only have some words, it makes communication different and even difficult at times. If you do not know your lineage or are afraid to list it, thats fine, just say so. I only ask lineage and instructor type questions to get a better hold or understanding on what youre saying. See different groups train in different ways, and if I know what "group" youre a part of it will help me understand some of the techniques and training methods you are talking about. I've never run across a 7 star group that uses only 4 forms, neither has my sifu, it would be interesting to see what group you belong to so that we can learn about you guys training. 



			
				Fumanchu said:
			
		

> Yes you've impeded your opponent's movement so now you have the upper hand - ie. in control of the situation. In some cases you might even be able to direct his fall other cases not so.


 Control of the situation is hard t define and is different from control of your opponent which is what we were talking about. Dont change the subject; we were referring to control over your opponent's center, not control of the situation. You dont have to have control over your opponent to be in control of the situation. You just said it yourself, "In some cases you might even be able to direct his fall other cases not so." See, sometimes you have control over him, sometimes you dont.



			
				Fumanchu said:
			
		

> How do you grab a straight punch? where is your hand if you miss the grab? The first point of contact with the mantis hook is actually some where along your forearm and the 2 finger hook just slips in and causes temporary disruption - that's how we use it. Is that how you use it? There is much advantage in doing this than a 5 finger grab.


 What do you mean? You grab the punch the same way with either grab. Once again, the *only* difference between the grabs is the amount of fingers used. You make you contact with the forearm (if called for) and slide down to the grab, the change comes by how many fingers you use at this point. What are the advantages of "your" grab verses the full grab, other than what I mentioned earlier? 



			
				Fumanchu said:
			
		

> Yes certain parts are exposed but the danger shouldn't be there when you're doing it. There is quite a bit of tension in your waist where you can move off from that position. I'm not that precise as to whether it is the lower part of the fore arm of elbow that hits the target. In a practical situation something around there might hit a target. Where I train in the world shouldn't matter much, it's about body movement. That's why I have not focused on where you train, who your instructors are etc. I go by the logic of what you write. I don't train TKD anymore and not fond of high kicks. Mantis superseeds other stuff I'd done before.


 Ok, certain parts are exposed = bad idea. To say the danger isn't there because I'm so amazingly fast and accurate is naive. Someone with good feel can yield out of your break and then have a field day with your exposed, backwards flexed wrist. I do it all the time in hands (jeem leem). Precision is a major component of mantis, to "not be that precise" is to not study mantis kung fu. I'm not talking about the lower part of the forearm, but the higher/middle part. In a practical situation the two different areas are used differently. You keep saying things like in a practical situation something around there, or close to that, or near there, will work. Thats nonsensical, how can you train and fight with that mentality? Well, I'll punch at the head, but it will make contact somewhere around there. If you dont train to be precise you wont be, and if youre fighting a skilled mantis practitioner, they are going to eat you alive if youre not precise with them. In fact, most skilled MA in any style will. 

 I'm getting from your posts that you study mantis on your own, is that correct? If so, thats fine, I'm not saying it can't be done or anything, just curious. Also, where you train in the world has great importance to me understanding what youre saying. Logic of what I write? Mantis isn't really able to be put on paper or internet by words, you cant possibly understand the logic behind everything I write, its just not possible. I'm so interested in where you train, who you train with, your lineage, because I'm interested in mantis kung fu. I want to know about all sects and groups, and opinions, and beliefs, and training methods and etc... Make sense? The fact that you refuse to divulge any info about any of those things is a bit disappointing as mantis practitioners should be open to sharing their methods and such. If you can't reveal anything to others, how do you expect to learn from others? Your already set in your head that what you know is the best, the coolest, the most correct, the oldest, everything. Dont be so narcissistic, open your mind to others point of view as well, you'll have alot more insight and less stress throughout your life. 

 7sm


----------



## Fumanchu

Quote:"Interconnected maybe, not the same though which was my point. I'm not disputing that moving or fighting uses muscle. Your misunderstanding what I'm trying to say, which is why I keep saying your missing some of the upper level principles and concepts contained in the advanced mantis sets and drills. Cutting out what option? The option of overcoming your opponent with more force than they are using? Thats a viable option, but not in mantis or generally in most CMA. If someone is trying to do a tackle on you, you are going to trust that you are stronger than them and try to resist their tackle? Thats exactly what most grapplers want you to do. Explain how he will have me pinned if when he attempts the tackle I'm not there? Once you resist wit pressure he has you, if you yield and move out of the way and let his pressure or energy go by, your safe and he is in a bad situation. You better do alot of strength training if youre going to go head to head with grapplers and heavy groundfighters. The point is though that your incorrectly associating this resisting technique to taiji and mantis, it is far against both systems principles. Bottom line. You keep saying "Body Mechanics" is where its at. Lets get something straight, you can't see my body mechanics via the internet and I can't see yours, so lineage, teachers, and such are important to help us understand in which manner we train. What we write here may or may not be an exact representation of what our teachers are teaching us, or even the way in which we train. As you spend more time on the internet, you will understand that there are lots of people who write things that have no truth or fact behind them. That being said, there are also lots of people who write truthfully, but because of the nature of internet communication, you can't see what I'm talking about, you only have some words, it makes communication different and even difficult at times. If you do not know your lineage or are afraid to list it, thats fine, just say so. I only ask lineage and instructor type questions to get a better hold or understanding on what youre saying. See different groups train in different ways, and if I know what "group" youre a part of it will help me understand some of the techniques and training methods you are talking about. I've never run across a 7 star group that uses only 4 forms, neither has my sifu, it would be interesting to see what group you belong to so that we can learn about you guys training." 

You shouldn't need to ask for lineage to understand what I'm saying. How i'm putting the information across is physics. You need strength to create a force to move an object or change the direction in which is currently moving. In tai chi, some people call that yielding or redirecting the energy. But at the point of contact there is going to opposing pressure before you can redirect it. It is not going to happen instantanously - physically not possible, it's due to inertia.

Quote: "Control of the situation is hard t define and is different from control of your opponent which is what we were talking about. Dont change the subject; we were referring to control over your opponent's center, not control of the situation. You dont have to have control over your opponent to be in control of the situation. You just said it yourself, "In some cases you might even be able to direct his fall other cases not so." See, sometimes you have control over him, sometimes you dont."

What you're referring to is the level of control. some control or full control. i agree you don't need full control of the opponent to have control over the situation. 

Quote: "What do you mean? You grab the punch the same way with either grab. Once again, the *only* difference between the grabs is the amount of fingers used. You make you contact with the forearm (if called for) and slide down to the grab, the change comes by how many fingers you use at this point. What are the advantages of "your" grab verses the full grab, other than what I mentioned earlier? "

I was asking you about the process in which you grab an incoming punch. I throw my arm out straight at the opponent like a wet rag. At the moment of contact it is soft but heavy. Depending on what I encounter The force from my throw would either drive through or start working on controlling what I'd met. It might slip into a 2 finger hook. Much faster to use 2 fingers do disrupt. 5 finger grab too slow and committed. advantage, if I miss my had hovers in a dil sau fashion ready to move again thereby i don't give up initiative. 

Quote: "Ok, certain parts are exposed = bad idea. To say the danger isn't there because I'm so amazingly fast and accurate is naive. Someone with good feel can yield out of your break and then have a field day with your exposed, backwards flexed wrist. I do it all the time in hands (jeem leem). Precision is a major component of mantis, to "not be that precise" is to not study mantis kung fu. I'm not talking about the lower part of the forearm, but the higher/middle part. In a practical situation the two different areas are used differently. You keep saying things like in a practical situation something around there, or close to that, or near there, will work. Thats nonsensical, how can you train and fight with that mentality? Well, I'll punch at the head, but it will make contact somewhere around there. If you dont train to be precise you wont be, and if youre fighting a skilled mantis practitioner, they are going to eat you alive if youre not precise with them. In fact, most skilled MA in any style will."

Some parts are always exposed. We can only guard against the percentage hits. We don't have a protective shield that covers 100%. That's what I'm saying and not saying that you have to be amazingly fast or accurate. I have to say most of my punches miss the target. If it's a still target like a hand pad, I pretty much hit it most of the time. That's reality, because my oppoents are skilled and they can move. That's why in executing moves, some times they work sometimes they don't. You might contact upper / lower forearm or elbow who knows, but the main thing is not to stop at one precise technique, but just to keep going and going and going. 

Quote: "I'm getting from your posts that you study mantis on your own, is that correct? If so, thats fine, I'm not saying it can't be done or anything, just curious. Also, where you train in the world has great importance to me understanding what youre saying. Logic of what I write? Mantis isn't really able to be put on paper or internet by words, you cant possibly understand the logic behind everything I write, its just not possible. I'm so interested in where you train, who you train with, your lineage, because I'm interested in mantis kung fu. I want to know about all sects and groups, and opinions, and beliefs, and training methods and etc... Make sense? The fact that you refuse to divulge any info about any of those things is a bit disappointing as mantis practitioners should be open to sharing their methods and such. If you can't reveal anything to others, how do you expect to learn from others? Your already set in your head that what you know is the best, the coolest, the most correct, the oldest, everything. Dont be so narcissistic, open your mind to others point of view as well, you'll have alot more insight and less stress throughout your life."

No, I'm not training on my own. I don't think anyone can train on their own. In my earlier posts I had already said that it is likely that it took at least 2 people to develop a system. I'm surprised that you came to the conclusion like the one you did given the philosophy I'd expressed. I try not to go by groups or lineage. I take every conversation as a clean slate and ask myself does it make sense from a physics perspective. And if anyone says something that its different all I need to do is try it with a student in class and come back with the results. i don't go by the supposed reputation of anyone - for example on the LKW website, Zaho Yao taught at the bung bu level does not make sense irrespective of the status he holds in mantis society.


----------



## 7starmantis

Fumanchu said:
			
		

> You shouldn't need to ask for lineage to understand what I'm saying. How i'm putting the information across is physics. You need strength to create a force to move an object or change the direction in which is currently moving. In tai chi, some people call that yielding or redirecting the energy. But at the point of contact there is going to opposing pressure before you can redirect it. It is not going to happen instantanously - physically not possible, it's due to inertia.


 And you shouldn't have to withhold lineage information to still focus on physics. Lineage and such doesn't really have much to do with our kung fu skill in my opinion, it does however tell a great deal about our training methods and sometimes intent of training. Its like meeting someone and they will only talk about themselves from the last year. They wont talk about anything past that amount of time. Makes it kind of difficult to really understand their past and who they are, no? Thats my point in asking lineage. Also I tend to be the one who thinks I can learn from others and they can learn from me. By sharing lineage, ideas, training methods, etc; I can learn from others at the same time that they are learning from me. I would enjoy seeing an open community readily sharing thoughts and ideas back and forth in CMA. 

 Actually you dont need strength for that. If you want to play simply on the physics side of it; something moving in a straight line such as a punch is affected mostly by what? Gravity and ending point; correct? Ending point being where they aimed their punch to land. If the path from origin of punch to landing area is downward, then you simply put your weight on top and let gravity and your center of balance do its thing. What you do not understand is the timing of redirecting a punch. You dont redirect it while in mid punch, you allow the punch or attack to "empty" and then at that precise moment you redirect, pluck, etc. If I'm punching and you use strength to redirect my punch, the attack will change. Say I'm punching straight and you redirect my punch by pak sau (open palm block). Wherever you make contact on my arm and push, that part of my arm will collapse. If you make contact on the had, it will collapse at the wrist, if you hit the forearm it will collapse at the elbow, then after it collapses it continues the circle of where your energy forced it, and becomes another attack. See, its about circles. If I'm punching and you intercept it with force, it will redirect and finish the circle of your force, meeting back at you. Its not physically impossible, its perfectly explainable. A yield requires no contact at all, so why would you need pressure or force for that? Yielding simply requires you move your body out of the way of the attack and let their attack continue forward. Inertia is only important if you get hit by it. In the form of a punch, inertia can only last so long. It has to stop at the end of their arm. Thats the point where you pluck, or redirect. There are times to intercept earlier with more force, but these are few and far between in the mantis system. Thats why people dont respect it thinking its too soft. 



			
				Fumanchu said:
			
		

> What you're referring to is the level of control. some control or full control. i agree you don't need full control of the opponent to have control over the situation.


 No, I'm referring to full control just by different people. For me to knock you off balance doesn't require me to have any type of control over you whatsoever. It does require that you loose control however. I wasn't talking about control of the situation, you brought that up. Its possible to knock someone off balance and also away from you. There you wouldn't have any contact with them at all, how could you still have control over them? I have control over where I send them, but not anymore after I loose contact with them. Thats why in mantis we stick to the opponent at all times and follow them even after a throw or something like that. 



			
				Fumanchu said:
			
		

> I was asking you about the process in which you grab an incoming punch. I throw my arm out straight at the opponent like a wet rag. At the moment of contact it is soft but heavy. Depending on what I encounter The force from my throw would either drive through or start working on controlling what I'd met. It might slip into a 2 finger hook. Much faster to use 2 fingers do disrupt. 5 finger grab too slow and committed. advantage, if I miss my had hovers in a dil sau fashion ready to move again thereby i don't give up initiative.


 First, I dont ever really "throw" my hand out there, there needs to always be intent. I'm also not trying to drive through really ever. If what I encounter lets me, I will trap or lock, but not drive through, its against mantis principles. Yes, make contact and follow back into a grab. If you miss on either the 2 finger or full 5 finger grab, your hand is still at the same place. It doesn't make sense to say your hand is in an advantageous position if using the 2 finger grab, but not if you try for all 5 fingers. Yes, the full grab is more committed; we already discussed this I thought. There are different times to do each grab. To always rely on one type of grab is limiting yourself and once again throwing away valid mantis principles. The difference in intent is that the "partial grab" is generally used to pluck which means using it at the end of their punch, the "full grab" is used to trap, lock, or control and generally used farther into their attack, not only at the end. 



			
				Fumanchu said:
			
		

> Some parts are always exposed. We can only guard against the percentage hits. We don't have a protective shield that covers 100%. That's what I'm saying and not saying that you have to be amazingly fast or accurate.


 I thought the point of learning martial arts was to not leave yourself exposed all the time? You only guard against a percentage of hits? Is that what youre saying? In my opinion you should try to avoid or defend against 100% of attacks, thats just my opinion though. I can't understand why you wouldn't. Sure, you not going to defend against them all successfully, but the intent is still there. Doing a technique that purposely leaves you exposed is in my opinion asking to be beaten. Why perform a technique like that which you know makes your wrist exposed, when you can rotate the hand, make a fist, and still accomplish the same goal? It sounds like your trying to accomplish looking like something more than I am. I wouldn't do something to expose myself simply to look like the insect, why do you purposely leave yourself exposed?



			
				Fumanchu said:
			
		

> I have to say most of my punches miss the target. If it's a still target like a hand pad, I pretty much hit it most of the time. That's reality, because my opponents are skilled and they can move. That's why in executing moves, some times they work sometimes they don't. You might contact upper / lower forearm or elbow who knows, but the main thing is not to stop at one precise technique, but just to keep going and going and going.


 Your right, you may make contact with a different area than what youre aiming for, so does that mean you shouldn't train to hit with the precise strike? Of course not. Precision is a main key in mantis kung fu, to ignore it because in a situation you might miss, blows my mind. Sure you need to keep going, I wouldn't say its the main thing, but certainly important. However important, it still doesn't negate the fact that precision is very important in mantis and is needed and used in these strikes. Sure you may miss, thats why your already attacking again before they even realize you missed. The follow-up attack however successful doesn't make missing ok though. Its like your resting on your amount of attacks to overshadow your misses, thats wrong, and an incorrect way to train, especially in mantis. Dont rely on the odds of hitting with one of your attacks overshadow the need to be precise and accurate. If you throw 12 attacks in a row but do no damage or make no contact, whats the point? It sounds to me that youre the one relying on traditional aspects rather than me like you claimed. See, youre saying the exposure of the wrist is ok because your opponent will probably not be able to take advantage of it. Do you really want to take that chance? If that idea permeates your fighting it sounds like its riddled with holes. Why willingly give your opponent a chance? Do everything possible to keep them from having an attack; dont lay them out there for them to take if they can. 



			
				Fumanchu said:
			
		

> No, I'm not training on my own. I don't think anyone can train on their own. In my earlier posts I had already said that it is likely that it took at least 2 people to develop a system. I'm surprised that you came to the conclusion like the one you did given the philosophy I'd expressed.


 I came to this conclusion from the amount of differences we have in "7 star" mantis. From the many times you say you decide what works and what doesn't, from the refusals to give lineage or even name your teacher, from your lack of knowledge of core mantis principles, from your obvious difference in training methods, and from your differences from myself in intent while fighting. You seem to not know or understand things like "emptying the attack" or yielding. What about the 12 soft and 8 hard principles of the mantis system? These are the things that made me think you may be training on your own. Also, what does it matter how many people you believe created an art? What does that have to do with the question of you training by yourself or not? I'm kind of getting lost here. Your philosophy of the creation of mantis has nothing to do with whether you believe someone can train in mantis by themselves. Its these types of statements that make me think you were training by yourself. 



			
				Fumanchu said:
			
		

> I try not to go by groups or lineage. I take every conversation as a clean slate and ask myself does it make sense from a physics perspective. And if anyone says something that its different all I need to do is try it with a student in class and come back with the results. i don't go by the supposed reputation of anyone - for example on the LKW website, Zaho Yao taught at the bung bu level does not make sense irrespective of the status he holds in mantis society.


 No one is asking you to go by groups or lineage, its simply a tool for better understanding where someone is coming from. Physics have no part in beliefs of creation of the system, or training methods or such. See, you make a statement like "all I have to do is try it and see"; this to me shows arrogance that you feel you already understand everything. Is there nothing out there that you dont understand or that you could still learn? You can come back with your results, but who says you did it correctly? Or even completely understood what was said? 

 No one is going only on reputation. LKW's reputation is simply a respect for his knowledge and skill, nothing more. Its simply that his skill level surpasses many, many people I've seen. So I guess I should ignore that and if what he says doesn't make sense to me, throw it out? Thats ignorant and not conducive to learning. I could care less if we are talking about LKW or someone else with high level of skill. Lets take Henry Chung, Chiu Luen, Raymond Fogg, Brandon Jones, one of my sihings... Their skill all surpasses my own. Should I not listen to what they have to say? Should I throw away their knowledge because it doesn't make sense to me right now? If Donald Trump came to you and told you to do a certain thing to make lots of money, would you do it? Even if you didn't think it would work? I think I sure would. See he obviously knows more about making money than I do, and so therefore I would listen to him and take what he says and learn form it. You have trained for 4 1/2 years (correct?) and now youre going to tell someone with the skill and knowledge of Lee Kam Wing that teaching one form at a certain level makes no sense? The mantis system is not held within one form or two form, or three, 4,5,6,7,8,9, or even in forms at all. Its collaboration and is about concepts and principles. Irregardless of LKW "status" his skill and his students skill speak for themselves. Thats what I mean when I always say; you must be able to stand on your own kung fu. Debating is interesting and nice, but it comes down to standing on your own skill. If our skill doesn't match our mouths, then we need to "shut up and train" like so many say.

   7sm


----------



## Fumanchu

Quote: "And you shouldn't have to withhold lineage information to still focus on physics. Lineage and such doesn't really have much to do with our kung fu skill in my opinion, it does however tell a great deal about our training methods and sometimes intent of training. It&#8217;s like meeting someone and they will only talk about themselves from the last year. They won&#8217;t talk about anything past that amount of time. Makes it kind of difficult to really understand their past and who they are, no? That&#8217;s my point in asking lineage. Also I tend to be the one who thinks I can learn from others and they can learn from me. By sharing lineage, ideas, training methods, etc; I can learn from others at the same time that they are learning from me. I would enjoy seeing an open community readily sharing thoughts and ideas back and forth in CMA."

My instructor also designs his own training methods that may or may not be the same as his instructors. If I were an instructor, I might do things slightly differently. What I&#8217;m saying is you can be taught be the same teacher and learn the material but not having to be carbon copies of your teachers. It&#8217;s possible to achieve the same objectives through different methods. As for the intent of training, I have already explained that. It varies from person to person (obviously) in the class I train in. It has nothing to do with lineage rather a personal objective. 

Quote" Actually you don&#8217;t need strength for that. If you want to play simply on the physics side of it; something moving in a straight line such as a punch is affected mostly by what? Gravity and ending point; correct? Ending point being where they aimed their punch to land. If the path from origin of punch to landing area is downward, then you simply put your weight on top and let gravity and your center of balance do its thing. What you do not understand is the timing of redirecting a punch. You don&#8217;t redirect it while in mid punch, you allow the punch or attack to "empty" and then at that precise moment you redirect, pluck, etc."

Good, that&#8217;s why I like to talk in physics terms it makes things a lot easier to discuss because it is a universal foundation. I disagree. I would want to engage the punch as early as possible, instead of letting it complete it&#8217;s path. Why not stop the punch even before it begins. The long movements in tai chi does not mean you have to follow your opponent&#8217;s line of force until it stops then redirect when he is going. Rather, upon appropriate timing, you can redirect the force anywhere along its path of movement.

Quote" If I'm punching and you use strength to redirect my punch, the attack will change. Say I'm punching straight and you redirect my punch by pak sau (open palm block). Wherever you make contact on my arm and push, that part of my arm will collapse. If you make contact on the had, it will collapse at the wrist, if you hit the forearm it will collapse at the elbow, then after it collapses it continues the circle of where your energy forced it, and becomes another attack. See, it&#8217;s about circles. If I'm punching and you intercept it with force, it will redirect and finish the circle of your force, meeting back at you. It&#8217;s not physically impossible, it&#8217;s perfectly explainable. A yield requires no contact at all, so why would you need pressure or force for that?"

Yes, it come down to skill as to who can turn tighter circles like in air to air combat. Like say a tennis match I do something you respond, how quickly can you assimilate the information that your body is collecting. 

Quote:" Yielding simply requires you move your body out of the way of the attack and let their attack continue forward. Inertia is only important if you get hit by it. In the form of a punch, inertia can only last so long. It has to stop at the end of their arm. That&#8217;s the point where you pluck, or redirect. There are times to intercept earlier with more force, but these are few and far between in the mantis system. That&#8217;s why people don&#8217;t respect it thinking it&#8217;s too soft." 


Don&#8217;t forget that your opponent is also trying to hit you. If there is such a big disparity of skill such that he has no chance of hitting you then you&#8217;re safe. In most practical situations and training in class where skill levels are more closely match, then it is necessary to engage incoming stuff early. Like you said before &#8211; upon contact you can go by feel. Such short distances, it is very difficult for the eye alone to pick distances and movement. It is more like a blurr, zones and probabilities of where things might be as opposed to discrete objects in a particular space and time. Disagree, in the mantis system, you engage it as early as possible and stop your opponent from building up momentum &#8211; why wouldn&#8217;t you?

Quote: "No, I'm referring to full control just by different people. For me to knock you off balance doesn't require me to have any type of control over you whatsoever. It does require that you loose control however. I wasn't talking about control of the situation, you brought that up. It&#8217;s possible to knock someone off balance and also away from you. There you wouldn't have any contact with them at all, how could you still have control over them? I have control over where I send them, but not anymore after I loose contact with them. That&#8217;s why in mantis we stick to the opponent at all times and follow them even after a throw or something like that."

How could you knock someone off balance without being in contact with him? Why would I sudden lose control of my balance on my own account? If you&#8217;re dealing with such opponents then there is nothing to worry about. It is those opponents who are balanced and can counter what you&#8217;re trying to do. Sometimes we stick, sometimes we break away. We break away if you feel that they are using the contact to more of an advantage than we are &#8211; ie. we have lost the initiative because we&#8217;re dealing with someone of superior skill. There should not be a hard and fast rule of always sticking- got to know when to let go.



Quote: "First, I don&#8217;t ever really "throw" my hand out there, there needs to always be intent. I'm also not trying to drive through really ever. If what I encounter lets me, I will trap or lock, but not drive through, it&#8217;s against mantis principles. Yes, make contact and follow back into a grab. If you miss on either the 2 finger or full 5 finger grab, your hand is still at the same place. It doesn't make sense to say your hand is in an advantageous position if using the 2 finger grab, but not if you try for all 5 fingers. Yes, the full grab is more committed; we already discussed this I thought. There are different times to do each grab. To always rely on one type of grab is limiting yourself and once again throwing away valid mantis principles. The difference in intent is that the "partial grab" is generally used to pluck which means using it at the end of their punch, the "full grab" is used to trap, lock, or control and generally used farther into their attack, not only at the end."

It doesn&#8217;t make sense that driving through is against the principal of mantis. Say if you can hit an opponent with a punch, don&#8217;t you do so? You would only need to escalate your tactics should simple attacks fail. In bung bu we learn to work the angles for driving through &#8211; ie. right from the beginning of the mantis system. I don&#8217;t rely on one type of grab. There are different stages of control, the 5-finger grab being in the later stages.


Quote: " I thought the point of learning martial arts was to not leave yourself exposed all the time? You only guard against a percentage of hits? Is that what you&#8217;re saying? In my opinion you should try to avoid or defend against 100% of attacks, that&#8217;s just my opinion though. I can't understand why you wouldn't. Sure, you not going to defend against them all successfully, but the intent is still there. Doing a technique that purposely leaves you exposed is in my opinion asking to be beaten. Why perform a technique like that which you know makes your wrist exposed, when you can rotate the hand, make a fist, and still accomplish the same goal? It sounds like your trying to accomplish looking like something more than I am. I wouldn't do something to expose myself simply to look like the insect, why do you purposely leave yourself exposed?"

It&#8217;s not possible to defend against 100% of attacks, because you know that some attacks from certain angles can sneek through. In fact what we do is cover the likely zones anyway instead of seeing a line of attack and then trying to defend. For example, say an F-16 jet is coming in for a bombing run, you have electro-counter-measures Prowlers hovering overhead and other F-16s with air to air missiles providing fighter support. Basically we don&#8217;t do one unit move at a time, but rather a set of moves each time forming a complete package that works together. Like the F-16 scenario, sure it would stop most surface to air missiles but it would not stop them 100% of the time. As for that move in particular, the threat to the hand has been dealt with else where. Again, nothing to do with insects.

Quote: "Your right, you may make contact with a different area than what you&#8217;re aiming for, so does that mean you shouldn't train to hit with the precise strike? Of course not. Precision is a main key in mantis kung fu, to ignore it because in a situation you might miss, blows my mind. Sure you need to keep going, I wouldn't say it&#8217;s the main thing, but certainly important. However important, it still doesn't negate the fact that precision is very important in mantis and is needed and used in these strikes. Sure you may miss, that&#8217;s why your already attacking again before they even realize you missed. The follow-up attack however successful doesn't make missing ok though. It&#8217;s like your resting on your amount of attacks to overshadow your misses, thats wrong, and an incorrect way to train, especially in mantis. Don&#8217;t rely on the odds of hitting with one of your attacks overshadow the need to be precise and accurate. If you throw 12 attacks in a row but do no damage or make no contact, what&#8217;s the point? It sounds to me that you&#8217;re the one relying on traditional aspects rather than me like you claimed. See, you&#8217;re saying the exposure of the wrist is ok because your opponent will probably not be able to take advantage of it. Do you really want to take that chance? If that idea permeates your fighting it sounds like it&#8217;s riddled with holes. Why willingly give your opponent a chance? Do everything possible to keep them from having an attack; don&#8217;t lay them out there for them to take if they can. "

Every move you make is a chance. As for missing a lot of your attacks against a real life opponent who is skilled &#8211; that&#8217;s reality. Against such an opponent, how precise can you get as a result of your precision training? What do you consider precision training? As for your question, if you throw 12 attacks and make not contact, perhaps you have set the person up for a hit on the 13th attack. As long as you keep attacking, you&#8217;re not having to be the one who&#8217;s having to defend.


Quote: "I came to this conclusion from the amount of differences we have in "7 star" mantis. From the many times you say you decide what works and what doesn't, from the refusals to give lineage or even name your teacher, from your lack of knowledge of core mantis principles, from your obvious difference in training methods, and from your differences from myself in intent while fighting. You seem to not know or understand things like "emptying the attack" or yielding. What about the 12 soft and 8 hard principles of the mantis system? These are the things that made me think you may be training on your own. Also, what does it matter how many people you believe created an art? What does that have to do with the question of you training by yourself or not? I'm kind of getting lost here. Your philosophy of the creation of mantis has nothing to do with whether you believe someone can train in mantis by themselves. It&#8217;s these types of statements that make me think you were training by yourself. "

I&#8217;m sure you also have an idea of what works and what doesn&#8217;t. If not why bother training. As for changing the path of an object, I have also explained why counter force is necessary &#8211; it&#8217;s one of Newton&#8217;s Laws. As for emptying (ie moving away from its path), you&#8217;re assuming that your opponent does not anticipate your move and change its path to chase you down. If I think that it takes more than one person to create an art because you need at least one sparring partner to bounce ideas off, how could I ever think that you can learn mantis on your own &#8211; that&#8217;s the logic.

Quote: " No one is asking you to go by groups or lineage, its simply a tool for better understanding where someone is coming from. Physics have no part in beliefs of creation of the system, or training methods or such. See, you make a statement like "all I have to do is try it and see"; this to me shows arrogance that you feel you already understand everything. Is there nothing out there that you don&#8217;t understand or that you could still learn? You can come back with your results, but who says you did it correctly? Or even completely understood what was said?"

Physics has nothing to do with beliefs. It is how the world works. Therefore we need to make sure that our training methods have a solid foundation in physics. "all I have to do is try and see" is not arrogance, it is called experimentation, not to do so is arrogance. If I understood everything or think that I do, I would not need to try and see, would I. As for the possibility of coming back with the results from an incorrect experiment, I guess we can only try, at least that&#8217;s a place to start.

Quote: "No one is going only on reputation. LKW's reputation is simply a respect for his knowledge and skill, nothing more. It&#8217;s simply that his skill level surpasses many, many people I've seen. So I guess I should ignore that and if what he says doesn't make sense to me, throw it out? That&#8217;s ignorant and not conducive to learning. I could care less if we are talking about LKW or someone else with high level of skill. Let&#8217;s take Henry Chung, Chiu Luen, Raymond Fogg, Brandon Jones, one of my sihings... Their skill all surpasses my own. Should I not listen to what they have to say? Should I throw away their knowledge because it doesn't make sense to me right now? If Donald Trump came to you and told you to do a certain thing to make lots of money, would you do it? Even if you didn't think it would work? I think I sure would. See he obviously knows more about making money than I do, and so therefore I would listen to him and take what he says and learn form it. You have trained for 4 1/2 years (correct?) and now you&#8217;re going to tell someone with the skill and knowledge of Lee Kam Wing that teaching one form at a certain level makes no sense? The mantis system is not held within one form or two form, or three, 4,5,6,7,8,9, or even in forms at all. It&#8217;s collaboration and is about concepts and principles. Irregardless of LKW "status" his skill and his student&#8217;s skill speak for themselves. That&#8217;s what I mean when I always say; you must be able to stand on your own kung fu. Debating is interesting and nice, but it comes down to standing on your own skill. If our skill doesn't match our mouths, then we need to "shut up and train" like so many say."

From your statement regarding Donald Trump and willingness to do something he says even you don&#8217;t understand it shows that you&#8217;re going on by someone&#8217;s reputation. In all cases, my instructor explains to me what each exercise / form etc is set out to achieve and it would give me a target to work towards and allow me to raise any questions. As for that form in question being taught at Bung Bu level, if someone can explain this to me, I&#8217;m happy to listen. If someone can suggest examples that I can try, I&#8217;ll be more than happy to experiment.


----------



## 7starmantis

Fumanchu said:
			
		

> My instructor also designs his own training methods that may or may not be the same as his instructors. If I were an instructor, I might do things slightly differently. What Im saying is you can be taught be the same teacher and learn the material but not having to be carbon copies of your teachers. Its possible to achieve the same objectives through different methods. As for the intent of training, I have already explained that. It varies from person to person (obviously) in the class I train in. It has nothing to do with lineage rather a personal objective.


 No one is talking about being a "carbon copy" of your instructor. I am saying there are certain principles and concepts that make up mantis kung fu. To do things opposite of these is certainly ok, but is also certainly not mantis kung fu. So the end justifies the means in your training?



			
				Fumanchu said:
			
		

> Good, thats why I like to talk in physics terms it makes things a lot easier to discuss because it is a universal foundation. I disagree. I would want to engage the punch as early as possible, instead of letting it complete its path. Why not stop the punch even before it begins. The long movements in tai chi does not mean you have to follow your opponents line of force until it stops then redirect when he is going. Rather, upon appropriate timing, you can redirect the force anywhere along its path of movement.


 Engaging the punch is subjective. Youre talking about engaging it with force. I agree that you want to make contact early, but not using force, allow their force to continue and then use it against them. Its the core principle of the mantis system. How on earth can you practice mantis without using that principle? You might as well still be doing your high kicks and TKD. I'm not talking about tai chi, but rather mantis. I know you believe everything is tai chi, but there are differences. Once again you do not understand another core principle. I didn't say follow your opponents line of force until it stops and then redirect it, thats the same thing you are talking about; using force. You let their attack or punch empty and thats the point of redirection. Yes, you can redirect earlier using force, but be careful because against a skilled opponent with good feel, they will sense your pressure and already be gone and into another attack by the time you realize there is no pressure against your pressure. You shouldn't really have to "engage" the punch at all really, unless its the first punch. After that you should already be in contact with the opponent. 



			
				Fumanchu said:
			
		

> Yes, it come down to skill as to who can turn tighter circles like in air to air combat. Like say a tennis match I do something you respond, how quickly can you assimilate the information that your body is collecting.


 No, you do still not understand what I'm saying. Not tighter circles necessarily but better feel. You could turn a circle 100 times tighter than mine, but if I can feel your energy or force change, I can ride your circle and redirect your attack. 



			
				Fumanchu said:
			
		

> Dont forget that your opponent is also trying to hit you. If there is such a big disparity of skill such that he has no chance of hitting you then youre safe. In most practical situations and training in class where skill levels are more closely match, then it is necessary to engage incoming stuff early. Like you said before  upon contact you can go by feel. Such short distances, it is very difficult for the eye alone to pick distances and movement. It is more like a blurr, zones and probabilities of where things might be as opposed to discrete objects in a particular space and time. Disagree, in the mantis system, you engage it as early as possible and stop your opponent from building up momentum  why wouldnt you?


 Why would I forget that the opponent is trying to hit me? It doesn't seem you understand what I mean by yielding. Me yielding is accepting the attack, but collapsing the body or moving the body out of the way of the attack. Not moving 6 feet away, but maybe just 1 inch, or maybe you still get hit, but you yield and go with their force. Again, its a huge core principle in mantis kung fu. Have you never dodged a punch, or moved out of the way of a kick? Your acting like that can never happen. If youre training with people who cannot move out of the way of a punch or a kick now and again, I suggest new training partners. 

 You made my point for me. It is hard to impossible to keep track with the eyes, hence the importance of "feel". With your eyes it may be probabilities and zones, but with feel you can close your eyes and still know where your opponents limbs and energy is at; even as discrete objects in a particular space and time. Thats why its so important. Combined with your eyes, ears, nose, etc, your feel plays a huge role in discerning where your opponent is and what he is doing, especially in where his center of balance is at. Youre still not getting what I'm saying with the engaging early. The mantis system isn't about stopping momentum, but using momentum against them. Yes, engage early, but you engage my arm and use force to stop my punch and its going to change into about 3 or 4 different attacks. Force met with force is a bad idea against a skilled mantis practitioner. Trust me; I've learned that the hard way. Why wouldn't you? I'll tell you. If I stop your attack before it gets started with force, I've given you an option to change attacks. If I allow your attack to continue and at the last moment be gone and then follow your momentum into a nice break, lock, or attack of my own, I've stolen your attack and left you (hopefully) without defense, at least thats the goal. Now I think one issue we are having is that youre taking what I say as me saying, "this way 100% of the time". Thats not the case in mantis, the situation and your opponent will dictate and determine your actions. There are times to do things differently; I'm just explaining some of the main, basic, core concepts and principles of my training. It seems we aren't even talking about the same animal (pun intended). 



			
				Fumanchu said:
			
		

> How could you knock someone off balance without being in contact with him? Why would I sudden lose control of my balance on my own account? If youre dealing with such opponents then there is nothing to worry about. It is those opponents who are balanced and can counter what youre trying to do. Sometimes we stick, sometimes we break away. We break away if you feel that they are using the contact to more of an advantage than we are  ie. we have lost the initiative because were dealing with someone of superior skill. There should not be a hard and fast rule of always sticking- got to know when to let go.


 OK, well ever seen a nice push knock someone off balance? I didn't say without making contact, I said without staying in contact. My kick makes contact for what 1 second? After that, I have no contact with the off balance opponent. However, I did say in the mantis system you should follow and stay in contact and control, but it isn't a necessity to steal their balance. I noted your sarcasm, but I'm not talking about you loosing control of your balance by yourself, thats absurd. Sticking is a core principle of the mantis system, breaking away is not. It may happen from time to time, but if you loose contact with someone, you can pretty much count that you just got hit. Being in so close to your opponent makes loosing contact very dangerous. You use your mantis techniques with initiative, thats completely opposite from me. Initiative can be nice, but "riding" their attacks and yielding through their "initiative" while staying in contact with them can really leave you in an amazingly advantageous position. Your also combining sticking with grabbing, not so. You said, "got to know when to let go". I'm not talking about grabbing when I say "sticking" but rather staying in contact with as little pressure against them as possible. Here is a drill we do that illustrates why using pressure against pressure can get you hurt. You and I stand facing each other with the backs of our hands touching each others. You push towards me and I push towards you. I can push harder, and harder, and harder, and then collapse and into a lower attack and your hand rushes forward as mine leaves. See the idea? I can even still stay in contact with that hand, only slide down my arm and do a low punching attack while your arm goes above my head. Thats the point I'm getting at against using too much force. Imagine that drill when you push and actually make contact with the back of my hand, that at that instant, my hand collapses in towards my chest, my waist turns outward, your hand go straight and right by my chest as my hand extends again with a punch to the stomach. Those are some of the drills we do for feel. 



			
				Fumanchu said:
			
		

> It doesnt make sense that driving through is against the principal of mantis. Say if you can hit an opponent with a punch, dont you do so? You would only need to escalate your tactics should simple attacks fail. In bung bu we learn to work the angles for driving through  ie. right from the beginning of the mantis system. I dont rely on one type of grab. There are different stages of control, the 5-finger grab being in the later stages.


 It may not make sense to you, but its a core principle. Let me clarify though. I'm talking about driving through their force as you stated. We are not talking about driving through their head with a punch; you were talking about meeting their attack as a punch and driving through it. That is against the principles of mantis. Why drive through hand use all that energy, strength, and danger when you can collapse, redirect and attack using their own force? You may start out with really basic attacks and escalate as needed, but if I'm attacked, I'm not limiting myself to basic, advanced, intermediate, or "gentlemanly" attacks. Its whatever their body allows mine to do. No thinking about it, what is in my "muscle memory" if you will. 

 Now you say you use the full grab! Before it was to slow and committed, and left you in a disadvantageous position. Now its ok and you use it? You just repeated back to me what I wrote several posts back. Maybe we are having trouble communicating. 



			
				Fumanchu said:
			
		

> Its not possible to defend against 100% of attacks, because you know that some attacks from certain angles can sneek through. In fact what we do is cover the likely zones anyway instead of seeing a line of attack and then trying to defend. For example, say an F-16 jet is coming in for a bombing run, you have electro-counter-measures Prowlers hovering overhead and other F-16s with air to air missiles providing fighter support. Basically we dont do one unit move at a time, but rather a set of moves each time forming a complete package that works together. Like the F-16 scenario, sure it would stop most surface to air missiles but it would not stop them 100% of the time. As for that move in particular, the threat to the hand has been dealt with else where. Again, nothing to do with insects.


 No its not, again something I said before as well. If you want to face someone determined to kill you with "likely zones", be my guest. I prefer to guard all areas regardless of whether or not I'll actually be successful in defending 100% of the time. Your actually hybridizing (is that a word) mantis, which is ok and fine with me, but its not pure mantis principles. The idea is to defend against the initial attack, steal the attack, and attack back until you needent attack any longer. You lost me with the f-16 analogy, and exactly what move are you referring to? And what does it have to do with your mentioning the insect again? The visual resemblance to the insect is only a minute portion of why the system is called mantis. 



			
				Fumanchu said:
			
		

> Every move you make is a chance. As for missing a lot of your attacks against a real life opponent who is skilled  thats reality. Against such an opponent, how precise can you get as a result of your precision training? What do you consider precision training? As for your question, if you throw 12 attacks and make not contact, perhaps you have set the person up for a hit on the 13th attack. As long as you keep attacking, youre not having to be the one whos having to defend.


 A chance for what? A chance of attacking or a chance of being attacked or what? Heres the thing about missing attacks, you shouldn't really miss, but rather change. Isn't that what 7 star means, continually changing to break down your opponent? If you miss, move to something else, again, and again, and again, and again... Wait, I'm confused about your question. How precise can I get from my precise training? Well the goal would be exactly precise. If you're aiming at the elbow and hit the knee there is a problem, no? If you going for an elbow break and you miss and hit the forearm, you may still get a lock, but isn't that just a miss and a move to something else? The elbow break was a failure. Its like a victorious failure. What do I consider precision training? Drills that focus on hitting precise areas. Chin na, locks, sweeps, throws, pretty much all my mantis training is about precision in one way or another. 

 I disagree about the keeping attacking point. Sure you may make a hit on the 13th attack, but what if you go 34 attacks with no damage or contact? Are you conditioned enough to still have full speed and power on your 35th attack as you were on your 1st attack? How about the 65th attack? There is a line somewhere that will cause you to loose if you cannot do some type of damage quickly. Even if its that you run out of "seam", thats bad. 



			
				Fumanchu said:
			
		

> Im sure you also have an idea of what works and what doesnt. If not why bother training. As for changing the path of an object, I have also explained why counter force is necessary  its one of Newtons Laws. As for emptying (ie moving away from its path), youre assuming that your opponent does not anticipate your move and change its path to chase you down. If I think that it takes more than one person to create an art because you need at least one sparring partner to bounce ideas off, how could I ever think that you can learn mantis on your own  thats the logic.


 I'm not disputing counter force, but only how much force is used. About emptying, its not just moving out of the path of the attack. If your opponent anticipates your move and changes, then you change as well, I dont see the issue. Emptying isn't something the opponent can anticipate, its not an attack or pressure, its something they are doing. Your simply allowing their attack to reach its end point, thats being empty. If they change their attack, then you let that attack empty, its really quite simple in theory. 

 Ok, I se your logic in the needing more than one person, but I was really asking if you had a set instructor or if you were learning as you go, sort of bouncing ideas off of each other as you go. Not necessarily having prior knowledge of mantis for either of you. Is that how you train? 



			
				Fumanchu said:
			
		

> Physics has nothing to do with beliefs. It is how the world works. Therefore we need to make sure that our training methods have a solid foundation in physics. "all I have to do is try and see" is not arrogance, it is called experimentation, not to do so is arrogance. If I understood everything or think that I do, I would not need to try and see, would I. As for the possibility of coming back with the results from an incorrect experiment, I guess we can only try, at least thats a place to start.


 Wow, something else I said as well. Experimentation is fine, but what is to say that I can experiment with one technique and really understand it on my own? 



			
				Fumanchu said:
			
		

> From your statement regarding Donald Trump and willingness to do something he says even you dont understand it shows that youre going on by someones reputation. In all cases, my instructor explains to me what each exercise / form etc is set out to achieve and it would give me a target to work towards and allow me to raise any questions. As for that form in question being taught at Bung Bu level, if someone can explain this to me, Im happy to listen. If someone can suggest examples that I can try, Ill be more than happy to experiment.


 No, it shows I'm going on someones proven track record. Reputation and proven track record are two separate things. I've seen my sifu fight; I've even fought him quite a bit. If I'm fighting someone else and he says I should do a certain thing, you dont think I'm going to do it? I know where his skill level is at, why wouldn't I do it? Ignoring it would be arrogance in my opinion. Of course I would take Mr. Trumps advice, you wouldnt? Not even for an "experiment"? Thats ignorant in my opinion. Learning from others and from mistakes is what makes humans different from animals. 

 Ok, lets get to some meat here, I feel we are running out of things to discuss. I dont see how we can continue to discuss mantis since we are obviously not both training in the same thing. You wont divulge who your teacher is for reasons unknown (but speculative) and I can't discuss principles with you since you dont know any of them. What about my question about the 12 soft and 8 hard principles of the mantis system? Do you guys train them? 

 What explanation would you accept about that form being taught at the "level" you dont like? What are you looking for as explanation? I'd love to discuss it with you. What is it about where you learn a form that is so important? Or in what order you learn them? I dont know how to explain it to you, so give me a place to start and I'll do my best. What kind of examples are you wanting to try, I'll give you as many as I can think of. Examples for what? Techniques, principles, forms, what? 

 7sm


----------



## BIGtiny7SM

I realize I am a little late on this thread. I just wanted to add that Sifu Hughes is my Sifu, and I had been helping him prepare this article for submission for about the last 6 months. I know he had been working on it for much longer than that, and its very nice to see such a awesome showing in the magazine. I think that the article gives a great overview of the Mantis style, but as the saying goes "for more information please inquire inside"  


BIGtiny7SM


----------



## Fumanchu

Quote: "No one is talking about being a "carbon copy" of your instructor. I am saying there are certain principles and concepts that make up mantis kung fu. To do things opposite of these is certainly ok, but is also certainly not mantis kung fu. So the end justifies the means in your training?"

You can apply different training methods and still achieve the same result. The difference in training methods can come from the same set of principals. Not sure what you mean by end justifies the means, but what I can say is one&#8217;s competency reflects the effectiveness of the training program.


Quote: "Engaging the punch is subjective. You&#8217;re talking about engaging it with force. I agree that you want to make contact early, but not using force, allow their force to continue and then use it against them. It&#8217;s the core principle of the mantis system. How on earth can you practice mantis without using that principle? You might as well still be doing your high kicks and TKD. I'm not talking about tai chi, but rather mantis. I know you believe everything is tai chi, but there are differences. Once again you do not understand another core principle. I didn't say follow your opponent&#8217;s line of force until it stops and then redirect it, that&#8217;s the same thing you are talking about; using force. You let their attack or punch empty and that&#8217;s the point of redirection. Yes, you can redirect earlier using force, but be careful because against a skilled opponent with good feel, they will sense your pressure and already be gone and into another attack by the time you realize there is no pressure against your pressure. You shouldn't really have to "engage" the punch at all really, unless it&#8217;s the first punch. After that you should already be in contact with the opponent."

How can you move without force? Your arm has mass and your accelerating it towards an incoming object with your muscles. Sure redirect the opponent&#8217;s force upon contact, sometimes you have to ride with it longer other times you don&#8217;t. It all depends on the situation at hand. I don&#8217;t see how it violates mantis principals. Maybe we&#8217;re using different words to describe the same thing. I don&#8217;t use the term "emptying", I just do when the opportunity feels right. I don&#8217;t see how you can do this without pressure. There will always be some pressure and this is something you and your opponent would turn up or turn down.

Quote: "No, you do still not understand what I'm saying. Not tighter circles necessarily but better feel. You could turn a circle 100 times tighter than mine, but if I can feel your energy or force change, I can ride your circle and redirect your attack."

Yes you could, but you might not be able to. It come down to who&#8217;s the more competent player. You might realise something later than your opponent. It comes down to skill. I had already mentioned in the earlier post about assimilating information.



Quote: "Why would I forget that the opponent is trying to hit me? It doesn't seem you understand what I mean by yielding. Me yielding is accepting the attack, but collapsing the body or moving the body out of the way of the attack. Not moving 6 feet away, but maybe just 1 inch, or maybe you still get hit, but you yield and go with their force. Again, it&#8217;s a huge core principle in mantis kung fu. Have you never dodged a punch, or moved out of the way of a kick? Your acting like that can never happen. If you&#8217;re training with people who cannot move out of the way of a punch or a kick now and again, I suggest new training partners."

If the opponent is trying to hit you, it&#8217;ll be very hard to gauge a 1-inch miss all the time. In fact most times, you&#8217;ll have to make contact at some stage. Again as I said earlier, it comes down to the differences in the level of skill between the 2 partners.


Quote: "You made my point for me. It is hard to impossible to keep track with the eyes, hence the importance of "feel". With your eyes it may be probabilities and zones, but with feel you can close your eyes and still know where your opponent&#8217;s limbs and energy is at; even as discrete objects in a particular space and time. That&#8217;s why it&#8217;s so important. Combined with your eyes, ears, nose, etc, your feel plays a huge role in discerning where your opponent is and what he is doing, especially in where his center of balance is at. You&#8217;re still not getting what I'm saying with the engaging early. The mantis system isn't about stopping momentum, but using momentum against them. Yes, engage early, but you engage my arm and use force to stop my punch and its going to change into about 3 or 4 different attacks. Force met with force is a bad idea against a skilled mantis practitioner. Trust me; I've learned that the hard way. Why wouldn't you? I'll tell you. If I stop your attack before it gets started with force, I've given you an option to change attacks. If I allow your attack to continue and at the last moment be gone and then follow your momentum into a nice break, lock, or attack of my own, I've stolen your attack and left you (hopefully) without defense, at least that&#8217;s the goal. Now I think one issue we are having is that you&#8217;re taking what I say as me saying, "this way 100% of the time". That&#8217;s not the case in mantis, the situation and your opponent will dictate and determine your actions. There are times to do things differently; I'm just explaining some of the main, basic, core concepts and principles of my training. It seems we aren't even talking about the same animal (pun intended)."

I had already said earlier that many times we go by feel. It was a response of you talking about yielding and missing by an inch without making contact. About stopping momentum and using the momentum against your opponent, think about it this way. You have a race car on a circuit that is travelling at a given speed and it approaches wide turn, if you want to maintain the same speed you would need less force to turn the car if it approaches a tight corner. The amount of force or pressure is related to 1) speed of the incoming object, 2) it&#8217;s mass, 3) your speed, 4) your mass and the tightness of the turn. It&#8217;s physics. In Laan dzeet, you would learn how to turn objects through tight corners. 

Quote: "OK, well ever seen a nice push knock someone off balance? I didn't say without making contact, I said without staying in contact. My kick makes contact for what 1 second? After that, I have no contact with the off balance opponent. However, I did say in the mantis system you should follow and stay in contact and control, but it isn't a necessity to steal their balance. I noted your sarcasm, but I'm not talking about you loosing control of your balance by yourself, thats absurd. Sticking is a core principle of the mantis system, breaking away is not. It may happen from time to time, but if you loose contact with someone, you can pretty much count that you just got hit. Being in so close to your opponent makes loosing contact very dangerous. You use your mantis techniques with initiative, thats completely opposite from me. Initiative can be nice, but "riding" their attacks and yielding through their "initiative" while staying in contact with them can really leave you in an amazingly advantageous position. Your also combining sticking with grabbing, not so. You said, "got to know when to let go". I'm not talking about grabbing when I say "sticking" but rather staying in contact with as little pressure against them as possible. Here is a drill we do that illustrates why using pressure against pressure can get you hurt. You and I stand facing each other with the backs of our hands touching each others. You push towards me and I push towards you. I can push harder, and harder, and harder, and then collapse and into a lower attack and your hand rushes forward as mine leaves. See the idea? I can even still stay in contact with that hand, only slide down my arm and do a low punching attack while your arm goes above my head. Thats the point I'm getting at against using too much force. Imagine that drill when you push and actually make contact with the back of my hand, that at that instant, my hand collapses in towards my chest, my waist turns outward, your hand go straight and right by my chest as my hand extends again with a punch to the stomach. Those are some of the drills we do for feel."

This is what you said "For me to knock you off balance doesn't require me to have any type of control over you whatsoever.", I never said that you need to stay in contact all time to have control. You seem to be using different definations of explaining things when they are the same thing along a continuum. Sometimes you have to break away. In bung bu we learn concepts of sticking and breaking away. Riding someone&#8217;s attack doesn&#8217;t mean you&#8217;re losing initiative. Sucking an opposing army into a killing zone is not losing initiative. You may not see the term initiative as I do. Yes of course you can collapse into a lower attack or some other attack, but an equally skilled player would be able to modify the direction of the pressure. Hence it comes down to skill rather than a do and don&#8217;t.


Quote: "It may not make sense to you, but its a core principle. Let me clarify though. I'm talking about driving through their force as you stated. We are not talking about driving through their head with a punch; you were talking about meeting their attack as a punch and driving through it. That is against the principles of mantis. Why drive through hand use all that energy, strength, and danger when you can collapse, redirect and attack using their own force? You may start out with really basic attacks and escalate as needed, but if I'm attacked, I'm not limiting myself to basic, advanced, intermediate, or "gentlemanly" attacks. Its whatever their body allows mine to do. No thinking about it, what is in my "muscle memory" if you will. "

No it&#8217;s not. You learn that a lot in Zhao Yao. Because at that level you should be able to envisage slight changes in momentum and capitalise on it.

Quote: "Now you say you use the full grab! Before it was to slow and committed, and left you in a disadvantageous position. Now its ok and you use it? You just repeated back to me what I wrote several posts back. Maybe we are having trouble communicating."

Yes it&#8217;s slow and committed. It may not be a disadvantage if speed is not paramount at that point of the engagement. Definitely I use the 5-finger grab sometimes. 

Quote: "No its not, again something I said before as well. If you want to face someone determined to kill you with "likely zones", be my guest. I prefer to guard all areas regardless of whether or not I'll actually be successful in defending 100% of the time. Your actually hybridizing (is that a word) mantis, which is ok and fine with me, but its not pure mantis principles. The idea is to defend against the initial attack, steal the attack, and attack back until you needent attack any longer. You lost me with the f-16 analogy, and exactly what move are you referring to? And what does it have to do with your mentioning the insect again? The visual resemblance to the insect is only a minute portion of why the system is called mantis."

Why not do the 1) defend, 2) steal and counter simultanously? What&#8217;s to stop an opponent from attacking again after you&#8217;d defended the first attack. In terms of the F-16 scenario, it refers to moving your body as a package. There isn&#8217;t a clear distinction any more between defend, steal or attack. The likely danger zones are avoided or covered as you deploy your strategy. Upon meeting the opponent, the strategy evolves through feel. I&#8217;m not referring to any moves in particular, it&#8217;s a philosophy of doing things.

Quote: "A chance for what? A chance of attacking or a chance of being attacked or what? Here&#8217;s the thing about missing attacks, you shouldn't really miss, but rather change. Isn't that what 7 star means, continually changing to break down your opponent? If you miss, move to something else, again, and again, and again, and again... Wait, I'm confused about your question. How precise can I get from my precise training? Well the goal would be exactly precise. If you're aiming at the elbow and hit the knee there is a problem, no? If you going for an elbow break and you miss and hit the forearm, you may still get a lock, but isn't that just a miss and a move to something else? The elbow break was a failure. Its like a victorious failure. What do I consider precision training? Drills that focus on hitting precise areas. Chin na, locks, sweeps, throws, pretty much all my mantis training is about precision in one way or another."

I agree there are targets you aim for, but as you said, you still miss and have to move on to something else. Like I said before, that&#8217;s also what I do. The fact that you miss some, shows that what you do comes down to chance. 


Quote: "I disagree about the keeping attacking point. Sure you may make a hit on the 13th attack, but what if you go 34 attacks with no damage or contact? Are you conditioned enough to still have full speed and power on your 35th attack as you were on your 1st attack? How about the 65th attack? There is a line somewhere that will cause you to loose if you cannot do some type of damage quickly. Even if its that you run out of "seam", thats bad."

The person defending would also be expanding energy defending don&#8217;t you think. It comes down to who has put in the hours into training. Strength, stamina comes into it. There&#8217;s always a danger of running out of steam, but you can&#8217;t worry about that in a real fight, this is something that should be addressed in your cardio training.



Quote: " I'm not disputing counter force, but only how much force is used. About emptying, its not just moving out of the path of the attack. If your opponent anticipates your move and changes, then you change as well, I dont see the issue. Emptying isn't something the opponent can anticipate, its not an attack or pressure, its something they are doing. Your simply allowing their attack to reach its end point, thats being empty. If they change their attack, then you let that attack empty, its really quite simple in theory."

How much force you need is dictated by the situation at hand. 

Quote: "Ok, I se your logic in the needing more than one person, but I was really asking if you had a set instructor or if you were learning as you go, sort of bouncing ideas off of each other as you go. Not necessarily having prior knowledge of mantis for either of you. Is that how you train?"

Definitely I have an instructor. 

Quote: "Wow, something else I said as well. Experimentation is fine, but what is to say that I can experiment with one technique and really understand it on my own?"

There&#8217;re no guarantees, that&#8217;s why through more experimentations we hope to build a better engine. 

Quote: "No, it shows I'm going on someone&#8217;s proven track record. Reputation and proven track record are two separate things. I've seen my sifu fight; I've even fought him quite a bit. If I'm fighting someone else and he says I should do a certain thing, you don&#8217;t think I'm going to do it? I know where his skill level is at, why wouldn't I do it? Ignoring it would be arrogance in my opinion. Of course I would take Mr. Trumps advice, you wouldn&#8217;t? Not even for an "experiment"? Thats ignorant in my opinion. Learning from others and from mistakes is what makes humans different from animals. Ok, lets get to some meat here, I feel we are running out of things to discuss. I don&#8217;t see how we can continue to discuss mantis since we are obviously not both training in the same thing. You wont divulge who your teacher is for reasons unknown (but speculative) and I can't discuss principles with you since you don&#8217;t know any of them. What about my question about the 12 soft and 8 hard principles of the mantis system? Do you guys train them? What explanation would you accept about that form being taught at the "level" you don&#8217;t like? What are you looking for as explanation? I'd love to discuss it with you. What is it about where you learn a form that is so important? Or in what order you learn them? I don&#8217;t know how to explain it to you, so give me a place to start and I'll do my best. What kind of examples are you wanting to try, I'll give you as many as I can think of. Examples for what? Techniques, principles, forms, what?"

Definitely we learn from others. But simply taking what someone says without understanding is not learning. Lets say you go by LKW&#8217;s track record, how do you explain Zhao Yao being taught at Bung Bu level? I&#8217;ve heard about the 12 soft and 8 hard. The instructor had mentioned that in class sometime back. Don&#8217;t ask me what it is, I can&#8217;t remember off hand. We use them in our application. Definitely, the order of form learning is important.


----------



## 7starmantis

Fumanchu said:
			
		

> You can apply different training methods and still achieve the same result. The difference in training methods can come from the same set of principals. Not sure what you mean by end justifies the means, but what I can say is ones competency reflects the effectiveness of the training program.


 There we go, ok so your competency reflects the effectiveness of your training? If that is correct, how do you judge your competency? If I judge my competency from only interacting with one of my fellow students, then I'm not getting a true picture of what my competency is, correct? I've always said, we must each stand on our own skill, but how do we do that? How do we judge our skill or our competency? Its a skewed version of our training to judge it by our competency which we measured through something incorrectly. Thats what my point is. You said earlier we have to take each conversation as a clean slate, right? And I have to read what you write and apply it to logic and physics right? So how do I judge you on my own logic since you obviously do not know any of the principles, drills, concepts, or even methods I'm referring to or use myself? Whats the universal standard? Answer: There isn't one. And if that is true than your lineage, instructor, training methods, intent, training time, logic, knowledge, etc must all be taken into account to accurately get a glimpse of your competency, no?



			
				Fumanchu said:
			
		

> How can you move without force? Your arm has mass and your accelerating it towards an incoming object with your muscles. Sure redirect the opponents force upon contact, sometimes you have to ride with it longer other times you dont. It all depends on the situation at hand. I dont see how it violates mantis principals. Maybe were using different words to describe the same thing. I dont use the term "emptying", I just do when the opportunity feels right. I dont see how you can do this without pressure. There will always be some pressure and this is something you and your opponent would turn up or turn down.


 What are you talking about? Who said anything about moving without force? I said its a question of how much force, not whether or not force is present. It is against mantis principles, because mantis principles teach not to meet force with force. Its not a yes or no answer, we are talking principles here, not hard coded do or don't do. However the underlying core of most mantis principles is "softness" or "feel". If I'm tense and pushing against your force with my own force, its impossible for me to be "feeling", "listening", or "measuring" your force. I guess here is another example of why I got the assumption you trained alone, you only use the words, "I" when talking about your training. You said you do not use the word emptying, does your instructor? Does his instructor? Do you know? My point is that the principles behind emptying are core to mantis and especially 7 star mantis, but then so are many forms that you choose to ignore. To allow an attack to empty is to let a punch reach its furthest reach, to allow the arm to reach its maximum extension, to allow their energy to reach its farthest point, and then give it a little help at continuing in that same direction. Thats what the pluck is used for. The pluck really shouldn't be used with much force at all, just a continuance of their own force. If the timing is correct, you dont have to use much muscle strength at all, and shouldn't. 



			
				Fumanchu said:
			
		

> Yes you could, but you might not be able to. It come down to whos the more competent player. You might realise something later than your opponent. It comes down to skill. I had already mentioned in the earlier post about assimilating information.


 Your right, but in my opinion saying that is a cop-out. Everything comes down to who is the more skilled fighter, everything. You might realize something later than your opponent, you might be slower, heavier, or whatever. My point was that riding an attack and using the proper timing really cuts down on their ability to defend against your attack, cuts it down quite profusely. Lets take an example. If you punch at my chest and I make contact with your hand before it hits my chest. I then move my center backwards in the same direction your punch is going and allow your punch to reach its end and it still hasn't made contact with my chest, I can then apply an attack, lock, break, chin na of my own. At the point of your punch's full extension you are very vulnerable and its hard to defend, thats my point and thats the principle behind mantis' yielding, riding, feeling, plucking, and attacking. 



			
				Fumanchu said:
			
		

> If the opponent is trying to hit you, itll be very hard to gauge a 1-inch miss all the time. In fact most times, youll have to make contact at some stage. Again as I said earlier, it comes down to the differences in the level of skill between the 2 partners.


 I dont really know what to say anymore. I'm not talking about gauging a 1 inch miss, I said the miss may only be 1 inch, but it may be 9 inches, or 1/34 of an inch, or it may actually make contact, you can still yield to the energy or pressure. You keep saying \things like I've said contact is bad, I said contact is made early, contact is the heart of mantis fighting. 



			
				Fumanchu said:
			
		

> I had already said earlier that many times we go by feel. It was a response of you talking about yielding and missing by an inch without making contact. About stopping momentum and using the momentum against your opponent, think about it this way. You have a race car on a circuit that is travelling at a given speed and it approaches wide turn, if you want to maintain the same speed you would need less force to turn the car if it approaches a tight corner. The amount of force or pressure is related to 1) speed of the incoming object, 2) its mass, 3) your speed, 4) your mass and the tightness of the turn. Its physics. In Laan dzeet, you would learn how to turn objects through tight corners.


 Yielding can be done without contact, it can also be done with contact, why is that so hard to understand? Here is my problem with people who take this in way to far to physics; many of them rule out something without having even tried it. Remember biology makes up part of the equation, not just physics. Sure, mass + speed + my speed + my mass + tightness of curve = redirecting a punch. What about doing a redirect drill 25000 times and learning how it feels? Which is the better way? Who knows, I guess skill is the answer to that. Your muscle should know how all that feels without you having to even ponder any of that. I'm not even really sure what your explaining. Your basically backing up my statement that trying to stop someone momentum is incorrect and even dangerous. 



			
				Fumanchu said:
			
		

> This is what you said "For me to knock you off balance doesn't require me to have any type of control over you whatsoever.", I never said that you need to stay in contact all time to have control.


 Would you mind explaining to me how you could not be in contact with me and still have control over my center of balance or gravity or control at all over me? 



			
				Fumanchu said:
			
		

> You seem to be using different definations of explaining things when they are the same thing along a continuum. Sometimes you have to break away. In bung bu we learn concepts of sticking and breaking away. Riding someones attack doesnt mean youre losing initiative. Sucking an opposing army into a killing zone is not losing initiative. You may not see the term initiative as I do. Yes of course you can collapse into a lower attack or some other attack, but an equally skilled player would be able to modify the direction of the pressure. Hence it comes down to skill rather than a do and dont.


 No, I'm using the same definitions. Would you also mind explaining to me why you would purposefully break contact with you opponent? Breaking contact because they are gaining control over you is pointless. Its just a lack of skill, you should be able to feel where their control is coming from and yield, or drop or move your center. Why break contact and give up any weapon you may still have to steal their attack or do any type of damage to them? Bung Bo contains nothing about breaking away from your opponent. What part of bung bo are you translating as this? Um, I'm the one who said riding an attack doesn't mean loosing initiative, your the one who said it did. I think your getting confused. Yes, an equally skilled fighter would, but isn't that the key? 



			
				Fumanchu said:
			
		

> No its not. You learn that a lot in Zhao Yao. Because at that level you should be able to envisage slight changes in momentum and capitalise on it.


 OK, explain where in any mantis form you learn to overpower your opponent? What is "envisage"? Capitalizing on changes in momentum is one thing, you said driving through their momentum, different things my friend. 



			
				Fumanchu said:
			
		

> Yes its slow and committed. It may not be a disadvantage if speed is not paramount at that point of the engagement. Definitely I use the 5-finger grab sometimes. [/QUOT}E]
> 
> When in a real life or death fighting scenario is speed not paramount to your success or living? Now you definitely sometimes you the 5 finger grab even though its terribly slower and less functional? Why may I ask?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fumanchu said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why not do the 1) defend, 2) steal and counter simultanously? Whats to stop an opponent from attacking again after youd defended the first attack. In terms of the F-16 scenario, it refers to moving your body as a package. There isnt a clear distinction any more between defend, steal or attack. The likely danger zones are avoided or covered as you deploy your strategy. Upon meeting the opponent, the strategy evolves through feel. Im not referring to any moves in particular, its a philosophy of doing things.
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing, who said anything about the attacker not attacking again after the first attack? Yes, that I agree with, its a philosophy of doing things, not hard coded facts, but why only guard likely zones? So would you let an attack make contact and not defend against it if it wasn't at one of these likely zones?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fumanchu said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree there are targets you aim for, but as you said, you still miss and have to move on to something else. Like I said before, thats also what I do. The fact that you miss some, shows that what you do comes down to chance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The fact of missing shows that you lack the skill you desire, not that all of your training comes down to chance. If thats the case, why train hard? Playing the chance game is ok for gambling, but for me, my fighting doesn't rely or rest on chance at all. If I miss, its my fault, not chance. If I get hit, its my fault not chance. I'm sorry I couldn't disagree with you more than right here. Chance is what the lazy people use to ignore having to train hard. Sorry, I'm not saying this is you, but thats been my experiences with it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fumanchu said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The person defending would also be expanding energy defending dont you think. It comes down to who has put in the hours into training. Strength, stamina comes into it. Theres always a danger of running out of steam, but you cant worry about that in a real fight, this is something that should be addressed in your cardio training.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, if you are sticking with mantis principles only, than no. Defending shouldn't exert or expend energy. Thats what I've been saying, if you meet force with force and all contact using force, then yes, you expend energy while defending, but if you ride their attacks, stay connected and yield, then no you shouldn't expend even half of the energy they do, not even a third. You honestly believe you shouldn't concern yourself with running out of steam in a real fight? Now I'm not saying pull your punches, but you have to understand your limitations and not just blow by them with nothing to show for it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fumanchu said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Therere no guarantees, thats why through more experimentations we hope to build a better engine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wha??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fumanchu said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Definitely we learn from others. But simply taking what someone says without understanding is not learning. Lets say you go by LKWs track record, how do you explain Zhao Yao being taught at Bung Bu level? Ive heard about the 12 soft and 8 hard. The instructor had mentioned that in class sometime back. Dont ask me what it is, I cant remember off hand. We use them in our application. Definitely, the order of form learning is important.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well I guess it comes down to how you define learning. Is learning simply from words, or does it involve action as well? If it involves action then you would have to put into motion the advice you took in order to truly learn.
> 
> Going by LKW's track record? I would explain the position of the form by the skill of his students. Simply put. Now explaining it from my point of view, how would you like me to do that? I dont understand what you are looking for as explanation. How can I explain it? Why does it matter? You said it certainly matters the "position" of the form being taught, why? Do you continue learning things about a form indefinitely? If so, then it truly doesn't matter when its taught. You only have 4 forms correct? How far can Zhao Yao be from bung bo in your curriculum? 3 forms at most right? I dont understand your concern. Seek out some of LKW's top students and learn their skill level, see the competency that reflects the honesty of their training methods.
> 
> If you can't remember off hand 20 core principles of the mantis system, how do you use them when fighting?
> 
> 7sm
Click to expand...


----------



## Fumanchu

Quote:"There we go, ok so your competency reflects the effectiveness of your training? If that is correct, how do you judge your competency? If I judge my competency from only interacting with one of my fellow students, then I'm not getting a true picture of what my competency is, correct? I've always said, we must each stand on our own skill, but how do we do that? How do we judge our skill or our competency? Its a skewed version of our training to judge it by our competency which we measured through something incorrectly. Thats what my point is. You said earlier we have to take each conversation as a clean slate, right? And I have to read what you write and apply it to logic and physics right? So how do I judge you on my own logic since you obviously do not know any of the principles, drills, concepts, or even methods I'm referring to or use myself? Whats the universal standard? Answer: There isn't one. And if that is true than your lineage, instructor, training methods, intent, training time, logic, knowledge, etc must all be taken into account to accurately get a glimpse of your competency, no?"

Assessing your effectiveness against other students and friends who do kung fu is a good way to go about it. Especailly when a lot of students from the class are competent at other arts before starting up mantis. Why I relate it to physics is because the definations are universal as opposed to the terms that may e specific to what you or I use. We also know that every physical action has to be consistent with physics. therefore it is a common language we can use.

Quote: "What are you talking about? Who said anything about moving without force? I said its a question of how much force, not whether or not force is present. It is against mantis principles, because mantis principles teach not to meet force with force. Its not a yes or no answer, we are talking principles here, not hard coded do or don't do. However the underlying core of most mantis principles is "softness" or "feel". If I'm tense and pushing against your force with my own force, its impossible for me to be "feeling", "listening", or "measuring" your force. I guess here is another example of why I got the assumption you trained alone, you only use the words, "I" when talking about your training. You said you do not use the word emptying, does your instructor? Does his instructor? Do you know? My point is that the principles behind emptying are core to mantis and especially 7 star mantis, but then so are many forms that you choose to ignore. To allow an attack to empty is to let a punch reach its furthest reach, to allow the arm to reach its maximum extension, to allow their energy to reach its farthest point, and then give it a little help at continuing in that same direction. Thats what the pluck is used for. The pluck really shouldn't be used with much force at all, just a continuance of their own force. If the timing is correct, you dont have to use much muscle strength at all, and shouldn't." 

You don't have to be tense to be forceful. If you're tense you're probably not using your muscles efficiently. You can be forceful and listen (or as I say - assimilate information) at the same time. I don't recall my instructor using the word empty. When ever I have questions I ask him until I understand. In laan dzeet, you're not allowing the opponent's attack to reach the furthest - as an example. I agree the pluck is more about timing then brute force. However, the little force that you use should be enough to shake the opponent.

Quote: "Your right, but in my opinion saying that is a cop-out. Everything comes down to who is the more skilled fighter, everything. You might realize something later than your opponent, you might be slower, heavier, or whatever. My point was that riding an attack and using the proper timing really cuts down on their ability to defend against your attack, cuts it down quite profusely. Lets take an example. If you punch at my chest and I make contact with your hand before it hits my chest. I then move my center backwards in the same direction your punch is going and allow your punch to reach its end and it still hasn't made contact with my chest, I can then apply an attack, lock, break, chin na of my own. At the point of your punch's full extension you are very vulnerable and its hard to defend, thats my point and thats the principle behind mantis' yielding, riding, feeling, plucking, and attacking."

Assuming the opponent is less skilled to know that the punch has missed. Like you had also agreed, it comes down to skill. Your example is one way of dealing with it, distance, time in which you perceived the punch etc are also factors.  

Quote:"I dont really know what to say anymore. I'm not talking about gauging a 1 inch miss, I said the miss may only be 1 inch, but it may be 9 inches, or 1/34 of an inch, or it may actually make contact, you can still yield to the energy or pressure. You keep saying \things like I've said contact is bad, I said contact is made early, contact is the heart of mantis fighting."

So did I, I also said contact should be made early. If there is no need to yield you go right through the target. Otherwise, what are you yielding to?

Quote:"Yielding can be done without contact, it can also be done with contact, why is that so hard to understand? Here is my problem with people who take this in way to far to physics; many of them rule out something without having even tried it. Remember biology makes up part of the equation, not just physics. Sure, mass + speed + my speed + my mass + tightness of curve = redirecting a punch. What about doing a redirect drill 25000 times and learning how it feels? Which is the better way? Who knows, I guess skill is the answer to that. Your muscle should know how all that feels without you having to even ponder any of that. I'm not even really sure what your explaining. Your basically backing up my statement that trying to stop someone momentum is incorrect and even dangerous."

You can't compare the effectiveness of your training regime to physics. You training helps you learn how people move and how you move. it does not violate physical laws.

Quote"Would you mind explaining to me how you could not be in contact with me and still have control over my center of balance or gravity or control at all over me?" 

The stuff in "....." in the last post is what YOU said. I was quoting what you said back to you, because it doesn't make sense, does it? 

Quote:"No, I'm using the same definitions. Would you also mind explaining to me why you would purposefully break contact with you opponent? Breaking contact because they are gaining control over you is pointless. Its just a lack of skill, you should be able to feel where their control is coming from and yield, or drop or move your center. Why break contact and give up any weapon you may still have to steal their attack or do any type of damage to them? Bung Bo contains nothing about breaking away from your opponent. What part of bung bo are you translating as this? Um, I'm the one who said riding an attack doesn't mean loosing initiative, your the one who said it did. I think your getting confused. Yes, an equally skilled fighter would, but isn't that the key?"

That's right, you realise that you are less skillful than your opponent. Why maintain contact when you know you are being dominated. So you make tactical retreat and make it hard for your opponent to chase you down. Lots of Bung Bu contains going in and breaking away. First line of Bung Bu! 

Quote:"OK, explain where in any mantis form you learn to overpower your opponent? What is "envisage"? Capitalizing on changes in momentum is one thing, you said driving through their momentum, different things my friend."

Pretty much all of Zhao Yao is about cutting through your opponent.

Quote:"Nothing, who said anything about the attacker not attacking again after the first attack? Yes, that I agree with, its a philosophy of doing things, not hard coded facts, but why only guard likely zones? So would you let an attack make contact and not defend against it if it wasn't at one of these likely zones?"

We guard likely zones because a human body moves in finite ways, so for a given opponent there are limits as to where their limbs can be. If we were fighting against an octopus with flexible tenticles then we'll be in trouble. If something does come into a zone outside my expectations, that's were the laan dzeet training comes in. 

Quote:"The fact of missing shows that you lack the skill you desire, not that all of your training comes down to chance. If thats the case, why train hard? Playing the chance game is ok for gambling, but for me, my fighting doesn't rely or rest on chance at all. If I miss, its my fault, not chance. If I get hit, its my fault not chance. I'm sorry I couldn't disagree with you more than right here. Chance is what the lazy people use to ignore having to train hard. Sorry, I'm not saying this is you, but thats been my experiences with it."

I wish I could hit an opponent's eye 100% of the time with my finger, that should stop a fight - but you're right, I lack the skill I desire. But if I don't train hard, then I probably miss even more times. Chance is not about laziness, it's about probability. For example you toss a fair coin, you get Heads 50% of the time, it doesn't mean you're a lazy tosser does it. 

Quote:"Well, if you are sticking with mantis principles only, than no. Defending shouldn't exert or expend energy. Thats what I've been saying, if you meet force with force and all contact using force, then yes, you expend energy while defending, but if you ride their attacks, stay connected and yield, then no you shouldn't expend even half of the energy they do, not even a third. You honestly believe you shouldn't concern yourself with running out of steam in a real fight? Now I'm not saying pull your punches, but you have to understand your limitations and not just blow by them with nothing to show for it."

Depends on what you're defending against and your skill level. If defending doesn't take energy, then I would question why qren't you attacking. When you're in a fight, you're going at 100% because that's what your opponent is doing. No point worrying about whether you can last 20mins when you know if you don't work to the max now, you might not survive the next min. 

Quote:"Well I guess it comes down to how you define learning. Is learning simply from words, or does it involve action as well? If it involves action then you would have to put into motion the advice you took in order to truly learn. Going by LKW's track record? I would explain the position of the form by the skill of his students. Simply put. Now explaining it from my point of view, how would you like me to do that? I dont understand what you are looking for as explanation. How can I explain it? Why does it matter? You said it certainly matters the "position" of the form being taught, why? Do you continue learning things about a form indefinitely? If so, then it truly doesn't matter when its taught. You only have 4 forms correct? How far can Zhao Yao be from bung bo in your curriculum? 3 forms at most right? I dont understand your concern. Seek out some of LKW's top students and learn their skill level, see the competency that reflects the honesty of their training methods."

Yes you do learn more about the form as you progress. Nevertheless order of learning does matter. Unless you have accomplished the basics, you can't get the advance stuff. Zhao Yao is very very very very far from Bung Bu. It contains 8 elbows which contains bung bu and laan dzeet. Each form is a huge progression in skill level.

Quote: "If you can't remember off hand 20 core principles of the mantis system, how do you use them when fighting?"

I guess I just do. I had a look at the 12 principals - I though what are they, then I read about what they are and I though to myself, ohhhh that's what they are - I do them already. Just like when you play tennis, you don't think about forehand, back hand and what type of volley your doing. You just do.


----------



## 7starmantis

Fumanchu said:
			
		

> Assessing your effectiveness against other students and friends who do kung fu is a good way to go about it. Especailly when a lot of students from the class are competent at other arts before starting up mantis. Why I relate it to physics is because the definations are universal as opposed to the terms that may e specific to what you or I use. We also know that every physical action has to be consistent with physics. therefore it is a common language we can use.


 Using students from your own school who practice what you do is one way, but is it a true test? Dont they train the same way you do? Dont they judge themselves against you as well? Why not judge your skill against a person who trained differently than yourself? Now, put yourself in my shoes, how do I judge your competency or skill via the internet? How could I do that? I can't fight you to see or feel your skill level. I guess maybe lineage, instructor, training time, and all the things I mentioned earlier must come into play, no? How else do you propose I judge your skill or competency? I can't do it by knowledge of forms or principles since we obviously differ on those things. Physics is fine, but that doesn't tell me your skill level. I might have a PhD in physics, you dont really know, would that increase my kung fu skill level? Not at all.



			
				Fumanchu said:
			
		

> You don't have to be tense to be forceful. If you're tense you're probably not using your muscles efficiently. You can be forceful and listen (or as I say - assimilate information) at the same time. I don't recall my instructor using the word empty. When ever I have questions I ask him until I understand. In laan dzeet, you're not allowing the opponent's attack to reach the furthest - as an example. I agree the pluck is more about timing then brute force. However, the little force that you use should be enough to shake the opponent.


 Actually, at some point in your body, some muscle must tense in order to exert pressure or force. How do you use your muscle more efficiently by not tensing them? I know you like to use physics terms, but let me give you some insight into the biology of the human body, thats not possible. The muscle must fire in order to be used. Now, your right about being forceful and still listening, I'm glad you said that, because that is very important, however being forceful while "listening" is not the same as driving your force through your opponents with overpowering strength; which is not conducive to "listening". Also, in your pluck, you are not relying on your own strength or force but the opponents own force. If youre trying to pluck and use enough of your own force to "shake your opponent" youre doing it incorrectly. 



			
				Fumanchu said:
			
		

> Assuming the opponent is less skilled to know that the punch has missed. Like you had also agreed, it comes down to skill. Your example is one way of dealing with it, distance, time in which you perceived the punch etc are also factors.


 The skill of the opponent is really coming into play here. Them knowing the punch has missed isn't the point, because at that point in time you should have already attacked. Plus, like I said several time, the punch may not miss, it may actually make contact, therefore they dont realize its "missed".  Yes, what I'm explaining is only one way of dealing with the attack, but in all yielding or plucking situations this principle is still core. 



			
				Fumanchu said:
			
		

> So did I, I also said contact should be made early. If there is no need to yield you go right through the target. Otherwise, what are you yielding to?


 What? Yielding is done when your opponent attacks you, not when you attack your opponent. To yield is by definition, "To give way to pressure or force". I'm not sure what your post here meant. Maybe you didn't understand what I said about yielding without contact? Its simple, still giving way to pressure or force, just before that pressure or force makes contact with you. Imagine punching at my head (I'm sure you have already in this post ) and I twist at my waist allowing my shoulders to turn and my head slips to one side, your punch goes right by my head missing it. That is still a yield.



			
				Fumanchu said:
			
		

> You can't compare the effectiveness of your training regime to physics. You training helps you learn how people move and how you move. it does not violate physical laws.


 What, I thought you said you must compare it all to physics? When do you draw the line to compare or not compare? Also, who said anything about training violating physical laws? I said sitting and pondering the physics behind something and getting out there and experiencing it 500 times is very different. Thats all. 



			
				Fumanchu said:
			
		

> The stuff in "....." in the last post is what YOU said. I was quoting what you said back to you, because it doesn't make sense, does it?


 Actually it does, see I know what I said because I was there when I wrote it. Lets clear this up here....


			
				7starmantis said:
			
		

> For me to knock you off balance doesn't require me to have any type of control over you whatsoever.


 This makes sense.


			
				Fumanchu said:
			
		

> I never said that you need to stay in contact all time to have control.


 Now, this is what I was responding to. I was asking how you can have control over me without being in contact with me. Could you explain that to me?



			
				Fumanchu said:
			
		

> That's right, you realise that you are less skillful than your opponent. Why maintain contact when you know you are being dominated. So you make tactical retreat and make it hard for your opponent to chase you down. Lots of Bung Bu contains going in and breaking away. First line of Bung Bu!


 Why maintain contact? Because its your main and really only line of defense if they are better than you. You may be faster than me, but if I'm in contact with your arm and I feel it begin to move I can defend against your punch even if youre still faster than me. Does that not make sense to you? Being dominated is part of the fight, if thats happening you need to stay in contact and ride their attack out and find the right place to steal it and attack yourself. Thats where the skill of yielding and riding comes into play, thats why its so important. A skilled mantis practitioner will have no problem chasing you down if you break contact, all your doing is giving them an advantage of hitting you with an attack because you lost your ability to feel or "listen" or "assimilate information". If they are beating you with your contact and feel, what makes you think they wont pummel you without it? 

 I think you are mistaking the "riding" and yielding principles in bung bo for breaking away. The first line of bung bo is straight attacking and sticking. I can't even imagine what part of it your saying is breaking away. One of the things that makes mantis what it is (mantis) is the sticking. This is another way its related to the insect. 



			
				Fumanchu said:
			
		

> Quote:"OK, explain where in any mantis form you learn to overpower your opponent? What is "envisage"? Capitalizing on changes in momentum is one thing, you said driving through their momentum, different things my friend."
> 
> Pretty much all of Zhao Yao is about cutting through your opponent.


 Like I said, cutting through, changing momentum, and redirecting are all different from overpowering and driving through force with force. It seems you are not grasping some of the very core principles that have to do with yielding and "feel".



			
				Fumanchu said:
			
		

> We guard likely zones because a human body moves in finite ways, so for a given opponent there are limits as to where their limbs can be. If we were fighting against an octopus with flexible tenticles then we'll be in trouble. If something does come into a zone outside my expectations, that's were the laan dzeet training comes in.


 There are limits to where their limbs can be in correlation to the rest of their body, but there really isn't a limit on where they can attack. There are techniques for attacks in advanced mantis forms that come from some pretty "unlikely" places. In mantis the limbs and arms are trained to be more flexible than most systems. We train to break down the arm into sections, and you can attack from the fingers, then the hand, then the wrist, then the elbow, each joint can bend and change your attack. So explain what you mean by if the attack comes form out of your expectations thats where laan dzeet comes in? If it comes form out of your expectation area, its probably going to hit you, no? 



			
				Fumanchu said:
			
		

> I wish I could hit an opponent's eye 100% of the time with my finger, that should stop a fight - but you're right, I lack the skill I desire. But if I don't train hard, then I probably miss even more times. Chance is not about laziness, it's about probability. For example you toss a fair coin, you get Heads 50% of the time, it doesn't mean you're a lazy tosser does it.


 That wish should fuel your training. Fighting is not about chance, laziness, or probability. Lets take your coin tossing example. I can train on how hard to spin it, how high to toss it, and etc which can increase my ability to get heads on every toss even up to 90% or so. In fact, I've done it with coins, so my point is that chance and probability dont have much of a place in fighting. Its not a straight 50-50 chance, training and learning make that ability stronger. See sometimes a person can out-do the odds or the chances. You may refrain from a certain technique or strike because the chances of it landing are small, but it may just be the technique that saves your life. 



			
				Fumanchu said:
			
		

> Depends on what you're defending against and your skill level. If defending doesn't take energy, then I would question why qren't you attacking. When you're in a fight, you're going at 100% because that's what your opponent is doing. No point worrying about whether you can last 20mins when you know if you don't work to the max now, you might not survive the next min.


 True, once again doesn't it all depend on your skill level? We talked about the possibility of being outdone or out-fought didn't we? In that case you must ride and defend until the situation presents itself that you can attack. If youre fighting a really skilled mantis person and they are attacking its going to be hard to defend all their attacks and still attack yourself. In this scenario, if defended expelled as much energy as attacking, you would be out of "juice" pretty dang quick. Thats the point in defending and "riding" their attack. Sometimes you have to just defend for a bit until you can get a step ahead of them or steal their attack. Sure you going at 100% in a fight and sure you shouldn't be too worried about minute 21 when you on minute 1, but if you get to minute 20 and you know you will run out of juice at minute 21, you need to understand that and take that into consideration. Dont get me wrong, I believe in using your most "dangerous" or "quickest" techniques first anyway, but if its still gone that long and youre not making any contact or damage, you might need to start praying for an act of God. This is something you need to take into consideration within the fight. 



			
				Fumanchu said:
			
		

> Yes you do learn more about the form as you progress. Nevertheless order of learning does matter. Unless you have accomplished the basics, you can't get the advance stuff. Zhao Yao is very very very very far from Bung Bu. It contains 8 elbows which contains bung bu and laan dzeet. Each form is a huge progression in skill level.


 Ok, here is our problem. From your perspective Zhao Yao is one of the most advanced forms and thus must be very far from bung bo. In my perspective we have many much more advanced sets than zhao yao and therefore it is ok being at a more intermediate level. Each form is a huge progression in skill level, but in our view, that skill level doesn't stop at zhao yao. Also remember we split your zhao yao up into several sets which are taught at different levels. Yut lo, yee lo, sum lo, and sei lo respectively. Also each of these are quite a bit longer than your zhao yao so there are different principles and techniques taught in them.



			
				Fumanchu said:
			
		

> I guess I just do. I had a look at the 12 principals - I though what are they, then I read about what they are and I though to myself, ohhhh that's what they are - I do them already. Just like when you play tennis, you don't think about forehand, back hand and what type of volley your doing. You just do.


 Would you mind posting a few of them here? See, I can't believe that we have 3 or 4 principles the same let alone 12 or 20, so I would be interested in seeing what your 12 soft principles are. Do you also have 8 hard principles? Playing tennis is a good example, but without knowledge of what a backhand is, or how to do a backhand, or that a backhand is even advantageous in tennis, wouldn't it make it hard to use it in a match? 

 7sm


----------



## Fumanchu

Quote: "Using students from your own school who practice what you do is one way, but is it a true test? Don&#8217;t they train the same way you do? Don&#8217;t they judge themselves against you as well? Why not judge your skill against a person who trained differently than yourself? Now, put yourself in my shoes, how do I judge your competency or skill via the internet? How could I do that? I can't fight you to see or feel your skill level. I guess maybe lineage, instructor, training time, and all the things I mentioned earlier must come into play, no? How else do you propose I judge your skill or competency? I can't do it by knowledge of forms or principles since we obviously differ on those things. Physics is fine, but that doesn't tell me your skill level. I might have a PhD in physics, you don&#8217;t really know, would that increase my kung fu skill level? Not at all."

Other friends of mine also do martial arts but from different schools and we exchange notes as well. Other students from the class remain in contact with students from their pervious schools so they have a good idea of their progression. More senior students from the current school can provide feedback on my progress. You&#8217;re right you can&#8217;t really tell by words (on the internet). Lineage is also not that reliable, in any class there are those who train harder / smarter and those who don&#8217;t. Students may also have different objectives, some might be happy to do this as an exercise without the fighting. So I hope to express some of the concepts through examples you raised. I was using physics as a common base for relating physical interaction &#8211; not going into PhD material.


Quote: "Actually, at some point in your body, some muscle must tense in order to exert pressure or force. How do you use your muscle more efficiently by not tensing them? I know you like to use physics terms, but let me give you some insight into the biology of the human body, that&#8217;s not possible. The muscle must fire in order to be used. Now, your right about being forceful and still listening, I'm glad you said that, because that is very important, however being forceful while "listening" is not the same as driving your force through your opponents with overpowering strength; which is not conducive to "listening". Also, in your pluck, you are not relying on your own strength or force but the opponents own force. If you&#8217;re trying to pluck and use enough of your own force to "shake your opponent" you&#8217;re doing it incorrectly. "

Yes you&#8217;re right, some muscles are tense &#8211; say the firing sequence from the leg up through your upper back which shoot the arm forward. No need to fire off the arm muscles until much later. The "engine" so to speak is some where back there. So my shoulders are not tense, neither is the forearm, neither is my fist &#8211; which I hold in a Baji type format until contact. If I encounter objects the arm can still assimilate information &#8211; which might include cutting straight through the defences. Yes timing is also very important, not just in king fu, but say sports like tennis etc or even golf. You still need muscles to deliver force &#8211; it&#8217;s how you deliver that counts. As for "shaking" the opponent through a hook, we use the coordination of the pulse of the 2 fingers with the rest of the body movement. It actually feels like a "bounce" within the body, contraction and relaxation in a very short time.


Quote: "The skill of the opponent is really coming into play here. Them knowing the punch has missed isn't the point, because at that point in time you should have already attacked. Plus, like I said several time, the punch may not miss, it may actually make contact, therefore they don&#8217;t realize its "missed". Yes, what I'm explaining is only one way of dealing with the attack, but in all yielding or plucking situations this principle is still c" 

It also depends on when you perceive the attack. You might attack their forearm or just manage to safe yourself. To say that you should already attack is well and good, but there are occasions where you could be blind sided or surprised. 

Quote: "What? Yielding is done when your opponent attacks you, not when you attack your opponent. To yield is by definition, "To give way to pressure or force". I'm not sure what your post here meant. Maybe you didn't understand what I said about yielding without contact? It&#8217;s simple, still giving way to pressure or force, just before that pressure or force makes contact with you. Imagine punching at my head (I'm sure you have already in this post ) and I twist at my waist allowing my shoulders to turn and my head slips to one side, your punch goes right by my head missing it. That is still a yield."

Yes I see your point. My point is as you throw something out, I do likewise to engage it, upon making contact I felt that I have gained sufficient control not having to yield but being able to take out the balance. Why not? 

Quote: "What, I thought you said you must compare it all to physics? When do you draw the line to compare or not compare? Also, who said anything about training violating physical laws? I said sitting and pondering the physics behind something and getting out there and experiencing it 500 times is very different. That&#8217;s all."

Do both. Training is as much doing as it is making sure what you&#8217;re doing makes sense. It&#8217;s also about recognising the muscle groups that you use and build them up as well. You mentioned about running out of steam in your earlier post. That&#8217;s where cardio work comes in &#8211; you address that in the training level. It&#8217;s both physics and biology.


Quote: "Now, this is what I was responding to. I was asking how you can have control over me without being in contact with me. Could you explain that to me?"

You need contact to have control. You cannot knock someone over without contact therefore you cannot knock someone over without control.


Quote: "Why maintain contact? Because it&#8217;s your main and really only line of defense if they are better than you. You may be faster than me, but if I'm in contact with your arm and I feel it begin to move I can defend against your punch even if you&#8217;re still faster than me. Does that not make sense to you? Being dominated is part of the fight, if that&#8217;s happening you need to stay in contact and ride their attack out and find the right place to steal it and attack yourself. That&#8217;s where the skill of yielding and riding comes into play, that&#8217;s why it&#8217;s so important. A skilled mantis practitioner will have no problem chasing you down if you break contact, all your doing is giving them an advantage of hitting you with an attack because you lost your ability to feel or "listen" or "assimilate information". If they are beating you with your contact and feel, what makes you think they won&#8217;t pummel you without it?"

Because your opponent is using contact to open up your soft parts to deliver decisive blows. If you&#8217;re moving at least they have to chase you down. As a mantis practitioner, you are hitting while sticking at the same time. 

Quote: "I think you are mistaking the "riding" and yielding principles in bung bo for breaking away. The first line of bung bo is straight attacking and sticking. I can't even imagine what part of it your saying is breaking away. One of the things that makes mantis what it is (mantis) is the sticking. This is another way it&#8217;s related to the insect. "

Bung Bu is about making insertions and pulling out if necessary. OK first few movements of the form, you side step palm and punch. You&#8217;ve just broken away from your original position &#8211; having to palm given that your punch has failed, thereby side stepping and trying out a new angle of approach. The forearm roll down / double hooks that follow signifies that you&#8217;re moving away from their line of attack. But in any retreat, you don&#8217;t turn tail and run. You throw stuff into the region, which is being contested to regain the advantage. Increasing distance from you opponent is also a strategy to bait a more aggressive person to over reach.


Quote: "Like I said, cutting through, changing momentum, and redirecting are all different from overpowering and driving through force with force. It seems you are not grasping some of the very core principles that have to do with yielding and "feel"."

Redirection requires the application of force. What do you mean by driving through force with force? 

Quote: "There are limits to where their limbs can be in correlation to the rest of their body, but there really isn't a limit on where they can attack. There are techniques for attacks in advanced mantis forms that come from some pretty "unlikely" places. In mantis the limbs and arms are trained to be more flexible than most systems. We train to break down the arm into sections, and you can attack from the fingers, then the hand, then the wrist, then the elbow, each joint can bend and change your attack. So explain what you mean by if the attack comes form out of your expectations that&#8217;s where laan dzeet comes in? If it comes form out of your expectation area, its probably going to hit you, no?" 

Laan dzeet deals with point blank situations when you need to react. You&#8217;ve been caught in a bad situation for what ever reason and need to respond. Have you done Laan dzeet? Yes, likely to get clipped but hopefully the full force of the blow will be deflected and the remaining force hits your hard regions at a tangent. You&#8217;re right mantis attacks can be very flexible, but if we&#8217;re trained the same way, we are already taking this into account. So we&#8217;re dealing with the &#8216;worst scenario&#8217; when we practice with people in class. Having said that, there are still limitations as to where hands, arms and elbow can be.

Quote: "That wish should fuel your training. Fighting is not about chance, laziness, or probability. Let&#8217;s take your coin tossing example. I can train on how hard to spin it, how high to toss it, and etc which can increase my ability to get heads on every toss even up to 90% or so. In fact, I've done it with coins, so my point is that chance and probability don&#8217;t have much of a place in fighting. Its not a straight 50-50 chance, training and learning make that ability stronger. See sometimes a person can out-do the odds or the chances. You may refrain from a certain technique or strike because the chances of it landing are small, but it may just be the technique that saves your life."

No, tossing a fair coin the outcome is random &#8211; nothing you can do to change the odds (unless you change the coin). No matter how hard you train, the outcome of a fight cannot be guaranteed. Actually, I don&#8217;t think about technique or types of strikes. If the zones appear for what ever reason, good strategy on my part or mistakes made by the opponent then I hope to capitalise on that.


Quote: "True, once again doesn't it all depend on your skill level? We talked about the possibility of being outdone or out-fought didn't we? In that case you must ride and defend until the situation presents itself that you can attack. If you&#8217;re fighting a really skilled mantis person and they are attacking its going to be hard to defend all their attacks and still attack yourself. In this scenario, if defended expelled as much energy as attacking, you would be out of "juice" pretty dang quick. That&#8217;s the point in defending and "riding" their attack. Sometimes you have to just defend for a bit until you can get a step ahead of them or steal their attack. Sure you going at 100% in a fight and sure you shouldn't be too worried about minute 21 when you on minute 1, but if you get to minute 20 and you know you will run out of juice at minute 21, you need to understand that and take that into consideration. Don&#8217;t get me wrong, I believe in using your most "dangerous" or "quickest" techniques first anyway, but if its still gone that long and you&#8217;re not making any contact or damage, you might need to start praying for an act of God. This is something you need to take into consideration within the fight."

Should be trying to turn the tables at any time instead of defending first and then trying to attack later. 

Quote: "Ok, here is our problem. From your perspective Zhao Yao is one of the most advanced forms and thus must be very far from bung bo. In my perspective we have many much more advanced sets than zhao yao and therefore it is ok being at a more intermediate level. Each form is a huge progression in skill level, but in our view, that skill level doesn't stop at zhao yao. Also remember we split your zhao yao up into several sets which are taught at different levels. Yut lo, yee lo, sum lo, and sei lo respectively. Also each of these are quite a bit longer than your zhao yao so there are different principles and techniques taught in them."

In your class, what does Laan Dzeet, 8-elbows and Zhao Yao teach you &#8211; in each of these forms?

Quote: "Would you mind posting a few of them here? See, I can't believe that we have 3 or 4 principles the same let alone 12 or 20, so I would be interested in seeing what your 12 soft principles are. Do you also have 8 hard principles? Playing tennis is a good example, but without knowledge of what a backhand is, or how to do a backhand, or that a backhand is even advantageous in tennis, wouldn't it make it hard to use it in a match?"

As for the 12 characters, well you have diu, kua, lean, stick, pluck. I have the 8 hard and 12 softs somewhere. The instructor has mentioned about them before, but I don&#8217;t remember. We just do, say you learned a backhand, you don&#8217;t need to call it a backhand to be able to use it.


----------



## 7starmantis

Fumanchu said:
			
		

> Other friends of mine also do martial arts but from different schools and we exchange notes as well. Other students from the class remain in contact with students from their pervious schools so they have a good idea of their progression. More senior students from the current school can provide feedback on my progress. Youre right you cant really tell by words (on the internet). Lineage is also not that reliable, in any class there are those who train harder / smarter and those who dont. Students may also have different objectives, some might be happy to do this as an exercise without the fighting. So I hope to express some of the concepts through examples you raised. I was using physics as a common base for relating physical interaction  not going into PhD material.


 Exchanging notes is simply not what I'm talking about. I think we are at a stand still. There isn't much I can say, you feel your way is superior and I feel your missing many core principles of the mantis system. Lineage isn't completely reliable, no your right, but combined with all the other things I mentioned that you chose to ignore, it helps. I didn't say anything about getting into PhD level physics; I said it wouldn't really matter if I had a PhD in physics, that wouldn't increase my kung fu skill. You seem to enjoy twisting what I say around to fit your points. 



			
				Fumanchu said:
			
		

> Yes youre right, some muscles are tense  say the firing sequence from the leg up through your upper back which shoot the arm forward. No need to fire off the arm muscles until much later. The "engine" so to speak is some where back there. So my shoulders are not tense, neither is the forearm, neither is my fist  which I hold in a Baji type format until contact. If I encounter objects the arm can still assimilate information  which might include cutting straight through the defences. Yes timing is also very important, not just in king fu, but say sports like tennis etc or even golf. You still need muscles to deliver force  its how you deliver that counts. As for "shaking" the opponent through a hook, we use the coordination of the pulse of the 2 fingers with the rest of the body movement. It actually feels like a "bounce" within the body, contraction and relaxation in a very short time.





			
				Fumanchu said:
			
		

> It also depends on when you perceive the attack. You might attack their forearm or just manage to safe yourself. To say that you should already attack is well and good, but there are occasions where you could be blind sided or surprised.


 Perceiving the attack could be mistaken. You can perceive things wrong you know. I'm not talking about being blind sided or surprised, we weren't even discussing that, your straying off topic as well. 



			
				Fumanchu said:
			
		

> Yes I see your point. My point is as you throw something out, I do likewise to engage it, upon making contact I felt that I have gained sufficient control not having to yield but being able to take out the balance. Why not?


 No reason why not, I never said you had to yield all the time, what I said was you dont use force to overcome their force. To take out their balance your going to have to yield to some point and move and use their energy against them, you cant just overpower them into taking out their balance, that wont work against skilled mantis fighters. 



			
				Fumanchu said:
			
		

> You mentioned about running out of steam in your earlier post. Thats where cardio work comes in  you address that in the training level. Its both physics and biology.


 Yes, cardio comes in there, but you can't get infinite cardio, you *will* run out of steam at some point. I mean I train harder than most in cardio and I can still run out of speed pretty quickly if I'm not following the mantis principles. Addressing something in your training doesn't remove it from the fight.



			
				Fumanchu said:
			
		

> You need contact to have control. You cannot knock someone over without contact therefore you cannot knock someone over without control.


 Um, now you agree with me? You said you didn't need to have contact to have control over me here....





			
				Fumanchu said:
			
		

> I never said that you need to stay in contact all time to have control.


 Now your saying different, its hard to discuss this with you while you flip flop around. I can't really honestly believe that you think contact and control are one and the same. Control has nothing to do with a kick that knocks you off balance. I dont even know what to say to this.



			
				Fumanchu said:
			
		

> Because your opponent is using contact to open up your soft parts to deliver decisive blows. If youre moving at least they have to chase you down. As a mantis practitioner, you are hitting while sticking at the same time.


 Ok, so because your opponent is winning using mantis principles you are going to abandon them? Your grabbing at straws to say "at least they have to chase you". Chase you a skilled mantis fighter will do and catch you too, we train quite hard in that aspect. Yes, you can attack while sticking, but not always, there are no 100% hard coded statements here.



			
				Fumanchu said:
			
		

> Bung Bu is about making insertions and pulling out if necessary. OK first few movements of the form, you side step palm and punch. Youve just broken away from your original position  having to palm given that your punch has failed, thereby side stepping and trying out a new angle of approach. The forearm roll down / double hooks that follow signifies that youre moving away from their line of attack. But in any retreat, you dont turn tail and run. You throw stuff into the region, which is being contested to regain the advantage. Increasing distance from you opponent is also a strategy to bait a more aggressive person to over reach.


 Bung Bo contains no "pulling out if necessary" principles. I think we are going to have to stop this discussion, its turning into just a "yes", "no", "yes" argument. Breaking away from your original position and breaking away from your opponents contact are two completely separate things and I think you know that. The first move in BB is side step and pak sau, but that palm stays in contact with their arm after you strike, then the arm that punched comes up to replace that hand and makes contact and then rolls back into the break. You think the "double hooks" or "mantis catches cicada" position is just a "showy" "taunting" move? Thats ridiculous, its a arm break that comes from maintaining contact even after that first strike in bung bo. It signifies nothing except that you stayed in contact, they attacked, and you yielded to their energy and broke their elbow or at least performed a lock. Do you practice your forms in fighting? In bung bo after that palm and strike why would you just all of the sudden jump back and away from them into a "double hook" position? I can't even imagine why anyone would see that in bung bo. Increasing "false" distance such as using 7 star stance is great, but really moving your whole body completely away from your opponent is a big "no-no" in mantis fighting. 



			
				Fumanchu said:
			
		

> Redirection requires the application of force. What do you mean by driving through force with force?


 Yes, the right amount of force at the right time. Driving through force with force would be like you said about using your own muscle and strength to apply force against their force and overpowering them. Thats against mantis principles.



			
				Fumanchu said:
			
		

> No, tossing a fair coin the outcome is random  nothing you can do to change the odds (unless you change the coin). No matter how hard you train, the outcome of a fight cannot be guaranteed. Actually, I dont think about technique or types of strikes. If the zones appear for what ever reason, good strategy on my part or mistakes made by the opponent then I hope to capitalise on that.


 Actually, I just did it right here wit ha quarter, dime, and penny. If you flip it starting on the same side, get the same amount of rotation, and the same height, it comes out the same almost every time. I'm doing it right now, so I'm sorry, but your incorrect. I'm not talking about a guarantee, just better skill. 



			
				Fumanchu said:
			
		

> Should be trying to turn the tables at any time instead of defending first and then trying to attack later.


 Again, grasping at straws. There are times where you can't attack back, there are times when fighting a skilled mantis fighter that three or four, or 5, or 6, or 17 attacks will come at you almost simultaneously, its near impossible to attack on everyone of their attacks, sometimes you have to ride out their attack and wait for the right moment, you can't force something to happen, you'll get beat that way. This all comes with fighting experience. 



			
				Fumanchu said:
			
		

> In your class, what does Laan Dzeet, 8-elbows and Zhao Yao teach you  in each of these forms?


 I would find it near impossible to list off everything even one of those forms teaches, mainly because I dont know it all yet.

 I think I'm going to have to pull out of this debate, I dont see anything going anywhere, we obviously disagree and neither one of us is really going to change the others mind. If you decide to answer my questions, and maybe reveal some of your lineage, I'll be glad to continue discussing, but right now its a blind discussion that is heading nowhere. To continue the discussion I would need to be getting something out of it, there is nothing for me here in this guised debate.

 7sm


----------



## Fumanchu

Quote:"Exchanging notes is simply not what I'm talking about. I think we are at a stand still. There isn't much I can say, you feel your way is superior and I feel your missing many core principles of the mantis system. Lineage isn't completely reliable, no your right, but combined with all the other things I mentioned that you chose to ignore, it helps. I didn't say anything about getting into PhD level physics; I said it wouldn't really matter if I had a PhD in physics, that wouldn't increase my kung fu skill. You seem to enjoy twisting what I say around to fit your points."

Then how do you assess your own skill if its not with your peers? Reason I brought in physics is because the definations are universal so that our conversation can aviod ambiguity. You don't seem to understand that.

Quote: "Perceiving the attack could be mistaken. You can perceive things wrong you know. I'm not talking about being blind sided or surprised, we weren't even discussing that, your straying off topic as well."

Yes your perception could be mistaken. If you only come across the attack moments away, it limits what you can do. You'll learn this when you get up to laan dzeet.

quote:"No reason why not, I never said you had to yield all the time, what I said was you dont use force to overcome their force. To take out their balance your going to have to yield to some point and move and use their energy against them, you cant just overpower them into taking out their balance, that wont work against skilled mantis fighters."

What I think you're saying is that force should be applied in a way such that leverage is in your favour. If that's what you're trying to say, I would agree as it is what I do. 

Quote: "Yes, cardio comes in there, but you can't get infinite cardio, you *will* run out of steam at some point. I mean I train harder than most in cardio and I can still run out of speed pretty quickly if I'm not following the mantis principles. Addressing something in your training doesn't remove it from the fight."

Mantis is actually very demanding on your body because you're really putting in the work. Hopefully you can put in more in a shorter space of time than your opponent, hence you have the initiative and out maneuvour your opponent if you have to.

Quote:"Now your saying different, its hard to discuss this with you while you flip flop around. I can't really honestly believe that you think contact and control are one and the same. Control has nothing to do with a kick that knocks you off balance. I dont even know what to say to this."

No I'm not saying something different. read what I said earlier and trace through the logic.

Quote:"Ok, so because your opponent is winning using mantis principles you are going to abandon them? Your grabbing at straws to say "at least they have to chase you". Chase you a skilled mantis fighter will do and catch you too, we train quite hard in that aspect. Yes, you can attack while sticking, but not always, there are no 100% hard coded statements here."

You're attacking most of the time while sticking, if not the legs then with the arms. Otherwise, why stick if it is not to slow the target down and open up the targets that you want. The reason why the stronger player wants to stick to you is because he can get an advantage compared to the situation when he is not sticking to you. Logically how would you respond? Putting this another way, if a mantis player can more easily plummel you without sticking, why then would he want to stick. Then logically you should stick - correct?

Quote:" Bung Bo contains no "pulling out if necessary" principles. I think we are going to have to stop this discussion, its turning into just a "yes", "no", "yes" argument. Breaking away from your original position and breaking away from your opponents contact are two completely separate things and I think you know that. The first move in BB is side step and pak sau, but that palm stays in contact with their arm after you strike, then the arm that punched comes up to replace that hand and makes contact and then rolls back into the break. You think the "double hooks" or "mantis catches cicada" position is just a "showy" "taunting" move? Thats ridiculous, its a arm break that comes from maintaining contact even after that first strike in bung bo. It signifies nothing except that you stayed in contact, they attacked, and you yielded to their energy and broke their elbow or at least performed a lock. Do you practice your forms in fighting? In bung bo after that palm and strike why would you just all of the sudden jump back and away from them into a "double hook" position? I can't even imagine why anyone would see that in bung bo. Increasing "false" distance such as using 7 star stance is great, but really moving your whole body completely away from your opponent is a big "no-no" in mantis fighting."

No the double hooks are not a taunting move. They occur as a result of failed punches that possibly result in failed 2 finger grabs. The hand position becomes the dil sau. Why 2 hooks - it is to cover the option of being able to hook with either hand. I don't think there is enough there to do an elbow break. It is moving away from a failed incursion and you having to fill in the space to cover your retreat. The reason why you jump away is to cover the option of a failed punch or that an opponent's punch is reaching you faster than your punch. Hence the arm roll down to cover your lower abdoment as you move away from that line of attack. But at this point you don't think of doing the double hook, you are trying to do a back fist attack on your oppoent from the roll down cover position. However if that option fails, you may have to hook. The simplest application in bung bu is not a palm side step etc.... you have launched a punch towards an opponent's face - you knock him down end of story, no need for the palms, hop etc. Now do you see what I mean when I say mantis is built on top of basic punches and kicks you leanr in long fist?

Quote:"Actually, I just did it right here wit ha quarter, dime, and penny. If you flip it starting on the same side, get the same amount of rotation, and the same height, it comes out the same almost every time. I'm doing it right now, so I'm sorry, but your incorrect. I'm not talking about a guarantee, just better skill."

The coin lands and it rolls around. You can't control that irrespective of controlling the height of the toss.

Quote:"Again, grasping at straws. There are times where you can't attack back, there are times when fighting a skilled mantis fighter that three or four, or 5, or 6, or 17 attacks will come at you almost simultaneously, its near impossible to attack on everyone of their attacks, sometimes you have to ride out their attack and wait for the right moment, you can't force something to happen, you'll get beat that way. This all comes with fighting experience."

The longer you wait, the less chance you would have. In mantis you have to be offensive in your retreat to stop the opponent from building up momentum on you.

Quote:"I would find it near impossible to list off everything even one of those forms teaches, mainly because I dont know it all yet.

I think I'm going to have to pull out of this debate, I dont see anything going anywhere, we obviously disagree and neither one of us is really going to change the others mind. If you decide to answer my questions, and maybe reveal some of your lineage, I'll be glad to continue discussing, but right now its a blind discussion that is heading nowhere. To continue the discussion I would need to be getting something out of it, there is nothing for me here in this guised debate."

You don't have to recite each individual move, just the theme of what each form is teaching you. Like bung bu is about tactics and strategy...... have you not learned laan dzeet yet?


----------



## 7starmantis

Fumanchu said:
			
		

> Then how do you assess your own skill if its not with your peers? Reason I brought in physics is because the definations are universal so that our conversation can aviod ambiguity. You don't seem to understand that.


 Read what I say carefully, I didn't say not to use your peers in assessing your skills, I said "exchanging notes" is not what I'm talking about. Its good to assess your skill in accordance with your peers, but remember thats not the true test, your peers fight the same way as you, no? They learn the same things you do, no? Fighting with someone outside your "peer group" is a good test as well. I completely understand why you use physics terms, and I have a good understanding of physics; my point (if you took the time to read what I wrote) is that physics is not the key to good kung fu skill. You can know everything about physics and still have no kung fu skill. You can also know nothing of physics and have great kung fu skill. I was making the point to not just take everything back to physics, you have to get out there and actually experience these things to really have skill in doing them.



			
				Fumanchu said:
			
		

> Yes your perception could be mistaken. If you only come across the attack moments away, it limits what you can do. You'll learn this when you get up to laan dzeet.


 This is what I'm talking about, your not making much sense. Here you make a statement about me learning a form that I learn quite a long time ago, and I posted that in one of my first posts, you really need to read what I'm posting better. My point is that you shouldn't "only come across the attack moments away". If you have good feel and are in good contact with your opponent, there shouldn't ever be a "sneak attack" or an attack that you only "come across" moments away. Now I know your going to post that no one is ever 100% correct, and people make mistakes and there could be a punch that sneaks up on you...Yes, your right. Let me make a blanket statement regarding my posts, which I've already done twice. I'm not saying that each technique or principle that I mention is 100% across the board what going to happen, a fight has millions of variables, I do not however believing in training with a handicap. I dont train by missing a punch and then trying to deal with it on purpose, I train to defend against every punch, if I miss one then I deal with it, but I dont train to make mistakes. The drills I do with feel and yielding are what are used for those instances. Its like killing someone. Its against the law right? You shouldn't kill a human being right? Thats a correct statement isn't it? Well, aren't there certain circumstances where its acceptable? Same thing with what I'm saying.



			
				Fumanchu said:
			
		

> What I think you're saying is that force should be applied in a way such that leverage is in your favour. If that's what you're trying to say, I would agree as it is what I do.


 No, no no. Dont read what I post and then try to find what it "really" means. I mean what I said. You shouldnt use force against force, period. If I'm using leverage, its to break or lock or throw; in which case, yes I agree with you. But, this is why I said do not relate everything back to physics. Its not leverage youre seeking, but only feeling their center. Once you truly have found their center you dont need much force at all, I'll go back to the 4oz of pressure statement. Now for a strike or kick yes, you need much more pressure or force, but thats a straight attack, its not applying the force head-to-head against an opposing force. 



			
				Fumanchu said:
			
		

> Mantis is actually very demanding on your body because you're really putting in the work. Hopefully you can put in more in a shorter space of time than your opponent, hence you have the initiative and out maneuvour your opponent if you have to.[/QUOT}E]
> 
> Mantis is demanding, but not as much as you make it out to be. See at the beginning of our posts you were relating mantis to tai chi so often, but here you would be loosing that "connection" by saying this. Its not about "putting in more in a shorter period of time". Youre missing the true principle there. If that were the case you would just jump all out as fast as you can with as much power as you could muster. That doesn't lend itself to "feel", stealing their center, or even the "breaking away" you claim. Out maneuvering is only one little facet of the mantis principles. Getting further than this I can't go with words, I wish we lived close enough to do some training, I could show you what I'm talking about. You have a good understanding of the mantis principles, but its a surface understanding, your missing some of the much deeper more advanced principles. I would say from reading your posts that I fought like you for my first several years in mantis, but upon really grasping some of the deeper principles it changed my fighting almost 100%.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fumanchu said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No I'm not saying something different. read what I said earlier and trace through the logic.
> 
> 
> 
> I can't, the logic is faulty. Me knocking you off balance with a kick or something while moving away from you does not give me control over you what so ever. I'm also still waiting for the explanation of how you could have control of someone without being in contact with them at all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fumanchu said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're attacking most of the time while sticking, if not the legs then with the arms. Otherwise, why stick if it is not to slow the target down and open up the targets that you want. The reason why the stronger player wants to stick to you is because he can get an advantage compared to the situation when he is not sticking to you. Logically how would you respond? Putting this another way, if a mantis player can more easily plummel you without sticking, why then would he want to stick. Then logically you should stick - correct?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, your attacking *most* of the time while sticking, not *all* of the time. Again, slowing the target down and opening up targets is just one small facet to sticking. Sure the end result of sticking may be slowing the opponent down, or opening up the target, but it also may be feeling the opponents center, defending our yielding to an attack, getting to close for the opponent to attack, etc. The list goes on.
> 
> You think a skilled mantis fighter who is beating you pretty badly while your staying "stuck" will have a problem beating you if you try and break contact? Who says you can even get away from them? We practice drills on how to stay stuck even if someone is trying to break contact. Plus, what do you do after breaking contact? Unless you run away, youre going to be right back in contact again within seconds either from your opponent initiating the contact or if you attack. Where does that leave you? Right back at the beginning. Youre getting mixed up, sticking isn't done because the other opponent doesn't want you to, its done to help you win. If they can beat you without sticking they will stick because thats where their principles are at. What I meant was after breaking contact, if you try to attack again, they will be stuck to you again, what then? You can't make them not connect with you unless you run away, thats just how it is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fumanchu said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No the double hooks are not a taunting move. They occur as a result of failed punches that possibly result in failed 2 finger grabs. The hand position becomes the dil sau. Why 2 hooks - it is to cover the option of being able to hook with either hand. I don't think there is enough there to do an elbow break. It is moving away from a failed incursion and you having to fill in the space to cover your retreat. The reason why you jump away is to cover the option of a failed punch or that an opponent's punch is reaching you faster than your punch. Hence the arm roll down to cover your lower abdoment as you move away from that line of attack.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What failed punches? Where are those punches that failed? They aren't there; you can't just add something thats not in the form to give a reason to go to the next move! I dont think whoever is teaching you this form has a clear understanding of it. Youre saying that whole second part of Bung Bo is (first) about two failed punches that aren't in the form, (second) possibly two failed grabs which aren't in the form. Is that correct? The mantis system isn't about throwing up something to "cover the option of being able to do something". After the pak sau and strike, there is no reason to move to the second move unless they attack, then you ride their attack (energy) back while maintaining contact with their punching (right) hand. At the "bottom" of that second move is where you allowed their attack to "empty" (hence the riding back) and grabbed with the right hand while breaking the elbow with the left forearm. Thats what the "mantis catches cicada" position is all about! Its not about making two dil sau in order to cover your options of maybe grabbing if you would like to. Thats ridiculous. There is plenty there to do an elbow break. Here, allow me to demonstrate...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thats the second position of bung bo, the two dil sau. Imagine someone is standing facing me. They have thrown a right punch. My right hand (closest to my chest) has grabbed their wrist and is still holding it while my left arm has made contact to their elbow with the forearm. This is where your leverage comes into play. By pulling in towards my chest with my right hand (still holding their wrist) and pushing out with the forearm of my left hand on their elbow = elbow break. If you can't see it, I'll doctor up that picture and draw in an arm to show more precisely.
> 
> Also, your saying something about if their punch is reaching you faster than your punch is reaching them? How in the world are you going to realize that, and then withdraw your punch and move into a different position before their punch hits you? Thats completely unrealistic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fumanchu said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The longer you wait, the less chance you would have. In mantis you have to be offensive in your retreat to stop the opponent from building up momentum on you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What? Who told you that? Can you explain why? Why would you have less chance if you waited? Have you ever read "The Art of War"? If not, you should read it, its a great book, and it definitely goes against your waiting = less chance theory. You speak of strategy and then say you shouldnt wait at all, how can that go together? When fighting I dont care how much "momentum" my opponent builds up, in fact the more momentum they have, the harder they will get hit from a yield, or throw, or lock, or break, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fumanchu said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't have to recite each individual move, just the theme of what each form is teaching you. Like bung bu is about tactics and strategy...... have you not learned laan dzeet yet?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The theme of what the form is teaching me? How about fighting and survival. Thats what most of my forms teach me. I dont see how bung bo is about strategy, the whole system is about strategy to a degree. I dont see one overlying theme of a form, there are many lessons and techniques and principles to be learned from just one form or set. We talked about laan dzeet already, remember. The only form I know that would probably be what youre talking about is one called lun jeet. And yes, I know it.
> 
> 7sm
Click to expand...


----------



## Fumanchu

Quote:" Read what I say carefully, I didn't say not to use your peers in assessing your skills, I said "exchanging notes" is not what I'm talking about. Its good to assess your skill in accordance with your peers, but remember that&#8217;s not the true test, your peers fight the same way as you, no? They learn the same things you do, no? Fighting with someone outside your "peer group" is a good test as well. I completely understand why you use physics terms, and I have a good understanding of physics; my point (if you took the time to read what I wrote) is that physics is not the key to good kung fu skill. You can know everything about physics and still have no kung fu skill. You can also know nothing of physics and have great kung fu skill. I was making the point to not just take everything back to physics, you have to get out there and actually experience these things to really have skill in doing them."

Not all of my peers do mantis. Even within mantis, we don&#8217;t all fight the same way. As for physics, yes you can know physics without knowing kung fu. Given the fact that we can only communicate across the net, physics allows us to use a consistent language. That&#8217;s the point I&#8217;m making.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fumanchu

Yes your perception could be mistaken. If you only come across the attack moments away, it limits what you can do. You'll learn this when you get up to laan dzeet. 

Quote: "This is what I'm talking about, your not making much sense. Here you make a statement about me learning a form that I learn quite a long time ago, and I posted that in one of my first posts, you really need to read what I'm posting better. My point is that you shouldn't "only come across the attack moments away". If you have good feel and are in good contact with your opponent, there shouldn't ever be a "sneak attack" or an attack that you only "come across" moments away. Now I know your going to post that no one is ever 100% correct, and people make mistakes and there could be a punch that sneaks up on you...Yes, your right. Let me make a blanket statement regarding my posts, which I've already done twice. I'm not saying that each technique or principle that I mention is 100% across the board what going to happen, a fight has millions of variables, I do not however believing in training with a handicap. I don&#8217;t train by missing a punch and then trying to deal with it on purpose, I train to defend against every punch, if I miss one then I deal with it, but I don&#8217;t train to make mistakes. The drills I do with feel and yielding are what are used for those instances. It&#8217;s like killing someone. It&#8217;s against the law right? You shouldn't kill a human being right? That&#8217;s a correct statement isn't it? Well, aren't there certain circumstances where it&#8217;s acceptable? Same thing with what I'm saying."

I don&#8217;t think either of us train to miss. But we have to accept in reality we do. 

Quote: "No, no no. Don&#8217;t read what I post and then try to find what it "really" means. I mean what I said. You shouldn&#8217;t use force against force, period. If I'm using leverage, it&#8217;s to break or lock or throw; in which case, yes I agree with you. But, this is why I said do not relate everything back to physics. Its not leverage you&#8217;re seeking, but only feeling their center. Once you truly have found their center you don&#8217;t need much force at all, I'll go back to the 4oz of pressure statement. Now for a strike or kick yes, you need much more pressure or force, but that&#8217;s a straight attack, its not applying the force head-to-head against an opposing force."

Finding the centre and moving the opponent is an application of leverage. You exert a small force and you move a much heavier object, therefore you must be using a longer lever. 

Quote: "Mantis is demanding, but not as much as you make it out to be. See at the beginning of our posts you were relating mantis to tai chi so often, but here you would be loosing that "connection" by saying this. It&#8217;s not about "putting in more in a shorter period of time". You&#8217;re missing the true principle there. If that were the case you would just jump all out as fast as you can with as much power as you could muster. That doesn't lend itself to "feel", stealing their center, or even the "breaking away" you claim. Out maneuvering is only one little facet of the mantis principles. Getting further than this I can't go with words, I wish we lived close enough to do some training, I could show you what I'm talking about. You have a good understanding of the mantis principles, but it&#8217;s a surface understanding, your missing some of the much deeper more advanced principles. I would say from reading your posts that I fought like you for my first several years in mantis, but upon really grasping some of the deeper principles it changed my fighting almost 100%."

You can put a lot out with full power output and continue to feel and adapt. Putting in more in a shjort period of time also does not mean you jump out as fast as you can. You&#8217;re also processing information as fast as you can - hopefully faster than your opponent which allows you to realise strategies and openings before he does. 

Quote:" I can't, the logic is faulty. Me knocking you off balance with a kick or something while moving away from you does not give me control over you what so ever. I'm also still waiting for the explanation of how you could have control of someone without being in contact with them at all."

You can&#8217;t control someone without being in contact with them at all. That&#8217;s what I&#8217;ve been trying to tell you. At some point in time you would have made contact which causes them to lose balance, double over etc.

Quote:" Yes, your attacking most of the time while sticking, not all of the time. Again, slowing the target down and opening up targets is just one small facet to sticking. Sure the end result of sticking may be slowing the opponent down, or opening up the target, but it also may be feeling the opponent&#8217;s center, defending our yielding to an attack, getting to close for the opponent to attack, etc. The list goes on."

Basically, mantis is a martial art. The objective is to take out the target. Sticking is a means to an end. After hitting the target a few times, it slows down even further and makes it easier in your sticking game. Don&#8217;t you think?

Quote: "You think a skilled mantis fighter who is beating you pretty badly while your staying "stuck" will have a problem beating you if you try and break contact? Who says you can even get away from them? We practice drills on how to stay stuck even if someone is trying to break contact. Plus, what do you do after breaking contact? Unless you run away, you&#8217;re going to be right back in contact again within seconds either from your opponent initiating the contact or if you attack. Where does that leave you? Right back at the beginning. You&#8217;re getting mixed up, sticking isn't done because the other opponent doesn't want you to, it&#8217;s done to help you win. If they can beat you without sticking they will stick because that&#8217;s where their principles are at. What I meant was after breaking contact, if you try to attack again, they will be stuck to you again, what then? You can't make them not connect with you unless you run away, that&#8217;s just how it is."

Well if they can&#8217;t touch you they can harm you. Who says you can&#8217;t get away. If they can beat you without sticking, then they will just beat you - it&#8217;s consistent with mantis principals. Yes, if you attack again you might end up sticking, but hopefully the circumstances would be more favourable because the specific circumstances might be different. 

Quote:" What failed punches? Where are those punches that failed? They aren't there; you can't just add something that&#8217;s not in the form to give a reason to go to the next move! I don&#8217;t think whoever is teaching you this form has a clear understanding of it. You&#8217;re saying that whole second part of Bung Bo is (first) about two failed punches that aren't in the form, (second) possibly two failed grabs which aren't in the form. Is that correct? The mantis system isn't about throwing up something to "cover the option of being able to do something". After the pak sau and strike, there is no reason to move to the second move unless they attack, then you ride their attack (energy) back while maintaining contact with their punching (right) hand. At the "bottom" of that second move is where you allowed their attack to "empty" (hence the riding back) and grabbed with the right hand while breaking the elbow with the left forearm. That&#8217;s what the "mantis catches cicada" position is all about! It&#8217;s not about making two dil sau in order to cover your options of maybe grabbing if you would like to. That&#8217;s ridiculous. There is plenty there to do an elbow break. Here, allow me to demonstrate..."

Mantis doesn&#8217;t address basic kicks and punches because they are taught in beginner level kung fu. This doesn&#8217;t mean they aren&#8217;t there. In fact bung bu helps you get in place to use basic punches. That second part of bung bu is about failure of trying to make contact with basic hits. I agree if upon the pak sau and strike you hit the opponent and he falls back, then you go in and continue hitting. You wouldn&#8217;t spring back. But say as you&#8217;re striking at the opponent low but he is punching towards you and his punch is going to reach you before you reach him then you would have to move out of the line of attack - having to spring back. Again it&#8217;s about failure of your initial strike. No it&#8217;s not an elbow break, there isn&#8217;t enough leverage, you&#8217;re in mid distance to your opponent.

Quote:" That&#8217;s the second position of bung bo, the two dil sau. Imagine someone is standing facing me. They have thrown a right punch. My right hand (closest to my chest) has grabbed their wrist and is still holding it while my left arm has made contact to their elbow with the forearm. This is where your leverage comes into play. By pulling in towards my chest with my right hand (still holding their wrist) and pushing out with the forearm of my left hand on their elbow = elbow break. If you can't see it, I'll doctor up that picture and draw in an arm to show more precisely."

Unless the opponent is over committed to the punch, you can&#8217;t pull him off balance. This action is dealt with later in the form. You only drag down to elbow break position if the force is bearing down upon you then you side step - as opposed to pulling the opponent&#8217;s arm towards your chest. 

Quote:" Also, your saying something about if their punch is reaching you faster than your punch is reaching them? How in the world are you going to realize that, and then withdraw your punch and move into a different position before their punch hits you? That&#8217;s completely unrealistic."

It&#8217;s only unrealistic if you&#8217;re trying to reverse the action of you muscle. We move with other parts of our body such that the path of our punches can change.

Quote:" What? Who told you that? Can you explain why? Why would you have less chance if you waited? Have you ever read "The Art of War"? If not, you should read it, its a great book, and it definitely goes against your waiting = less chance theory. You speak of strategy and then say you shouldn&#8217;t wait at all, how can that go together? When fighting I don&#8217;t care how much "momentum" my opponent builds up, in fact the more momentum they have, the harder they will get hit from a yield, or throw, or lock, or break, etc."

It&#8217;s important not to let your opponent build up momentum. Rather than to have them build up momentum and you have to yield. 

Quote: "The theme of what the form is teaching me? How about fighting and survival. That&#8217;s what most of my forms teach me. I don&#8217;t see how bung bo is about strategy, the whole system is about strategy to a degree. I don&#8217;t see one overlying theme of a form, there are many lessons and techniques and principles to be learned from just one form or set. We talked about laan dzeet already, remember. The only form I know that would probably be what you&#8217;re talking about is one called lun jeet. And yes, I know it"

Ok to be more precise, how is Bung Bu different from Laan Dzeet?


----------



## 7starmantis

Fumanchu said:
			
		

> Finding the centre and moving the opponent is an application of leverage. You exert a small force and you move a much heavier object, therefore you must be using a longer lever.


 Finding your opponents center is an application of leverage? How is that exactly? Finding your center is only about my skill and "feel". Could you explain that to me? Also, you dont understand what I'm talking about with moving someones center with little force. Its not about leverage. What exactly is your longer lever? Are you using your arm as a lever? What is the lever may I ask?



			
				Fumanchu said:
			
		

> You cant control someone without being in contact with them at all. Thats what Ive been trying to tell you. At some point in time you would have made contact which causes them to lose balance, double over etc.


 You dont have to tell me, read your own posts...


			
				Fumanchu said:
			
		

> I never said that you need to stay in contact all time to have control.


 Yes, you would have to make contact, but contact does not = control, sorry.



			
				Fumanchu said:
			
		

> Basically, mantis is a martial art. The objective is to take out the target. Sticking is a means to an end. After hitting the target a few times, it slows down even further and makes it easier in your sticking game. Dont you think?


 I'm not really sure what your asking. No I dont think it slows down after a while, you shouldn't slow down at all.



			
				Fumanchu said:
			
		

> Well if they cant touch you they can harm you. Who says you cant get away. If they can beat you without sticking, then they will just beat you - its consistent with mantis principals. Yes, if you attack again you might end up sticking, but hopefully the circumstances would be more favourable because the specific circumstances might be different.


 I'll assume you meant, "they *can't* harm you". I've been saying that the whole time. Thats what yielding does for you. Um, if you are being beat by them while sticking and using your best skill, how are you going to break contact when they want to stay in contact? If they are better than you, your out of your league. Wait, your saying "if they are better than you then they will beat you" is a mantis principle? Why would the circumstances be better for you? And fighting isn't about chance and circumstances, sorry with real fighting experience you will see that. 



			
				Fumanchu said:
			
		

> Mantis doesnt address basic kicks and punches because they are taught in beginner level kung fu. This doesnt mean they arent there. In fact bung bu helps you get in place to use basic punches. That second part of bung bu is about failure of trying to make contact with basic hits. I agree if upon the pak sau and strike you hit the opponent and he falls back, then you go in and continue hitting. You wouldnt spring back.


 Would you mind answering my questions? 





			
				7starmantis said:
			
		

> What failed punches? Where are those punches that failed?


 There are no failed punches in the form. You can't just say, "oh those are imaginary punches", thats just incorrect. Its clear you dont have a complete understanding of bung bo, nor does the person "teaching" you. Your saying that the form gets you in place to do things not in the form? Yes, it gets you in great positions, but the form itself contains none of those "failed attacks" your so fond of. 



			
				Fumanchu said:
			
		

> But say as youre striking at the opponent low but he is punching towards you and his punch is going to reach you before you reach him then you would have to move out of the line of attack - having to spring back. Again its about failure of your initial strike. No its not an elbow break, there isnt enough leverage, youre in mid distance to your opponent.


 Ok, let me say this again. If your already in the middle of a punch and realize their punch is going to reach you first, you can't decide to change, make all the changes, and move your body fast enough to not get hit....sorry not possible. The forms in mantis aren't about failing. Where are the failing punches? You are leaving a huge gaping whole in the form. Oh, and yes it is an elbow break, I'll see if I can't take a picture of that application and post it for you, there are no other explanations of it. Its most certainly not just "taking up space" like you said. There is PLENTY of "leverage" to break, dont forget your waist.



			
				Fumanchu said:
			
		

> Unless the opponent is over committed to the punch, you cant pull him off balance. This action is dealt with later in the form. You only drag down to elbow break position if the force is bearing down upon you then you side step - as opposed to pulling the opponents arm towards your chest.


 Actually they dont need to over commit, just let the attack empty, then you can steal their balance easy. Your only thinking in one little box. An elbow break doesn't have to be a downward movement, you can break horizontally as well. Thats what the "mantis catches cicada" position is, bottom line. 



			
				Fumanchu said:
			
		

> Quote:" What? Who told you that? Can you explain why? Why would you have less chance if you waited? Have you ever read "The Art of War"? If not, you should read it, its a great book, and it definitely goes against your waiting = less chance theory. You speak of strategy and then say you shouldnt wait at all, how can that go together? When fighting I dont care how much "momentum" my opponent builds up, in fact the more momentum they have, the harder they will get hit from a yield, or throw, or lock, or break, etc."
> 
> Its important not to let your opponent build up momentum. Rather than to have them build up momentum and you have to yield.


 Again, would you answer my questions?...





			
				7starmantis said:
			
		

> What? Who told you that? Can you explain why? Why would you have less chance if you waited? Have you ever read "The Art of War"? You speak of strategy and then say you shouldnt wait at all, how can that go together?


 "Have" to yield? Yielding is a core principles of the mantis system, it requires very little energy and is just simply a very basic core principle in mantis, sorry you dont understand that. 



			
				Fumanchu said:
			
		

> Ok to be more precise, how is Bung Bu different from Laan Dzeet?


 For one bung bo is more linear. Lun jeet has more "emptying with redirecting" principles in it. Lun jeet is more advanced and uses more yielding principles than bung bo. However, I wonder if I should write all this since we obviously dont have the same understanding of even bung bo. 
 If your willing to answer some of those questions, I'm willing to continue discussing, otherwise this is turning ugly and we'll need to stop. 

   7sm


----------



## Fumanchu

Quote:"Finding your opponents center is an application of leverage? How is that exactly? Finding your center is only about my skill and "feel". Could you explain that to me? Also, you dont understand what I'm talking about with moving someones center with little force. Its not about leverage. What exactly is your longer lever? Are you using your arm as a lever? What is the lever may I ask?"

Yes. By defination. Yes, it takes skill to create the lever. If you're using a little force to move something heavy, then there must be a lever that you're using. Your arm is not the lever. You are say pressing down against the opponent's centre, your leg might be behind the the opponent's leg. The lever would be say the length of the opponent's thighs as you get him to sit into empty space. He natually falls.

Quote: "I'll assume you meant, "they *can't* harm you". I've been saying that the whole time. Thats what yielding does for you. Um, if you are being beat by them while sticking and using your best skill, how are you going to break contact when they want to stay in contact? If they are better than you, your out of your league. Wait, your saying "if they are better than you then they will beat you" is a mantis principle? Why would the circumstances be better for you? And fighting isn't about chance and circumstances, sorry with real fighting experience you will see that."

You break contact by using footwork, changing your angle of approach. It takes time for someone to respond. A good player can respond fast, but not instantanously. Not everyone is equally strong in each catagory. They might be sticky, but not as fast, some are right / left handed or favour certain approaches to others. A new approach allows you to sample a new set of circumstance and probe for possible weaknesses you can exploit. I'm sure sending a scouting team infront of your main force is covered somewhere in the Art of War.

Quote: "Would you mind answering my questions?"

The punches are not taught in the form. They are basic techniques behind mantis. Bung Bu is about getting in place to use those basic techniques. Bung Bu does not just focus on the failures. Like I said earlier the first line especially deals with you making incursions into the opponent and tactical retreats with the aim of making new incursions. You need to focus on failed techniques. There's nothing more to worry about if you knock someone out with the first punch, it is when the punch fails then you need to stick, hook, side step etc. etc. see my point? 

Quote:"There are no failed punches in the form. You can't just say, "oh those are imaginary punches", thats just incorrect. Its clear you dont have a complete understanding of bung bo, nor does the person "teaching" you. Your saying that the form gets you in place to do things not in the form? Yes, it gets you in great positions, but the form itself contains none of those "failed attacks" your so fond of."

Definately the form is teaching you strategy. You're not practicing basic kicks and punches anymore in bung bu form. With bung bu you'll be a much better fighter because you can better direct your attacks through these strategies.

Quote:"Ok, let me say this again. If your already in the middle of a punch and realize their punch is going to reach you first, you can't decide to change, make all the changes, and move your body fast enough to not get hit....sorry not possible. The forms in mantis aren't about failing. Where are the failing punches? You are leaving a huge gaping whole in the form. Oh, and yes it is an elbow break, I'll see if I can't take a picture of that application and post it for you, there are no other explanations of it. Its most certainly not just "taking up space" like you said. There is PLENTY of "leverage" to break, dont forget your waist."

It's not possible if your using the same muscles that drive the punch to steer its direction. The arm is still relaxed in a fully commited punch because the power source is driven up from the legs through the back. eg. you have a car, you drive at 40mph and you steer, your drive at 80mph, does the steering lock up - if it does its a pretty bad car. As for changing the directions of a fully committed attack mid stream - we do that all the time!

Quote:"Actually they dont need to over commit, just let the attack empty, then you can steal their balance easy. Your only thinking in one little box. An elbow break doesn't have to be a downward movement, you can break horizontally as well. Thats what the "mantis catches cicada" position is, bottom line."

If you pull the arm towards your chest, the arm could easily fold and elbow you instead, then you have to deal with an incoming elbow. Maybe it's different if you're dealing with peers that can't change their attack mid stream. In my class what you suggested wouldn't work.

Quote:"Again, would you answer my questions?..."

To answer your question, it is because if you don't stop your opponent attacking you they will keep hitting you and you'll be hurt and over time you won't be able to fight back. As I said before, even if you retreat, you have to throw stuff into the region of conflict to stop them advancing into you. It's called covering fire. Strategy is not waiting around, even in retreat you are attacking likely zones to reclaim the initative.

Quote:""Have" to yield? Yielding is a core principles of the mantis system, it requires very little energy and is just simply a very basic core principle in mantis, sorry you dont understand that."

One of the characters in mantis is to attack first. If you can hit with the first punch what would you be yielding to?

Quote:"For one bung bo is more linear. Lun jeet has more "emptying with redirecting" principles in it. Lun jeet is more advanced and uses more yielding principles than bung bo. However, I wonder if I should write all this since we obviously dont have the same understanding of even bung bo. 
If your willing to answer some of those questions, I'm willing to continue discussing, otherwise this is turning ugly and we'll need to stop."

In laan dzeet, both sides of your body are hard at the same time. this is to wedge off your opponent that has already closed in upon you. The opponent is in contact, toe to toe. In Bung Bu, the opponent is in mid distance away. Laan dzeet deals with failure of Bung Bu. It is to save yourself in critical moments. In application, it is inserted into Bung Bu as Bung Bu is inserted into long fist.

I agree, we don't have the same understanding of Bung Bu. We don't compromise any of our hitting ability because it contains long fist plus all the palming, hooking, footwork etc and we can also modify the path of our attracks mid stream. what advantages does your understanding have over mine? I'm interested to know.


----------



## 7starmantis

Fumanchu said:
			
		

> Yes. By defination. Yes, it takes skill to create the lever. If you're using a little force to move something heavy, then there must be a lever that you're using. Your arm is not the lever. You are say pressing down against the opponent's centre, your leg might be behind the the opponent's leg. The lever would be say the length of the opponent's thighs as you get him to sit into empty space. He natually falls.


 I see where your going with the lever idea, however you dont have to have your leg behind them in order to catch their center and even throw them, in fact you can throw them backwards with no contact except at the point of the throw with your hands or arms. In that case there would be no lever, you simply need to find their center and get under it. Your not so much putting pressure against their center as you are underneath it, or from either side of it.



			
				Fumanchu said:
			
		

> You break contact by using footwork, changing your angle of approach. It takes time for someone to respond. A good player can respond fast, but not instantanously. Not everyone is equally strong in each catagory. They might be sticky, but not as fast, some are right / left handed or favour certain approaches to others. A new approach allows you to sample a new set of circumstance and probe for possible weaknesses you can exploit. I'm sure sending a scouting team infront of your main force is covered somewhere in the Art of War.


 Ok you may use your footwork to try and break contact, but what I'm saying is that a skilled fighter who trains hard on "feel" and staying in contact or "stuck" regardless of your direction will move with you, they will stay in contact even when you try and break contact. Thats a major principles thats trained with sticking is how to move with them and stay connected. I'm not saying you will never be able to get away but you can't just decide to break contact and step away, just like you can't decide they aren't going to hit you and stop every attack they throw. You dont have to be instantaneous, someone with good feel will feel your center or energy moving back sometimes even before your body makes its first moves. You dont need a new approach to see a new "set of circumstances" you make your own new set of circumstances will maintaining contact. Its simply something you dont understand. 

 So will you answer my question? You said, "If they are better than you, they will beat you". You said that was a mantis principle. Is that one of you guys principles?



			
				Fumanchu said:
			
		

> The punches are not taught in the form. They are basic techniques behind mantis. Bung Bu is about getting in place to use those basic techniques. Bung Bu does not just focus on the failures. Like I said earlier the first line especially deals with you making incursions into the opponent and tactical retreats with the aim of making new incursions. You need to focus on failed techniques. There's nothing more to worry about if you knock someone out with the first punch, it is when the punch fails then you need to stick, hook, side step etc. etc. see my point?


 Thats what I thought. Mantis forms deal with whats in the form. You are creating big holes in the form saying the next move requires something thats not in the form at all. Thats ridiculous. There are no "tactical retreats" in the first line of bung bo, sorry its simply not so. Yes, you need to focus on failed or missed techniques, and bung bo does that, but not on the failed techniques of things that aren't in the form. If the very first strike in bung bo misses or is blocked the next move is still correct, but not if they dont attack or move forward, if they dont then you can deviate from the form in a fighting situation and move forward, or move to another attack, but the form deals with whats in the form, you can't add imaginary technique to the form and say they are needed to complete the form. 

 True, there isn't anything else to worry about if you knock them out with the first punch, but mantis isn't simply about failing, even if that first punch lands you still follow-up and move in and stick. If they block the first punch you move in and stick as well. You simply dont stop at one punch regardless of the outcome of it. You should already have made your second or third attack before you even realize if the first punch knocked them out or not. 



			
				Fumanchu said:
			
		

> It's not possible if your using the same muscles that drive the punch to steer its direction. The arm is still relaxed in a fully commited punch because the power source is driven up from the legs through the back. eg. you have a car, you drive at 40mph and you steer, your drive at 80mph, does the steering lock up - if it does its a pretty bad car. As for changing the directions of a fully committed attack mid stream - we do that all the time!


 Its not possible at all, not if your moving back or against your energy. Sure moving to the side or yielding or something is very plausible, but moving forward an then in the middle of that move change and move backwards all in the time it takes their punch to reach you, or actually half the time because they already started it when you decided to move backwards. Thats simply not going to happen, if you think it does, you will be in for a rude awakening. Changing direction is one thing, but your talking about reversing direction, different thing. 



			
				Fumanchu said:
			
		

> If you pull the arm towards your chest, the arm could easily fold and elbow you instead, then you have to deal with an incoming elbow. Maybe it's different if you're dealing with peers that can't change their attack mid stream. In my class what you suggested wouldn't work.


 Yes, the defense to an elbow break like that is yielding at the elbow and using it for a strike, thats why you have to practice that break and understand how to position the arm and apply the pressure and leverage onto the elbow. Your only pulling the wrist towards your chest, the elbow is being pushed outwards. See, this creates an unnatural movement in the elbow joint and with enough pressure or "force" will break. If you seriously think that in your amazingly skilled class the elbow break from that position wouldn't work then your fooling yourself. To say any given technique wont work "in my class" is not only arrogant, but naive. I know your afraid to let anyone know where your located, but if you guys ever invite others to your classes, I would love to come and show you what I mean, its really some great techniques and principles that your missing out on. 



			
				Fumanchu said:
			
		

> To answer your question, it is because if you don't stop your opponent attacking you they will keep hitting you and you'll be hurt and over time you won't be able to fight back. As I said before, even if you retreat, you have to throw stuff into the region of conflict to stop them advancing into you. It's called covering fire. Strategy is not waiting around, even in retreat you are attacking likely zones to reclaim the initative.


 Simply not true again. You dont have to stop their attack to avoid getting hit. I dont know what else to say, thats just incorrect. 

 Now strategy is not waiting around? What is strategy then? Why is waiting a bad thing? Waiting for a precise moment is wrong, why?



			
				Fumanchu said:
			
		

> One of the characters in mantis is to attack first. If you can hit with the first punch what would you be yielding to?


 Are you saying one of the principles in mantis is to throw the first punch? 



			
				Fumanchu said:
			
		

> In laan dzeet, both sides of your body are hard at the same time. this is to wedge off your opponent that has already closed in upon you. The opponent is in contact, toe to toe. In Bung Bu, the opponent is in mid distance away. Laan dzeet deals with failure of Bung Bu. It is to save yourself in critical moments. In application, it is inserted into Bung Bu as Bung Bu is inserted into long fist.


 Wrong, the techniques of bung bo are no limited to a specific range or distance. Almost every mantis techniques require closing the gap and sticking. There are closer techniques than others, but bung bo contains some very close techniques. However, lun jeet does have some very close techniques, your right, but its most definitely *not* dealing with the failure of bung bo! In application every technique is inserted into another technique, every form is inserted into every other form. 



			
				Fumanchu said:
			
		

> I agree, we don't have the same understanding of Bung Bu. We don't compromise any of our hitting ability because it contains long fist plus all the palming, hooking, footwork etc and we can also modify the path of our attracks mid stream. what advantages does your understanding have over mine? I'm interested to know.


 Anyone can modify the path of their attack in mid stream, but not reverse that path with enough time to avoid a punch that is already halfway to your body. Sorry, thats a matrix move and we aren't living in the matrix. 

 The first advantage I see if we are going to play "mine" against "yours" is that mine allows for a much deeper and more applicable fighting techniques. Your relies on failed punches while mine continues regardless of contact or failed punches. Your relies on your own force, while mine relies on the movement of my opponents force or energy. Yours rules out valid mantis techniques because "they wont work in your amazing skilled class". Yours deals with impossible body movement while mine stays in line with human biology. We could do this all day, but this isn't a "me against you" thread. WE are discussing mantis principles, lets not get caught up in being against each other, we should work together as we are both mantis practitioners, correct? 

  7sm


----------



## Fumanchu

Quote: " I see where your going with the lever idea, however you don&#8217;t have to have your leg behind them in order to catch their center and even throw them, in fact you can throw them backwards with no contact except at the point of the throw with your hands or arms. In that case there would be no lever, you simply need to find their center and get under it. Your not so much putting pressure against their center as you are underneath it, or from either side of it."

Picture a triangle. You&#8217;re line of force f is the hypotenuse (the longest side of the triangle). The force pinning the person&#8217;s foot down x= f * sin a and the horizontal component of the force is y = f * cos a. accordingly you are getting the person to pivot on their leg and sit into empty space.



Quote: "Ok you may use your footwork to try and break contact, but what I'm saying is that a skilled fighter who trains hard on "feel" and staying in contact or "stuck" regardless of your direction will move with you, they will stay in contact even when you try and break contact. That&#8217;s a major principles that&#8217;s trained with sticking is how to move with them and stay connected. I'm not saying you will never be able to get away but you can't just decide to break contact and step away, just like you can't decide they aren't going to hit you and stop every attack they throw. You don&#8217;t have to be instantaneous, someone with good feel will feel your center or energy moving back sometimes even before your body makes its first moves. You don&#8217;t need a new approach to see a new "set of circumstances" you make your own new set of circumstances will maintaining contact. Its simply something you don&#8217;t understand."

Like I said before there are no guarantees, although we train to succeed there are times when we fail.

Quote: "So will you answer my question? You said, "If they are better than you, they will beat you". You said that was a mantis principle. Is that one of you guy&#8217;s principles?"

Yes if you&#8217;re fighting against someone with the strength of Superman + speed of the Flash + cunning of Batman + 100% protective shield of Green Lantern + water breathing ability of Aqua Man (thought I&#8217;d cover the base incase you say we&#8217;re fighting underwater) then I think you&#8217;re screwed. Hopefully the person you fight against does have some weakness you can exploit and that you have a comparative advantage in some department.

Quote: "That&#8217;s what I thought. Mantis forms deal with whats in the form. You are creating big holes in the form saying the next move requires something thats not in the form at all. Thats ridiculous. There are no "tactical retreats" in the first line of bung bo, sorry its simply not so. Yes, you need to focus on failed or missed techniques, and bung bo does that, but not on the failed techniques of things that aren't in the form. If the very first strike in bung bo misses or is blocked the next move is still correct, but not if they don&#8217;t attack or move forward, if they don&#8217;t then you can deviate from the form in a fighting situation and move forward, or move to another attack, but the form deals with whats in the form, you can't add imaginary technique to the form and say they are needed to complete the form."

I&#8217;m talking about what you do in application. Bung Bu doesn&#8217;t cover basic things that you&#8217;d already learned. You seem to disagree with me in the beginning of the paragraph and agree with me in the latter part. 

Quote: "True, there isn't anything else to worry about if you knock them out with the first punch, but mantis isn't simply about failing, even if that first punch lands you still follow-up and move in and stick. If they block the first punch you move in and stick as well. You simply don&#8217;t stop at one punch regardless of the outcome of it. You should already have made your second or third attack before you even realize if the first punch knocked them out or not."

Sure of course if you can continue landing punches then do so. Mantis form does not teach you to do 10 continuous straight punches does it? But you do that in real life because this is basic technique that you have learned before mantis. Like I said before mantis puts you in better position to do those punches. 

Quote: "Its not possible at all, not if your moving back or against your energy. Sure moving to the side or yielding or something is very plausible, but moving forward an then in the middle of that move change and move backwards all in the time it takes their punch to reach you, or actually half the time because they already started it when you decided to move backwards. Thats simply not going to happen, if you think it does, you will be in for a rude awakening. Changing direction is one thing, but your talking about reversing direction, different thing. "

If the way you move is only forward and back then I agree it&#8217;s impossible. But you can always determine which parts of your body are moving forward and backwards or remaining stationary in space. So you&#8217;re saying that you can change the direction of a committed punch mid stream or modify it to a deflection / hook etc. 

Quote: "Yes, the defense to an elbow break like that is yielding at the elbow and using it for a strike, thats why you have to practice that break and understand how to position the arm and apply the pressure and leverage onto the elbow. Your only pulling the wrist towards your chest, the elbow is being pushed outwards. See, this creates an unnatural movement in the elbow joint and with enough pressure or "force" will break. If you seriously think that in your amazingly skilled class the elbow break from that position wouldn't work then your fooling yourself. To say any given technique wont work "in my class" is not only arrogant, but naive. I know your afraid to let anyone know where your located, but if you guys ever invite others to your classes, I would love to come and show you what I mean, its really some great techniques and principles that your missing out on. "

Like I said earlier, you&#8217;re assuming that the opponent&#8217;s punch is only a punch and can only be a punch. We have learned to adapt our movements in mid stream such that there is a blurr between attack and defence. In fact we don&#8217;t think about things as being attack or defence. We just move towards the target. In the first few moves of Bung Bu, your understanding has led to one application where as we can apply this at a strategic level. 

Quote: " Simply not true again. You don&#8217;t have to stop their attack to avoid getting hit. I don&#8217;t know what else to say, thats just incorrect. 

Now strategy is not waiting around? What is strategy then? Why is waiting a bad thing? Waiting for a precise moment is wrong, why?"

It&#8217;s unlikely there will be a precise moment. Yes, strategy is not waiting around, strategy is about creating your openings, waiting is a bad thing because it is passive and the aggressor will more likely come out on top. No you don&#8217;t have to stop their hits but can you avoid all their attacks? If you can, then why are you defending as opposed to attacking. Herein lies the paradox in what you say.

Quote: "Are you saying one of the principles in mantis is to throw the first punch?"

Getting your attack to reach the opponent before he does is a key strategy in mantis. You&#8217;re going to have to hit him sometime or other, I think now is a good time. 

Quote: "Wrong, the techniques of bung bo are no limited to a specific range or distance. Almost every mantis techniques require closing the gap and sticking. There are closer techniques than others, but bung bo contains some very close techniques. However, lun jeet does have some very close techniques, your right, but its most definitely *not* dealing with the failure of bung bo! In application every technique is inserted into another technique, every form is inserted into every other form."

I&#8217;m talking about the first few moves of Bung Bu. Of course in the latter parts of the form we deal with situations when we&#8217;re in close having successfully made our incursions. Laan Dzhaat deals with instances when you have stuffed up big time when you&#8217;re in close and there&#8217;s no time to use footwork to get away. You seem to agree with the insertion of forms within forms, hard to understand why you omit basic punches in Bung Bu.

Quote: "Anyone can modify the path of their attack in mid stream, but not reverse that path with enough time to avoid a punch that is already halfway to your body. Sorry, thats a matrix move and we aren't living in the matrix."

You don&#8217;t need to reverse the path of a punch to become a deflection. 

Quote: "The first advantage I see if we are going to play "mine" against "yours" is that mine allows for a much deeper and more applicable fighting techniques. Your relies on failed punches while mine continues regardless of contact or failed punches. Your relies on your own force, while mine relies on the movement of my opponents force or energy. Yours rules out valid mantis techniques because "they wont work in your amazing skilled class". Yours deals with impossible body movement while mine stays in line with human biology. We could do this all day, but this isn't a "me against you" thread. WE are discussing mantis principles, lets not get caught up in being against each other, we should work together as we are both mantis practitioners, correct?"

If my punches are successful then I don&#8217;t need to do higher level stuff. It&#8217;s just a question of necessity. We assimilate information coming from our opponent as I had mentioned to you before. Sure we use our own force but it does not detract our ability to listen. It&#8217;s only impossible if your body movement is inefficient. If you can&#8217;t change the direction of a failing punch into some sort of block or deflection then it is very difficult to commit 100% in your attack. You would have to toss up between attack or defence, whereas we can just attack, knowing that defence will happen as and when it is necessary.


----------



## 7starmantis

Fumanchu said:
			
		

> Picture a triangle. Youre line of force f is the hypotenuse (the longest side of the triangle). The force pinning the persons foot down x= f * sin a and the horizontal component of the force is y = f * cos a. accordingly you are getting the person to pivot on their leg and sit into empty space.


 Classic.  What you said here makes no sense though. I'm not arguing your theory with you; I'm saying your theory is wrong. There need not be any lever at all. A throw is not "getting the opponent to sit in empty space". There are throws from all directions, and sweeps, and etc. In fact many throws require little contact at all. Youre limiting your throw to only one situational instance. 



			
				Fumanchu said:
			
		

> Yes if youre fighting against someone with the strength of Superman + speed of the Flash + cunning of Batman + 100% protective shield of Green Lantern + water breathing ability of Aqua Man (thought Id cover the base incase you say were fighting underwater) then I think youre screwed. Hopefully the person you fight against does have some weakness you can exploit and that you have a comparative advantage in some department.


 Wow. I'm not sure what to say but wow. Oh, I know, what does that have to do with what I asked? You said one of the mantis principles is, "If they are better than you, they will beat you". Are you saying the only person better than you is this group of superheroes? Youre like going off the chart. However, there will be people out there that are better than you, and you will not have a "comparative advantage" over them. Like it or not, thats the cold hard facts.



			
				Fumanchu said:
			
		

> Im talking about what you do in application. Bung Bu doesnt cover basic things that youd already learned. You seem to disagree with me in the beginning of the paragraph and agree with me in the latter part.


 *NO*, I seem to disagree with you in all aspects of the paragraph. The reasoning behind training forms is to learn applications to use in fighting. In a fight you dont simply play bung bo, but in reality you could. Your taking away the ability to move smoothly from one technique to the next in the form. Many people believe that forms were the "catalog" of a system's technique and moves. If thats true how in the world could bung bo have been passed down if it contains imaginary punches and techniques that aren't done in the form? Your separating the form into choppy separate smaller "forms". The form should move smoothly from one technique to the next in the form, your taking that away from it by adding in invisible techniques and failed punches that you would have to do before moving to the next move. Yes, you should be able to deviate from the form at any given moment into a different technique (be it from another form or not) but a form is a form, you dont enter non-existent moves into the form to try and show each time you could deviate. That should come in your fighting. How often do you guys fight? I dont mean point sparring, but true fighting.



			
				Fumanchu said:
			
		

> Sure of course if you can continue landing punches then do so. Mantis form does not teach you to do 10 continuous straight punches does it? But you do that in real life because this is basic technique that you have learned before mantis. Like I said before mantis puts you in better position to do those punches.


 No, mantis does not teach doing10 continuous straight punches, and *NO* I do not do that in real life. That is simply not kung fu. I fight the exact same way I play forms and train, I dont have a different "style" of fighting and then a different "style" of doing forms. No, I never learned to do 10 continuous straight punches in any style, basic or not, but then again, I've only studied CMA in my lifetime. Your view of mantis is a warped one that still allows for your past bad habits. Thats not kung fu. 



			
				Fumanchu said:
			
		

> If the way you move is only forward and back then I agree its impossible. But you can always determine which parts of your body are moving forward and backwards or remaining stationary in space. So youre saying that you can change the direction of a committed punch mid stream or modify it to a deflection / hook etc.


 Here we go again, your changing what you said. You originally stated that you could hop backwards into the second move of bung bo from being in the middle of a punch and realizing that the opponents already launched punch would reach you first. That is what I said was impossible, and now I guess you agree with me. Great. I also said it *IS* possible to change directions in mid attack, but not reverse directions. Do you even read my posts anymore? 



			
				Fumanchu said:
			
		

> Like I said earlier, youre assuming that the opponents punch is only a punch and can only be a punch. We have learned to adapt our movements in mid stream such that there is a blurr between attack and defence. In fact we dont think about things as being attack or defence. We just move towards the target. In the first few moves of Bung Bu, your understanding has led to one application where as we can apply this at a strategic level.


 Where in the "wide wide world of sports" did you get that from? I'm not assuming the opponent's attack can only be a punch. Thats ridiculous; I didn't say anything even remotely close to that. Their attack can be anything they want it to be. I don't even understand your logic, what are you even saying? It matters not what their attack is, you adapt to it. The elbow break in that spot can be done on a variety of attacks. sure there are going to be attacks that that particular technique wont work on, thats why we have other techniques, and feel. I wish I was so amazingly skilled that I didn't have to think, train, or practice defensive moves either, but I haven't reached that plateau just yet, I still have to learn and practice defensive techniques. I wish during a fight all I had to worry about was attacking and defense would just happen "as and when" it is needed, but thats simply not how our bodies work. 

   Lets get one thing straight, we aren't just talking about *MY* understanding of bung bo, but the understanding of many, many mantis practitioners from around the globe. I dont pretend to yet have the skill and knowledge to deviate from what my sifu is teaching me. His skill is still far past my own and so I listen to him and learn from him. I trust him 100% so if he tells me to do something a specific way and I dont understand why, I still do it, because I know he is teaching me and he knows much more than I. I may be blind to why he said something, but if doing it will increase my skill to his level at some point, you bet I'm doing it. "My" understanding has led to a myriad of options at that point, but the form itself is dealing with what I mentioned. Thats why there are more than one form in the mantis system, you can deviate in a real fight situation, but you can also continue the form as its practiced. It makes no sense to have the form chopped up into pieces that aren't accessible from one to the other without invisible, imaginary, failed techniques in the middle.



			
				Fumanchu said:
			
		

> Its unlikely there will be a precise moment. Yes, strategy is not waiting around, strategy is about creating your openings, waiting is a bad thing because it is passive and the aggressor will more likely come out on top. No you dont have to stop their hits but can you avoid all their attacks? If you can, then why are you defending as opposed to attacking. Herein lies the paradox in what you say.


 What are you talking about? Its illogical to say you should never wait for an opening. You must wait sometimes to find the right time to attack, or steal their attack, or throw, sweep, etc. I'm not saying dont try to open up points of attack, but forcing something that doesn't belong can get you killed. Literally. Passive? Ever heard of Passive-Aggressive behavior? Why do you believe the aggressor will likely come out on top? Also, why couldn't you avoid all their attacks? Your taking away viable options because you just dont believe you can do it. I'm not saying you could enter a fight and not get hit, but I'm not saying its impossible either. Whats more practical is avoiding hits and finding the opening you need to attack. I think you meant to use another word other than Paradox. Your disagreeing with me, correct? Your assuming that avoiding a hit means your open to attack, thats not always the case.



			
				Fumanchu said:
			
		

> Getting your attack to reach the opponent before he does is a key strategy in mantis. Youre going to have to hit him sometime or other, I think now is a good time.


 Man, you dont like answering questions do you? Would you mind posting a yes or no? Is a principle of mantis to throw the first punch? Also you incorrect about the key of mantis is reaching your opponent before he reaches you. Thats more of a race without your beloved "strategy". 



			
				Fumanchu said:
			
		

> Im talking about the first few moves of Bung Bu. Of course in the latter parts of the form we deal with situations when were in close having successfully made our incursions. Laan Dzhaat deals with instances when you have stuffed up big time when youre in close and theres no time to use footwork to get away. You seem to agree with the insertion of forms within forms, hard to understand why you omit basic punches in Bung Bu.


 Oh now your talking about only the first few moves? Maybe you should have said that. I omit nothing from bung bo, I simply do not add invisible technique to bung bo. The first two moves flow smoothly from one to the next without the insertion of failed or otherwise imaginary, basic or otherwise, techniques. 



			
				Fumanchu said:
			
		

> If my punches are successful then I dont need to do higher level stuff. Its just a question of necessity. We assimilate information coming from our opponent as I had mentioned to you before. Sure we use our own force but it does not detract our ability to listen. Its only impossible if your body movement is inefficient. If you cant change the direction of a failing punch into some sort of block or deflection then it is very difficult to commit 100% in your attack. You would have to toss up between attack or defence, whereas we can just attack, knowing that defence will happen as and when it is necessary.


 May I ask a question? How do you know it doesn't detract form your ability to listen? I'm not saying your wrong, just curious as to what you base your belief on. We addressed this already; you are changing what you said. You were talking about going from front straight punch into a backwards hop, not a deflection or redirection. Oh, and we covered the amazing defensive prowess of your school, I wish I was that way, oh wait, thats not possible you *HAVE* to train and practice defensive techniques. 

   7sm


----------



## Fumanchu

Quote:"Classic.  What you said here makes no sense though. I'm not arguing your theory with you; I'm saying your theory is wrong. There need not be any lever at all. A throw is not "getting the opponent to sit in empty space". There are throws from all directions, and sweeps, and etc. In fact many throws require little contact at all. Youre limiting your throw to only one situational instance."

There are many different angles and situations where sweeps and throw can arise. Small force moving heavy object, there is leverage involved -it is a matter of defining where the "traingles" are as opposed to arguing their possible existance.

Quote:"Wow. I'm not sure what to say but wow. Oh, I know, what does that have to do with what I asked? You said one of the mantis principles is, "If they are better than you, they will beat you". Are you saying the only person better than you is this group of superheroes? Youre like going off the chart. However, there will be people out there that are better than you, and you will not have a "comparative advantage" over them. Like it or not, thats the cold hard facts."

No what I'm saying is we're not having to deal with superhuman powers so there is a chance of finding your comparative advantage. But again that is not certain. Likewise if someone has an absolute advantage you lose.

Quote:"*NO*, I seem to disagree with you in all aspects of the paragraph. The reasoning behind training forms is to learn applications to use in fighting. In a fight you dont simply play bung bo, but in reality you could. Your taking away the ability to move smoothly from one technique to the next in the form. Many people believe that forms were the "catalog" of a system's technique and moves. If thats true how in the world could bung bo have been passed down if it contains imaginary punches and techniques that aren't done in the form? Your separating the form into choppy separate smaller "forms". The form should move smoothly from one technique to the next in the form, your taking that away from it by adding in invisible techniques and failed punches that you would have to do before moving to the next move. Yes, you should be able to deviate from the form at any given moment into a different technique (be it from another form or not) but a form is a form, you dont enter non-existent moves into the form to try and show each time you could deviate. That should come in your fighting. How often do you guys fight? I dont mean point sparring, but true fighting."

If we're taking about performing the routine in a sequence then yes, it moves smoothly from one move to another. In application bung bu is not done as a continuous sequence but its broken down into the various options and inserted into basic techniques. We put on protective gear and spar as part of our training.

Quote:"No, mantis does not teach doing10 continuous straight punches, and *NO* I do not do that in real life. That is simply not kung fu. I fight the exact same way I play forms and train, I dont have a different "style" of fighting and then a different "style" of doing forms. No, I never learned to do 10 continuous straight punches in any style, basic or not, but then again, I've only studied CMA in my lifetime. Your view of mantis is a warped one that still allows for your past bad habits. Thats not kung fu."

Why is continuous punching not kung fu? Its strange that you limit yourself as to what you can and cannot do. 

Quote:"Where in the "wide wide world of sports" did you get that from? I'm not assuming the opponent's attack can only be a punch. Thats ridiculous; I didn't say anything even remotely close to that. Their attack can be anything they want it to be. I don't even understand your logic, what are you even saying? It matters not what their attack is, you adapt to it. The elbow break in that spot can be done on a variety of attacks. sure there are going to be attacks that that particular technique wont work on, thats why we have other techniques, and feel. I wish I was so amazingly skilled that I didn't have to think, train, or practice defensive moves either, but I haven't reached that plateau just yet, I still have to learn and practice defensive techniques. I wish during a fight all I had to worry about was attacking and defense would just happen "as and when" it is needed, but thats simply not how our bodies work." 

You don't have to be amazingly skilled having to think only about attack and defence is the natural fall back. This is what mantis is teaching you from bung bu level. That's how we train right from the beginning. If you don't have this skill how can you apply laan dzeet?

Quote:"Here we go again, your changing what you said. You originally stated that you could hop backwards into the second move of bung bo from being in the middle of a punch and realizing that the opponents already launched punch would reach you first. That is what I said was impossible, and now I guess you agree with me. Great. I also said it *IS* possible to change directions in mid attack, but not reverse directions. Do you even read my posts anymore?"

Your arm's going forward but you've kick your right leg which is in the empty stance backwards thereby creating more distance between your body and the opponent's punch. You do this about 45 degrees from their line to increase the chances of them missing. You also convert your punch into a rolling down arm with deflects the punch. I didn't think I had to go through and explain the process to you step by step. 

Quote:"What are you talking about? Its illogical to say you should never wait for an opening. You must wait sometimes to find the right time to attack, or steal their attack, or throw, sweep, etc. I'm not saying dont try to open up points of attack, but forcing something that doesn't belong can get you killed. Literally. Passive? Ever heard of Passive-Aggressive behavior? Why do you believe the aggressor will likely come out on top? Also, why couldn't you avoid all their attacks? Your taking away viable options because you just dont believe you can do it. I'm not saying you could enter a fight and not get hit, but I'm not saying its impossible either. Whats more practical is avoiding hits and finding the opening you need to attack. I think you meant to use another word other than Paradox. Your disagreeing with me, correct? Your assuming that avoiding a hit means your open to attack, thats not always the case."

I don't see a good strategy as waiting around. You are trying to find opportunities to attack the opponent and a sweep might present itself, as opposed to waiting around until you can sweep. Not easy to avoid continuous hits consistently becase the oponent is trying to hit you. Should be trying to stop them from attacking as soon as possible.

Quote: "Oh now your talking about only the first few moves? Maybe you should have said that. I omit nothing from bung bo, I simply do not add invisible technique to bung bo. The first two moves flow smoothly from one to the next without the insertion of failed or otherwise imaginary, basic or otherwise, techniques." 

So far in bung bu we only covered the opening moves.

Quote:"May I ask a question? How do you know it doesn't detract form your ability to listen? I'm not saying your wrong, just curious as to what you base your belief on. We addressed this already; you are changing what you said. You were talking about going from front straight punch into a backwards hop, not a deflection or redirection. Oh, and we covered the amazing defensive prowess of your school, I wish I was that way, oh wait, thats not possible you *HAVE* to train and practice defensive techniques."

Because you do the move with not much force and do with with much force. You're not using the same muscles for listening as for delivering power - they are independent. We defend when our attacks get interrupted. That's how we practice our defensive techniques having to attack a target full force many times and randomly the training partner will throw in something in which we'll have to deal with - sometimes before we attack, somethimes duing the attack sometimes after we'd hit the target.


----------



## 7starmantis

Fumanchu said:
			
		

> There are many different angles and situations where sweeps and throw can arise. Small force moving heavy object, there is leverage involved -it is a matter of defining where the "traingles" are as opposed to arguing their possible existance.


 I dont even know what to say to this. I allways thought mantis and even kung fu was circular in principle, not triangular. I can't begin to make you understand what I'm talking about, its just not happening. 



			
				Fumanchu said:
			
		

> No what I'm saying is we're not having to deal with superhuman powers so there is a chance of finding your comparative advantage. But again that is not certain. Likewise if someone has an absolute advantage you lose.


 You just keep watering down your kung fu with "advantages" and "chance" and "failure" and "zones" and aggressiveness". Your idea of kung fu is just very different from mine, thats all. Oh, and someone having an advantage over you regardless of how much doesn't mean you *will* loose. 



			
				Fumanchu said:
			
		

> If we're taking about performing the routine in a sequence then yes, it moves smoothly from one move to another. In application bung bu is not done as a continuous sequence but its broken down into the various options and inserted into basic techniques. We put on protective gear and spar as part of our training.


 Your not even staying consistant in your own statements. Now its performed as a form in one conintuous movement? I thought you had to insert failed attacks? The set very well could be used as the form in a true application situation, dont rule out parts of your training. I dont see why you feel the need to break down this more advanced form and apply it to you "more basic" techniques. So you guys never really "fight", but just sparr. I understand now more of how your training is. 



			
				Fumanchu said:
			
		

> Why is continuous punching not kung fu? Its strange that you limit yourself as to what you can and cannot do.


 Um, its not. Who said continuous punching isn't kung fu? Man, you really have to start reading my posts! While we are on the subject of reading, it seems your ideas of kung fu are warped. You should pick up a copy of Adam Hsu's book, "The Sword Polisher's Record: The Way of Kung Fu". He can explain it much better than I can. 



			
				Fumanchu said:
			
		

> You don't have to be amazingly skilled having to think only about attack and defence is the natural fall back. This is what mantis is teaching you from bung bu level. That's how we train right from the beginning. If you don't have this skill how can you apply laan dzeet?


 I dont even know what this is saying. :idunno: What skill? I can't understand what you wrote, it doesn't make sense to me. 



			
				Fumanchu said:
			
		

> Your arm's going forward but you've kick your right leg which is in the empty stance backwards thereby creating more distance between your body and the opponent's punch. You do this about 45 degrees from their line to increase the chances of them missing. You also convert your punch into a rolling down arm with deflects the punch. I didn't think I had to go through and explain the process to you step by step.


 I know nothing of "empty stance" but I do know something about generating power in a punch, and "kicking" your back leg backwards while trying to deliver a powerful punch is sucking energy and power from your attack. Also, I'd love to see your amazingly fast skills, because thats alot to do in the piece of a second before their allready launched attack hits you. Yes you have to go by step by step for me, because that is so completely wrong and opposite of kung fu principles. Here you go again with "chances" and such. I choose to train very different from you I guess.



			
				Fumanchu said:
			
		

> I don't see a good strategy as waiting around. You are trying to find opportunities to attack the opponent and a sweep might present itself, as opposed to waiting around until you can sweep. Not easy to avoid continuous hits consistently becase the oponent is trying to hit you. Should be trying to stop them from attacking as soon as possible.


 Thats fine, maybe you should ask your teacher, or someone more skilled than yourself. It seems you only use or accept things that you yourself understand, and without know ing the mantis system completely, how is it you judge so many things by yourself? Nevermind. An attack or "seep" may present itself and it may not, you can't make the sweep work, it has to be at the right time...thus making you wait for it. Nevermind, I'm done, I can't make you understand. 



			
				Fumanchu said:
			
		

> Quote:"May I ask a question? How do you know it doesn't detract form your ability to listen? I'm not saying your wrong, just curious as to what you base your belief on. We addressed this already; you are changing what you said. You were talking about going from front straight punch into a backwards hop, not a deflection or redirection. Oh, and we covered the amazing defensive prowess of your school, I wish I was that way, oh wait, thats not possible you *HAVE* to train and practice defensive techniques."
> 
> Because you do the move with not much force and do with with much force. You're not using the same muscles for listening as for delivering power - they are independent. We defend when our attacks get interrupted. That's how we practice our defensive techniques having to attack a target full force many times and randomly the training partner will throw in something in which we'll have to deal with - sometimes before we attack, somethimes duing the attack sometimes after we'd hit the target.


 What? Again, total nonsense to me, that makes no sense even as a sentance. I'm sorry, there is nothing else I can say here. We practice and train very different things. I guess I can see now why you were reluctant to mention your sifu's name. Good luck in your training, I wish you well, there isn't much else I can say.

    7sm


----------



## Darksoul

-Okay, I have been following this thread since the beginning, and I think perhaps its time to call it quits. For one thing, it feels like its going around in circles. Another is that it seems to have diverged greatly from the original intent of the thread itself, and that is of Praying Mantis being the complete package. Not that I have any say in how things should be run here on MartialTalk.com, but as a wannabe mediator and student of Praying Mantis, I do think maybe this line of discussion, at least for now, has come to an end. Though if anybody has anything useful to contribute, hey go for it. Though this thread has provided much to think about, which I thank both 7* and Fumanchu.


A---)


----------



## Fumanchu

Quote:"I dont even know what to say to this. I allways thought mantis and even kung fu was circular in principle, not triangular. I can't begin to make you understand what I'm talking about, its just not happening."

The movements are actually sperical because you're covering a 3 dimensions as opposed to be a circle which is 2D. That's the path your moves should trace - but an any instant you can break the vectors down into triangles.

Quote:"You just keep watering down your kung fu with "advantages" and "chance" and "failure" and "zones" and aggressiveness". Your idea of kung fu is just very different from mine, thats all. Oh, and someone having an advantage over you regardless of how much doesn't mean you *will* loose." 

I didn't say advantage..... I said absolute advantage. There's a differnence.

Quote:"Your not even staying consistant in your own statements. Now its performed as a form in one conintuous movement? I thought you had to insert failed attacks? The set very well could be used as the form in a true application situation, dont rule out parts of your training. I dont see why you feel the need to break down this more advanced form and apply it to you "more basic" techniques. So you guys never really "fight", but just sparr. I understand now more of how your training is."

I haven't been inconsistent. There's a difference between performing the form as a solo exercise compared to using the form as a principal for fighting. 

Quote:"Um, its not. Who said continuous punching isn't kung fu? Man, you really have to start reading my posts! While we are on the subject of reading, it seems your ideas of kung fu are warped. You should pick up a copy of Adam Hsu's book, "The Sword Polisher's Record: The Way of Kung Fu". He can explain it much better than I can."

Well I didn't say this. It is you who said that  - "No, mantis does not teach doing10 continuous straight punches, and *NO* I do not do that in real life. That is simply not kung fu." Yes I'm aware of the book.

Quote:"I know nothing of "empty stance" but I do know something about generating power in a punch, and "kicking" your back leg backwards while trying to deliver a powerful punch is sucking energy and power from your attack. Also, I'd love to see your amazingly fast skills, because thats alot to do in the piece of a second before their allready launched attack hits you. Yes you have to go by step by step for me, because that is so completely wrong and opposite of kung fu principles. Here you go again with "chances" and such. I choose to train very different from you I guess."

Yes, it's alot to do in an instant isn't it come to think of it. Actually it's not that much - as it is only in Bung Bu level. later on we do even more in an instant. Even so, we acknowledge that we are not 100% protected - there is always an element of chance. 

Quote:"Thats fine, maybe you should ask your teacher, or someone more skilled than yourself. It seems you only use or accept things that you yourself understand, and without know ing the mantis system completely, how is it you judge so many things by yourself? Nevermind. An attack or "seep" may present itself and it may not, you can't make the sweep work, it has to be at the right time...thus making you wait for it. Nevermind, I'm done, I can't make you understand."

So are you going to wait around for the oppoerunity to sweep if and when it presents itself or do what is necessary at that point in time? We do the latter instead of waiting around.

Quote:"What? Again, total nonsense to me, that makes no sense even as a sentance. I'm sorry, there is nothing else I can say here. We practice and train very different things. I guess I can see now why you were reluctant to mention your sifu's name. Good luck in your training, I wish you well, there isn't much else I can say."

Which part is nonesense? Could you tell me how you train your defenses?


----------



## 7starmantis

Fumanchu, we have run out of discussion. There isn't anything left to discuss, we are simply disagreeing over the same things now. I enjoy discussing mantis principles, but we have nothing in common to discuss. Our principles are as different as night and day. I'm having a hard time even following your posts now, so I think its a good time to just agree to disagree. If you are ever in east texas, I leave you an open invitation to look me up and do some training. 

Good luck in your training.

7sm


----------



## Fumanchu

The fact that we disagree alot about many things would make the discussion worthwhile. At least you can see how someone else trains. But if you don't want to discuss anymore that's also fine by me.


----------



## 7starmantis

Its not that I dont want to discuss anymore, its that we have discussed all that we can. What else can we discuss that isn't something allready said, or just arguing "my point" over "your point" ? Its like your trying to hide things about your training, and I dont feel that makes it an equal dicussion.

7sm


----------



## Fumanchu

We can pick a technique or a move and take it from there or we xan carry on from where we'd left off - no doubt we'll stumble across other things. I haven't planned this conversation in advance rather i've been going with the flow. 

Quote:"Its like your trying to hide things about your training, and I dont feel that makes it an equal dicussion."

I haven't been hiding things about my training, why would you think that? This is what I said earlier - You're not using the same muscles for listening as for delivering power - they are independent. We defend when our attacks get interrupted. That's how we practice our defensive techniques having to attack a target full force many times and randomly the training partner will throw in something in which we'll have to deal with - sometimes before we attack, sometimes duing the attack sometimes after we'd hit the target.

.... to which you said it was nonesense. Not that I mind that you disagree totally, but that's different from saying that I'm hiding things from you.

Then I saked you how you practice your defences to which you didn't reply.


----------



## 7starmantis

There are simply many questions I have asked that you ignore, or refuse to answer. With that going on, we cant have an honest and intelligent debate. First and foremost is your refusal to give any information regarding your teacher, school, or lineage. That is important now because Im to the point where Im thinking I should just write you off. Youve expressed ideas and principles so different and even in some cases opposite from established mantis principles that it sounds like your just making them up. If you could show your lineage or who your teacher is, that may validate your beliefs or opinions. Of course it might not validate them, but it would at least validate your training, which is something in question here. As to the other unanswered questions.



     Why do you believe the aggressor will likely come out on top? Also, why couldn't you avoid all their attacks?



 Many people believe that forms were the "catalog" of a system's technique and moves. If thats true how in the world could bung bo have been passed down if it contains imaginary punches and techniques that aren't done in the form?



    Are you saying one of the principles in mantis is to throw the first punch?



    What is strategy then? Why is waiting a bad thing? Waiting for a precise moment is wrong, why?



 You said, "If they are better than you, they will beat you". You said that was a mantis principle. Is that one of you guys principles?



 Those are just some of the questions I have asked that I didnt get a response to at all, let alone an answer to. If you can answer some of those questions, we will have something to discuss, but without those answers, we have nothing left to discuss.



    7sm


----------



## Fumanchu

Quote:" Why do you believe the aggressor will likely come out on top? Also, why couldn't you avoid all their attacks?"

Because the aggressor is attacking and unless you can stop or slow down his momentum by being aggressive yourself, there isn&#8217;t much that can slow him down unless of course he runs out of steam. There are a few cases in history - Battle of Waterloo and the fight between Mohammad Ali and I can&#8217;t remember his name where the defensive team / person won. But these are exceptions rather than the rule. Why can&#8217;t I avoid every single attack. At least I don&#8217;t think I can because if I were that good, I wouldn&#8217;t have to be the one having to defend. If they&#8217;re at the skill level as you are, quite a few attacks will get through.

Quote: "Many people believe that forms were the "catalog" of a system's technique and moves. If that&#8217;s true how in the world could bung bo have been passed down if it contains imaginary punches and techniques that aren't done in the form?"

They aren&#8217;t imaginary punches and techniques. The form puts you in a position to do those basic techniques. Bung Bu is not taught at a beginners level, hence it doesn&#8217;t have many punch and kicks. It contains strategy to put you in a better position to do basic techniques. Yes, it is a catalog of the system&#8217;s technique for that particular level of training.

Quote: "Are you saying one of the principles in mantis is to throw the first punch?"

You move when you sense your opponent starting to move. You try to reach your opponent before he reaches you. It may end up to becoming a punch or some other movement that stops his movement as early as possible.

Quote: "What is strategy then? Why is waiting a bad thing? Waiting for a precise moment is wrong, why?"

Strategy means a way of doing things. Waiting is a bad thing, because in a fight the possible paths over time is quite chaotic. What I mean by that is, small changes in angle / force etc. can lead to large changes in the following sequence of moves. Hence it is quite unpredictable what moves you&#8217;re going to use next. So I don&#8217;t see a way of waiting to use a move. Let&#8217;s take the leg sweep for example, I don&#8217;t know that I&#8217;m doing a leg sweep until the moment arrives - hence I haven&#8217;t waited for that moment, it is spontaneous.

Quote: "You said, "If they are better than you, they will beat you". You said that was a mantis principle. Is that one of you guy&#8217;s principles?"

I said if your opponent is better than you in an absolute sense you&#8217;ll lose if the objectives are the same (eg last man standing). However, you might only have to slow him down or stay alive long enough till help arrives or get to an escape route or make yourself a difficult enough target that he loses interest. In these cases, your kung fu could still be useful. In this case the stronger opponent wants to play "last man standing", but you refuse to play his game. I see that as gaining a comparative edge by not playing his game, but by playing a game that is to your strength. That's how we train. It is from bung bu strategy of how we insert and retreat if necessary.

Quote: "Those are just some of the questions I have asked that I didn&#8217;t get a response to at all, let alone an answer to. If you can answer some of those questions, we will have something to discuss, but without those answers, we have nothing left to discuss."

I thought I had already answered your questions earlier. Hopefully this time you&#8217;ll find the answers clearer.


----------



## HammerFist

um....wow.....just.....wow.


----------



## 7starmantis

7starmantis said:
			
		

> There are simply many questions I have asked that you ignore, or refuse to answer. With that going on, we cant have an honest and intelligent debate. First and foremost is your refusal to give any information regarding your teacher, school, or lineage. That is important now because Im to the point where Im thinking I should just write you off. Youve expressed ideas and principles so different and even in some cases opposite from established mantis principles that it sounds like your just making them up. If you could show your lineage or who your teacher is, that may validate your beliefs or opinions. Of course it might not validate them, but it would at least validate your training, which is something in question here.


  7sm


----------



## Darksoul

-I'm only going to ask one question of Fumanchu: what is the style of your school? I don't expect an answer, cause all I have seen from you so far is a lot of beating around the bush. 7Star has done more than meet the challenge of this "discussion" thread, and, personally, I think its a little disrespectful to carry on as you have. There is so much beauty to Praying Mantis, it is just wasteful to have a discussion about it that leads nowhere. I would love to know more about what you study, perhaps you could talk about other forms, perhaps from other styles? Or maybe you could post a new topic for the CMA section, something else that could be discussed? Anything on Kung-Fu in general you want to talk about?


A---)


----------



## Fumanchu

Darksoul

That's 4 questions I've counted plus a couple of comments you made about me. I'll answer the first one.

The style we train is 7 star praying mantis but I would like to ask you one question, what aspect of what I said do you consider beating around the bush? 

As for 7starmantis's comments, he's free to make the comments and input he has, neither any of us nor you are oblidged to do more. I have been critical of some of his comments on the system and he has of mine. It hasn't been a question of respect. I see the opportunity of getting an idea of how someone else from the otherside of the world trains is a gain in my books. 

I think mantis is beautiful in its efficiency in dealing with hostile opponents as it was the design of the style. 7starmantis and I were just discussing our apporaches to training and how we use the mantis system. On the contrary, we have not set out any goals as to where we intend to take this discussion. If there was an intended direction - it was not something that was communicated to me.


----------



## 7starmantis

So I guess I can just stop expecting an answer or even notice of my last question?

7sm


----------



## Fumanchu

I have not got any feed back to the answers I provided to your questions so I take it that you understand what i'm saying. 

I do have one question for you. Describe the ways in which you practice your defensive techniques?


----------



## 7starmantis

You can't really be that daft? Or really believe that I'm just that stupid can you? 

Your really going to play the ignore my question completely game? 

7sm


----------



## Fumanchu

Are u blind? 

Post 12-13-2004 10:39 AM: your questions.

Post 12-13-2004 09:34 PM: My answers.


----------



## 7starmantis

7starmantis said:
			
		

> There are simply many questions I have asked that you ignore, or refuse to answer. With that going on, we cant have an honest and intelligent debate. First and foremost is your refusal to give any information regarding your teacher, school, or lineage. That is important now because Im to the point where Im thinking I should just write you off. Youve expressed ideas and principles so different and even in some cases opposite from established mantis principles that it sounds like your just making them up. If you could show your lineage or who your teacher is, that may validate your beliefs or opinions. Of course it might not validate them, but it would at least validate your training, which is something in question here.


 I guess I am blind, I didn't see you even mention this question, and especially didn't see your answer.

 7sm


----------



## Fumanchu

7starmantis,

That's not a question, that's a statement. In your earlier post, you attached the questions below that statement which I have already answered. If you had wanted a comment on your statement you should have said so. Accordingly here it is.

It is not necessary for anyone to ask for lineage and name of instructor to assess whether what is said makes sense. If it works at a practical level  and if one is practicing mantis forms - then it must be consistent with mantis theory. 

These are issues that can be reasoned through logic and if you are willing to comment on the answers that I provided to your earlier questions it might also help me understand the type of training that you do.

Within a school there are students of different quality and training objectives, as for lineage - within that there are also instructors of different quality. What's relevant at this stage is we're finding out more about one another's personal experience and understanding of the system.

Kung Fu as Adam Hsu put it is not as much about fighting, but about stopping the fight. You can say that is the underlying objective that we apply. I don't see what I said earlier contradicts this objective and I feel that mantis principals should be consistent with this objective.

Feel free to comment.


----------



## 7starmantis

Arguing semantics doesn't really help our discussion. I'm not looking for your answers to make what you have said make sense, it doesn't make sense anyway. What I'm looking for is a validation of your claims, not a validation of your intelegence or skill.

According to your answers, I guess this discussion is now officially over. Sorry to see that.

7sm


----------



## Fumanchu

So sorry to hear that you couldn't see what you're looking for. Validation of my claims is that it works. You're always free to experiment with what I have said to see for yourself as i have also experimented with what you have said.

I agree it takes two hands to clap. But not to be sorry, everything comes to an end at some stage.


----------



## 7starmantis

Fumanchu said:
			
		

> So sorry to hear that you couldn't see what you're looking for. Validation of my claims is that it works. You're always free to experiment with what I have said to see for yourself as i have also experimented with what you have said.
> 
> I agree it takes two hands to clap. But not to be sorry, everything comes to an end at some stage.


 No, no, I most certainly *did* see what I was looking for. Like I said three times allready, I'm not looking for validation of your skill. I have experiemented with what you said and have asked people which much better understanding than I, we all agree. 

 7sm


----------



## Fumanchu

If you care to tell me how you train your defences I can try out what you do.


----------



## 7starmantis

Sorry, this discussion is over with me. I've asked the same questions too many times.

7sm


----------



## Fumanchu

Your questions have been answered. I don't think there are anymore of your questions outstanding. 

Having said that you haven't been forthcoming with the results from trying out the things I said. What were the results?  

If you could elaborate on how you train defense it might help he to understand where you're coming from. don't you think? 

I have no problems with you walking away from the conversation, but I hope you're not thinking that it is I who isn't sharing information.


----------



## 7starmantis

LOL, its a thin facade. I think any semi-intellegent person reading this thread would see that my last few posts have been "asking" the questions about your teacher, school, and lineage. The semantic argument or not, your still withholding that information. I have asked it several times in this thread, from the beginning to now and each time you have either refused or ignored the question. Outstanding? Yes, this one has been the entire thread. 

I didn't say I haven't been forthcoming with the results of trying the things you said. Maybe you ment to use a different word other than "forthcoming"? I tried the things you said out with my sifu and they make no sense. They are breaking core principles of the mantis system to accomplish a set goal. That in and of itself is against mantis principles, there is no "goal" per se while fighting.

I'm happy to continue this conversation, if and when you are happy to answer those questions about your teacher, lineage, and such. Otherwise, I am "walking away" from this thread.

7sm


----------



## Fumanchu

7starmantis,

You actually asked about my instructor and lineage right from the beginning. To which I answered that I do not provide this information. 

You just have to go on from what I have said. Given that you feel that what I do through your own experimentation makes no sense, then I don't see the value in finding out more about lineage or name of instructor. 

Perhaps you could explain how you train your defenses so that I could try that out and get a better idea of why you think my training doesn't make sense. Don't you think that's a fair call?


----------



## 7starmantis

No


----------



## Fumanchu

Given that this is an online discussion, lets see what other people on the www have to say. This need not be a discussion between me and 7starmantis. I shall take the initiative and start.

7starmantis said: "When fighting I don&#8217;t care how much "momentum" my opponent builds up, in fact the more momentum they have, the harder they will get hit from a yield, or throw, or lock, or break, etc."

Applying his philosophy, how would one expect to stop an opponent if one is not even concerned about the opponent building up momentum?

Does this also assume that a committed attack puts the attacker at more risk of being "hit from a yield, or throw, or lock, or break" then an uncommitted attack? In your experiences how true is this?


----------



## RHD

Fumanchu said:
			
		

> Does this also assume that a committed attack puts the attacker at more risk of being "hit from a yield, or throw, or lock, or break" then an uncommitted attack? In your experiences how true is this?



Actually it's dead on.   

The hardest people to fight are the one's who won't commit.  But then again, people who don't commit aren't really fighting, only playing martial tag.


Mike


----------



## j_m

Oh... this thread was *sooooo* painful to read through... and I can't believe I'm contributing to it's life span.  But I like fighting :ultracool   So here are some thoughts.




> 7starmantis said: "When fighting I dont care how much "momentum" my opponent builds up, in fact the more momentum they have, the harder they will get hit from a yield, or throw, or lock, or break, etc."


I'd say there's nothing wrong with this line of thinking.  It's a simple strategy to use.  Wait for your opponent to attack, then use his "force" to your advantage.  Pretty common thing to do in most CMA.




> Applying his philosophy, how would one expect to stop an opponent if one is not even concerned about the opponent building up momentum?


Stop an opponent?  I'm assuming you don't mean stopping them in the sense that you would try to stop a trains momentum... that would be silly.  Hopefully you mena "neutralize" an opponent.  It doesn't matter how much "momentum" or "force" they are exerting.  There are always methods of taking that "momentum" away from them.




> Does this also assume that a committed attack puts the attacker at more risk of being "hit from a yield, or throw, or lock, or break" then an uncommitted attack? In your experiences how true is this?


Yes, I've seen this (and done this).  *BUT*... I would now like to add that I think what seems to be missing form these statements in the current discussion is the fact that none of these ideas/tactics/mehtods are absolutes.  There are no absolutes in combat.  You have to be able to adjust, to *change*, in an instant to any given situation... even (especially) once the conflict has begun.

Sure I _can_ wait for my opponent to build up "momentum".  But why?  Maybe that's just the way you fight or deal with it.  Sometimes I do this... but sometimes I don't.  If I do this _all_ the time I begin to limit myself in the way I deal with an opponent.  I think of this "method" as being a reactionary fighter.  You wait until something is done first then you react accordingly.  This is not necassarily a bad thing... and it _can_ be the best thing in some situations.  But it's definatley not the only way.

And on the flip side of 7*'s statement I think of building "momentum" (what a strange term for this discussion :idunno:  ) and attacking like in Xingyi or Baji.  They *do* try move through you like a freight train.  *But...* they are prepared for the loss or difusion of that "momentum" and change accordingly when needed.  Actually the goal is when you try to neutralize thier force they know how to "flow" with it to either keep thier initial force or to generate it anew.  All in the blink of an eye.  I had always assumed that Mantis styles had most of these concepts as well, being very well established CMAs.   Actually I will still assume that  


Just some thoughts,



jm


----------



## 7starmantis

j_m said:
			
		

> Yes, I've seen this (and done this).  *BUT*... I would now like to add that I think what seems to be missing form these statements in the current discussion is the fact that none of these ideas/tactics/mehtods are absolutes. There are no absolutes in combat. You have to be able to adjust, to *change*, in an instant to any given situation... even (especially) once the conflict has begun.
> 
> Sure I _can_ wait for my opponent to build up "momentum". But why? Maybe that's just the way you fight or deal with it. Sometimes I do this... but sometimes I don't. If I do this _all_ the time I begin to limit myself in the way I deal with an opponent. I think of this "method" as being a reactionary fighter. You wait until something is done first then you react accordingly. This is not necassarily a bad thing... and it _can_ be the best thing in some situations.  But it's definatley not the only way.
> 
> And on the flip side of 7*'s statement I think of building "momentum" (what a strange term for this discussion :idunno:  ) and attacking like in Xingyi or Baji.  They *do* try move through you like a freight train.  *But...* they are prepared for the loss or difusion of that "momentum" and change accordingly when needed. Actually the goal is when you try to neutralize thier force they know how to "flow" with it to either keep thier initial force or to generate it anew. All in the blink of an eye. I had always assumed that Mantis styles had most of these concepts as well, being very well established CMAs. Actually I will still assume that


 Very good post! Yes, in many of my posts in this thread I tried to make it clear (probably not very well) that we were discussing a set technique in a set scenario, which is very uncommon in fighting. There are no "black & White rules" if you will. There are simply no absolutes, like you said, in a fight, you *must* learn to change with your opponent. That is what I refer to as "feel". Yes, mantis does contain these concepts, very much so. This thread got off on specific applicatinos from a specific form, so it didn't explore these other concepts. Your very right to assume mantis contains them. There are times (like I said in earlier posts) to use force and "move through them", but you must rely on feel to be able to immediately dissolve and move to something else. This is summed up well by the meaning of 7* mantis: "Continually moving and changing to wear down you opponent". 

 What I meant by waiting was not doing nothing until something else is done, but rather waiting for the right moment to do any technique. For example, a sweep can't be done when the opponent is "rooted" and their center is lower than yours, you shouldn't even attampt it, you should "wait" for when you can "feel" their energy moving or off balance. This "waiting" isn't a lack of action, you will be doing other techniques, but only if they are properly timed and fit the situation and fight. If you try something and it doesn't work you shouldn't try and force it, use feel, and move on to something else. Its not about using your head in mantis fighting, but rather your "feel" and just allowing your muscles to do as they are trained to do. This is why training methods are very important as well.

  Good post j_m!

  7sm


----------



## Fumanchu

j_m,

It is not just Hsing I or Baji that tries to move through an opponent like a choo choo train. Mantis does the same and it can be found in No.12 of the 12 principals listed below. If that momentum is interrupted it can adapt just as well as Hsing I or Baji.

In fact experienced fighters from other styles or even good street fighters will try to move though like choo choo train. Because their ability to adapt gives them confidence to commit. 

Of course there are also inexperienced fighters who lose their balance when they commit.


_Gou_, also known as _Tong guo gou _(pass through/back hook): Pulling back by hook hand.
_Lou _(rake, gather, grasp): Gather or control by grasping or raking motion.
_Cai _(pluck, pick, snatch): Plucking, pulling or reefing motion.
_Gua _(hang, suspend): Suspended arm guard incorporating a large circular arc. Encompasses a large range of arm lifting/swinging motions.
_Nian _(to be sticky, to stick, adhere): To contact and adhere.
_Zhan _(paste, contact, to stick to): Following the contacted surface as if glued to it.
_Tie _(press, attach): To attach as if stuck (by the 'glue-like' principles of _nian _and _zhan_), then press against whilst following the contacted surface.
_Kao _(lean against, pressing, closing): To lean on or bump off by pressing on or closing in and suddenly transferring explosive force.
_Beng _(burst, crack, crumble, collapse): Explosive burst or crack, literally the _Beng Chui _or back-fist strike.
_Pi _(chop, hack, split): Literally, splitting or chopping strikes (open or close handed).
_Tiao _(raise, lift): Upper-cut or lifting punches or strikes.
_Chong _(smash, lash, thrust): Thrusting punch


----------



## RHD

Fumanchu said:
			
		

> j_m,
> 
> 
> [*]_Nian _(to be sticky, to stick, adhere): To contact and adhere.
> [*]_Zhan _(paste, contact, to stick to): Following the contacted surface as if glued to it.
> [*]_Tie _(press, attach): To attach as if stuck (by the 'glue-like' principles of _nian _and _zhan_), then press against whilst following the contacted surface.



What's the difference between these three?

Mike


----------



## j_m

Fumanchu said:
			
		

> j_m,
> 
> It is not just Hsing I or Baji that tries to move through an opponent like a choo choo train. Mantis does the same and it can be found in No.12 of the 12 principals listed below. If that momentum is interrupted it can adapt just as well as Hsing I or Baji.


Ummm... yes... those were merely just two quick and easily identifyable examples.  I never stated that those two were the only two.

And your dictionary kung fu is very good!




jm


----------



## 7starmantis

Fumanchu said:
			
		

> _Gou_, also known as _Tong guo gou _(pass through/back hook): Pulling back by hook hand.
> _Lou _(rake, gather, grasp): Gather or control by grasping or raking motion.
> _Cai _(pluck, pick, snatch): Plucking, pulling or reefing motion.
> _Gua _(hang, suspend): Suspended arm guard incorporating a large circular arc. Encompasses a large range of arm lifting/swinging motions.
> _Nian _(to be sticky, to stick, adhere): To contact and adhere.
> _Zhan _(paste, contact, to stick to): Following the contacted surface as if glued to it.
> _Tie _(press, attach): To attach as if stuck (by the 'glue-like' principles of _nian _and _zhan_), then press against whilst following the contacted surface.
> _Kao _(lean against, pressing, closing): To lean on or bump off by pressing on or closing in and suddenly transferring explosive force.
> _Beng _(burst, crack, crumble, collapse): Explosive burst or crack, literally the _Beng Chui _or back-fist strike.
> _Pi _(chop, hack, split): Literally, splitting or chopping strikes (open or close handed).
> _Tiao _(raise, lift): Upper-cut or lifting punches or strikes.
> _Chong _(smash, lash, thrust): Thrusting punch


 Now you start posting them!  I too would be interested to know what your difference is between your #5,#6, & #7. Are these the 12 principles of the mantis system according to you?


 7sm


----------



## Fumanchu

The 12 points were found online. it is not the mantis system according to me. But when I look through the list, I pretty much cover those points. #5 to #7 probably prepresents control with different degrees of pressure and movement.

It does go to show that mantis does the locomotion (No.12) by moving like a freight train, as opposed to constantly yielding.

RHD "The hardest people to fight are the one's who won't commit." from what you said it would suggest that a title fight is easier than a friendly game of tag between friends.


----------



## RHD

Fumanchu said:
			
		

> The 12 points were found online.
> 
> 
> RHD "The hardest people to fight are the one's who won't commit." from what you said it would suggest that a title fight is easier than a friendly game of tag between friends.




 

Online eh...Is this where the rest of your mantis comes from?

As to your comment directed to me:

My friend you have much to learn about fighting.  If you think a ring sport like boxing is representative of an actual fight, you are sadly misinformed.  I have seen highly trained kickboxers go at it outside the building after the event was over...They fought NOTHING like what they did in the ring.  No rules, no gloves, like two pitbulls going at eachother with full commitment and no tag, no jabs, no bouncy footwork.  Only all out grab-shove-n'-slug.  Got any police friends?  Ask them if you do.  

Mike


----------



## Fumanchu

RHD:

"They fought NOTHING like what they did in the ring. No rules, no gloves, like two pitbulls going at eachother with full commitment and no tag, no jabs, no bouncy footwork. Only all out grab-shove-n'-slug."

From your earlier comments, you're saying that its easier to fight this fight than against someone who doesn't commit.


----------



## 7starmantis

Fumanchu, why would you just go find some random list of principles and post them as if they were yours? May I ask where you got that list from? What website? 

7sm


----------



## RHD

Fumanchu said:
			
		

> RHD:
> 
> "They fought NOTHING like what they did in the ring. No rules, no gloves, like two pitbulls going at eachother with full commitment and no tag, no jabs, no bouncy footwork. Only all out grab-shove-n'-slug."
> 
> From your earlier comments, you're saying that its easier to fight this fight than against someone who doesn't commit.



It is.  This is what CMA train for.  That's exactly what I mean.

Mike


----------



## Fumanchu

RHD: Certain systems of CMA are designed for street fights. Can you explain how it can be the case that it gets easier the more your opponent is intent on harming you? 

Assuming you have two CMA fighters going at each other on the streets with full commitment, then both of them would have a better chance of defending themsleves and both of them would get less hurt then if they were just doing friendly sparring - this follows on from what you say. However, I must admit this outcome is hard to believe.

You may be confusing with a ring match versus a street fight. I agree CMA is not designed for a ring match. In a ring match the contestents are still going at full intent within the boundries of what the rules permit. Is this more in line to what you're trying to say?

7starmantis: The principals I'd found seem to make sense. I do mantis as opposed to reading about it and writing down theory.


----------



## 7starmantis

Fumanchu, your still not getting it. Kung fu is simply not about chance and percentages! I dont know why I expected an answer to my question either, nice avoid by the way! 

Anyone smell that? Smells like a troll.

7sm


----------



## RHD

Fumanchu said:
			
		

> RHD: Certain systems of CMA are designed for street fights.




You're knowledge base is showing through here... :lol: 

Mike


----------



## Fumanchu

7starmantis,

If fighting is not about chances and percentages, then you would be saying that you have an absolute ability in defending yourself. 

Ok taking your line of thought another step. 2 ppl who do kung fu face off in a fight. Does it mean that in every instance no one will be able to land a blow because defences are 100% successful and paradoxically every blow will land because there will be no misses? 

Before you start asking more questions you should examine what you say.


----------



## 7starmantis

Fumanchu said:
			
		

> 7starmantis,
> 
> If fighting is not about chances and percentages, then you would be saying that you have an absolute ability in defending yourself.
> 
> Ok taking your line of thought another step. 2 ppl who do kung fu face off in a fight. Does it mean that in every instance no one will be able to land a blow because defences are 100% successful and paradoxically every blow will land because there will be no misses?
> 
> Before you start asking more questions you should examine what you say.


  :rofl: Wait, this is too great! Dont start getting angry man, its just that you refuse to answer questions, make huge assumptions, and throw in big words to make you sound correct. LOL, I wont be asking more questions, because the ones I've asked aren't even getting answered. 

 Man, your completely missing everything I say. There is absolutely no connection between what I said, and what you just said! Kung Fu is simply not about chances and percentages. To say that only makes it ok to not train as hard as others. I can't even begin to make you understand what I'm saying, or what kung fu is. I've tried this entire thread. Chance is lessened by skill, percentage by experience. 

  Thats all I got :idunno:

  7sm


----------



## Fumanchu

"Chance is lessened by skill, percentage by experience"

So it is about chances and percentages given that you think that kung fu is about skill and experience.


----------



## 7starmantis

7sm


----------



## Fumanchu

It should actually be relative skill and experience as opposed to absolute skill & experience.


----------

