# How much has been lost



## lonecoyote (Sep 10, 2004)

In your opinion, how much knowledge has been lost in the chinese martial arts due to the past policies of the chinese governments, communist and nationalist? Just who was persecuted? One hears a lot of different things. Of course now there is wushu, and I've heard the chinese government did track down a very few people left, I think five,  with Shaolin lineage and set them up so that they can claim unbroken lineage. I've also heard there was some written documentation of Shaolin technique, which looks like Hong fist. Were Tai Chi and Bagua, and WuDang styles persecuted?  To what degree? There was kind of a diaspora as well, with Chinese going to every corner of the globe. Some people who trace their roots to these time periods are obvious frauds, while some are legitimate. Can anyone sort this out?


----------



## clfsean (Sep 10, 2004)

Lots of things went underground. My style just went underground until it (Cultural Revolution) was over & is now back out in the open. Chen taiji did the same I know. People just quit practicing during the day or in the open & did it quietly & closed. 

Lots of other things were lost too & can't/won't ever be recovered because they're truly gone. Nothing we can do about that except move on & keep what's left over from going the way of the do-do bird.


----------



## Black Tiger Fist (Sep 16, 2004)

EXACTLY!!!

So much has been lost that it's a shame ,there were styles out there that will never be seen again. Then on top of that so many great masters that never got to pass their knowledge on. Add that to the other masters that chose to take their knowledge to the grave ,and the many masters that had unworthy students ,and who knows i'd say we only have maybe 5% of the knowledge out there today.

There are alot more fake than real teachers out there today.

jeff


----------



## clfsean (Sep 16, 2004)

Black Tiger Fist said:
			
		

> Then on top of that so many great masters that never got to pass their knowledge on. Add that to the other masters that chose to take their knowledge to the grave ,and the many masters that had unworthy students ,and who knows i'd say we only have maybe 5% of the knowledge out there today.


That's the truth. That still happens today. Many of the older generation now will teach a watered down or made up version of what they do & never teach the root & core of the system. They do it for their own reasons & it's everybody's loss. They may have one or two at best that they do pass the true heart of a system too, but I can gurantee those select few will teach & disseminate the knowledge the same way.

As far as the unworthy students, I'd say it's more of a common than an uncommon occurance too. 




			
				Black Tiger Fist said:
			
		

> There are alot more fake than real teachers out there today.
> 
> jeff


Can I get an "AMEN" from the Choir?!?!?!


----------



## Black Tiger Fist (Sep 16, 2004)

clfsean said:
			
		

> Can I get an "AMEN" from the Choir?!?!?!


 
AMEN BROTHER!!!


jeff


----------



## 7starmantis (Oct 1, 2004)

I dont know that I think there has been a tremendous amount of knowledge or "secrets" lost, changed maybe, but not neccesarily lost. Why do we think we have lost so much knowledge? Is it because of styles that are no longer practiced? Alot of styles have combined with others, that doesn't mean they are lost, just not in the same confines as before.

7sm


----------



## RHD (Oct 2, 2004)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> I dont know that I think there has been a tremendous amount of knowledge or "secrets" lost, changed maybe, but not neccesarily lost. Why do we think we have lost so much knowledge? Is it because of styles that are no longer practiced? Alot of styles have combined with others, that doesn't mean they are lost, just not in the same confines as before.
> 
> 7sm




Who lost it?  That's what I want to know. :idunno: 

Mike


----------



## 7starmantis (Oct 2, 2004)

lol, I think you've lost it!


----------



## RMACKD (Oct 4, 2004)

There has been a some stuff lost by kung fu styles and other oriental styles over the years. But some have been preserved and a friend told me in Russia and former soviet countries they preserved a lot. Most likely because they were exposed to it before they degenerated and that the arts were trained by people who had combat as a part of there jobs and focused on the combat application of the arts.


----------



## Black Tiger Fist (Oct 5, 2004)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> I dont know that I think there has been a tremendous amount of knowledge or "secrets" lost, changed maybe, but not neccesarily lost.


You don't have to look far to see that alot of knowledge has been lost in many styles ,just look within any style ,and see their techniques in regards to grappling. Look at all the techniques within forms that ppl are not sure what the technique are used for.



> Why do we think we have lost so much knowledge? Is it because of styles that are no longer practiced? Alot of styles have combined with others, that doesn't mean they are lost, just not in the same confines as before.
> 
> 7sm


 
There is no doubt that much has been lost over the centuries ,just how much is what we'll never know.

There are masters that took their knowledge to the grave without sharing it with anyone ,it continues to happen today even. In my style of Black Tiger we have older brothers that are taking their knowledge to the grave.

My sifu is currently one of only two ppl teaching our style 

jeff


----------



## clfsean (Oct 5, 2004)

Black Tiger Fist said:
			
		

> You don't have to look far to see that alot of knowledge has been lost in many styles ,just look within any style ,and see their techniques in regards to grappling. Look at all the techniques within forms that ppl are not sure what the technique are used for.


Indeed... There are styles today that knowledge of the contents of the system have been lost because the teacher(s) didn't feel it was necessary to teach or that they had anybody worth teaching it to. 



			
				Black Tiger Fist said:
			
		

> There is no doubt that much has been lost over the centuries ,just how much is what we'll never know.


That's true... 



			
				Black Tiger Fist said:
			
		

> There are masters that took their knowledge to the grave without sharing it with anyone ,it continues to happen today even. In my style of Black Tiger we have older brothers that are taking their knowledge to the grave.
> 
> My sifu is currently one of only two ppl teaching our style
> 
> jeff


That still happens now. There's a set in my lineage of Choy Lee Fut that is passed only to the head next head of the system or the seniors worthy of having it. So far, it hasn't been passed on. However, what's lost if something unforseen happened? Thankfully nothing has or will for a long time, but that's a whole parcel of knowledge & techniques finished & not recoverable. 

My sigung has no issue with this since he's put the time & effort in, learned, practiced & lived the old way. He's not stingy, not selfish, just old school. He'll gladly teach anything you ask for if you're ready for it or have earned it, but there are somethings that you don't go for until he says "Now".

We still face loss like that today. Let's not forget what happened with the Cultural Revolution & people like Gu Ru Zhang dying during it.


----------



## 7starmantis (Oct 5, 2004)

Black Tiger Fist said:
			
		

> You don't have to look far to see that alot of knowledge has been lost in many styles ,just look within any style ,and see their techniques in regards to grappling. Look at all the techniques within forms that ppl are not sure what the technique are used for.



Thats easy to say, but hard to prove. What exactly has been lost? What techniques are lost? As far as looking into any style, lets take 7* mantis. Looking at our techniques for grappling, how does that show things have been lost? Just because someone is not sure of how a techniques is to be used, does not mean the knowledge of how to use it is lost. There are millions of martial artists who dont know how to use what they learn in forms, there are also alot of people who really do. I dont understand how any of that proves alot has been lost. 

7sm


----------



## tshadowchaser (Oct 5, 2004)

> What exactly has been lost? What techniques are lost?


If we knew the answere to that they would no longer be lost.
I think that many of the old myths (well hand, death touch techs., etc.) may not have been myths but techniques that where taught to only a few students. With so many schools/systems haveing to hide their knowledge and practice for years I am sure that instructors where very selective of whom they taught and what they taught.


----------



## 7starmantis (Oct 5, 2004)

tshadowchaser said:
			
		

> If we knew the answere to that they would no longer be lost.


Thats exactly my point though. Not knowing them also means you can't prove anything has been lost.

I'm, not saying no knowledge has been lost, but I think the popular belief of most "old school" knowledge being gone, is simply a myth in and of itself.

7sm


----------



## Black Tiger Fist (Oct 6, 2004)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> Thats easy to say, but hard to prove. What exactly has been lost?


Yes it is alot harder to prove ,so is lineage and alot of other things in TCMA.



			
				7starmantis said:
			
		

> What techniques are lost?


It is a given that you are not doing the same exact forms and techniques that Wang Lang created within his mantis style. While you maybe doing some of the orignal techniques ,i'm sure alot of the original set(s) are gone.




			
				7starmantis said:
			
		

> As far as looking into any style, lets take 7* mantis. Looking at our techniques for grappling, how does that show things have been lost?


How much of your grappling is done on the ground?

If you can say you really don't work on any groundfighting techniques ,then it's safe to say that some of that knowledge has been lost.

Many TCMA styles had groundfighting aspects within them ,it's only after many stylist had developed effective techniques against wrestlers ,that many styles moved away from the groundfighting aspects.




			
				7starmantis said:
			
		

> Just because someone is not sure of how a techniques is to be used, does not mean the knowledge of how to use it is lost. There are millions of martial artists who dont know how to use what they learn in forms, there are also alot of people who really do. I dont understand how any of that proves alot has been lost.
> 
> 7sm


Well, what i meant was the sifu or masters themselves  not knowing or being able to use the techniques because they were never taught or shown them.

jeff


----------



## loki09789 (Oct 6, 2004)

Is it a matter of 'lost' or 'changed' because of demand and need.  What was needed before may not be needed now because of environmental changes (long fist styles changing as the system is taught to people who live in congested cities or rainy/muddy low lands instead of mountains....).

During the 'cultural revolutions' of china as well as the dynasty change overs, it wasn't that styles were outlawed but practice was outlawed (God knows you don't want a local militia drilling and training against you within your own borders).  So the changes that would have made continued training possible would have created a different looking system with some old elements not used or new elements created OR reorganizations created.  Hiding martial arts in fine arts performance to at least keep it alive was supposedly the origins of Wushu/Chinese Opera in a time when martial arts practice was akin to religious practice (remember that these arts were also religious in origin in some cases) and meant treason/death.

So, instead of focusing on what was lost, I would rather observe the evolution of the art/arts based on necessities and trends.  That way, instead of being surprised, I just might be able to be pro-active and make the changes I need to in order to keep my art practice applicable to my own time/needs.


----------



## 7starmantis (Oct 6, 2004)

Black Tiger Fist said:
			
		

> Yes it is alot harder to prove ,so is lineage and alot of other things in TCMA.


Why do you believe things in TCMA are hard to prove? Also, I think proving lineage isn't neccessarily that hard, but its awefully different from saying what your now practicing is somehow less than what was practiced years ago.



			
				Black Tiger Fist said:
			
		

> It is a given that you are not doing the same exact forms and techniques that Wang Lang created within his mantis style. While you maybe doing some of the orignal techniques ,i'm sure alot of the original set(s) are gone


Why is it a given? Your saying things like, "I'm sure they are gone" and "Its a given", that doesn't offer any tangible proof of things being lost.



			
				Black Tiger Fist said:
			
		

> How much of your grappling is done on the ground?


I guess your asking how much ground work we do? Alot. 7 star mantis has quite a bit of groundwork in it. In advanced levels of fighting, there are many, many groundfighting techniques and opportunities. 



			
				Black Tiger Fist said:
			
		

> If you can say you really don't work on any groundfighting techniques ,then it's safe to say that some of that knowledge has been lost.


That would be safe to say, but we do quite a bit of ground work.



			
				Black Tiger Fist said:
			
		

> Well, what i meant was the sifu or masters themselves not knowing or being able to use the techniques because they were never taught or shown them.


That is exactly what I meant as well. There are many "sifus" or "masters" that have no idea what they are doing, that still doesn't mean we have lost knowledge or anything.

7sm


----------



## RMACKD (Oct 6, 2004)

We can see how much some things have been lost by looking at what some schools have preserved that others have forgotten. For example Antoly Antolev is mentioned on the rma forum of this site and he teaches a Taoist martial art. It seems to be much more focused on combat applications that typical schools, has groundwork, no forms, and practices groundwork against multiple attackers. Former Soviet countries seem to have preserved a lot of things for example Alexander Popov was taught Hung Gar and a few other chinese arts. He combined them with Russian arts to create a system used by the Soviet Spetsnaz. He sells videos on his system and on pure Hung Gar. His Hung Gar videos has some unique things like special techniques used to face other martial arts schools.


----------



## Black Tiger Fist (Oct 8, 2004)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> Why do you believe things in TCMA are hard to prove? Also, I think proving lineage isn't neccessarily that hard, but its awefully different from saying what your now practicing is somehow less than what was practiced years ago.


Because most styles of TCMA are atleast 200-400 yrs old some much older ,and most CMA has no written records only word of mouth. It is hard sometimes to tell which is actual fact or just legend in TCMA.

Lineage is very hard to prove in some cases ,because not all masters told their students whom they did or did not teach.Many masters exchanged techniques and styles ,this does not mean they advised anyone of these masters they exchanged with ,also those masters then taught others ,so that's where proving lineage becomes a problem.

An example would be my sigung Grandmaster Wong Cheung ,he is known for his Black Tiger ,but few know that he was a master of Hung Gar which he learned from Wong Fei Hung himself and Hung Fut ,which he learned directly from Baak Mou jiu (White Haired Devil) If you search either styles lineage Wong Cheung's name is not mentioned ,it is only through masters who knew him ,and of his skill that this is even known.



			
				7starmantis said:
			
		

> Why is it a given? Your saying things like, "I'm sure they are gone" and "Its a given", that doesn't offer any tangible proof of things being lost.


"Tangible proof" in TCMA.....you've got to be kidding right?!?!?

Do you really believe you're learning the actual 7* Praying Mantis as it was taught centuries ago? Do you really believe that 7*Mantis always had so many forms?



			
				7starmantis said:
			
		

> I guess your asking how much ground work we do? Alot. 7 star mantis has quite a bit of groundwork in it. In advanced levels of fighting, there are many, many groundfighting techniques and opportunities.
> 
> That would be safe to say, but we do quite a bit of ground work.


Groundfighting techniques like?

We work on groundfighting in Black Tiger ,but i'd be safe to say it's nothing like what must have been done back then.



			
				7starmantis said:
			
		

> That is exactly what I meant as well. There are many "sifus" or "masters" that have no idea what they are doing, that still doesn't mean we have lost knowledge or anything.
> 
> 7sm


Well, them not knowing could be one example of proof ,they may not know because it was never explained to them by their sifu ,because he did not know. He might have learned the form ,but it was never broke down into applications because that knowledge had been lost.


jeff


----------



## 7starmantis (Oct 8, 2004)

Black Tiger Fist said:
			
		

> Because most styles of TCMA are atleast 200-400 yrs old some much older ,and most CMA has no written records only word of mouth. It is hard sometimes to tell which is actual fact or just legend in TCMA.



Using words like "most" is not accurate. Why do you believe most Chinese Martial Arts have no written records? There are plenty of written records dating far back into CMA history. You could go way, way back even in taiji and there are written records such as the Tao Te Ching, there are dynasty records dating even farther back. Its these misinformations and personal beliefs that create such a confusing history for new comers to try and wade through. Why is it so many people in todays society still do not know what kung fu or CMA is? Its because everyone has their own "feeling" or "belief" about what it is, or where it came from. Truth is simply not in the eye of the beholder.



			
				Black Tiger Fist said:
			
		

> Lineage is very hard to prove in some cases ,because not all masters told their students whom they did or did not teach. Manyy masters exchanged techniques and styles ,this does not mean they advised anyone of these masters they exchanged with ,also those masters then taught others ,so that's where proving lineage becomes a problem.
> 
> An example would be my sigung Grandmaster Wong Cheung ,he is known for his Black Tiger ,but few know that he was a master of Hung Gar which he learned from Wong Fei Hung himself and Hung Fut ,which he learned directly from Baak Mou jiu (White Haired Devil) If you search either styles lineage Wong Cheung's name is not mentioned ,it is only through masters who knew him ,and of his skill that this is even known.



I'm of the school of thought that those kinds of lineage issues truly dont matter. What does it matter if one "master" traded thoughts with another "master"? I believe that was probably done allot, as it is nowadays. Lineage isn't hard to prove if you just list who taught you, who taught them, and so on and so forth.  People get too wrapped up in who may have trained with whom and may have given some secret ancient kung fu potion to whom, that they forget to go workout and train hard themselves. Its ridiculous. If we are going to give our opinions here, I say that in the "olden days" the "masters" trained allot more and talked alot less, than any of us do now days. What matters is your skill. Everyone must stand on their own skill, not anyone elses.



			
				Black Tiger Fist said:
			
		

> "Tangible proof" in TCMA.....you've got to be kidding right?!?!?



Its this need or wanting to have some part of some ancient mystical thing that causes problems in CMA. Too many people desire and search for some magical and mystical element to kung fu. Why must I be kidding? Are you saying it is inconceivable to think of tangible proof inside CMA?



			
				Black Tiger Fist said:
			
		

> Do you really believe you're learning the actual 7* Praying Mantis as it was taught centuries ago? Do you really believe that 7*Mantis always had so many forms?



Are you asking if I believe I'm practicing the same techniques from centuries ago, or am I being taught the same way as centuries ago? I believe there are techniques that are the same, yes. I also believe there are changes and new techniques. Lee Kam Wing has created forms that are very obviously new since he is still alive. I thought I said at the beginning that things have changed and "evolved", I just dont believe there was some magic mantis move that is now forgotten. 

How many forms do you think 7* mantis actually has? You used the words, "so many". I dont obviously, since I mentioned LKW's newer forms and such. But the fact of whether or not mantis had less or more forms in its infancy has nothing to do with whether or not we have lost knowledge or techniques over the years.



			
				Black Tiger Fist said:
			
		

> Groundfighting techniques like?
> 
> We work on groundfighting in Black Tiger ,but i'd be safe to say it's nothing like what must have been done back then.



I'm not really sure how to describe our groundfighting techniques. They are probably very similar to many groundfighting techniques with the difference of our principles still applying to ground or feet fighting. There are locks, breaks, submissions, etc. Why would you be safe saying not as many as before? I'm not trying to say youre wrong, I just dont understand why you believe so strongly that what you are practicing is a weak watery carbon copy of what youre really wanting to study. Sorry, that was a bit sarcastic, I'm just not understanding why you so whole heartedly believe things were so much better and more effective and grander, just simply because it was many years ago. 



			
				Black Tiger Fist said:
			
		

> Well, them not knowing could be one example of proof ,they may not know because it was never explained to them by their sifu ,because he did not know. He might have learned the form ,but it was never broke down into applications because that knowledge had been lost.



Those not knowing isn't really proof. I mean, I'll give you that it could mean that, but it could also mean they were taught by someone who didn't know what they were doing, or maybe they didn't pay attention well enough. Maybe they just simply dont understand it. Those are all possible explanations, not just that the knowledge has been lost.

7sm


----------



## DeLamar.J (Oct 8, 2004)

I would imagine alot of great styles have been lost due to obsessive secrecy.


----------



## Black Tiger Fist (Oct 11, 2004)

DeLamar.J said:
			
		

> I would imagine alot of great styles have been lost due to obsessive secrecy.


Alot has been lost this is said all the time 7* has a right to think what he wants ,but it doesn't make it any less or more true.

7*mantis,

I'll reply to your comments when i get time ,i'm at work now so can't really reply.

jeff


----------



## 7starmantis (Oct 12, 2004)

Thats fine, please dont think I'm trying to upset you or anything, but I'm trying to get you to see that just because it is said all the time, doesn't really mean anything. Lots of things get said alot, I'm trying to say that simply basing your belief on something because you have heard it alot if faulty.

7sm


----------



## Black Tiger Fist (Oct 12, 2004)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> Thats fine, please dont think I'm trying to upset you or anything, but I'm trying to get you to see that just because it is said all the time, doesn't really mean anything. Lots of things get said alot, I'm trying to say that simply basing your belief on something because you have heard it alot if faulty.
> 
> 7sm


No worries bro ,i'm not getting upset.:ultracool 

It's hard to express intent with words sometimes.

I see what you are saying and agree to a point ,but i happen to know fact in a couple of styles that stuff has been lost. I'm at work again so i can't really say much i'll try to respond to your comments within the next two days.

Don't worry about anything with me i don't get upset or into flame wars ,it's all good discussion with me.

jeff


----------



## 7starmantis (Oct 13, 2004)

How do you know for a fact? I thought there was no tangible proof in CMA, to know for a fact would be tangible proof.

7sm


----------



## Black Tiger Fist (Oct 16, 2004)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> How do you know for a fact? I thought there was no tangible proof in CMA, to know for a fact would be tangible proof.
> 
> 7sm


I never said there was no "tangible" proof in CMA ,i only made a comment half heartedly joking about "tangible" proof within the TCMA community. You took it as me saying theirs no "tangible" proof.

jeff


----------



## Dronak (Oct 17, 2004)

I'll admit I didn't read all the posts here.  But I thought I'd offer something anyway.  I remember reading stories about early masters of tai chi in some of my books.  It sounds like they were able to perform some pretty amazing feats.  I don't think anyone nowadays has been able to do the same thing.  So if you believe the stories are true, you have to wonder why artists now can't do the same thing artists in the past could.  Something had to have been lost along the way.  *shrug*  As I'm far from an expert on anything in this general area, I don't think I can say much more.  But it seems to me that knowledge could have been lost if early masters with the highest level of knowledge were unable or unwilling to pass it all along to their students before they passed away.  What's left for us may still be a high level, but it may not have the highest level of knowledge, what was kept until the very end of training.  Just my thoughts.


----------



## Blooming Lotus (Nov 8, 2004)

chinese ma history 101.....( in extreme brief)

ma of all styles comming from 1 of 3 systems ( confucism, daoism and then buddhism in that order) was being played and practiced for over a thousand + yrs and used to survive the then fuedal societal set up in varying styles from different family and or organisation ( still called a family) to family. Early 1900's great war, china vs japan, russia steps in , japan runs away taking some styles with it and so is born anything Japanese ma styled aside from sumo ( originally sport) and samurai ( japanese warrior art). Russia looking good for a prime guanxi ( friendship / relationship ) seat with china , playing with WC playing Manchurians and adapting Mongolian styles + others including their own but with lesser numbers $$ and trade value for China , USA arrives with bigger guns and more shiney objects and trade bribes, so Chairman Mao ( chinese president at time) facing billions of ppl starving from draught, flood and so forth, decides to take the temp pacifying option and make happy with the US chasing Russia home with what ever they picked up whilst in north east china ( manchuria , now liaoning province). Mao in his fear, decided to call a reform against any possible future uprise and called a total ban and destruction of all four olds. 1 of those was expressive art ( being artisians and poets and gongfu opera troups gave cause for governmental ridicule, and ma as combat, all comprimised his authority). Death / destruction / imprisonment / tortures etc of all ppl and places remoted connected to perpetuating any of these so those who got word in time split for Hong Kong/ Korea/ Taiwan / and several other smaller but close countries taking whatever MA they could with them. Others decided to chance it and hid out in what was then remote mountain areas. The five that talk you about above were either indocrinated with shaolin vows and precepts or vewry closely affiliated. AS so we get the legendary " 5 elders of Wing Chun " .feel ree to google search on it , because there's stacks of info.......... if you have kazzar, all the better.
Shaolin, has what today been deemed with over 400 sub-styles and god knows how many forms per each of those. Confucism was the first to promote and claim ma formally followed by daoism ( with things like taiji and various grappling styles etc) then shaolin who married ma ( and other ) philosophies from the both , added some of it's own techniques and philosophies and so was born a whole new way of fighting.

I have no doubt that some styles have been lost and there is a great period of 1000-1500- 2000 yrs of chinese history that has been either destroyed or just previously believed to 've never existed in written form. In fact on my recent trip to china, local archaelogists found the "wu slips of chengsha" which are old records carved into little pieces of thin bamboo that pre-date anything else ever found. The records are mainly census style , but being they also list occupations, of which ma was legitmately for so many over those eras, I'm hopeful that there will be something of import to ma and establishing more solid roots, which because of the above is always going to speculative and a little dubious. 

There were , and particularly in times throughout the japan-sino war and moreso durining the Cultural Reveloution, alot of masters and grrandmasters, including sole lineage holders who holed up and not trusting anyone enough to reveal they knew these "crimes ", as ma had been nationally deemed, nor finding a student fitting to carry that lineage, died with what they knew. Others passed it on to ppl who also took it elsewhere and adapted it to whatever skill strengths they had and fitting to their environment and what they deemed most usefuyl parts..like bjj, china > japan to brazil when same crazy laws passed as in China .....Gracies now literally amongst the very few still preserving the "original " adapted style .......

then you have Wingchun, which went from china to Hong kong, became triad lineage and branched from their " keep china whole and non gwailo" ( forgeiner) opposition.......

Or the mantis styles much the same and various qigongs etc ..... look at the internal skills of past reputations and the need and time to exclusion of all else they had to train those skills, still after 40 , 50 and 60 yrs , mastering only one or several. Of course today the need we have to practice and our dedcation to that practice, is nothing close to the life and death meaning it had for it's practioners back then, so to think we would gain the same competancy , ( or need the same competancy for that matter) is just a little unrealistic. And before anyone starts on about tere 2- 3 or even 5 hours of training they may do most days, I been to Tagou Wushu Guan ( housing and teaching over 8000 students as the biggest and most famous ma school in the world, directly several steps away from Xiaolin si ( SHaolin temple ) and even there for their 6 1/2 or 7 hr daily programme, their skill is nothing of what it was in old. How many ppl for basic comparison, have seen your shifu, or can yourself pull out a one fingered hand stand pushup. Even in the temple, there are police on site, thousands of visitors daily and very little secluded space, so even they at the moment , despite having the knowledge, can't train to the degree really required to preserve what is the base of the majority of our arts. They are seeking Unesco protection for shaolin as a living momunent though and with luck should be free to practice again in peace by 2008. BTW :- also looking to for the first time ever in shaolin history accept gwailo ( foreigners ) into the temple for full indocrination. 

AS for wushu, when the CR ( cultural revolution ) was being played out, the government, having no great number of martially skilled armed forces themselves, enlisted the services of various skilled maers around the nation. They decided to allow them to use a certain range of skills and nothing more, and this is what is now called wushu and been hashed and rehashed until we are left with are todays wushu complusory sets. Wushu has turned largely gymnastic natured , and today, it's very little more than performance art .  Even if you are amongst the non- mcdojo students from teachers subscribing to older forms,  closer to its original state, it is once again, a very weak watered down imitation of arts that "ceased" to be. Awesome to watch and no doubt potenatially dangerous individual techs and aspects, but not what it's being taught as.  Wushu comps are rarely one on one but displays of combat gymnastics forms.

It's an extremely complicated pandoras box you're opening, ( hence my own phd efforts ) but by all means research your hearts content. ....just don't forget to let us in on what you find 

cheers 

BL


----------



## 7starmantis (Nov 8, 2004)

Nice post Blooming Lotus, and if I haven't already said it, welcome to MartialTalk! 



I guess we have to make a distinction between what we are calling "lost knowledge" as well as agree to a definition of kung fu or "knowledge". Take the mantis style I study... I dont think that this style is merely the whole of its forms or techniques. I think it is more the principles behind the techniques or forms. The ideas and base to how to use your body is what mantis is about and I think that crosses over to other mantis styles and in some part to all CMA styles. When people say there have been great losses in kung fu they could simply be talking about forms or set techniques, and in which case I would agree. However the principles and ideas behind the forms are still there and have not been lost. I wouldn't agree that we have lost the principles that allowed people in years past to be able to use their kung fu in amazing ways. Someone also said here that they used to do amazing feats and now we do not posses the knowledge for that. I would say few posses the knowledge or even seek that knowledge, but its not gone forever like many believe. The idea behind kung fu has changed over the years because of its need or usefulness, but change does not require loss. Have there been great losses in kung fu since its beginning? Yes, I would say so, but not to the extent that we have lost secret kung fu powers or anything. If one puts the time and effort into their training, they can reach the same level of skill as those who came before us, we are not working with a lesser kung fu.



Grant it, studying something to use to save your life, and studying something as a pastime is very different, however I believe there are still those who train in kung fu with the same intensity and desire as those years ago. I dont believe these are the norm in CMA today, but they do exist. To say there is a loss of principles or loss of knowledge simply because time has past is uninformed.

7sm


----------



## Blooming Lotus (Nov 9, 2004)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> Nice post Blooming Lotus, and if I haven't already said it, welcome to MartialTalk!
> 
> 
> 7sm


Cheers  

Glad to be here  

And I appreciate what you're saying there 7*M, but don't you think when you consider that each style and sub-branch does have a different aspect or many aspects philosophically as you were refering to, ( inspiring the concepts creating and supporting the forms and techs in that expression ) and some of those sub-styles have died out taking those philosophical aspects with them, and considering none of our arts are in their most orginal form, in loosing those and the branching out of the rest, throw in the numerous mcdojos so many unbeknownstly attend , stands to reason ( ?) there're some aspects that we miss out on??


----------



## Blooming Lotus (Nov 11, 2004)

Duibuqi.( I'm sorry  ( blushes) )   A loong one, but a few good points to consider anyway.

 Ok, I hate to call you on this 7 , but considering you're a mod and I have an hour up my sleeve, I'm sure you'll appreciate where I'm comming from.




			
				7starmantis said:
			
		

> Using words like "most" is not accurate. Why do you believe most Chinese Martial Arts have no written records? There are plenty of written records dating far back into CMA history. You could go way, way back even in taiji and there are written records such as the Tao Te Ching, there are dynasty records dating even farther back. Its these misinformations and personal beliefs that create such a confusing history for new comers to try and wade through. Why is it so many people in todays society still do not know what kung fu or CMA is? Its because everyone has their own "feeling" or "belief" about what it is, or where it came from. Truth is simply not in the eye of the beholder.
> 
> Those written records you speak about , not neccessarily the tao te ching, but definately many other famous texts ( and wouldn't you know it, just went blank on names), like , what is that book on the qigong one mind method called??? THat has shaped alot of subsequent ma philosophical views and practice and pending who you talk to ( being the history with documentation) it came from daosit writtings or buddhist. But when you consider Lao Tzu ( though reputedly 40-50 yrs older ) and Shakyamuni Buddha spent time together trading philosophies on Emei shan for that period when they were ( being the spiritual pacifistic "religious" paramater creators they were ) again according to who you speak to, supposedly at war over the rights to the emei temple ( rolleyes), and taking into account that this type of spirituality and philoshophy was foreign to ppl of that time, it's understandable that facts would get misconstrued. ( btw : pls see "chinese whispers" )
> 
> ...


Do you think they reason they might not know or undrstand is because those aspects got lost before the art reached them????? 

cheers 7 

BL


----------



## Black Tiger Fist (Nov 11, 2004)

Blooming Lotus said:
			
		

> Cheers
> 
> Glad to be here
> 
> And I appreciate what you're saying there 7*M, but don't you think when you consider that each style and sub-branch does have a different aspect or many aspects philosophically as you were refering to, ( inspiring the concepts creating and supporting the forms and techs in that expression ) and some of those sub-styles have died out taking those philosophical aspects with them, and considering none of our arts are in their most orginal form, in loosing those and the branching out of the rest, throw in the numerous mcdojos so many unbeknownstly attend , stands to reason ( ?) there're some aspects that we miss out on??


That's what i was trying to convey.

I mean one example would be Red Sand Palm few have even heard of this skill ,even less would have a clue as to how to attain this skill.

There is no doubt much has been lost ,whether ppl choose to believe it or not doesn't make it any less so.

jeff


----------



## 7starmantis (Nov 11, 2004)

Oh sure, pick on the mod!! J/K:ultracool 
I completely love discussing kung fu and cma in general, so I'm glad to have some activity here. I'll try to address your points one at a time.



			
				Blooming Lotus said:
			
		

> Look at chi sao applications, and how their strikes from that, greatly focus on those points that apparently don't even exist, and especially not in WC!!!???



I'm not quite sure I understand what your saying with this, could you explain a bit. WC chi sao applications are different from WC striking points? Sorry, I'm a bit daft today, its been a long day of training allready.



			
				Blooming Lotus said:
			
		

> You mean like the tangible proof that apparently doesn't exist on say various internal art skills .....like large golden bell or iron body against sword skill ....... or qingong ( lightness ) skills that soo many atest don't exist either....... ????? ( btw : what did you say practiced again??? ) :0



How could you say tangible proof doesn't exist on various internal art skills? Tangible proof of what "chi" is....thats a different story, but tangible proof that they work is easy to find. I guess we would have to get specific on what "internal skills" we are talking about. I'm not meaning the iron crotch or iron body against sword as that defeats the purpose and principles behind kung fu in my humble opinion. Iron body or lets say iron shin has very tangible proof, just have someone who practices it correctly and effeciently give you a tap on the shin, you see and feel the proof. The "internal proof" argument is one that is ongoing and to me quite boring, I'd rather be out training, but simply because there are some things that lack proof doesn't negate the proof of other said techniques. 



			
				Blooming Lotus said:
			
		

> What about the arguement of mantis rooting who and whereabouts and how it split, travelled and morphed ( hence the different branches) and what was actually the original form and what was an adaptation????............



What argument about mantis rooting? Most of the mantis practitioners I have come across including some such as Lee Kam Wing and Chan Poi all pretty much agree on the origins and lineages and such. The different branches are generally believed to be from different students. The fact that there are different branches and such just shows its evolution and change, not its degradation. I'm not arguing what is the original form, I'm simple saying that just because we may not practice the origing "form" doesnt' automatically mean we are practicing a lesser "form". Its a generality to say changed or morphed or different means lesser. 



			
				Blooming Lotus said:
			
		

> lol...it's crazy stuff this origin arguement, and we can all argue to our hearts content, but fact is, we lack proof and until something turns up ( and fingers crossed on the wu slip translators finding something to support or discount _one_ of us ( though there's a ***** load so don't expect the report by monday ) ), it's still largely just speculative heresay.



Exactly my point. We can't say we have lost anything if we dont know what was lost, and if we knew what was lost, it would cease to be lost wouldn't it. Its all hearsay. That was my point from the begining. Everyone says we have lost so much, but where is the proof? Like you said, there isn't any. On either side.



			
				Blooming Lotus said:
			
		

> THat's really interesting to hear you hear you say that. I was having a chat to a mantis friend of mine about to entre into his last formal lvl training on mantis concepts like in bat zhoa ( half considering it myself), and realised that is shares alot of conceptual similarities to xingyi and sth shaolin, possibley even slightly nthn shaolin , in the regard that it shares the tight waist small pressure and angle changes and moving things aside , joint manipulation and concepts of breakdown of opponents body ( wrist , below shoulders head ) similar to jin concepts....Of course in break down and with enough information / experience in each system the differences would no doubt become much more obvious, but what do you make of those similarities 7 *m??



I think most kung fu systmes if taken to a deep enough level share lots of similarities. Let me explain that...At face value they look very different....then they begin to share similarities as you understand them better. Then as you get more advanced you see also their differences again. The fact that mantis shares some conceptual similarities to some shaolin is just some more tangible proof of mantis' creation. I will say this, the 7* mantis that I practice has alot more internal and even taiji like focus because of our exposure to taiji and wah lum mantis. I guess you could even say I practice on of those hybrids, we still train traditional 7* and its forms, but in fighting we add more emphasis on controling the center, yileding, being lower than your opponant, using pong and chi in a very physical non-spiritual way.(Thats a whole other thead) In my opinion the concepts and principles of mantis is what makes it mantis, not just simply its forms. The similarities should be there.



			
				Blooming Lotus said:
			
		

> Do you think they reason they might not know or undrstand is because those aspects got lost before the art reached them?????


Most deffinitely! However, the fact that some have lost something isn't analogous to that "knowledge" being lost for everyone.

7sm


----------



## 7starmantis (Nov 11, 2004)

Black Tiger Fist said:
			
		

> That's what i was trying to convey.
> 
> I mean one example would be Red Sand Palm few have even heard of this skill ,even less would have a clue as to how to attain this skill.
> 
> ...


I think its a generality we are dealing with. I'm talkignon a deeper level. Maybe people dont know what Red Sand Palm is, but they may know it as a different name. Look at the principles behind it...it could be practiced by someone else the same principles that you use, and called something completely different. 

I myself dont know what Red Sand Palm is, but does that mean I'm practicing something that is less than what was practiced by 7* mantis people 100 years ago? 

Tell you what, explain to me in detail Red Sand Palm, and I'll see how it would relate to something I would use in 7*. If it doesn't , then its not that its lost, but that I'm simply not practicing that technique for my art.

7sm


----------



## Blooming Lotus (Nov 11, 2004)

You're right and I've always found myself that terminology in terms of grouping information ands lyrics etc is always a factor to sharing information and cross-referencing, but really 7, this just supports the "what has been lost" advocates. 

But where to start???..............


Quote:

[7* 
"I'm not quite sure I understand what your saying with this, could you explain a bit. WC chi sao applications are different from WC striking points? Sorry, I'm a bit daft today, its been a long day of training allready".] 

Chi sao: what I meant was that the pliable points they use to push hands as opposed to direct striking are all based on chin na / yim Wing Chun points of cavity vulnerabilty and yes they're different ( insert concerned confused face here) ...... lil tired ha??? Check out this site for a don chi sao clip using chin na / dimmak wrist points ( click the "videos" prompt and open the ( I think it's ) don chi sao link. ( good site regardless  )  http://detroitwingchun.com/video%20frames%20page.htm

quote
7*
"How could you say tangible proof doesn't exist on various internal art skills?"

lol.......... try saying that in some of the coversations_ I've_ had over the last 12 mths. Agree though, by all means explain if they ask, but in the end, ppl are just going to believe what they choose regardless and I'd rather be training myself . 


quote 7*

"What argument about mantis rooting? Most of the mantis practitioners I have come across including some such as Lee Kam Wing and Chan Poi all pretty much agree on the origins and lineages and such. The different branches are generally believed to be from different students. The fact that there are different branches and such just shows its evolution and change, not its degradation. I'm not arguing what is the original form, I'm simple saying that just because we may not practice the origing "form" doesnt' automatically mean we are practicing a lesser "form". Its a generality to say changed or morphed or different means lesser. "


This argument : http://ezine.kungfumagazine.com/forum/showthread.php?threadid=32365&perpage=15&highlight=mantis%20in%20hong%20kong&pagenumber=3



And no -one said anything about lesser forms, I think the discussion is more about "origin" forms and stylings , and in those adapted and morphed forms ( regardless of improvement ) how much is lost and ommitted every time that happens??? 


quote 7*
" We can't say we have lost anything if we dont know what was lost," 

lol..... good point you make there 
but have you ever had the feeling you just missed something???? 

quote 7*
"I guess you could even say I practice on of those hybrids, we still train traditional 7* and its forms, but in fighting we add more emphasis on controling the center, yileding, being lower than your opponant, using pong and chi in a very physical non-spiritual way.(Thats a whole other thead) In my opinion the concepts and principles of mantis is what makes it mantis, not just simply its forms. The similarities should be there."


I'll look forward to arguing with you on that new thread too, but to matters at hand, so what you're saying is mantis base concept is rooted elsewhere......... and so the conundrum continues 

quote 7*
"Most deffinitely! However, the fact that some have lost something isn't analogous to that "knowledge" being lost for everyone."

no it isn't but how many of those "everyones" receive and practice them as all as a whole??

BL

btw : quote"I completely love discussing kung fu and cma in general, so I'm glad to have some activity here."......... 

loud , clear and concur


----------



## 7starmantis (Nov 11, 2004)

Blooming Lotus said:
			
		

> Chi sao: what I meant was that the pliable points they use to push hands as opposed to direct striking are all based on chin na / yim Wing Chun points of cavity vulnerabilty and yes they're different ( insert concerned confused face here) ...... lil tired ha??? Check out this site for a don chi sao clip using chin na / dimmak wrist points ( click the "videos" prompt and open the ( I think it's ) don chi sao link. ( good site regardless  ) http://detroitwingchun.com/video%20frames%20page.htm


I'm really confused. What is your point with the chi sau argument? Those points are different from what? I watched the clip, but all I saw was chi sau drills, I dont quite get how that lends itself to something being lost. Because someone includes points of attack from something other than their system proves things have been lost? I'm not following your logic here. What are you saying?



			
				Blooming Lotus said:
			
		

> This argument : http://ezine.kungfumagazine.com/forum/showthread.php?threadid=32365&perpage=15&highlight=mantis%20in%20hong%20kong&pagenumber=3
> 
> And no -one said anything about lesser forms, I think the discussion is more about "origin" forms and stylings , and in those adapted and morphed forms ( regardless of improvement ) how much is lost and ommitted every time that happens???


That argument is moot compared to what we are talking about. We are not talking about what is the original forms, but how much knowledge has been lost over the years. What is original or brand spanking new, have nothing to do with our discussion. How much is lost and ommitted every time a new form is created is not only irrelevent since we are talking about one form, but absolutely impossible to track, or prove. One form doesn't make or break a system. We are not talking about what is original, but what was original that is now no longer around. I think your getting off track in the discussion.



			
				Blooming Lotus said:
			
		

> I'll look forward to arguing with you on that new thread too, but to matters at hand, so what you're saying is mantis base concept is rooted elsewhere......... and so the conundrum continues


Wha?? :idunno: Mantis base concepts are rooted elswhere from what? I can't follow what your saying. I didn't say mantis concepts were rooted anywhere, let alone elsewhere from something else. What I said was that the base concepts are what make mantis, not the sum of its forms. 



			
				Blooming Lotus said:
			
		

> no it isn't but how many of those "everyones" receive and practice them as all as a whole??


Probably alot, but because some, or many practice something wrong, doesn't mean others have lost the knowledge those few lack.

Let me say this: I'm not concerned with what name a form is called by. I'm not concerned with what form may be included in Hong Kong and not in the mainland. I would prefer to train and leave the scholastic study to others. What concerns me is the principles and concepts of the system, and learning how to apply them. In my opinion one knows more kung fu if they can stand on their skill even if they no nothing of the origins and names of what they are doing. There is a long debate over whether you truly know a MA system if you do not know its origins, I'm of the opinion you most deffinitely can. When I look at our argument here, I'm talking about the knowledge or ability to apply the concepts and principles the mantis system was created around. I could really care less if all of my forms are original to the system. Forms are just one little tiny part of what I do and should be in any kung fu system. I do not think we have lost the ability to perform certain aspects of kung fu as some have said in this thread. I do agree that those who work or strive for that level of skill or few and far between, but I dont think it is lost forever. 

7sm


----------



## Blooming Lotus (Nov 12, 2004)

lol 7*.....you're a funny guy........

quote 7*
"I'm really confused. What is your point with the chi sau argument? Those points are different from what? I watched the clip, but all I saw was chi sau drills, I dont quite get how that lends itself to something being lost. Because someone includes points of attack from something other than their system proves things have been lost? I'm not following your logic here. What are you saying?"

Okay point is that so many ppl swear that pressure point striking is no part of WC yet the majority of their strikes as you see in that clip, are geared toward pressure points ........ ( WT.???!!) 

quote 7*
" That argument is moot compared to what we are talking about. We are not talking about what is the original forms, but how much knowledge has been lost over the years. What is original or brand spanking new, have nothing to do with our discussion. How much is lost and ommitted every time a new form is created is not only irrelevent since we are talking about one form, but absolutely impossible to track, or prove. One form doesn't make or break a system. We are not talking about what is original, but what was original that is now no longer around. I think your getting off track in the discussion."

fine.just stirring on that one really anyway   lol........

quote 7*
"Wha?? :idunno: Mantis base concepts are rooted elswhere from what? I can't follow what your saying. I didn't say mantis concepts were rooted anywhere, let alone elsewhere from something else. What I said was that the base concepts are what make mantis, not the sum of its forms"

point here is that if mantis looks and plays like shaolin according to you showing an obvious connection and shaolin is older than than mantis........... I'm just doing math but I'm sure that there are many many shaolin do ers who'd likely stand up and testify they spawned you.

quote 7*
"There is a long debate over whether you truly know a MA system if you do not know its origins, I'm of the opinion you most deffinitely can."

I was just about to vehmently disagree , but I guess with enough experience, you're right , you can surely get a handle ( however personally interperated ) 
on their philosophy and easily enough understand how they intend to express it and with what movements or movement types so would likely gain competancy as quickly as you could remember a sequence or assimilate to the former. Boild statement, but I'm standing by it.

cheers 7*Mod 

Blooming Lotus


----------



## 7starmantis (Nov 12, 2004)

Blooming Lotus said:
			
		

> Okay point is that so many ppl swear that pressure point striking is no part of WC yet the majority of their strikes as you see in that clip, are geared toward pressure points ........ ( WT.???!!)


AH ok. First, that would only prove that the people in the clip were using pressure points as part of their techniques, not that there was something missing in WC. Second, I didn't really see pressure point usage but rather strategic control usage. Meaning they used the bones in the arm to effectively lock and trap or control the opponent, it wasn't neccesarily all pressure points. There are many different schools of thought in every system, WC included. Because one teacher uses pressure points while others dont, doesn't really show anything except that one is accepting something different into their techniques. In my school we focus more on controlling the center than most 7* schools, does that mean there is something lost in 7* mantis?



			
				Blooming Lotus said:
			
		

> point here is that if mantis looks and plays like shaolin according to you showing an obvious connection and shaolin is older than than mantis........... I'm just doing math but I'm sure that there are many many shaolin do ers who'd likely stand up and testify they spawned you.


OK, what does that have to do with the dicussion at hand? Mantis was created at shaolin and all mantis practitioners agree on that. I dont see the point. Lets be clear also on what I actually said. I said at a basic understanding they appear to have alot in common, but at an advanced level you see the real differences. I also said I believe all kung fu systems and styles share similarities in concept and principle to some degree.

7sm


----------



## Blooming Lotus (Nov 12, 2004)

sigh......... so when one school includes a tech and another doesn't the said technique is "not " lost to the non-practicing school and its students??? and what happens when those students get their belts open their schools and teach the same ommitted styles and forms??

I didn't say "all " either, I said "most" and those spots they're using to control are just coincidently where the pressure points lay........what a co-incidence........but no relation despite the reported history on it right.

Fair enough 7*

great discussion

blommong lotus


----------



## 7starmantis (Nov 13, 2004)

ROFL
Like I said at the beginning, its a matter of defining "lost" I tend to define the word more seriously than simply "not practiced". Like I also said, there are those who dont know some techniques, but this thread is about a general los of knowledge, not simply some people who omitt certain techniques.

7sm


----------



## Darksoul (Nov 13, 2004)

-Ah, but truly being lost is not knowing the beauty of Praying Mantis Kung Fu;-)


A---)


----------



## Blooming Lotus (Nov 13, 2004)

rflmao myself .........  



So the ommited tech ( and associated principals of that/those  tech/s ) are not knowledge and if continued for generations to the exclusion of expansive perpetuation of the "original" form including the ommissions from the "modified" form, nothing has been lost???  Thank buddha for the die hard traditionalists ha. 

Blooming Lotus


----------



## Black Tiger Fist (Nov 13, 2004)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> ROFL
> Like I said at the beginning, its a matter of defining "lost" I tend to define the word more seriously than simply "not practiced". Like I also said, there are those who dont know some techniques, but this thread is about a general los of knowledge, not simply some people who omitt certain techniques.
> 
> 7sm


 
I think your idea of lost knowledge is totally different than alot of folks actually. No offense meant there not trying to be funny or sly.

I really don't understand what your idea of lost knowledge is.
.
If it's not practiced that can be considered as lost ,because if it's not practiced or taught to later generations ,it becomes lost. If you omit it ,it becomes lost because your students never learned it ,so how can they teach or know about something you never taught them?!?!

My sifu is the only disiciple of Grandmaster Wong Cheung teaching Hak Fu Muhn ,if he doesn't teach me or one of my sidai's or sihings everything he was tauight ,it will become lost ,because he was the only one given full transmission of knowledge by sigung Wong.

jeff


----------



## RHD (Nov 13, 2004)

Black Tiger Fist said:
			
		

> I think your idea of lost knowledge is totally different than alot of folks actually. No offense meant there not trying to be funny or sly.
> 
> I really don't understand what your idea of lost knowledge is.
> .
> ...



Oh I don't know Jeff, I think there's a lot out there at least in Hung Ga that generally isn't practiced but yet contained within the forms.  Take Po Pai Sau for example...I know tons of HG practitioners that practice them in form, but only a handful that practice them in a "hands on" manner.  It it lost?  No.  But maybe in a few generations.

Mike


----------



## 7starmantis (Nov 13, 2004)

Blooming Lotus said:
			
		

> So the ommited tech ( and associated principals of that/those tech/s ) are not knowledge and if continued for generations to the exclusion of expansive perpetuation of the "original" form including the ommissions from the "modified" form, nothing has been lost??? Thank buddha for the die hard traditionalists ha.
> 
> Blooming Lotus


Wow. Those techniques with associated principles are knowledge. However, one technique does not a principle make. Principles can be practiced by many different techniques, not just one to one. If a technique is omitted and continued from generation to generation, that technique would be lost to those practitioners, but that means nothing to other practitioners on the other side of the world who are still training said technique or principle. If the belief that what one person looses does not mean everyone looses the same thing is traditionalism, then stamp me traditional. 

What I'm saying is my deffinition of "lost" is that there are no people who know or train in said principle or technique. Its nieve to believe that what one person omitts, is lost in the system completely.

7sm


----------



## Blooming Lotus (Nov 14, 2004)

No it doesn't , but when that technique is expression of a particular aspect of the entire principal / philosophy, not found anywhere else in the system, to not include it, is to give rise to its potential loss..........  



IMO: the more mcdojos teaching the ommitted and marked versions, the more the "legitimate " schools are going to be harder to find and once you do find them the harder it becomes to earn your form advances.



BL


----------

