# What is an Animal Style?



## Flying Crane (May 24, 2012)

The discussion on the Big Cat thread made me realize there might be a need for a separate discussion on just what it is that makes something an "Animal Style".  I think there's a lot of confusion on this topic and most people don't really understand what it means.  So I'm gonna try to lay it out there and shed some light on the case.  Obviously I'm writing from my specific experiences with the system in which I've trained, Tibetan White Crane.  I have not trained in any other animal styles and cannot speak for them, but I suspect there may be certain parallels and commonalities.  I also welcome anyone with experience in other animal systems to speak up and add to the discussion and make comparisons/contrasts to what they train and the experiences they've had.

I think that most people think of physical technique when they consider an animal style.  Crane style would use a lot of crane beak strikes, tiger style would use a lot of clawing techniques, eagle claw style would also use clawing techniques, preying mantis would use hooking and grasping techniques, etc.  On a superficial level this is true, but in my experience this is not really what makes for an "animal style".  These kinds of hand techniques are found in many different martial arts, and yet those systems are not animal styles, and often cannot even claim to be influenced by an animal style.  Clawing and grasping techniques are very common among Asian martial arts, even naming the techniqes "Tiger Claw", yet the style is NOT a Tiger style, for example.  I suspect most systems can claim the use of these techniques on some level or other.

An animal style does take inspiration from a particular animal.  It does harbor a body of techniques that can relate to particular observable animal movements or animal fighting or hunting habits.  But this is superficial and again is not what really defines the system.  Instead, there should be an underlying principle or set of principles, and a methodology that is an expression of those principles, that defines the style.  And ultimately, this translates into an approach to how one trains, more than dictates the type of technique one would use.  For example, if one would observe a skilled Tibetan White Crane stylist in an actual fight, it would probably look very much like any fight.  What I mean is, you would not observe any special "crane techniques" in the fight.  You would not observe a plethora of crane-beak strikes, or anything else that would look "crane-y" to the observer.  Instead, you would see punches and strikes that look very similar to what anybody from any other system might do.  The difference is not visible to the eye, but is apparent to the one being struck: a skilled white crane punch is tremendously powerful, and the training method used in white crane develops the ability to deliver strikes that are extremely destructive.

I'm going to explain the deepest secret of Tibetan White Crane, right here, for everyone to know:  Rooting and Rotation/Pivot.  That's it.  That's the secrect of White Crane and that is taught to a beginning student on the first day of training.  If you understand that, there is nothing else to know.  There are no secret techniques, no magical "crane hand" strikes or anything like that.  In fact, the stereotypical "crane beak" strike that most people think of is something that we make very little use of.  Sure we have it, but it's not very common in our system.  Instead, we punch, we use palm strikes, we grab, claw, tear, twist, kick, etc.  Pretty much we use all the standard strikes that one would find in any other strike-centric system.

So, how is Rooting and Rotation the secret of white crane?  That is our approach to training our strikes.  That is what the bird, the crane itself, inspired in the founder of our system, if we can believe the oral history that tells us back in the 1400s a Tibetal Lama witnessed a fight between a crane and a monkey, and from that encounter he recognized a method to develop a very powerful strike, which he originally called Lion's Roar.  We have a very specific method that we use to learn to root our feet on the ground, and then use that root and the power of our legs to drive a full-body rotation which we use to deliver our strikes.  That's it, in a nut shell.  Now, we do have numerous types of punches that we use, some of which would seem unusual to people from other systems.  These "crane technique" punches are useful and can sort of define and identify the system on a superficial level, but again, these specific techniques are not what makes it White Crane.  Rather, these techniques are an expression of our fundamental method: rooting and rotation.  These techniques are practiced as a method of reinforcing those fundamental principles of rooting and rotation, they are a way of training that skill into the body.  Once that skill is developed, then we can use it to drive any movement, any technique, even if it is not one of our standard "crane punches".  Because those punches are not the true goal.  The true goal is to develop that ability to root and use body rotation to make any movement at all into a potentially powerful technique.

That is what makes our system White Crane.  

Now I recognize that White Crane is not the only system that uses rooting and rotation to power its techniques.  I expect these concepts and principles are found in many systems in some form or other.  What makes it White Crane is our specific methodology for training and developing this skill.  I believe that our specific training methodology is unique, no other system besides the family of Tibetan methods that came from the original Lion's Roar, uses a similar method.  Other systems develop a similar skill, but they do not go about it the same way that we do.

This is the kind of thing that I believe makes for an animal system.  Not the specific body of techniques, but rather the underlying method of training, that is what was inspired by the animal itself.


----------



## Flying Crane (May 24, 2012)

I wanted to add another thought here... because the system is built upon a specific methodology, I do not believe one can effectively adopt or steal specific techniques from the system.  If you do the physical motion of the techniques but do not power them with the underlying principles and methodology, then you are not really doing the techniques properly.  You are simply mimicking the technique without understanding how to properly do it.  This is why I believe it is usually a bad idea for someone to adopt forms and techniques into another system, unless you have THOROUGHLY trainined in both systems and you have determined that the foundational methods are compatible and consistent.  If they are not, then you will be doing the adopted material on top of a foundation for which it was never designed, and it yields little or no value.

Most people who attempt to mix methods like this are not doing it correctly.  They may think they are, but they are wrong.


----------



## clfsean (May 24, 2012)

Mostly covered it for me. I don't really see me swapping from this vantage.


----------



## Xue Sheng (May 24, 2012)

For some reason this reminded me of a cartoon I saw many year ago that was a spoof on the origin of Tiger style anything. A guy that looked like a shaolin Monk telling a story of how he was studying the ways of the tiger to develop a fighting style similar to that of a tiger&#8230; and of course it showed him crouching down in the reeds watching a tiger. He then goes on to say most unfortunately the tiger had been studying the ways of man and the next scene is the tiger standing up with a rifle shooting at the monk.

I would have loved to post it but it is old (possibly over 30 years old) and I cannot find it anywhere on the web


----------



## Jenna (May 24, 2012)

Michael you have said that the relation to the observable animal movements is superficial and but if there was no such animal would the style still be the style?  

If there were no monkey then monkey style kf would not be anything like it is yes?? There is more to the body of technique than just immitation of the animal I understand this.. and but is there not only more because good stylists will *also* adopt the perceived *intent *of the eponymous animal of that style??  I do not know if this makes sense


----------



## Flying Crane (May 24, 2012)

Xue Sheng said:


> For some reason this reminded me of a cartoon I saw many year ago that was a spoof on the origin of Tiger style anything. A guy that looked like a shaolin Monk telling a story of how he was studying the ways of the tiger to develop a fighting style similar to that of a tiger&#8230; and of course it showed him crouching down in the reeds watching a tiger. He then goes on to say most unfortunately the tiger had been studying the ways of man and the next scene is the tiger standing up with a rifle shooting at the monk.
> 
> I would have loved to post it but it is old (possibly over 30 years old) and I cannot find it anywhere on the web




nice, I would love to see that.


----------



## Flying Crane (May 24, 2012)

Jenna said:


> Michael you have said that the relation to the observable animal movements is superficial and but if there was no such animal would the style still be the style?
> 
> If there were no monkey then monkey style kf would not be anything like it is yes?? There is more to the body of technique than just immitation of the animal I understand this.. and but is there not only more because good stylists will *also* adopt the perceived *intent *of the eponymous animal of that style?? I do not know if this makes sense




This does make sense and is an interesting question.  There is a (more than one, possibly?) dragon style and dragons, of course, do not exist.  I don't know much at all about dragon, but I believe there is a cultural perception of certain qualities that the dragon posesses as an animal, and that is what is embodied in the method.  

Regarding monkeys, if they didn't exist either in real life or in mythology, then no, Monkey Style would not exist, at least not named as such.  But would the approach and the body of techniques exist anyway?  I dunno, I suspect not because there would have been no source of inspiration, tho of course similar movements can be developed independently by different people. 

interesting question, I can't say I have a difinitive answer for you.


----------



## Xue Sheng (May 24, 2012)

Some of the Monkey style is based on myth, Sun Wukong


----------



## WC_lun (May 24, 2012)

One of the systems I am trained in is an eight animal system.  Much of what you say is true, in that each animal has its own principles and concepts.  Basically its' own mode of operation.  Much of how I was trained in this eight animal system was to learn the basics of the animal and then learn the "spirit" of said animal.  Each animal has its' place in the wild and defends itself differently.  Take for instance the tiger and the leapoard.  Both are big cats.  However, thier personalities are different for the purposes of kung fu.  A tiger is very powerful, using low stances and powerful strikes and grabs to overwhelm an opponent.  The leopard is more concerned with mitigating attacks with pinpoint accuracy and traps.  The leopard isn't so concerned with overwhelming the opponent as to just ending the threat to get away.

I have noticed that once you have trained enough to understand the animal styles, you notice them cropping up in faily unexpeted places.  For instance I see crane when I watch TKD and tiger when I watch Shotokan.  Juijitsu resembles snake or sometimes dragon.  That doesn't mean those systems are those particular animals, but they share some basics with those animal systems.  So I do thing many times you can see the animal influence in specific CMA styles, particularly if a martial artist is very well trained.


----------



## seasoned (May 25, 2012)

Flying Crane said:


> I also welcome anyone with experience in other animal systems to speak up and add to the discussion and make comparisons/contrasts to what they train and the experiences they've had.



Thank you, Michael, for the informative post, and shedding light on the magnificent White Crane. I would like to add, if I may, another perspective.

Power transfer, as you have mentioned, is a very important aspect. The White Crane, being a migratory bird, moves it's body in such a way in flight, as to be able to fly very long distances. Unlike local birds, that move just their wings while flying, the White Crane generates power from it's spine and chest, and moves these in coordination with their wings. 
As you mention in your post, rooting and rotation are used to power techniques, and as I love illustrations, I would add this as a mental vision.


----------



## Jenna (May 25, 2012)

Xue Sheng said:


> Some of the Monkey style is based on myth, Sun Wukong



I like this story thank you XS  I am thinking then that even the myth was itself based on at least /something/ conceivable yes?


----------



## Flying Crane (May 25, 2012)

seasoned said:


> Thank you, Michael, for the informative post, and shedding light on the magnificent White Crane. I would like to add, if I may, another perspective.
> 
> Power transfer, as you have mentioned, is a very important aspect. The White Crane, being a migratory bird, moves it's body in such a way in flight, as to be able to fly very long distances. Unlike local birds, that move just their wings while flying, the White Crane generates power from it's spine and chest, and moves these in coordination with their wings.
> As you mention in your post, rooting and rotation are used to power techniques, and as I love illustrations, I would add this as a mental vision.



very good point, I hadn't thought of it that way.  It becomes a full-body delivery, another aspect of interpretation of what it means to be crane.


----------



## mograph (May 25, 2012)

Flying Crane said:


> It becomes a full-body delivery, another aspect of interpretation of what it means to be crane.


Could it be said that _all_ animals use full-body delivery, and that it's only "civilized" humans who break down and isolate physical actions?


----------



## Flying Crane (May 25, 2012)

mograph said:


> Could it be said that _all_ animals use full-body delivery, and that it's only "civilized" humans who break down and isolate physical actions?



very well could be.  That is the real lesson in the animal systems


----------



## rickster (May 26, 2012)

An animal style is a misrepresentation of the true method, reflex, and power of said animal of particular.

Humans cannot never truly portray this.

In other words, you are what you are within the confines of nature.


----------



## WC_lun (May 26, 2012)

rickster said:


> An animal style is a misrepresentation of the true method, reflex, and power of said animal of particular.
> 
> Humans cannot never truly portray this.
> 
> In other words, you are what you are within the confines of nature.




This kinda goes without saying and under the heading of quite obvious.


----------



## clfsean (May 27, 2012)

WC_lun said:


> This kinda goes without saying and under the heading of quite obvious.



Well, y'know sometimes somebody real smart like him has to come along & explain it to us. I mean, not just anybody can cipher like him about the kung-fooey types of kurotty out there. Goshdarn it... he knows what's real & what isn't by jiminy.


----------



## mograph (May 27, 2012)

Flying Crane said:


> I don't know much at all about dragon, but I believe there is a cultural perception of certain qualities that the dragon possesses as an animal, and that is what is embodied in the method.


Could it be said that there is a cultural-symbolic component in all the animal methods?


----------



## Xue Sheng (May 27, 2012)

mograph said:


> Could it be said that there is a cultural-symbolic component in all the animal methods?



Dragon has a hunch back kind of stance if I remember correctly. I have no direct experience with it but I have a book that taks agout it somewhere. If I can find it I shall post more about it


----------



## WC_lun (May 27, 2012)

mograph said:


> Could it be said that there is a cultural-symbolic component in all the animal methods?



Since early Chinese culture was largely shamanistic, this is probably true.  Also the link of the human playing the animal makes all of them have a great deal in common.


----------



## Xue Sheng (May 28, 2012)

Dragon: Without types copious amounts that do not really get into the origin of Dragon or why it is called dragon lets jsut say it appears Dragon is based on the mythological chracteristics of a Dragon, Aggressive and able appear and dissapear as well as change the size of the body at will,  it is said to be very aggressive and similar to white eyebrow. 

Monkey is allegedly from a guy named Kao Tze who, while in prison, watched monkeys that were at the gates of prison fight and he broke thier styles down into 5 types 
1) Drunken
2) Stone
3) Lost
4) tanding
5) Wooden

 So Monkey, unlike Dragon,  may actually be based on a long study of the actual animal and how monkeys fight

But never forget we are takling China and Chinese martial arts history and it is rather hard sometimes to track down the real origin of anything.


----------



## Flying Crane (May 28, 2012)

Xue Sheng said:


> Dragon: Without types copious amounts that do not really get into the origin of Dragon or why it is called dragon lets jsut say it appears Dragon is based on the mythological chracteristics of a Dragon, Aggressive and able appear and dissapear as well as change the size of the body at will,  it is said to be very aggressive and similar to white eyebrow.
> 
> Monkey is allegedly from a guy named Kao Tze who, while in prison, watched monkeys that were at the gates of prison fight and he broke thier styles down into 5 types
> 1) Drunken
> ...




I've seen reference to a "coiling step" in dragon, I suppose it is in recognition of the dragon's long, serpentine body that coils and turns endlessly.


----------



## ilhe4e12345 (May 30, 2012)

i guess ill throw mine in here....im not familiar with many "animal" stlyes accept for mantis and very little tiger....and from what I gather mantis style is very very similar to eagle claw. Similar techniques with slightly different names and different hand positioning (eagle claw uses a lot of throat grabs and claw hand shapes) while 7 star mantis is more hook and control (not really a claw type of style, our "hook" is more of an open type were we dont really grab we pluck, pull and catch" 

The ways they are trained is different as well.....while some of the principles are similar the styles each offer something the other doesnt. Even if that means just a different way of training a punch, it can be different (although a punch is a bad example) or training how to do a round house kick or a stomp kick

my knowledge of tiger is very little....lots of "raking" actions, low powerful stances..thats about all i got lol


----------



## Jin Gang (May 30, 2012)

In one sense, I would say there is nothing different about "animal styles" that would place them in a separate category from all other Chinese styles.  There are styles that are named after certain animals, but their content is generally not all that different from similar styles that aren't named after animals, and some styles named after the same animal have extremely different methods (Crane is one of those, look at how different Tibetan/bak hok pai is from Fujian white crane).  To put it another way, there is only one "animal style", and that is human style.  

Why styles, forms, and postures are named after animals is another matter.  Clearly, some imaginative people noted the similarity between some aspect of their practice and certain animals, such as hand shapes, ways of moving or standing, or overall fighting strategies.  I don't really believe the stories; that someone went out and watched a wild animal and was inspired to create something totally new.  The legends are fun to tell, and have a good message of remembering to be open to inspiration from the natural world, but I still think they are only stories.  I believe the fighting style existed first, in most cases, and was named after an animal later, after looking for a creative or memorable way to describe the fighting style.  
On the other hand, I believe some animal mimicing techniques have roots in ancient shamanic practices, which evolved into qigong/daoyin practices, which blended with fighting styles to create the type of Chinese martial arts we are familiar with today.  In these techniques or practices, the goal is to mimic the animal's shape, channel its spirit, experience harmony with nature, build and replenish essence and qi, and receive insights from the Universe.  Current Chinese martial arts styles still have traces of these practices, some more than others, and it could be argued that the animal techniques or forms could be put to dual use, practiced one way for fighting/self defense, and alternatively practiced as qigong/shamanic ritual.


----------



## ggg214 (Jun 28, 2012)

i believe those names are trying to help the practitioners to better understanding the mental respect of the style. and it should be also taken into account that the sub-names for each movement is the same important as the style name. for example, the horse running in the dark&#65288;&#22812;&#39532;&#36479;&#36947;&#65289;under horse style in Xinyiliuhe. it requires fast moving and flexibly changing directions, as well as hard strike to break anything infront. it will be useful to understand this movement and do it right in practition.


----------

