The Complete Package

[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.

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]

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’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]

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]

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.

1. Gou, also known as Tong guo gou (pass through/back hook): Pulling back by hook hand.
2. Lou (rake, gather, grasp): Gather or control by grasping or raking motion.
3. Cai (pluck, pick, snatch): Plucking, pulling or reefing motion.
4. Gua (hang, suspend): Suspended arm guard incorporating a large circular arc. Encompasses a large range of arm lifting/swinging motions.
5. Nian (to be sticky, to stick, adhere): To contact and adhere.
6. Zhan (paste, contact, to stick to): Following the contacted surface as if glued to it.
7. 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.
8. Kao (lean against, pressing, closing): To lean on or bump off by pressing on or closing in and suddenly transferring explosive force.
9. Beng (burst, crack, crumble, collapse): Explosive burst or crack, literally the Beng Chui or back-fist strike.
10. Pi (chop, hack, split): Literally, splitting or chopping strikes (open or close handed).
11. Tiao (raise, lift): Upper-cut or lifting punches or strikes.
12. Chong (smash, lash, thrust): Thrusting punch

 

[RHD]

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]

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]

1. Gou, also known as Tong guo gou (pass through/back hook): Pulling back by hook hand.
2. Lou (rake, gather, grasp): Gather or control by grasping or raking motion.
3. Cai (pluck, pick, snatch): Plucking, pulling or reefing motion.
4. Gua (hang, suspend): Suspended arm guard incorporating a large circular arc. Encompasses a large range of arm lifting/swinging motions.
5. Nian (to be sticky, to stick, adhere): To contact and adhere.
6. Zhan (paste, contact, to stick to): Following the contacted surface as if glued to it.
7. 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.
8. Kao (lean against, pressing, closing): To lean on or bump off by pressing on or closing in and suddenly transferring explosive force.
9. Beng (burst, crack, crumble, collapse): Explosive burst or crack, literally the Beng Chui or back-fist strike.
10. Pi (chop, hack, split): Literally, splitting or chopping strikes (open or close handed).
11. Tiao (raise, lift): Upper-cut or lifting punches or strikes.
12. 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.