169 replies to this topic

[Wujiang]

it is funny you should mention Tang Lang Quan and its purpose. that is actually my style of choice and one i have designed new more modern techniques from. My question to you would be: What About Wang Lang do you not subscribe to the legend? Your mention of the bandits in Shangdong rings true and makes logical sense in that there is very little defensive in the Praying Mantis system. However i would be reluctant to attribute all of its splendor to bandits for it has enjoyed the attention of many worthy masters such as Wei Hsaio Tung , and my other grandmaster (the Unifier of all 5 substyles) Su Yu Chang.

If you are asking me whether I "subscribe to the legend" of Wang Lang, I would say that I consider the Shaolinzhenchuan to be a good enough source and there isn't any evidence against it. The general dates as well as the geographical proximity of the story checks out reliable enough.

As for the masters you mentioned both of them was developing Tanglangquan outside of the orignal setting of the Shandong outskirts. Their developement was less a matter of nessessity, which drove the style forward through continuous conflicts, as oppose to making it less lethal for modern practice use as well as development for developement sake. Basically, any developement of the style after 1900 was along this line. With respect I would consider their credits in the system was less a matter of what they imputed as opposed their commitment to teach it and carry on the system.

Note, Tanglangquan had a whole lot more than just 5 substyles.

[CARDINAL009]

If you are asking me whether I "subscribe to the legend" of Wang Lang, I would say that I consider the Shaolinzhenchuan to be a good enough source and there isn't any evidence against it. The general dates as well as the geographical proximity of the story checks out reliable enough.

As for the masters you mentioned both of them was developing Tanglangquan outside of the orignal setting of the Shandong outskirts. Their developement was less a matter of nessessity, which drove the style forward through continuous conflicts, as oppose to making it less lethal for modern practice use as well as development for developement sake. Basically, any developement of the style after 1900 was along this line. With respect I would consider their credits in the system was less a matter of what they imputed as opposed their commitment to teach it and carry on the system.

Note, Tanglangquan had a whole lot more than just 5 substyles.

Q: What are the distinctions between those substyles?

[Alexander39]

My grandfather told me when i was a very young that the best figther in the world does not fear the second best, he only fears the amateur.
The same is the case in the different stiles of martial arts, were martial art form number one would beat form number 2 8 times out of ten, while form number two will beat form number three by the same amount, BUT form/style number 3 will beat number one form more often than the reverse.
It all depends how their strenght and weaknesses match up.

Edited by Alexander39, 26 July 2005 - 06:45 PM.

[CARDINAL009]

My grandfather told me when i was a very young that the best figther in the world does not fear the second best, he only fears the amateur.
The same is the case in the different stiles of martial arts, were martial art form number one would beat form number 2 8 times out of ten, while form number two will beat form number three by the same amount, BUT form/style number 3 will beat number one form more often than the reverse.
It all depends how their strenght and weaknesses match up.

Sun Zi Chapter 6.

[Grigori]

Popular military saying goes, "professionals are predictable, but the world is full of dangerous amatuers."

[Grigori]

Rant mode:

I've been thinking about the contradictions within Chinese martial arts. While some of the highly stylized moves are effective when applied by masters, there is also a lot of stylized moves which exists purely for show. I'm trying to understand how this came about.

I think today we don't have a very good idea how Chinese soldiers trained to fight wars. I'm sure what they're taught was quite different from what civilian self defense instructors taught. Soldiers had to learn effective kill moves with relatively little time. They had no time for stances, breathing, or anything fancy. What MA has survived to the present may or may not have actually been tested in battle. They survived because they were successfuly commercialized. They attracted students, or appealed to street audiences.

The Mainland Wushu movement and HK Wuxia movies are charged with depicting martial arts in an unrealistic way. But this tradition goes way back. I was reading an account during the Qing dynasty of potion sellers hosting martial arts performances to sell their wonder drugs. They would hire these martial artists who would do a lot of fancy kicks and sword dances and even mix in a little magic show and then the performers would proclaim they owe their fitness and health to these drugs. If you saw these martial arts exhibitions more likely than not they're promoting some health fix.

Of course there are real fighting arts around. But the reason CMA is more art and less martial these days is because MA is more effective at sell products than teaching self defense.

[Wujiang]

Rant mode:

I've been thinking about the contradictions within Chinese martial arts. While some of the highly stylized moves are effective when applied by masters, there is also a lot of stylized moves which exists purely for show. I'm trying to understand how this came about.

Read my post on the last page. As far as traditional arts a concerned, NOTHING is purely for show.

I think today we don't have a very good idea how Chinese soldiers trained to fight wars. I'm sure what they're taught was quite different from what civilian self defense instructors taught. Soldiers had to learn effective kill moves with relatively little time. They had no time for stances, breathing, or anything fancy.

Yes they had to learn how to kill quickly. But no because strictly speaking, martial arts for the military wasn't intended to actually be used. They were designed as exercise to keep the soldiers fit. Stance, breathing and all that was an intricate part part of that. A soldier, unlike a civilian, relies mostly on mostly non-melee combat to kill. Artilery, archery, cavalry, formation, etc. But when it does come to melee, their training on stance and breathing will come in use. In addition, because of the nature of horseriding, stance training was critical and breathing exercises were essential for archery practices.

What MA has survived to the present may or may not have actually been tested in battle. They survived because they were successfuly commercialized. They attracted students, or appealed to street audiences.

Depends on the school. It is only 50 years ago that the challenging culture in martial arts have been taken away. Before that, duals occurred quite often and this mechanism kept martial arts battle-oriented. No matter how much commercialization you do, if you head master lost, you will have no chance to survive in the market. Of course, they are quite different form military art. Less killing-orinented and more subduing-oriented.

The Mainland Wushu movement and HK Wuxia movies are charged with depicting martial arts in an unrealistic way. But this tradition goes way back. I was reading an account during the Qing dynasty of potion sellers hosting martial arts performances to sell their wonder drugs. They would hire these martial artists who would do a lot of fancy kicks and sword dances and even mix in a little magic show and then the performers would proclaim they owe their fitness and health to these drugs. If you saw these martial arts exhibitions more likely than not they're promoting some health fix.

True, but these guys certainly was not mainstream and they rarely if ever had students. Therefore their contribution to martial arts today is minimal. In addition, those who does the street performances also had a degree of real martial arts behind them. No one back then would train for performance alone. Those who did would have picked a more easier path which is not martial arts.

Edited by Wujiang, 31 July 2005 - 10:39 PM.

[CARDINAL009]

Popular military saying goes, "professionals are predictable, but the world is full of dangerous amatuers."

[ "Professionals are efficient but predictable, while dangerous amateurs is unpredictable and lucky @ times." ]

Which one are you?

[Alexander39]

[ "Professionals are efficient but predictable, while dangerous amateurs is unpredictable and lucky @ times." ]

Which one are you?

That would depend on what you call a professional, have i got formal MA training to any great degree? No but i have trained whit Muay Thai boxers and wrestlers under other circumstances. I have given several scars for life due to unfortunant circumstances, but have rarely sought those occasions out on my own, only when orderd too!.

My dad was a sergeant in the army and home Guard, he was an instructor for 8 years in how to blow things up or disarm things that goes boom. and he also had the responcibillity of showing how to kill most efficiently in military close combat whitout guns or when you had to silence sentries.
Heres is some of the things i learned first from him later relearnd in the millitary.

A spade should always be filed sharp on one side so it can be used to cripple or chop someones head off, a spade is all important to a PBI*a* so it should never be far away.

Always attack first if at all possible, the chance are that if your opponent attacks first it is you who will end up dead in the end.

Figthing fair is an oxymoron.

Cutting throats is messy, and trying to strike the knife in the heart have a tendency to strike ribs when you cant aford it, allways let your knife feel its own way in in that way you will find the heart much easier, or just pull the head to one side while you strike the other side of the neck whit your knife that way he can't scream for help and it does not make a mess.

When shot at always keep both your head and behind close to the ground, if given a choise, some whit a sence of humor will allways go for your softest part.

Murphy*b* is the most important man out there and should be revered and worshipped like no other.

Talk nicely about the ******c* she might just screw you over otherwise.

Dead is Dead no matter how it came about.

Smokers in a battle zone shortens everybodys life.(You can smell them at all times and see them at night).

A sniper seen is a sniper dead.


This is just a few, and some might seem obivious, but people is not always thinking strait when streesed, and nothing stresses as a war.


*a* = PBI = Poor bloody Infantry.

*b* = Murphys law is always in action on the battlefield, pray that he cast his eyes on the other side before he sees you (And he will see you sooner or later)

*c* = Lady Luck.

[Grigori]

[ "Professionals are efficient but predictable, while dangerous amateurs is unpredictable and lucky @ times." ]

Which one are you?

Someone with a little bit of skill and don't presume too much.

[Grigori]

Always attack first if at all possible, the chance are that if your opponent attacks first it is you who will end up dead in the end.

Figthing fair is an oxymoron.

Cutting throats is messy, and trying to strike the knife in the heart have a tendency to strike ribs when you cant aford it, allways let your knife feel its own way in in that way you will find the heart much easier, or just pull the head to one side while you strike the other side of the neck whit your knife that way he can't scream for help and it does not make a mess.

The heart is protected by the breastbone, ribs, and whatever the guy is wearing (clothes, webbings) so unless he's down and helpless stabbing at the heart is very diffcult. The easiest way to the heart is through the left armpit. But rarely do people have knives that can do the job. Small knives are excellent defensive weapons. They prevent the other buy from grabbing you and its effective for getting out from under someone. The best offensive weapon short of a gun or axe is a stick. Hit someone on the side of the head hard enough and he'll go down faster than a knife in the heart. If you can't own a firearm but live in a high threat environment, keep an axe in your home and another in the car.

You don't need a lot of martial arts skill these days. No 5th degree blackbelt will pick a fight with you because they're smart enough to know any 15 year old can shoot them dead. It's the petty thugs you have to worry about. What you need is know how to use weapons, knives, sticks, keys, pencils, most things on your desk can be pretty effective. Never fight without weapons.

You should know how to block strikes and how to get out from a hold, standing or on the ground. Know some basic attacks on the eyes and throat with empty hands, but always use weapons if you can. These are your first and main targets. Never try to win a fight always go for the kill. If you're not prepared to kill you're not ready to fight. If he's not down and bleeding in 10 seconds you screwed up and you're probably going to die. When he's down the fight's not over, it's your chance to stomping him unconscious. Surprise, aggression, visciousness matter more than skill.

Stay alert and don't look for trouble.

Edited by Grigori, 01 August 2005 - 10:11 PM.

[Alexander39]

I am not under contract anymore so i dont get into troulble anymore either.
The rules i mentioned were millitary rules by the way not for public use or consumption.

You are right aout the heart gregori, that is also what they mean by letting the knife feeling its way in.

[Wujiang]

I would just like to point out that like the past, using military tactics in a civilian situation today is a lose-lose situation.

[Grigori]

I would just like to point out that like the past, using military tactics in a civilian situation today is a lose-lose situation.

What is the difference between military and civilian situations? There are military problems that require restraint, there are civilian problems that require deadly force.

I'm not interested in "kungfu challenges". If someone think I offended him I'd apoloize and de-escalate. What I'm concerned about are violent people who escalate irrationally. There are people who have been in and out of prison since they were 15. They're out on parole, want to rob you to buy drugs and if caught will go back to prison for the rest of their lives. These people will think nothing of sticking a knife in you and crank you like an antique car.

What about emotionally disturbed people off their medication? Ever see a 90 lb woman so out of control four 200 lb men can't wrestle her down? Martial arts do not prepare you against a woman who don't care about her teeth getting knocked out, she just wants to bite your nose off even if it kills her. This is the problem of fighting "amatuers" versus pros.

This kind of fighting isn't contact sports. The winner goes to the emergency room and the loser to the morgue. If you can't switch from normal mode to kill mode before the other guy it makes no difference how well trained you are. You don't necessarily have to kill but psychologically you can't have anything slowing you down. You can train to break boards but can you handle guaging someone's eye out while they scream in agony? The "amatuer" you face maybe quite okay with it, so who is the real pro here?

This is what I mean by not fighting to win. That's a sportsman's mentality. You ID the threat, you put it down before you lose control of the situation. Use maximum force immediatly, escalate faster than he can adapt, go nuclear, survive at all costs. Or don't fight at all.

The essence of martial arts is to defeat a stronger foe, otherwise what's the point? Stronger could mean physically stronger, more skilled, or more violent. Most so-called "real" martial arts today do not prepare you for the latter and most common threat. Since men lived in caves and long before there were sifus and fighting styles we knew instinctively to pickup a weapon when attacked by wild beasts. The desire to survive and willingness to commit totally has kept our species alive for a million years. It's in our blood and it has termendous power. Don't underestimate what it can do.

[Wujiang]

What is the difference between military and civilian situations? There are military problems that require restraint, there are civilian problems that require deadly force.

Specific problems are irrelevent. It is the overall design that counts. It is like why do people in the desert needs to carry more water. There are always oasis.

I'm not interested in "kungfu challenges". If someone think I offended him I'd apoloize and de-escalate. What I'm concerned about are violent people who escalate irrationally. There are people who have been in and out of prison since they were 15. They're out on parole, want to rob you to buy drugs and if caught will go back to prison for the rest of their lives. These people will think nothing of sticking a knife in you and crank you like an antique car.

What about emotionally disturbed people off their medication? Ever see a 90 lb woman so out of control four 200 lb men can't wrestle her down? Martial arts do not prepare you against a woman who don't care about her teeth getting knocked out, she just wants to bite your nose off even if it kills her. This is the problem of fighting "amatuers" versus pros.

This is a very complex question and I am currently writing a thesis on. We need to look at the legal system of the ancient world (I am focusing my time frame to Ming and Qing dynasty for obvious reasons), cultural differences, education system, societal values, as well as confucian value's application of martial arts and its developement in city, countryside and the military. But the general answer would be the method of subdueing the opponent. Getting them to give up willingly is the ideal (it is possible although it does take a certain cultural context, I doubt it is applicable today since everything is so westernized), if that is not possible then doing it without hurting them, if that is not possible then it is a matter of breaking the 'weapons' of the opponent. Namely the elbow and knee joint.

Note that 'fighting' and 'victory' must be looked in their historical and cultural context. While the lose-lose situation does remain to this day as I will explain, the general idea of what 'fighting' means and what it means to 'win' a fight is actually different.

This kind of fighting isn't contact sports. The winner goes to the emergency room and the loser to the morgue.

What I meant about the lose-lose situation is that if you kill someone, emergency room is just a mid-stop to the final destination of either your own cell or the chair. Street fighting leading to death of one party no matter in which country is a serious offence. Even in a place like America, self-defence is RARELY successful in such sitautions (my sister is a lawyer, I have been reading her case studies). The fact is, it is rarely a 'kill or be killed' situaiton. So the tactics you employ will determine what happens to you in court. Statistically, one will find that boxers tend to get punished more severely when they engage in street fights compared to other styles like karate and jujitsu because their training evolved around beat-him-up (and the proven effect of boxers which increases their agressive tendency compared to karate and aikido which makes someone less agressive)

You ID the threat, you put it down before you lose control of the situation. Use maximum force immediatly, escalate faster than he can adapt, go nuclear, survive at all costs. Or don't fight at all.

This is a highly westernized concept of conflict. People believe that whenever a fight starts, it is universal and it is the same everywhere. This is actually a misconception. The idea of 'controlling the sitaution' and all the other things you mentioned are actually under the premise of the lack of a strong unconcious desire for social harmony which was the case in ancient China (Japan is similar but there are slight differences in the mentality, whether it is reflected in today's Japan is still a question). If anything, beating someone down even if it was justified by our standards will generate guilt on the beater's side. Also, there is no law back then which indicates that self-defence was actually an excuse for beating someone. Beating someone is, by most cases of regional courts, a crime which is not measured in what the situation was, but how badly you beat him. (Yeah, there are times when i wonder if the westerners had a case when they said the chinese were barbarians)

The essence of martial arts is to defeat a stronger foe, otherwise what's the point?

Martial arts is to win. Not winning in a certain context we are aware of. The contexts which limits martial arts development is mostly unconcious unless (1) victory was not single motivation of the evolution (of which did not occur in the ancient times) and (2) under very specific circumstances such as obvious physical constraints. What these unconcious constraints are, are actually how we define 'winning'.
The idea of 'X style will alow you to beat someone bigger' is actually a kind of culture that evolved since the 1900s. I really don't see any classical texts that stresses on this fact. Rather they make briefing statements such as winning against people of all size.

Stronger could mean physically stronger, more skilled, or more violent. Most so-called "real" martial arts today do not prepare you for the latter and most common threat. Since men lived in caves and long before there were sifus and fighting styles we knew instinctively to pickup a weapon when attacked by wild beasts. The desire to survive and willingness to commit totally has kept our species alive for a million years. It's in our blood and it has termendous power. Don't underestimate what it can do.

I would be the first to agree that traditional martial arts is actually a little out of date in terms of the context of battles on the streets. it is not that they are ineffective, it is to say that their effectiveness evolved in a situation different to what it is today. People today acts differently as they did back then. So it is more like applying a set of tools to a different job like using a high heel shoe as a hammer. Not that it doesn't work, just not as good. Although your analysis of our evolution as a species is correct, what you don't take into account is how one's behaviour is changed due to being in a society and a civilization. If we go by strict evolution logic, suicide and deformaties would be a evolutionary impossibility.

there is no such thing as 'pure martial arts' or 'pure fighting' which is independent of everything else. I use to think that when I first started out but eventually studying across a number of systems and researching on this history of martial arts evolution taught me otherwise. Martial arts and fighting are human-based activities. And when one deals with human-based activities, we must always take into account of the context the humans evolved in.

Edited by Wujiang, 02 August 2005 - 10:44 AM.