As is evidenced by the photo representations of the applications depicted in their books (see Huang Han Xun’s manuals for examples). I am saying, that they did not fight with mantis. Note: I did not say, these practitioners could not fight. This is evidenced by photographs we have of said people that began documenting the art in the first half of the 1900’s. They are not even made by people who necessarily knew how to fight with mantis. Methods that are alive in martial art styles today including the remaining functional Chinese art, shuai jiao, and it’s progenitor from the Steppes peoples to the north - bokh.Ī majority of the forms practiced by the various lines of praying mantis boxing were created after the turn of the 20th century.

Almost all of the ‘real’ applications (and there are many), that come out of the forms, are absolutely amazing and effective combat methods. The idea that tanglangquan had some ‘special’ technique(s) never seen in any other Chinese boxing, or martial arts style in the world, is unrealistic, fantastical, or…fake. So what do I mean then when I use the word ‘fake’? Without those teachers, practitioners, stewards of the art, who have carried this broken and hollow skeleton forward through time, we would not have any hope of a future for this art, or perhaps even Chinese boxing as a whole. Present company included.įake, implies deception on the part of those teaching or partaking in the practice of it today.

It carries with it a harsh connotation especially when it comes to an art that is held so dear to so many loyal followers. Fake is a strong word, and intentionally bombastic on my part. Now that I have your attention, allow me to explain.

Modern combat versus minu mantis