I am feverishly looking for imformation on Shoalin Pek Kwar with little result. Anyone got the goods?

"Pek Kwar" sounds to me like it's the Fukien dialect pronounciation of "Ba Gua"

Its a the 'monkey' kung fu.
Monkey kung fu is a very powerfull form of kung fu and as you probably guessed it folloews the movements of monkeys: it has very low centre of gravity. Very agile footwork, small quick steps and lots of rolling and leaps. The staff is very involved within the system. The arms are thrown out and try to achieve long reaches. The techniques of getting in and out of someones guard are a bit like boxing (darting in and out) but much lower stance. Hope this helps a little. My knowledge is very limited on the animals. I know the staff monkey form so I can gather from that how it reflects on to the empty hand.
There is a lot of crap on the net. Contrary to belief its not part of the praying mantis style.

A human is not a monkey

a plane is not a bird but on what do you think the designs were based on?

i think you'll find that modern planes do not have flapping wings. your comparison is most unfitting

we are talking about human fighting, using the body that human beings have. this is not comparable to attempts to make flying objects (something abstracted from the human body) which were initially inspired by flying creatures - although all attempts to fly using their mechanisms failed due to obvious differences in scale.

you obviously do not get my point and obviously you have no idea about planes.

One. The similarity between planes and birds is not the wings but the lift that gets created under thrust conditions. But then again I am probably wasting my breath since you are not willing to listen to anything else.

Secondly, based on the actions of a fish a new type of underwater swimming was used by a 16 yearold girl in the 1999 world championships for butterfly 50 meters. She broke the world record. Does she have the body of a a fish? NO. Did she apply principles by studying the fish? YES

Are you saying that all the animal arts of kung fu are crap and not applicable to fighting? Cause thats what it sounds like.

Is it me or are there a few too many people here that have no idea what they are talking about?

MAGr, it isnt you.

Please do not let this degenerate into the use of insults or derogatory comments, I would prefer to keep this as a friendly discussion/exchange of opinions. I see no need for you to make an insulting comment suggesting that I have "no idea" what I am talking about

Quote:

---

The similarity between planes and birds is not the wings but the lift that gets created under thrust conditions.

---

I studied fluid dynamics and mechanics for 3 years, so I'm pretty sure I remember how a plane manages to fly. In order for anything to fly - bird, insect, rocket or fribee etc - you fundamentally need to generate lift. This is a consequence of the physical laws and their expression on this planet. Flight is highly constrained - fighting is not. Hence why bats, dinosaurs, birds all employ similar wing structures; hence why gliding creatures all employ similar structures.

Quote:

---

Secondly, based on the actions of a fish a new type of underwater swimming was used by a 16 year old girl in the 1999 world championships for butterfly 50 meters.

---

Whether or not someone mimicked a certain type of fish/aquatic mammal movement for underwater sections f butterfly (itself defined by the use of a specific and limited motion) is still not really the point in my opinion.

You are talking about the mechanics of moving through a fluid using rear limb muscles, this is constrained in a manner analogous to flight. Once again, movement through water is highly constrained - hence why aqautic mammals evolved very similar mechanisms to fish for movement through water; hence why aquatic dinosaurs also evolved similar mechanisms.

Quote:

---

Are you saying that all the animal arts of kung fu are crap and not applicable to fighting? Cause thats what it sounds like.

---

There is no need to become aggressive/abusive, I am providing my opinion with the logic behind it - please try not to ridicule anything I say simply because it is not what you said.

My argument is that if your goal is to be the most effective human fighter you can be, then although animal styles of kung fu will have some usefulness, they are implicitly constrained. They may share some concepts with arts such as Wing Chun, JKD etc but they also contain many excessive movements. In my opinion, it is of greater benefit to study human-specific biomechanics and develop minimal and effective movements to fight other humans and increase the chance of success.

We are talking about humans fighting humans, not machines flying and not humans swimming in water. Human biomechanics are very different to those of a monkey. Of course animal-influenced forms of kung fu cannot be "useless" otherwise it would have quickly been noted, but I am saying that this form of style is not most effective for human fighting

This is my opinion. If you believe that incorporating movements influenced by monkey, tiger, mantis etc are of absolute benefit to improving a human's ability to fight another human then I would like to hear specific reasons for this in order to understand your reasoning - not just attempted analogies with the highly constrained physics of movement through fluids. I look forward to reading your ideas

someotherguy, i thought ur original question was what Pek Kwar was? Yet when someone was kind enough to provide info on the style all u do is bash that style. what is ur beef, man! It is obvious that the human body is not like a monkey and monkey style does not strictly imitates the movements of a monkey. Animal styles do not seek to copy the animal but to use some of the principles used by animals that r helpful to good use.