BSL vs. SSSL: GeneChing's New Topic

Wai Jia: The Kung Fu Forum Shaolin Kung Fu
21

ginosifu, you’re mistaken

You’re only looking at the performance stuff. The classical Songshan Shaolin curriculum is traditional. It’s not flashy at all. There are some versions that ‘flash’ it up, but the same is true for BSL. I’ve seen xin wushu versions of some BSL forms coming out of the mainland.

But check out curriculum in Shaolin Gong Fu: A Course in Traditional Forms which gives a decent overview of Songshan Shaolin forms and you’ll find that it’s very traditional. No aerials, no butterfly kicks, not even a cartwheel into splits like in BSL. :stuck_out_tongue:

Gu Ruzhang’s system may have roots in the 1700s with the probably apocryphal Gan Fengchi creation myth, but its composition is most likely rather modern (well, as modern as Gu).

22

[QUOTE=GeneChing;1096548]You’re only looking at the performance stuff. The classical Songshan Shaolin curriculum is traditional. It’s not flashy at all. There are some versions that ‘flash’ it up, but the same is true for BSL. I’ve seen xin wushu versions of some BSL forms coming out of the mainland.

But check out curriculum in Shaolin Gong Fu: A Course in Traditional Forms which gives a decent overview of Songshan Shaolin forms and you’ll find that it’s very traditional. No aerials, no butterfly kicks, not even a cartwheel into splits like in BSL. :stuck_out_tongue:

Gu Ruzhang’s system may have roots in the 1700s with the probably apocryphal Gan Fengchi creation myth, but its composition is most likely rather modern (well, as modern as Gu).[/QUOTE]

My bad Gene, I only see what performance stuff. When I was in DengFeng village, they gave us a show that was purely flash which I assumed was their normal curriculum.

ginosifu

23

[QUOTE=GeneChing;1096548]Gu Ruzhang’s system may have roots in the 1700s with the probably apocryphal Gan Fengchi creation myth, but its composition is most likely rather modern (well, as modern as Gu).[/QUOTE]

I agree with you that Ku Ye Cheong and his peers may have altered, modified or even created the 10 hand forms. I doubt the Shaolin of Ku Ye Cheong looks excatly the way it did when Gan Feng Chi demonstrated in front of the Emperor.

ginosifu

24

[QUOTE=ginosifu;1096545]Any of the surviving Monks fled (Hong Kong, South East Asia, Europe, America’s etc etc), taking this Ku Ye Cheong system with them.

Any remaining Monks were either killed or went into hiding. Eventually the Temple reopened and Monks returned, only to follow and teach what the Chinese government would let them. This included more flashy stuff that made money for the Government![/QUOTE]

Not sure where you’re getting these ideas. A number of monks never left the area, such as Shi Zhenxu, Shi Chunpu, Shi Sudian, Shi Zhenjun, Shi Xingjing, etc.. These monks never abandoned Shaolin Monastery and were working to rebuild it within the first two years after the burning in 1928.

Moreover, they continued practicing a centuries old traditional curriculum, which had nothing flashy and was not for or by the government. They taught this curriculum to more monks such as Shi Suxi, Shi Suxiang, Shi Degen, Shi Xingzhang, etc., who taught our current generation of elder masters.

How can you just write these people and what they did out of history like that?

Furthermore, we’ve had this discussion several times, that the 10 set curriculum of BSL is something that evolved out of the 13 set Kanjiaquan curriculum in Shaolin, but developed external to the monastery. There is no evidence of the BSL curriculum of Gu Ruzhang as it is having ever been taught or practiced at the Shaolin Monastery.

25

[QUOTE=LFJ;1096586]Not sure where you’re getting these ideas. A number of monks never left the area, such as Shi Zhenxu, Shi Chunpu, Shi Sudian, Shi Zhenjun, Shi Xingjing, etc.. These monks never abandoned Shaolin Monastery and were working to rebuild it within the first two years after the burning in 1928.

Moreover, they continued practicing a centuries old traditional curriculum, which had nothing flashy and was not for or by the government. They taught this curriculum to more monks such as Shi Suxi, Shi Suxiang, Shi Degen, Shi Xingzhang, etc., who taught our current generation of elder masters.

How can you just write these people and what they did out of history like that?

Furthermore, we’ve had this discussion several times, that the 10 set curriculum of BSL is something that evolved out of the 13 set Kanjiaquan curriculum in Shaolin, but developed external to the monastery. There is no evidence of the BSL curriculum of Gu Ruzhang as it is having ever been taught or practiced at the Shaolin Monastery.[/QUOTE]

My history came from my sifu some 20 years ago. I am not up to date on the newer discoveries and findings. I do not disagree with any thing stated here by you or Gene, I’m kind of an old school dinosauer. I don’t research or spend a lot of time browsing thru all the threads. Thanks for the info

ginosifu

26

Even there is Master Cui Xi Qi who is still teaching today at 90 years old (and still agile). He learned Shaolin back in the 1930’s, right after the destruction.

These people are still around, you just have to look harder than the big few schools.

On the BSL SSSL Thing;

www.youtube.com/watch?v=dndU6SzYAE4 (lianBu quan, i think, i can’t watch youtube, someone please confirm)

Is this a BSL form? Because it is the same form as Long Quan, ‘Dragon Fist’ still practiced at Henan Shaolin today. THis might be a link people are looking for.

http://v.youku.com/v_show/id_XNzkzOTIxNzI=.html (Long QUan)

FOr some of you it may be hard to see that this is the same form, The shaolin version is not such a good version from wushu guan. The one I know is somewhere between the two videos. It is referred to in song shan shaolin as both LianbuQuan and Long quan. It is called longquan because of the footwork. Contains lots of ‘LongXingBu’ Dragon step. Although the henan video I posted doesn’t show the dragon step, as i say its not a great version, just can’t find another video and can’t be bothered to post one myself.

27

I must admit that I don’t think there is much likelihood of lianbuquan having been in the temple for more than a few decades - its introduction into the BSL curriculum is also quite well documented (from a CMA point of view), and it does not really belong to that system in the same way as the 10 core sets.

There seems to be no reason to doubt the connection between BSL and the Shaolin temple - however both common sense and the available evidence points to them having parted ways some considerable time ago and developed along separate lines. The extent to which styles can evolve (or devolve) in a comparatively short time can be seen in the progress of CMA in the 20th century - think of taiji (or various forms) and even the different branches of BSL. If we are talking 2 hundred years ago, even if the founders studied in the temple and swore blind they were passing on the same style, it would certainly have changed over the years.

For anyone new to this area, and is really interested in this kind of stuff, look up what Sal Canzonieri has written… love him or hate him, he has certainly gathered a lot of info on this.

Graculus
http://ichijoji.blogspot.com

28

I gotta agree with ~G that the old BSL is way flashier than the current Shaolin curriculum.

the flooding fist sets aren’t anywhere near as flash as the beginner sets for bsl (6/7/8)…

can’t speak for what they teach noobs or beginners there…

29

originally posted by LFJ
Furthermore, we’ve had this discussion several times, that the 10 set curriculum of BSL is something that evolved out of the 13 set Kanjiaquan curriculum in Shaolin, but developed external to the monastery. There is no evidence of the BSL curriculum of Gu Ruzhang as it is having ever been taught or practiced at the Shaolin Monastery.

I believe this information to be false and I’ll tell you why. Sal Canzonieri pieced this theory together after he talked to some Kanjiaquan practitioners in some rural area (in Shandong?) who said that Kuo Yu Cheung’s teacher, Yim Chi Wen, was mentioned in their lineage somewhere. This, he assumed, proved that Yim Chi Wen practiced Kanjiaquan and passed it on to Kuo who then must have drastically changed it so that it became what we know of as Bak Siu Lum today. I say drastically because I’ve compared the forms and I don’t see any resemblance at all! The only set I saw that seemed to have a similar name was number 4 (Chum Sam or Strike to the Heart) but, just like in all of the other sets, most of the movements seem to be completely different or unrelated. The techniques that are supposed to be similar or the same are done very differently and the lyrics don’t match up AT ALL. There’s just no way they could have originated from the same masters. If the two styles are related then it’s Bak Siu Lum that’s older. Sal seemed to be trying to jam a square peg in a round hole. It’s always being noted that he’s fluent in Chinese but just because you can speak someone’s language doesn’t mean they’re not giving you information that’s false or incomplete.

To push this theory is to say that Kuo Yu Cheung lied to his students and said that his Bak Siu Lum was a style that was much older and not something that he’d just made up during his lifetime. It seems impossible to me (and somewhat blasphemous) to think that Kuo Yu Cheung would condense and completely rearrange a whole system, come up with a whole bunch of different lyrics, and then pass it off as the same Northern Shaolin style that was passed on to him from Yim Chi Wen.

30

I don’t know the details on Sal’s personal research, but that’s not the theory at all. If you are familiar with the theory of evolution, the same principles apply to the martial arts.

The theory is not that two apes mated and birthed humans as the next generation. In the same way, the evolution of martial arts happens over several centuries, not years and single individuals. And with the spread of the art into different regions and their developments therein, there are produced related yet quite distinct variations from the same root.

Gu Ruzhang is very recent history. What came to him had already been extracted from the Kanjiaquan of Shaolin and had undergone the process of evolution for centuries.

31

i dont get it what is the problem here? bak siu lum is obviously shaolin. it has the same salutes

32

Other reasons why the Kanjiaquan/BSL theory is false.

Apparently there were lyrics that were considered to be older versions of the one’s that are in the Bak Siu Lum sets today. The older lyric for Tornado Kick for example was Phoenix Flies to Heaven. Double kicks were called Carp jumps over the Dragon’s Gate. If Kanjiaquan is truly an older style that’s related to Bak Siu Lum, one would expect to see some of these older lyrics used in the sets. None of them show up at all. Not only do none of the older lyrics show up, but none of the lyrics (besides maybe “tornado kick”) are the same in either style at all, period.

Also, Yang Xiushan is known as one of the original teachers of Kanjiaquan. The Kanjiaquan people mention that Yang Xiushan was an older classmate of Kuo Yu Cheung’s teacher, Yim Chi Wen. Apparently the Chinese characters used (Yan Yuqi) for Kuo Yu Cheung’s teacher in their texts are different than the Chinese characters used for KYC’s teacher (Yim Chi Wen) in other well known documents. Back then, a person could have up to three different names: Their birth name, their adult name, and the one people used to refer to them after they became famous. Yim Chi Wen had two with the other being Great Spear Yim. It is also well known that some schools try to attach well known heroes or famous masters to their style or school in order to promote it. I don’t mean any disrespect to any Kanjiaquan practitioners out there, but I think that is the case here. It seems unlikely that Yim Chi Wen was a classmate of Yang Xiushan’s. Even if he was the styles they’re known for are considerably different.

It’s possible that Kanjiaquan was taught in Yang Xiushan’s curriculum along with other styles that included Bak Siu Lum but this doesn’t prove it’s the older style at all. It’s been documented that Kanjiaquan dates back to the Yuan Dynasty. It was always told in Kuo Yu Cheung’s lineage that BSL dates back to the Sung Dynasty (around 1100 A.D.) with its roots connected to the Five Mother styles, Hung, Wah, Cha, Pao and Hua. I know this will always be quite a stretch for many historians but, need I remind you, Shaolin temple was destroyed and it’s monks either killed or scattered several times. In 1732 it was attacked and destroyed by Ching troops and in 1928 it’s records were even more thoroughly destroyed and lost forever. Then there was The Cultural Revolution when a great many books and records outside the temple were burned and destroyed. Does it really seem all that far fetched that some of these styles that survived outside of the mainland do indeed date back to antiquity. I wonder if it’s just blind nationalism that keeps people from questioning the “official” findings on these matters.

33

lianbuquan

[QUOTE=Graculus;1096677]I must admit that I don’t think there is much likelihood of lianbuquan having been in the temple for more than a few decades - its introduction into the BSL curriculum is also quite well documented (from a CMA point of view), and it does not really belong to that system in the same way as the 10 core sets. [/QUOTE]
We’ve discussed Lianbuquan:
Lian Bu Chuan (Lin Bo Kuen) History
BSL Lyrics: Lin Bo Kin

Personally, I’ve always felt there is a deep connection between BSL and Songshan Shaolin, but that’s not based on history. It’s based on practicing both systems. I’ve found that the others who have practiced both tend to agree. It’s hard to explain as both systems are quite extensive.

34

gu ru zhang boxing is obviously from shaolin. it has the ying yang salute. but u guys arent arguing about that. u guys are arguing about which branch is older so you can claim some sort of superiority.

im from gu ru zhangs hometown. ive never heard of bak siu lum until i came to america. no one in his hometown does bak siu lum. he was a nobody. bak siu lum is insignificant. the most famous boxing from that region is pei county da hong quan.

kung fu from gu ru zhang’s hometown was famous for SINGING while preforming forms. SINGING. bak siu lum has shaolin roots but is very flowery, AND has cantonese taint. u guys need to know your place.

*rubs testicles

35

[QUOTE=Siu Lum Fighter;1097017]I’ve compared the forms and I don’t see any resemblance at all![/quote]

If you see no resemblance between this Kanjiaquan set and the BSL sets then you are being voluntarily blind.
http://v.youku.com/v_show/id_XMzE1MTcyMzY=.html

The only set I saw that seemed to have a similar name was number 4 (Chum Sam or Strike to the Heart)

What about these?? They seem pretty similar to me!

Set 1

KJQ: Kaishan (open mountain)
BSL: Kaimen (open door)

Set 4

KJQ: Chuanxinchui (pierce heart hammer)
BSL: Chuanxin (pierce heart)

Set 7

KJQ: Meihuaquan (plum blossom fist)
BSL: Meihua (plum blossom)

Set 9

KJQ: Lianhuantui (linking kicks)
BSL: Lianhuan (linking)

[QUOTE=Siu Lum Fighter;1097111]It’s been documented that Kanjiaquan dates back to the Yuan Dynasty. It was always told in Kuo Yu Cheung’s lineage that BSL dates back to the Sung Dynasty (around 1100 A.D.)[/QUOTE]

The Shaolin Encyclopedia has Kanjiaquan in the Song Dynasty as well.

36

[QUOTE=bawang;1097268]gu ru zhang boxing is obviously from shaolin. it has the ying yang salute. but u guys arent arguing about that. u guys are arguing about which branch is older so you can claim some sort of superiority.

im from gu ru zhangs hometown. ive never heard of bak siu lum until i came to america. no one in his hometown does bak siu lum. he was a nobody. bak siu lum is insignificant. the most famous boxing from that region is pei county da hong quan.

kung fu from gu ru zhang’s hometown was famous for SINGING while preforming forms. SINGING. bak siu lum has shaolin roots but is very flowery, AND has cantonese taint. u guys need to know your place.

*rubs testicles[/QUOTE] LOL!!! YOu forgot to add the part about his command in the KMT and his untimely death at the hands of the communists. You also forgot how he was the trainer for the KMT during his time with them and that he had literally thousands of students by that merit alone. Furthermore, many great men have very humble beginnings, I’m sure your home town is filled with ignorant farmers, but they certainly don’t have to stay that way, look at you! You are in a fancy foreign school getting a superior education. Things change in everyone’s life. :slight_smile: *counts money

[QUOTE=LFJ;1097310]If you see no resemblance between this Kanjiaquan set and the BSL sets then you are being voluntarily blind.
http://v.youku.com/v_show/id_XMzE1MTcyMzY=.html

What about these?? They seem pretty similar to me!

Set 1

KJQ: Kaishan (open mountain)
BSL: Kaimen (open door)

Set 4

KJQ: Chuanxinchui (pierce heart hammer)
BSL: Chuanxin (pierce heart)

Set 7

KJQ: Meihuaquan (plum blossom fist)
BSL: Meihua (plum blossom)

Set 9

KJQ: Lianhuantui (linking kicks)
BSL: Lianhuan (linking)

The Shaolin Encyclopedia has Kanjiaquan in the Song Dynasty as well.[/QUOTE]

open door and open mountain? The word open aside, there aren’t similarities here.

Moi Fa is a name used in many kung fu styles that are completely unrelated. Hung Gar has a Moi Fah Kuen in some of it’;s variants and so does CLF. the plum flower is symbolic of a lot of things and gets used in that way frequently.

the heart piercing… I would have to see the sets. I think it’s been mentioned that they might bear resemblance to each other and that would be interesting.

Again, linked stepping sets are another common thing. Lin wan is also found in CLF and bears NO resemblance to the BSL set. Lin Bo is known to be separate from BSL and is considered a remnant of old shaolin dragon although I always thought it has more Crane flavour in the BSL way of doing it.

Shaolin certainly babysat a lot of styles and contributed greatly to the organization of systems and the maintenance of same. the distillation process is inevitable.

The qualities of the effect of shaolin on all chinese martial arts is seen in many similarities across virtually all styles.

37

[QUOTE=LFJ;1097310]If you see no resemblance between this Kanjiaquan set and the BSL sets then you are being voluntarily blind.
http://v.youku.com/v_show/id_XMzE1MTcyMzY=.html

[/QUOTE]

I only know one BSL set (meihua), but I would have to agree with this…there are many similarities/overlaps between this above set and BSL meihua.

To look for relationships in styles, I would think it makes more sense to look at individual movements, more than sequences…

It’s easy to change order of movements, not so easy to create new movements.

38

here’s bsl’s moi fah.

the similarity is the “shaolin”

this is Kwong Wing Lam performing it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gNEfqP9SuDs

(there appears to be a strong “Hung” flavour in Lam’s BSL compared to other practitioners of same)

39

[QUOTE=David Jamieson;1097379]here’s bsl’s moi fah.

the similarity is the “shaolin”

this is Kwong Wing Lam performing it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gNEfqP9SuDs

(there appears to be a strong “Hung” flavour in Lam’s BSL compared to other practitioners of same)[/QUOTE]

I always thought that too David. He seems much more rooted than most northern guys and less extended in his movements. Less “Longfist”, if you will.

40

[QUOTE=David Jamieson;1097379]

the similarity is the “shaolin”

[/QUOTE]

That may be… I’m not too concerned about the specifics of what came from where and when. For me it’s enough to see the relationship, doesn’t matter much where it came from…

(For what it’s worth, our meihua is ‘flavored’ much more like the kanjiaquan set posted than the meihua set posted…same moves [mostly], but different energy/rhythm, etc.)