[QUOTE=r.(shaolin);781038]I’m not sure what you are saying here. But now that you bring this up IMO the "this is for show’ and ‘not what we really do’ is just a ‘red flag’ (no pun intended) that there is a lot of guess work going on at Shaolin.
As I said most of the martial arts these monks comes from various lay sources not a single lineage. take Shi De Gen, one of his teachers, Wu Shan lin was a layman. Yes yes I know that the claim is that Shan lin’s father was once a Shaolin monk. Be that as it may, this lineage actually has very few sets. Shi De Gen was a martial art enthusiast and learned much of his material from other sources - in other words its a mixed bag. As I mentioned in another post somewhere, this is true for the other ‘old’ monks as well. Most of these people learned after the 1920’s. So in a matter of speaking its not that old. All in all it makes for dicy research. I can buy that all this material is a good sampling of what was still around the region in the late 70’s but to my mind it’s one source and certain not a comprehensive nor a definitive one.
The only reason to bring this up is to make clear that I take what comes out of Shaolin today with salt.
As per my other post, i would agree with Huang Baoshan’s ( -1905-1998)
view of this Hong Quan.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-1h8pyH7Q3Y
also done by a layman in the early 80’s
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=24Nqttylj1Q&mode=related&search=
I am assuming that this article also referes to the above set.
http://shaolinwushuyuan.51.net/ywlw/2.htm
Tell me something about Lao Jia Quan and its history. . . any video clips on the net around?
As a pointed out in another forum, Shaolin sets have not only signature movements but a signature structure.
As far as Hong Quan sure I would love to chat about Zhao Kuangyin aka. Taizu vs Zhu Yanzhang aka. Taizu and vs . If you’re still into it.
r.[/QUOTE]
Because we don’t have time machines, I am interested in the sets themselves, how they are related, if so, he one seems to evolve from another, etc.
How there seem to be families of sets that seem to go together because they share so many movements, etc.
Many times there are nei gong sets that also appear connected to these sets as well.
Right now, I trust Shi De Gen and all the others that have looked at the various hand copied Shaolin manuals and what sets these books show. I find a coherency in them.
You can see how nei gongs like 6 Harmony Gong, Chan Yuan 8 Gong, Luohan 13 Gong, Rou Gong, Xin Yi Ba, and these sets all seem to have a relationship to each other:
Rou Quan sets, Xiao/Da/Lao Hong Quan, TZ Chang Quan, Tong Bi Quan, Pao Quan/Pao Chui, and any others like these.
The theory/body mechanics/postures/movements, etc etc etc all work together in this family of sets.
But so what if the lineages are from lay people? They more than likely should be considering how many in Shaolin’s history people came and went and the place opened and closed and so on. I think that is more likely where you would find sets that have been preserved for hundreds of years (to make an anology: Montreal French still uses old phrases and words from Old French from the 1600s, Parisian French is very modern sounding and have many new words and phrases. Pomme Fritte is modern french, Patat Fritte is old french, much closer to Latin, since Italian also says Patate Fritti. Hope I made myself clear)
I am interested in discussing the possible evolution of these “Shaolin” sets and how they compare and contrast with each other and other sets from other related or not styles (tai ji, long fist, etc ) from other places in China. Case in point: I was observing an Emei set called 7 Star Fist, from the Zhao Men Sect (named so because these sets came there during the time of Zhao Kuang Yin in Song Dynasty). I noticed that this set was very much like Hawk Step Fist from Shanxi Hong Quan. One of these articles stated that a teacher from Emei went to Shanxi and taught these forms there, and the school he left behind to 4 of his students mixed these sets with their Shanxi Hong Quan sets. Hence the set being pretty much the same between emei and shanxi. See? Interesting, and historical.
About those Da Hong Quan sets you linked to.
That is the standard Da Hong Quan Yi Lu sets.
It is not the same as the Da Hong Quan set that is called Lao Jia Hong Quan.
Da Hong Quan/Lao Jia Hong Quan set is a more advanced version of Xiao Hong Quan set. The Xiao hong quan is simple and consists of 36 postures. The Da Hong Quan/Lao Jia Hong Quan set contains all these moves plus more to make 64/72 postures/movements, and the moves in common are done much more complex and deeper understanding.
Da Hong Quan (as seen in the videos, sets 1 to 6) are also part of Zhao Kuang Yin’s Hong Quan series that he gave to Shaolin, but they are of a different methodology (though they also contain the Xiao hong quan movements within them). They are a sum total of Zhao KY’s techniques that he had learned in his life.
As stated in those links to articles that i posted.
I have a copy also of another series of Hong Quan sets from Shaolin that come from the Li Sou/Bai Yu Feng tradion, and they are noting like these sets at all.
I should look and compare them to Shanxi hong quan though, since Bai was from Shanxi originally. But it is Li Sou that gave Shaolin these sets as a gift (so they are from outside).
YES< of course I would like to discuss Song TZ Hong Quan vs Ming TZ Hong Quan!
What can you tell me about Ming TZ Hong Quan?
Is it in any way related or derived from Song TZ Hong Quan?
Is it completely different and if so what styles is it derived from in Shandong?
Also, the style in Shandong known as Plumflower, it is a series of sets, the ones that Yang Jing Ming teaches and others. Where do these sets come from?
THey do two Tai Tzu Quan sets (yi and er lu).
People are telling me that these two TZ sets are unrelated to Song TZ, that they are Ming TZ sets, an amalgamation of Shandong martial arts.
Any info would be great, thanks!
