Lao Hong Quan

Wai Jia: The Kung Fu Forum Shaolin Kung Fu
1

Which one of these is likely to be the original Xiao Hong Quan? I’ve read a lot of discussion on Xiao Hong Quan in this forum, and thought the original form was this one, done by Shi Dejun:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3gEop0aFSRY

But just recently I saw this form online, which looks quite different:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HXVwsJfi5gY

The Chinese descriptions to them both say ‘Shaolin Old Frame Hong Quan’, but the second one looks really different from the commonly practised Xiao Hong Quan.

2

I found the answer to my own question on this forum, I think. Thanks Sal!

http://forum.kungfumagazine.com/forum/showthread.php?t=36983&page=5

I’d guess the second form is the one with Rou Quan elements, right?

3

The video by Shi De Jun, which is called Lao Jia Hong Quan is, in fact, Da Xiao Hong Quan, which is the bigger version of Xiao Hong Quan. It is obviously the same as Xiao Hong Quan, but with more movements and somehow different postures and strategies. The video by Liu Zhen Hai is Lao Hong Quan which, though being derived from Shaolin Hong Quan, is different from Xiao Hong Quan.

4

There are a few different Hongquan systems in Shaolin. These two are not related.

The oldest one of the two is the second, called Laohongquan (Old Flood Boxing) to differentiate it and comes from Song Dynasty founder Zhao Kuangyin’s Hongquan art. There are four roads to it.

The first one, Laojia Hongquan (Old Frame Flood Boxing), is an older version of the modern Xiaohongquan, but is itself a more recent version of an older set that has also evolved into the modern Changhuxinyimenquan.

5

Thanks guys, that’s made things a bit clearer for me. My shifu says that he knows a form called Lao Hong Quan, so I might check which version it is. I’d guess it would be the first one, or something similar to it.

Wow LFJ, it’s interesting that the older extended Xiao Hong Quan form is related to Changhu Xinyimen too. Changhu Xinyimen Quan is also a set closely related to Qixing Quan right? (If I remember from reading an earlier discussion on here.) Many of these sets seem to have a lot of connections with one another then..well apart from these two Hong quan sets in my first posting here I guess. :slight_smile:

6

Hey there,

Neither of these is a particularly old version of Xiao HOng Quan.

The second as has been said is Lao Hong Quan. It is not XHQ but is part of early Shaolin material.

The first form is basically XHQ but it is a specific version of it. This form is not from Shaolin temple but is from a village called Luotuoyuan (origin village of the popular Taizu Chang Quan). In this village (yup, I’ve been there) the forms are paired as Da and Xiao, and the Da and Xiao forms are almost identical but the Da form uses larger frame versions of the same movement. For example they have Xiao TOng Bei and Da Tong Bei. Their Xiao TOng Bei is the same as the common Da TOng Bei. Interestingly their Da Tong Bei is the same as their Xiao TOng bei, except with more extended moves and palms instead of fists. In this village the above form is called Da HOng Quan but is simply the extended version of XHQ.

I have seen many XHQ versions in the SOng MOuntains around DengFeng. The oldest version that is close to todays XHQ is from the nanyuan pai and seperated from SHaolin ChanSi more than 360 years. It is similar but SIMPLER than the current XHQ. Clearly XHQ has evolved. The form in question above is more complicated and technique dense than the popular XHQ.

So, if it is more complicated is it better??
In some ways but not really.

The old XHQ is actually 4 forms and around 200 movements. In total it is a complete style within itself and contains a full range of Shaolin Technique. (YiLu Hand technique, ErLu Leg technique, Sanlu Ditang technique, SiLu TieShenKao or close to the body technique).

However nowadays almost no-one trains all 4 sets, just the first. The form above is a set which merges technique from all over XHQ into one form, and so as a stand alone form it is better than XHQ YiLu. However it is not really as good as the full 4 form XHQ.

But is it older? No. Forms go through cycles. They begin simple and become complicated, then they are re-simplified and become complicated again.

The most complicated and oldest XHQ in Song Shan is that of the MoGou Pai. It is the one which is closely related to Changhuxinyimen as LFJ said above. It is seperated from ShaolinChanSi around 500 years ago. It is of the XiYuan pai. The evolution from here is unknowable but since I learned Mogoupai and NanyuanPai and Luotuoyuan and ShaolinSi (all 4) versions of XHQ I can offer some hypothesis. Mogou pai is the late evolution of an ancient XHQ, which was then simplified into something resembling the Nanyuan version. This then evolved into todays more complex version. With the above form as an offshoot of one specific sect.

Are the 4 forms of XHQ all as old as the first?

Possibly. The Nanyuan sect from 360 years ago also contains 4 forms and the first 2 are extremely close to the first 2 of the current forms. I never got to see the other 2 of the nanyuan, but I will someday. Mogou XHQ is much longer and originally had many more sections which are now lost. SO I think we can assume that from an early age XHQ was a rather large set of technique.

SO whats the oldest version?

Well, I believe that the village forms evolve more slowly than those in the temple. This is because they are practiced as a hobby as opposed to a full time occupation and the less experienced practicioners of the villages would be more reluctant to change the form. From this hypothesis we can say that the Mogou village version is probably the oldest. Even though it uses the majority of the same technique as today (Qixing, dan bian, xieceng, ban shou, etc.) it is clear that the form has been radically redesigned since then. SO is it really the same XHQ? THats a matter of opinion.

SO whats the best XHQ?

Since the Shaolin temple was perfecting this technique for the last 500 years rather than just practicing it, then I think we can say that the XHQ practiced just before 1949 was the ultimate evolution of XHQ and should be considered the best version. After this Kung Fu was banned for 23 years and many of the new generations never met the old masters (and many died in this interval as it was a very bad time for china). SO Kung Fu in China generally lost a lot in this time. The evolutions of XHQ since then are not going to be as good as the pre 1949 ones.

The current common XHQ has been standerdized but is largly the same as the pre 1949 versions. If you want to learn the subtle but important differences then it is necessary to find a very old master, or a very good lineage. Don’t worry, they still exist.

7

Thanks LFJ and Ren, very great and precious information you gave.

Ren said that the current Xiao Hong Quan has been “Standardized.” How has been such standardizations? I mean why, to which direction, and by whom the forms have been standardized?

8

Wow, thanks for that long reply Ren Da Hai. That has all further hammered in for me the importance of getting my standard Xiao Hong Quan form really good first to get better fundamentals. (Well, of course, while seeing what I can learn from the jibengong forms and Lianhuan Quan -which seem to have quite a bit in them too).

9

[QUOTE=SHemmati;1187670]Thanks LFJ and Ren, very great and precious information you gave.

Ren said that the current Xiao Hong Quan has been “Standardized.” How has been such standardizations? I mean why, to which direction, and by whom the forms have been standardized?[/QUOTE]

Good questions. It has been a gradual process.

In the 90’s there were many students and many schools, all lining the road to SHaolin Temple, all in close proximity. There was a lot of inter competition. Any form that looked cool got passed through the community very quickly, but the same version of it.

Instead of being old masters you got a situation where there were many young coaches in charge who didn’t fully understand the stuff they were teaching. So it was more visual. They could see each other teaching every day and so the best looking versions of each form quickly got known by everyone.

I think it has happened because many coaches now have a small repertoire and poor understanding of it and so take what they can get from other sects, but are not too discriminating. SO you get these standard versions.

Shaolin has 1500 forms, but only a handful are popular, these are the standardized ones.

YOu will find old masters are not afraid to do things differently. They are confident because they know why the form is done in a certain way. A lot of younger coaches do not know why and so they don’t dare to do it differently, they do it the same way as everyone else does.

10

[QUOTE=RenDaHai;1187723]

…old masters… know why the form is done in a certain way. A lot of younger coaches do not know.[/QUOTE]

Do you mean the applications of the forms here?? I.e., the old masters know which specific purpose (application) a specific movement have, while the younger ones don’t?

11

[QUOTE=SHemmati;1187850]Do you mean the applications of the forms here?? I.e., the old masters know which specific purpose (application) a specific movement have, while the younger ones don’t?[/QUOTE]

Basically yes. Shaolin is a mixed bag. You get a lot of coaches who know Sanda and Wushu Jibengong very well, but have almost zero understanding of traditional shaolin, then you get some young coaches who know a great deal. Unfortunately the majority are the former.

Older masters on the whole have better knowledge of the principles of shaolin, it is on these that forms are based and these principles explain why movements are the way they are. Generally this relates to practical application, either to physical combat or to lifestyle in general.

12

[QUOTE=RenDaHai;1187723]

In the 90’s there were many students and many schools, all lining the road to SHaolin Temple, all in close proximity. There was a lot of inter competition. Any form that looked cool got passed through the community very quickly, but the same version of it.

Instead of being old masters you got a situation where there were many young coaches in charge who didn’t fully understand the stuff they were teaching. So it was more visual. They could see each other teaching every day and so the best looking versions of each form quickly got known by everyone.[/QUOTE]

This sounds like it might be the origin of the phrase “hao kan” spoken with dripping irony by better masters when they jokingly demonstrate the wrong way to do it.:slight_smile: