Aside from the usual, Tan Tui, Gung Li and Lien Bu Chuan and those of use in the current Shaolin Curriculum (Xiao/Da Hong Quan)
What other fist sets are in use for Long Fist styles being taught today?
I know Chin Woo uses Jeet Kuen and some others, but I am interested in other and what lineages they came from. Or perhaps someone can point me to a source.
Just doing a little bit of research for my own curiousity.
[QUOTE=xcakid;876610]Aside from the usual, Tan Tui, Gung Li and Lien Bu Chuan and those of use in the current Shaolin Curriculum (Xiao/Da Hong Quan)
What other fist sets are in use for Long Fist styles being taught today?
I know Chin Woo uses Jeet Kuen and some others, but I am interested in other and what lineages they came from. Or perhaps someone can point me to a source.
Just doing a little bit of research for my own curiousity.[/QUOTE]
I really like Gung Li. I teach it as a begginers form. As for other fist sets being taught today I do believe crane fist is being taught (I may be wrong). 
[QUOTE=xcakid;876610]Aside from the usual, Tan Tui, Gung Li and Lien Bu Chuan and those of use in the current Shaolin Curriculum (Xiao/Da Hong Quan)
What other fist sets are in use for Long Fist styles being taught today?
I know Chin Woo uses Jeet Kuen and some others, but I am interested in other and what lineages they came from. Or perhaps someone can point me to a source.
Just doing a little bit of research for my own curiousity.[/QUOTE]
If you practice 10 routine Tan Tui, Gung Li and Lien Bu, you prabably learn from my lineage (GM Han’s lineage).
In our line, Gung Li and Line Bu are not really Long Fist form (both of them came from Nan Jing Guo Shu Institue). Gong-Li came from Chin-Wo originally. Even the Tan Tui we practice came from Nan Jin also.
Our LF fist sets includes Mai-Fu (1st, 2nd) set, Tai-Zu Chang Quan, 4th Cha Quan, 3th Pao Quan, Si Lu Beng Da, Shi Zi Tan. These are mostly taught LF form. We also have 5th Mai-Fu from my teacher’s line. There are also other LF forms GM Han did not pass down, but tthe forms above are the most practiced ones.
Cheers,
are you talking about preliminary sets? or core sets? There’s lots of Long Fist sets in that respect, some entire systems are all long fist sets organized in a logical and progressive manner.
[QUOTE=David Jamieson;876773]are you talking about preliminary sets? or core sets? There’s lots of Long Fist sets in that respect, some entire systems are all long fist sets organized in a logical and progressive manner.[/QUOTE]
I guess you are asking me.
There is no preliminary sets or core sets. There are the sets we practice, although we tend to teach Mai-Fu 2nd as first LF form, Mai_fu 1st as second LF form. The rest of the forms have no priority as which one first come first. Actually, we kind of choose one to start with, either by teacher’s choice or by student’s preference. Each of the rest of the forms has its own unique features, so there is really no priority.
Most people did not PRACTICE all the forms (usually 2 or 3 out of the rest forms), although they may have learned all of them. This situation is not only in my generation, it iwas common in my teacher’s generation under GM Han.
ah, ok. so then, yes there are many sets. Bak Sil Lum of Ku Yu Cheong has 10 core sets that can all be considered Long Fist.
Cha Chuan is also long fist and Northern Mantis is considered long fist as well.
I believe Tai Tzu Chang Chaun is long fist as well.
Much of modern wushu was derived from long fist stylings. (all debate aside about it)
[QUOTE=David Jamieson;876788]ah, ok. so then, yes there are many sets. Bak Sil Lum of Ku Yu Cheong has 10 core sets that can all be considered Long Fist.
Cha Chuan is also long fist and Northern Mantis is considered long fist as well.
I believe Tai Tzu Chang Chaun is long fist as well.
Much of modern wushu was derived from long fist stylings. (all debate aside about it)[/QUOTE]
Cha Chuan is a popular set in northern China. Many styles practice it. It just happened that LF also practice it.
I have not seen other people practice our Tai Tzu Chang Chaun. So, I believe it is our form.
Northern Mantis is a system all by itself. It has nothing to do with LF at all. Maybe there are some relation BEFORE PM was invented, but it is totally different NOW. The way mantis execute its moves are quite different from LF. We also practice some 7 * PM forms, but we were taught to practice PM differently than we do LF.
Modern Wushu is totally different thing all by itself. I don’t think LF people were involved in creation of modern wushu. It may look similar to some people, but it looks totally different from our LF.
Not exactly…
The Long Fist you do - from Han Qingtan, traces predominantly back to the Nanjing Guoshu Guan… and includes sets from a number of styles that were slightly modified to have the same flavor.
That lineage has San Lu Pao Quan (#3 Pao Quan), Siu Lu Cha Quan (#4 Cha Quan), things like Shi Tzu Tan, Xiao Hu Yen Quan, and so forth.
Sort of hard to say what IS Cha Quan or Pao Quan from a single set - but #4 and #3 respectively are pretty representative so if you really work them you have about 75% of the essence.
But the key here is that all of them filtered through the Nanjing curriculum and were modified to fit together as a system. Some people DO practice the mantis sets with a decidedly mantis flavor instead of the other way…but an equal number do it with the same flavor as the other Nanjing sets.
It is also rather hard to say what is Cha Quan or Pao Quan from a purely Taiwanese base since many of the major proponents of those styles remained in the mainland.
Also, while the current versions of Modern Wushu for Changquan, Daoshu, Gunshu, Jianshu, and Jiangshu are different beasts, the previous versions were very strongly based in the Cha, Hua, Pao fist styes. For example, if you were to learn the old changquan compulsory from an old school Cha Quan teacher, you would have notes like “This section came from #1 Cha quan…but was changed here…this is the old way, this is the change…”
As for Taizu Changquan, I have seen at least 3 versions…all of them traced back to Han Qingtan…but through different students of his… In all 3, the essential sequnece was the same but the flavor was different and certain moves were executed quite a bit differently.
[QUOTE=Robert Young;876771]If you practice 10 routine Tan Tui, Gung Li and Lien Bu, you prabably learn from my lineage (GM Han’s lineage).
[/QUOTE]
Actually, we don’t have Tan Tui in our current curriculum. We do have Lien Bu and Gung Li Chuan. Reason behind that is that our lineage goes up to GM Fan Chi Sau and since he studied at Kousho, they were put in as basic forms.
Intermediate forms are San Tien Chuan, Jing Long Chuan, and Hong Chuan.
Which is what piqued my curiosity as to the many other long fist forms that are being taught. There seems to be some sort of commonality with teaching Tan Tui, Gung Li Chuan and Lien Bu Chuan. Given these forms coming from Kousho or Chin Woo and most of the teachers these days, not all, can trace their lineage back to either or. But there seems to be a variety of forks in the road with regards to the intermediate and advanced forms. Just wanted to see what you guys are learning.
[QUOTE=GLW;876825]Not exactly…
The Long Fist you do - from Han Qingtan, traces predominantly back to the Nanjing Guoshu Guan… and includes sets from a number of styles that were slightly modified to have the same flavor.
[/quote]
No, most of our LF forms were form Sang Dong. Although NanJing GuoShu Guan also taught Cha Quan, Cha Quan Has been taught and practiced in LF family for a long time in Sang Dong. Some of the LF people other than our line(GM Han’s line) in Taiwan also practiced that.
That lineage has San Lu Pao Quan (#3 Pao Quan), Siu Lu Cha Quan (#4 Cha Quan), things like Shi Tzu Tan, Xiao Hu Yen Quan, and so forth.
Our Xiao Hu Yen is not a LF form at all, it came from PM.
But the key here is that all of them filtered through the Nanjing curriculum and were modified to fit together as a system. Some people DO practice the mantis sets with a decidedly mantis flavor instead of the other way…but an equal number do it with the same flavor as the other Nanjing sets.
/quote]
Most of our forms did not filtered through Nanjin actually. GM Han studied in NanJing only a year. He might have incorperated some of the interpretations of the forms taught in that institute, but not much. When he went there, he was already a well known CMA master already (at least in Sang Dong). While he studied there, he was receiving pay for doing his research also.
[quote]
It is also rather hard to say what is Cha Quan or Pao Quan from a purely Taiwanese base since many of the major proponents of those styles remained in the mainland.
Cha and Pao were not Taiwanese base at all. Ours came form Sang Dong as I have mentioned. Before 1948, 1949, there was no northern systems existed in Taiwan.
Also, while the current versions of Modern Wushu for Changquan, Daoshu, Gunshu, Jianshu, and Jiangshu are different beasts, the previous versions were very strongly based in the Cha, Hua, Pao fist styes. For example, if you were to learn the old changquan compulsory from an old school Cha Quan teacher, you would have notes like “This section came from #1 Cha quan…but was changed here…this is the old way, this is the change…”
The people who designed those New Wushu forms took Cha, Hua, Hong Pao sets as a base to come up with there forms. That does not means modern Wushu form came form LF. Every system has its “unique ways of praticing” their forms. That is the reason it became a system in the first place, not by the forms they collected. Cha, Hua, Hong, Pao were called the most famous sets in northern China. Many systems also practice them. The difference is that each system has its own interpretation and practice. Si Lu Beng Da is another case; LF and PM also practice it, but in different ways.
As for Taizu Changquan, I have seen at least 3 versions…all of them traced back to Han Qingtan…but through different students of his… In all 3, the essential sequnece was the same but the flavor was different and certain moves were executed quite a bit differently.
This comes up a good case for observation.
There should be only one version of our TaiZu. There are a couple of different moves by the people in my teacher’s generation (GM Han’s students). But, the difference were either added or modified by individuals.
On the other hand, every person has his/her own interpretations and experience of the forms they learned. Through time, the moves got changed, the interpretation got changed. Forms were evolved and changed, better or worse. When a form were taught to a group of people, you would see the form was perfromed the same way by the same group of people. When the same form passed down to second generation by the different person in that group, you would see more some difference from the second generation. But, when the form was passed down the third generation, you are going to see more difference than similarity. This is the way it is.
One example is Lien Bu. There are several masters from NanJing Institute came to Taiwan, and every one practiced the forms a little difference. But today, when you see their students or grand students practice the same form, you will see they practice it in many different ways.
[QUOTE=xcakid;876846]Actually, we don’t have Tan Tui in our current curriculum. We do have Lien Bu and Gung Li Chuan. Reason behind that is that our lineage goes up to GM Fan Chi Sau and since he studied at Kousho, they were put in as basic forms.
Intermediate forms are San Tien Chuan, Jing Long Chuan, and Hong Chuan.
Which is what piqued my curiosity as to the many other long fist forms that are being taught. There seems to be some sort of commonality with teaching Tan Tui, Gung Li Chuan and Lien Bu Chuan. Given these forms coming from Kousho or Chin Woo and most of the teachers these days, not all, can trace their lineage back to either or. But there seems to be a variety of forks in the road with regards to the intermediate and advanced forms. Just wanted to see what you guys are learning.[/QUOTE]
Now, I see.
I know Fan Chi Sau. I believe he came from Sang Dong also and went to Nan Jin Guo Shu Guan. The reason you have Lien Bu and Gong li is because of NanJing Guo Shu Guan.
GM Fan used to hang out in my GM Han’s house. Most of the masters from Nanjing were very closed in Taiwan. Every year, they would get together and usually ended up in GM Han’s house.
GM Fan has his own lineage. I believe he learned from his own family. His grand father was a well known master and operated a guard company. His father also practice CMA.
Back to the forms. We don’t have San Tien Chuan, Jing Long Chuan, so I don’t know how they look like. But, I know your Hong Quan, Xiao(Little) Hong Quan to be exact.
This is a good story.
One time GM Fan were invited by my teacher to our performance. One of my LF brother performed our version of Hong Quan, but our title is Da(Big) Hong Quan. After he saw the form, he came to my teacher and said the title was wrong. The title should be Xiao Hong Quan, not Da Hong Quan in his opinion because he also had that form with some difference. Our Hong Quan was not from GM Han. My teacher learn our version of the form back in China when he was young . So after that, every time my teacher taught that form, he would mentioned the story that GM Fan corrected the title.
Personally, I don’t think Hong Quan is a intermediate form. It is quite an advanced form. Sometime, people like to categorize forms un-necessarily. I don’t know your curriculum that well, so I can not judge. But, my own experience told me the categorization of the forms of a system is not necessary a good thing.
Historically, our LF had no so called beginner’s forms or intermediate forms. Our PM is the same. But, that created a teaching problem. Students have hard time to learn in the beginning. So, Lien Bu and Gong Li were introduced in our teaching. In our case, our Mai-Fu is the first LF form we learned. Some of our people like to categorized it as intermediate form, but Mai-Fu is not really as intermediate form by itself. It just happens that it is the first form we were taught.
There was a story about a coach Hu in Qing-Dao Guo Shu Guan in Sang Dong. One time, there was a performance tourament in Qing-Dao. Everyone were performing their forms. This Coach Hu came up and start performing his Mai-Fu. And, because he was so good at it, no one dare to perform the same form after he was done because there were no comparision to his performance. If our Mai-Fu were an intermediate form, then it won’t thave that kind of situation happened. I believe if there were another Coach Hu perform your Hong Quan, he could have made it a very advance form
Also, if we categorized a form into different level, we tend to practice it to a certain degree and stop because we want to learn advance stuff. Then, we tend to overlook the real essence of the form we practice. At the end, it is not how many forms we practice, it is how well we practice the forms that is important.
Yes GM Fan did have his family lineage straight back to a Shaolin Monk, Shi Lai Ming. At Nanjing his lineage forks, one of which is Wang Zi Ping.
Forms are forms, I agree, but since we are commercial school my sifu had to classify them as such so that we have a comprehensive curriculum and a natural progression of skill.
Our Hong Chuan is a bit different than Xiao Hong Quan, at least different from the one I learned many moons ago.
Some of our forms you can watch on youtube…www.youtube.com/shaolinwuyi
I believe we still have the video of GM Fan on the page. There are also vids of my sifu training in China doing some of our animal forms.
For an FYI, here’s our curriculum: http://www.swyi.com/curriculum.htm and lineage: http://www.swyi.com/lineage.htm
Thanks for the info on your curriculum.
[QUOTE=Robert Young;876869]Now, I see.
I know Fan Chi Sau. I believe he came from Sang Dong also and went to Nan Jin Guo Shu Guan. The reason you have Lien Bu and Gong li is because of NanJing Guo Shu Guan.
GM Fan used to hang out in my GM Han’s house. Most of the masters from Nanjing were very closed in Taiwan. Every year, they would get together and usually ended up in GM Han’s house.
GM Fan has his own lineage. I believe he learned from his own family. His grand father was a well known master and operated a guard company. His father also practice CMA.
Personally, I don’t think Hong Quan is a intermediate form. It is quite an advanced form. Sometime, people like to categorize forms un-necessarily. I don’t know your curriculum that well, so I can not judge. But, my own experience told me the categorization of the forms of a system is not necessary a good thing.
Also, if we categorized a form into different level, we tend to practice it to a certain degree and stop because we want to learn advance stuff. Then, we tend to overlook the real essence of the form we practice. At the end, it is not how many forms we practice, it is how well we practice the forms that is important.[/QUOTE]
Most in the US doing Long Fist trace themselves in one way or another back to Han Qingtan - a large percentage of them via Han’s student, Li Maoqing. Now, most make the major claim that Han’s approaches were primarily Nanjing Central Guoshu Guan. So, if you are claiming that it is NOT, that is a major departure from the norm.
As for Cha Quan and Pao Quan – the routines you include are #4 and #3 respectively. They are the most commonly practiced sets of each of the styles mentioned. The sequence is essentially the same…While Xaio Hu Yen IS originally a mantis set, the way most of Han’s lineage do it downplays the mantis aspect in favor of the Long Fist approach. Your picking on that to point out is rather simplistic. Now, if you or your branch actually do the set maintaining the mantis approach, that is how YOUR branch does it – but that is not how a large section of Long Fist people of the Han lineage in the US approach it.
So, if you maintain the mantis approach in the Mantis derived forms, do you also maintain the Cha Quan approach (as in Cha, Hua, Pao, Hong, and Tantui) in those sets? From what I have seen of Han’s videos and others of that lineage doing even things like Shr Lu Tan Tui, the answer here is not fully. For many, the Cha and Pao movements are not large or extended enough… For Tan Tui, Han’s first 6 are similar to what Wang Ziping did. There are a couple of extra movements but nothing major. Number 7 through 10 are totally different
Now if Han did NOT filter the forms, there are a lot of people from branches of his students who maintain that he did. What the actual case is – who knows.
Now, if your branch is using the sequences and then applying your own unique approach to them, the name of the sets may be the same but they are not actually the same as – say a person who practices Cha Quan as their main system.
The contemporary changquan compulsory – the previous one…not the current one (that one is just strange – IMHO) were heavily influenced in their structure by the Cha Quan system (Cha Hua, Pao, etc…). The way it is done by competitors – now that is a different story…Competitors do things to win and please the judges…. Pretty soon, what is done is way different that what is written down as what is supposed to be done.
But, to someone from a Cha background, that Changquan set is simply a slightly modified Cha form. But then again, few from a Chaquan background list things with the “Shaolin” moniker…the Hui connection and Moslem roots are too strong for that.
As for Taizu Changquan…your statement of only one way…seems to contradict other things. Some of the differences I have seen were simply stylistic…like does the hook hand go downward or inward… but others – well the middle section with the part from single leg punch down to walking to slap kick … I have seen major variations there. And all from Han’s lineage. You can say “It is THIS way” but when such a statement flies in the face of what is seen in the real world…well you may have to take a broader view.
For Lien Bu..—definitely. I have seen 3 different versions of Lien Bu Quan. The one from Li Maoqing is the most common. There are then a couple of older ones…the one published in the book on the history of the Nanjing Central Guoshu Guan is probably the most interesting and has the more difficult moves. However, they all have the same basic structure and techniques. However, I can see a progression. The one in the Nanjing book, when simplified a little would yield the second version..and that one when simplified a bit more would yield Li Maoqing’s…
[QUOTE=GLW;876903]Most in the US doing Long Fist trace themselves in one way or another back to Han Qingtan - a large percentage of them via Hans student, Li Maoqing. Now, most make the major claim that Hans approaches were primarily Nanjing Central Guoshu Guan. So, if you are claiming that it is NOT, that is a major departure from the norm.
[/QUOTE]
Now, it is easier to confirm things we are talking about.
Li MaoQing is my LF uncle. His LF were mostly taught by three of his senior LF brothers. And, my teacher is one of them. I, personally have learned from two of the three person I mentioned above. What I have learned was about the same as uncle Li has learned.
I know uncle Li and have met him personally several times in my teacher’s house while I was in Taiwan. uncle Li came to my teacher’s house when he had LF questions and I was there listening. I think the time was before 1980.
Now some of the things you mentioned were mis-interpreted or transformed through generations. People like to link big names to the materials te know. And, NanJin GuoShu Guan is a big name. The fact is tha GM Han only stayed in Nan Jing Institute for a year. A year is not very long in training CMA. Also, GM Han already famous before he went to NanJing. He did learned a few new things, but our LF forms are not in the list.
What I have claimed may seem different from what you heard, but it is what LF people in Taiwan recognize. You can believe whatever you like. But, all the things about LF is what I grew up with. It is in my blood. There is no need for me to make up things like that related to our LF.
While Xaio Hu Yen IS originally a mantis set, the way most of Hans lineage do it downplays the mantis aspect in favor of the Long Fist approach. Your picking on that to point out is rather simplistic. Now, if you or your branch actually do the set maintaining the mantis approach, that is how YOUR branch does it but that is not how a large section of Long Fist people of the Han lineage in the US approach it.
Now you are talking.
Xiao Hu Yan is a PM form that my teacher personally learned it from our PM GM Wang Song-Ting. Later, he taught the form to his LF brothers including uncle Li Mao-Qing. Some of our LF people learned the form, but did not learned the way how to practice it. I have not seen uncle Li doing the form, but I have seen his students practicing the form. The result is like what you said, no sign of PM essence.
You can said many people in US do the form in LF way. That is fine, it tends to become that way. But, that is not how I was taught and trained.
Now, there are thousands of people doing modern Wushu in China. They are the majority. But that does not make them traditional. Majority does not mean much in the things we are talking about.
So, if you maintain the mantis approach in the Mantis derived forms, do you also maintain the Cha Quan approach (as in Cha, Hua, Pao, Hong, and Tantui) in those sets? From what I have seen of Hans videos and others of that lineage doing even things like Shr Lu Tan Tui, the answer here is not fully. For many, the Cha and Pao movements are not large or extended enough For Tan Tui, Hans first 6 are similar to what Wang Ziping did. There are a couple of extra movements but nothing major. Number 7 through 10 are totally different
Our Tan Tui was from NanJing. I think I have mentioned that.
We do Cha Quan in LF appoach that is very different from our PM. And, we do Cha and Pao in very large and extended way (a common LF way). You may not, but we do.
There are things to be considered when we LOOK people doing forms. Some are better trained than others. When I taught Xiao Hu Yan, I would teach the moves first. I don’t care how their flavor is, LF or PM. And, it does not matter at that point. Then, if students really practiced and started to get the hand of the form. I would start to tell them the details about how to apply power certain way or how to move how body certain way to get the PM essence. The reason is that if they could not get the hand of the form and did not build up enough strength to execute to form, all the rest of the knowledge are useless. You can tell a new students about all the details in the beginning, but they will forget all the details throught the process of learning the form, and you have to remind them later again. It simply cause more confusing than clarification.
There are things that you have to stay with a teacher long enough to get the real meaning of what he meant or what he said. Especially in CMA world. You might want to ask yourself a few questions. How long did the person study under uncle Li that passed down LF to you? How to tell the different from PM and LF, or Cha Quan in LF from Cha Quan from other styles? What is the differences between GM Han’s LF from other LF lineage?
If you wanted to get into the details, what’s the difference between Those three senior LF brothers that uncle Li learned from. My teacher and the other uncle Shen, Mao-Hui both taught uncle Li. And two of them do LF differently in some ways. What is the difference and what is the similarity? When uncle Li learned from both of them, how did he digest the similarity and the difference? I’m not trying to question uncle Li. These questions apply to every one of us.
When forms came from different systems or styles, they got to have some differences. As a student, we need to know those in order to get the most out of them. Or else, we are only act as forms collectors, not practitioners.
“Now, there are thousands of people doing modern Wushu in China. They are the majority. But that does not make them traditional. “
You totally missed my point. The original compulsory forms as well as many of the early PRC forms were created based upon the traditional systems. The intent was NOT to create a dance but standard sets that would make standardized judging in competition possible. In the early discussions (as in the 1950’s), there WERE those that wished to totally downplay the martial aspect of what they were creating. Those who were in Shanghai did not go along with this approach…preferring the Lian Yong Kan idea (Health, Defense, Art) Wang Ziping was one of these. In fact, it was sort of a truism that in the discussions, Grandmaster Wang was always emphasizing NOT losing the Yong aspect (use).
So, what happened? Well, if you look at the old compulsory Changquan, the techniques are almost purely Cha and Pao. For example, in the first half, about the only technique that is NOT the way a Cha routine would do it is when you do the skip step to then do the jump slap kick. The compulsory does a swinging of the arms in and then out. Traditional Cha would do an arm across the body arcing down to a hook and threading the other palm out to strike…and the both would do the slap kick… If you examine the way things are SUPPOSED to be judged, there is mention of speed, POWER, FOCUS, proper technique, etc… In actual competition, the power and focus are usually gone…with things being just thrown out fast…and no one ever deducts for lack of true martial intent…. Incorrect application of the rules if you actually read the rules…but since all the judges do it, it has become the way to evaluate it…and so as time goes on, what was intended to be simply a way to foster standard competition and training has become a martially inspired floor routine. And the second generation of routines has lost more…not to mention that with the new level of difficulty aspect they have added, the likelihood of injury for a flashy move is great….
So, the point I was making was that if, like me, you have a teacher that was from the original generation, you see that first changquan set and you go “Oh, a new Cha Quan set…” but when you get away from that root generation, it becomes something else…not because of the routine but due to how the later generations are interpreting it.
I am curious how the Tan Tui went from being primarily the Cha Quan version of 10 line to what he was doing. The first 6 are too close and the last 4 are just different. In fact, the first look like the Tan Tui of Wang Ziping with a few extra moves set in…and then the last 4 look more like some of the 12 line Tan Tui that is used by Jingwu…
Now, don’t assume HOW I may or may not do Cha and Pao quan….or any set. Basically, I do my northern all as close to the Chaquan flavor as my old body allows..extended, large, flowing… which is often larger than others I have seen.
I agree about the teaching method… In fact, I spent almost an hour yesterday with a student who has been learning a long time…simply going over the mechanics of connecting the front and back foot in doing a Yang style Taijiquan Brush Knee and twist step. I KNOW that I have said all of the things we went over before…but he was not ready to understand them until now…
As far as the Long Fist you are speaking of… I have kept some of the routines I learned…but when I changed teachers, I adopted my last teachers methods for everything. Now, I did this with the full knowledge of my previous LF teacher…but it is no longer the Han Qingtan lineage flavor. Of course, I tell people that I learned this form from person X but I had all of my methods checked and modified by my last teacher. – just to be clear to them that they may see things differently done by people who are from a similar lineage on the LF tree.
The intent was NOT to create a dance but standard sets that would make standardized judging in competition possible. In the early discussions (as in the 1950s), there WERE those that wished to totally downplay the martial aspect of what they were creating. Those who were in Shanghai did not go along with this approachpreferring the Lian Yong Kan idea (Health, Defense, Art) Wang Ziping was one of these. In fact, it was sort of a truism that in the discussions, Grandmaster Wang was always emphasizing NOT losing the Yong aspect (use).
So, what happened? Well, if you look at the old compulsory Changquan, the techniques are almost purely Cha and Pao.
The early contemporary compulsory wushu sets from the early 1950’s: Chang Quan Yi, Chang Quan Er and Chang Quan San, were modified traditional sets. Not only were the sets changed, but the training methods changed as did the marital flavor of the sets - they became less aggressive / combative and more ‘dance like’ and more performance oriented.
I would agree that the early PRC forms were based on traditional systems, and as you say, were standardized. However they were also modified to move them away from being marital. The idea of moving Chinese martial art away from being martial ‘killing arts’ began at the turn of the 20th century. Prominent writers and and educators like, Xu Yiping , one of China’s modern famous athletes and educators, and Fan Jun from the early 1900’s played a big part in defining how wushu was developed in the early 1950’s. Basically they were saying that in the “old imperial times wushu was used to kill people, but now wushu must be used to educate people” and “wushu must shift away from the martial to being presented as the most noble and lofty form of exercise”. Xu Bing’s ‘sport ideology’ was important in defining the concept and practice of physical education and wushu in China is acknowledged in the “Wuhan Institute of Physical Education Journal”, China’s premier sport journal founded in 1959.
These changes pertain to Wang Ziping’s teaching as well, after 1949.
The following three sets were developed in the early 1950’s and based on two old Hong Chang Quan sets: Xia Hong Chang Quan and Da Hong Chang Quan. The originals have more techniques and combinations and are clearly more martial.
These first two modern sets are based on Xia Hong Chang Quan which one set.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ObiygVWC-1Y&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zEllGdmG7K8&feature=related
This set is based on Da Hong Chang Quan.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zEllGdmG7K8
r.
The intent was NOT to create a dance but standard sets that would make standardized judging in competition possible. In the early discussions (as in the 1950s), there WERE those that wished to totally downplay the martial aspect of what they were creating. Those who were in Shanghai did not go along with this approachpreferring the Lian Yong Kan idea (Health, Defense, Art) Wang Ziping was one of these. In fact, it was sort of a truism that in the discussions, Grandmaster Wang was always emphasizing NOT losing the Yong aspect (use).
So, what happened? Well, if you look at the old compulsory Changquan, the techniques are almost purely Cha and Pao.
Contemporary compulsory wushu sets from the early 1950’s: Chang Quan Yi, Chang Quan Er and Chang Quan San, were modified traditional sets. Not only were the sets changed, but the training methods changed as did the marital flavor of the sets - they became less aggressive / combative and more ‘dance like’ and more performance oriented.
I would agree that the early PRC forms were based on traditional systems, and as you say, were standardized. However they were also modified to move them away from being marital. The idea of moving Chinese martial art away from being martial ‘killing arts’ began at the turn of the 20th century. Prominent writers and and educators like, Xu Yiping , one of China’s modern famous athletes and educators, and Fan Jun from the early 1900’s played a big part in defining how wushu was developed in the early 1950’s. Basically they were saying that in the “old imperial times wushu was used to kill people, but now wushu must be used to educate people” and “wushu must shift away from the martial to being presented as the most noble and lofty form of exercise”. Xu Bing’s ‘sport ideology’ was important in defining the concept and practice of physical education and wushu in China is acknowledged in the “Wuhan Institute of Physical Education Journal”, China’s premier sport journal founded in 1959.
These changes pertain to Wang Ziping’s teaching as well, after 1949.
The following three sets were developed in the early 1950’s and based on two old Hong Chang Quan sets: Xia Hong Chang Quan and Da Hong Chang Quan. The originals have more techniques and combinations and are clearly more martial.
These first two modern sets are based on Xia Hong Chang Quan which is one set.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ObiygVWC-1Y&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=65KqI1qBJyI&feature=related
This set is based on Da Hong Chang Quan.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zEllGdmG7K8
r.
The first routine is not one I have dealt with. The second one I learned from Madame Wang Jurong. However, the flavor she imparted in the routine was 100% Cha Quan system. Things like the Horse stance into the elbow were emphasized with power and focus. The elbow strike was to come all the way from the legs as a single unified move. And so on. We used the routine but did it with the old methods.
The training you mention did NOT pertain to Wang Ziping. His method of teaching did not change with the advent of the new China. In fact, he was sometimes the lone dissenter in the discussions in favor of reducing the martial aspect in what was being created. However, keep in mind, he was already 69 years old in 1950.
What some people may state as a move away from teaching the martial aspects was more likely a misinterpretation. Madam Wang, like her father, tended to not talk about applications with students unless their basics were strong enough.
In one story of Grandmaster Wang Ziping, one of his students was always asking to learn fighting methods. Finally one day, Wang went to the wall, standing on one foot, he placed the other squarely against the wall. He then told the student that if he could move his foot, his training in use would begin and if not, he would continue on with what he was learning. The student tried…and continued training with no mention of applications for a good while.
By the way, the second and third videos are the same….32 Changquan.
As for the original routines having more techniques…well no surprise there. Especially 32 changquan is meant to be an intermediate level set. A lot gets removed to make it simpler.
As for the martial aspect… a lot depends on the intent of the routine…as in what is it trying to develop…and then even more on the person doing the set…and what they choose to bring out of it.
While the training methods for things may have indeed changed in places like Beijing, that is not everywhere. While I can’t speak for what a class may have been like in Shanghai, in Houston, the training was mainly traditional approach.
For example, there was a routine, Shaolin Ru Mon, she taught. It was similar in structure to 32 Changquan but a harder set. It was a traditional routine. Madame Wang has stated that it was a weed out routine – if you could do Ru Mon OK, you had the basics and ability to move on to the harder Chaquan, Paoquan, etc… routines.
By the way, the second and third videos are the same….32 Changquan.
Hi GLW
Thanks for the heads up I corrected the link.
[QUOTE=GLW;877007]
The training you mention did NOT pertain to Wang Ziping. His method of teaching did not change with the advent of the new China. In fact, he was sometimes the lone dissenter in the discussions in favor of reducing the martial aspect in what was being created. However, keep in mind, he was already 69 years old in 1950.
What some people may state as a move away from teaching the martial aspects was more likely a misinterpretation. Madam Wang, like her father, tended to not talk about applications with students unless their basics were strong enough.
[/QUOTE]
Well. This is not traditional material.
http://masterhelenwu.com/photos.htm
r.