Here’s a question for you guys, inspired by Gene’s post on “original shaolin staff and sword”. i am a BSL practitioner, and in terms of my BSL lineage, i am of the 5th generation (counting Yan Shang Wu as the 1st) after Gu Ru Zhang. I have noticed some differences in my BSL forms from those of other lineages – i’ve had the chance to see students of Wing Lam (2nd/3rd gen. through YSW), Wong Jack Man (2nd gen through YSW), and Lai Hung (2nd gen through Long Zi Xiang). these differences are minute, for the most part - a fist instead of a palm here, a few extra kicks (we have kicks such as roundhouse, spinning heel, even a sort of hook kick that i haven’t seen in other BSL systems).
my question is first: assuming that all of the students of GRZ learned the same forms (a big assumption on its own), how do such differences arise? we’ve all heard that in the past, techniques were culled out or added based on their combat effectiveness; however, considering that most of the changes i’m referring to have taken place in the last century, this seems like a less plausible reason. i can think of a number of possible reasons for changes to occur in a form over time: forgetfulness, changing of the forms for demonstration purposes, removal of techniques that are overly repetetive, removal of techniques that are overly difficult, mixing with other styles, etc… just interested to see what people think of this.
second: how should we as students react to these sort of changes? the example given of the guy who practices over 50 different types of Beng Bu is one extreme example of a possible solution. Personally, as a martial artist, i just want to learn techniques that work. But as a scholar (well, a student anyway…) and someone with an interest in history, i’m also interested in the “tradition” of chinese wushu in a way that was described by someone as Confucian – i’m interested in the transmission of the teaching. From this point of view i’m a little dismayed to think that the forms have been “changed”; but as a martial artist, i’m just happy to learn new moves, i respect my sifu and our lineage and i believe that what i’m getting from him is real BSL, and i see these changes as being the product of four previous generations of refinement.
i’m just curious what others here think of this issue. i’ve noticed that in general, every BSL school that i’ve observed does their forms slightly differently. however, within other systems of MA, there seems to be a bit more continuity – especially among certain styles; for example i’ve seen lots of people perform Zhaquan #4 and it always looks almost exactly the same; however there are books and reference materials galore for this form. same with the Tiger/Crane set; although i see differences in emphasis between schools, the movements all look pretty consistent – again, there are a number of printed materials and diagrams of this form. perhaps the fact that a form or style is documented has a kind of “standardizing” effect on the way that it is passed down within the tradition?
I think the differences have to do with the individual. Have you ever noticed how your brothers and sisters may have slightly different interpretations of a form from you? You all learned the same form but they may look slightly different. Over time these differences would probably magnify and I’m sure that memory or wanting to put an individual stamp on forms may also play a part.
I have noticed Wing Lam and Lai Hung talking about each others forms as variations on the form.
I’d be interested to see your Duan Da, I think Sevenstar would too. I have some forms (#6, #4, and #7) on VHS but have not digitized them. They are tournament footage from my classmates.
Well there are (as you displayed) many, many reasons why forms are altered. In my experience, when doing a form for competition, or for a demonstration, depending on the crowd, we’ll flash it up, or add little things to it. Also, when we are teaching a form, sometimes we’ll modify the form to suit the person doing it. If they can’t do a butterfly kick, then we take it out, if there drop stance isn’t low enough yet, then we’ll change the stance. As for effectiveness, we may do drills where we will change a sequence of moves from a form to be more effective. Also the flavor of the form, flow, speed ect. will change from practitioner to practitioner, so that being said, the forms flavor will be different from different teachers, even if there teacher taught it the same to both. Go ahead and foward me that link, I would really like to see some other forms.
BQ: Glad I inspired you, you inspire me to respond. This forum was going a little stale so it’s good to see some intelligent dialog from everyone here again. You might check out the version from Chan Kwok Wai. He has a book (in Portuguese if our other thread about this is correct.) It too has some interesting variations.
X: In the Jinan tournament video that WLE sells, you can see me doing #6 - that was over 10 years ago and pretty standard to Wing Lam’s version.
As for form variation - such is the nature of any art. Why martial artists are so rigid in their literallity has always befuddled me. Art is about studying the classics - the masters - replicating them to your best ability to learn their techniques THEN progessing on to find yourself.
I always use the example of music. You learn to play by learning some songs that you like. You emulate the masters. But if you play exactly like the masters, it’s just a bad imitation. Take Elvis impersonators. Or imagine if Brintey Spears did “I love rock and roll” just like Joan Jett. OK, that was a really bad analogy just to see if you all were paying attention, but my point stands. To breathe life into the form, your life, you must have some variation. You must make it your own.
I suppose much of the problem lies in people trying to variate before the get the essence of the form. Sort of like Britney and Joan again. If Britney could really rock, she might be able to take that song to greater heights. She’s got better dance moves than Joan. But she misses the ‘rock and roll’ - she’s never ‘put a coin in a jukebox’, she’s only downloaded MP3’s. “roll” has completely dropped out of her vernacular - it’s a different mentality.
OK, I’m going to leave that analogy alone now - I’ve tortured you all enough with it.
Personally, I try everyone’s version to some degree. To get back to the original example, the TSPK opening to the 9 continent staff is pretty cool in a flashy impractical way, but I like it. I am playing with incorporating that opening to the way I do the BSL version. This doesn’t mean that I’m changing the BSL version. When I teach for Wing Lam, in his house, I’ll do the version he taught nme as exactly as I am able. But for my personal practice, I like to experiment. I might show a variation to a student, but I make an earnest attempt to be loyal to the original transmission.
"As for form variation - such is the nature of any art. Why martial artists are so rigid in their literallity has always befuddled me. Art is about studying the classics - the masters - replicating them to your best ability to learn their techniques THEN progessing on to find yourself. "
I agree with you (almost) completely.
Regarding changes or alterations; to suit themselves or their nature, I think each practitioner will alter the forms to suit their tastes or needs.
Some tastes may be more demonstrative, some tastes may be more combatative. So long as the flashier, possibly impractical new moves are explained to the students that they are for looks and should not be used, then I think the demonstrative parts wont interfere with their combatative training.
If new moves are altered for combat purposes and work, it should be great.
In hand to hand styles we have a lot to learn and improve now, with exposure to global martial arts, such as jujutsu, boxing, wrestling etc. So its good that we improve our art somehow to be able to go head to head with these styles, if at present we cannot. Either we dig deeper into our own styles or create new additional counter techniques to the new styles we now face.
(Gene - my post on the Shaolin staff thread was more directed towards weapons forms and alterations, in the vacuum of real testing)
Anyway its a pleasure to debate, agree and exchange on these subjects that we love.
First and most obvious is that people may hear and see the same thing at the same time and interpret it differently. I know that I have classmates who are in the same class as me…and they come up with really strange ways of doing things that the instructor never did…and sometimes they are just plain wrong…other times, they are alternate ways of doing things.
Then you have modification for physical limitations or talents. If you don’t kick high well, you may…especially as you get older, modify some techniques. Then, when you teach, your students may not ever know of the other way of doing things…2 generations later, you have a unique way of doing the routine.
Some teachers actually teach different methods. They may tailor a routine to a students strengths and weaknesses. Then, you get two students from a teacher who do things differently.
There are also things like Tan Tui where you have options. You can do low, medium, or high strikes, straight punch, round punch, scooping punch, upper cut punch…and then the kicks are there… Now, if you have a person who did not learn the options, you can get many versions.
As long as they adhere to the principles and concepts of the style they are from, I would say they are all valid.
Everything cited above by everyone are part of the reasons why forms change over time. Beiquan, you are right to say that there appears to be more of a deviation between NSL branches of KYC lineage.
Sets naturally evolve from generation to generation. Sifus evolve as they grow older with their style. This evolving is not to be confused with the word ‘improving’. The important part of any style to survive the course of time and to ensure that the essence of the style, i.e., the priniciples and concepts are passed to the next generation. Sets are just a vehicle to pass the essence of the style. Other styles will use another vehilce such as teaching fighting techniques only and are willing to let their sets fade away with time. Surivial of any style is really in the hands of the GMs of the style.
In NSL, tradition always stated that each grandmaster are allow to add a technique to his favorite set but never substract any techniques and as long as the addition does not change the flavor of the set. At one time, many, many, many years ago, all 10 set of NSL were of the same length but today one can see that the GMs of yester-years favored #3, #2 and #10 because these sets are the longest while #4 hardly changed over time and is the shortest of the 10 NSL sets. The general feeling about #4 was that the set was nearly perfect the way it is composed and the way it flows.
Many years ago I did a study on the differences between Yim Shan Wu’s teaching and Lung Tzu Hsing’s teaching of the 10 NSL sets. What I was expecting was slight differences between the teaching but what I discovered was unexpected.
As the students demonstrated their sets one can tell which sifu taught them. Some of the reasons that I can remember why the differences were:
YSW was kept a pure NSL disciple and thus had the real essence of NSL that KYC wanted to pass to the next generation.
YSW was not an exchanged student to Tam Sam to learn Ts’ai Li Fu.
LTH was traded early in his NSL training to Tam Sam and thus it was natural for him to intermix the concepts and principles of NSL and TLF as he learned both styles simutaniously . LTH tend to show ‘external’ power as he performed his NSL sets while YSW was more fluid and flowing like KYC.
LTH was 20 years younger than YSW.
KYC was evolving with his NSL as he grew older.
YSW was one of KYC first students and as a result, KYC spend a greater time teaching YSW than the later years.
YSW was able to communicated better with KYC than LTH because YSW was closed to KYC’s age and shared a greater experience together.
more but can’t remember.
Just before LTH died, YSW and LTH taught together and thus shared most of the students. YSW and LTH also had their own special disciples that they kept separated with the desire to pass what they believed to be the essence of their style to these individuals.
So even though these two classmates learn under one sifu, they had differences within their sets. I have resolved that there will be differences within the NSL but that is why it is called Martial Arts; interpetation of the movements as one observed and remembers it. Again, it really does not matter how much deviation is between NSL sets but that the sets contain the essence of the style.
NorthernShaolin – great info, as usual! here’s another question: do you think that there are certain “core” techniques within the 10 BSL forms that really embody or constitute the “essence” of the style? is this what the 18 Hands are supposed to be? i can think of a number of combinations that recur in a lot of the forms. for example, many of the techniques from Tan Tui spring up again and again throughout the forms, in addition to certain kicking combinations and certain notably “Shaolin” moves.
northern practitioner – sorry, i only have it in QT format!
In each of the 10 NSL sets there are core techniques that are connected by transition moves. To really undestand which techinques are the core techniques within each set and which are only the transition moves, one must forget the number of the set and look at the names of the set. For example in NLS #4, it is called Chest Attacks. This set teaches one to attack the center line of your opponent by using different angles and side stepping. An example of a connecting transition move in this set would be the tornado kick which really positions oneself for the next series of core techniques. One must also understand that the beginning and ending techniques within each set are just signatures of the GMs of the style and really are not part of the core techniques. Another example is NSL #8 which is called Leaps. I mention before in past posting that this set alternate name is Three Plams, Eight Steps. This name really demonstartes how to attack your opponent by using three different attacking palms within eight attacking steps.
Each of the 10 NSL set is offering a set of core techniques of the style. Collectively all 10 NSL sets represents the essense of the five northern mother styles which really represents Shaolin. This is the real intent of NSL.
As for the 18 Shaolin hands, I mention in a previous posting that I believe this set was composed by KYC himself and its purpose was to capture what he believes is the essence of NSL. In my research, I have found that there is no record that this set existed before his time. The presentation of this set is entirely different than the regular 10 NSL sets, i.e., the series of techniques are repeated in a series of threes and the set is performed in a line. The set is well-composed and it gets the message quickly across to the student but when comparied to the other 10 NSL sets, one gets a feeling that the sets is a very recent composition.
NS: I tend to agree that the 18 was created by KYC since some vebal accounts confirm this (although those can be very unreliable.) What puzzles me is the tiger claw technique in the 18, since that does not exist in the core 10 (at least not in my lineage.) I could easily see KYC added the 18 to fit the Tamo myth.
I was surprise when I saw the ‘Tiger Claw’ done in the 18 hand set by Wing’s school and, yes, it is uncharactistic of NSL. My initial thought was that your sifu modified it as his own imprint as a way to track the teaching of this set through time. This is a common practice among sifus, especially when there are other NSL sifus teaching in the area. I never got the chance to ask him.
Everyone in NSL that I know which includes not only Wing’s generation but also the generation before, the techniques is done with a spear thrust to the neck.
You’re probably right. It certainly would make a lot more sense.
Sifu Lam doesn’t teach the 18 very often. He feels it’s a little redundant. I wanted to learn it so bad for years. When he finally taught it, he did so over a summer and invited his hung gar and tai chi students to participate, turning the whole exercise into an applications class. It was great, but ironically, I went to Shaolin Temple in the middle of it, so I missed a big chunk. But then I astonished everyone by coming back and filling the gap in a few minutes. After all, I was one of the few then who knew the 10, so all I needed to get was the transitions. Also I worked on his 18 video, so I figured it out from that. Anyway, I’ve forgotten the pattern since (but I’m sure I could rebuild it quickly if I looked at the video again.) Inevitably I followed Sifu Lam in feeling that the 18 was a little redundant if you know the 10. It’s just the 10 converted to line drills, and you can turn any technique into a line drill - just drill it on the other side.
Is that a spear thrust like in #7?
Thanks for all of your good advice which has left me with one other question. Where online could I see some sort of instruction or .AVI demonstration of proper training for some of these moves?
I agree with your post Gene and that also of Buddhapalm.
The Bak Sillum I know is very close to your sifu Gene (which is the only sets by another sifu I have had the opportunity to see)…there are only minor differences to what I learned.
Yes, I think it is row 13. Your school does a heel kick then turns around and does a side kick followed by an upper cut. Everyone else does it with a ‘shave kick’ (standing sweep like in #1) the turn around and does ‘White Horse Offers its Hoof’ like in #1 followed by the upper cut punch.
I do not recall any other real differences. Except of course the two moves before the ending is different…a signature of a NSL GM.
I’ve noticed that, while most NSL schools exhibit a degree of variation in their forms, the differences are usually relatively minor. The greatest variation I’ve observed, however, seems to be in Lai Hung’s forms. For example, he teaches a double front kick right in the beginning of Set #6. i’ve never seen another school do this, and in fact, in the NSL manual this move is not listed. His forms also seem to make use of a closed fist in places where the other schools use finger or open hand strikes. I once asked him if he changed the forms. He said that he did not.
I think there are a couple of possible reasons for the variation in Lai Hung’s forms.
It seems that most of the NSL schoools around today, at least in the US, are through the Yim Shang Mo lineage. Perhaps Yim Shang Mo and Lung Chi-cheong learned the forms with these variations? Or changed the forms themselves? As many have already mentioned, Lung Chi-cheong learned Bak Hsing Choy Lay fut as well as Northern Shaolin. And I believe that Yim Shang Mo had studied other styles before becoming Ku Yu cheong’s student.
Maybe Lai Hung did change the forms, but didn’t want to say that he did – or perhaps he can’t consciously remember having changed them. As most NSL people know, Lai Hung studied with other masters besides Lung Chi-cheong. He learned choy lay fut from a couple of different teachers, and studied for several years with the famous master Yip Yu ting. Perhaps this other knowledge leaked into his NSL forms. Also, he was known as a full-contact fighter and he must have spent a great deal of time preparing for fights. Perhaps, again unconsciously, the techniques he mastered for competition puposes influenced the flavor of his forms.
Wing Lam has a book that he handcopied from YSM that we always jokingly called the ‘secret’ book. It has all the BSL form names which we translated together for his vidoe series. It also has a section on tips and such. Who else has this book and has anyone bothered to translate it? I’ve got the form names of course, but I don’t think I have the rest, except in scattered notes. There was some real good stuff in there.
This forum was going a little stale so it’s good to see some intelligent dialog from everyone here again. You might check out the version from Chan Kwok Wai. He has a book (in Portuguese if our other thread about this is correct.) It too has some interesting variations.