Just curious if anyone else has studied this style of Shaolin. I have completed the first two sets. So far all that I have been able to find on this is the first set (on the net via google type searches). And at that, what I have found seems to be missing parts that I learned in this set. I am looking for any notes pertaining to the second set. I am just curious to compair what I have learned with what others are putting out there. From what I have been finding on the first set it seems that I am getting a more complete version, I would like to see if this is the same with the second set.
Any links would be helpfull that display the set in full (not a video sales pitch), if you are not familiar with this style the first two sets are commonly called minor/little/small Hong, and major/greater/large Hong in english.
what that website shaolinleub has that uploaded video clips of li peng 2004 tourny?
it has some videos of the shaolin shao hung chang in there
im rpetty sure that would help the guy
i cant seem to dig up the link right
anyone stil have it?
interesting ding bu starchaser. you’re the first person i’ve seen to keep the right arm higher and the left arm aimed back. we keep the right arm close to our body at shoulder level, and the left arm straight down. oh wait, here’s de cheng demonstrating here
as for the clips on leub’s site, keep in mind that the amy clip is an ‘abridged’ version, but done very well. the regular version is on there too. pangquan, what have you used to learn the two forms? da hong quan is more difficult than xiao hong quan. as was said, there are some slight variations in the way different people play out xiao hong quan. i’ve only seen one video clip of da hong quan online. there are plenty of vcds and dvds on these forms that you can buy online if you wish to learn them at home on your own. are you currently working on wushu at your school?
[QUOTE=oasis]interesting ding bu starchaser. you’re the first person i’ve seen to keep the right arm higher and the left arm aimed back. we keep the right arm close to our body at shoulder level, and the left arm straight down. oh wait, here’s de cheng demonstrating here
cool potatoes. any particular reason you keep your hand by your chest and not your face or is it just a stylistic difference?
not to derail this thread , but i think it’s a matter of application interpretation. one application based on the more common way is a basic qinna where someone grabs your shirt, or perhaps throws a strike, and you either lock his arm in the former by grabbing the hand and maintaining it against your chest (or catching the strike in the second example), and then drop down into a ding bu as you strike/press down right above the elbow, ie a basic arm bar.
Nice form starchaser. I guess I should have taken the different schools thing into consideration, good point. I just notices different schools will leave parts out, but the parts left out will be present in anothers, while they will leave out a part the previous included. While at the same time all of the variations I have seen, we include each section present in each one (with of course slight differnces in delivery). It just arouses curiosity.
Oasis, yes I learned both of the sets from my Sifu. I recieved a link to a version of the Da Hong Quan, but it is not of the “shaolin” variety. So its a bit different. It seems less power driven, and more flowery. I have never learned any sets from anything other than my Sifu. So far all I have learned is several LongFist sets and the two first Hong Quan sets.
We keep our top arm close and slightly lean away from the bottom arm while angling it out a bit by slightly bending the elbow. I think the idea of having the arm close to the body is to obsorb more impact without having your own arms smash yourself. I have been working on the Hong Quan for about a year now.
you guys probly have more knowledge than me on the matter, I’ve been doing Bak Shao Lin for most of my time training kung fu, and although I have a few songshan sets my emphasis really is on the bak system and eagle claw. I learnt that Shao Hong form maybe 6.5 years ago.
Pang, I’m just as curious as you are about this whole thing. Would it be okay to speculate that maybe there isn’t really one standard set with all the moves you’ve seen?
Maybe some schools added in some elements of thier own or changed stuff ?
Anyways, for whatever the reason this form seems to be popular on this board, We are either discussing the word “Hong” or stuff like this , the reason why I dunno, as Gene said it’s a pretty basic form, but I like the vibes that the Songshan forms have.
Ya, thats probably the safest speculation. To tell you the truth I am more interested in Da Hong Quan, as I am the only person in my school that knows it I would like to compare thoughts on it with someone. But sinse I cant do that I started looking for sources on the net. There is a pretty big language barrier between Sifu and myself so I cant really get into detailed discussions. He does speak some Mandarin though and I am in the process of learning the language, so hopefully that will help.
I am also interested in finding as much about this style as possible. Links to history anyone? I have been just practicing and learning it for a while, but now I am getting more curious. As I eventually will learn all ten (thats how many my Sifu teaches anyhow, not sure as to if its the complete system or not) sets I am wanting some background info.
im in the same boat as SC. my most consentration is on bak shaolin eagle claw. we are like martial cousins or soemthing :). i only have 1 or 2 songshan sets. a lohan set my sihing learned from oasis’s teacher and tongbie my sihing learned form shi yan ming. my sifu trained with shi yan ming for 2 years but hasnt taught us any of the forms from him, just his energy and such.
Here’s my ding bu - I hope it’s akin to my master Decheng’s since he taught it to me. Mine photographed from a slightly exaggerated angle, but I too keep my elbow tucked in, mostly for that qinna app.
I’ve seen a lot of variation in Xiaohong quan, even more in Dahong. There’s an internal temple version that’s really different - same moves but an almost chen taiji-like energy. I’ve even seen variation in the lyrics and once started to compile those variations, just for fun. The essence is usually the same, though.
Thats deffinately the Da Hong I know, yet totally different. I think this may be what Gene was talking about. It is pretty intersesting to watch though, he has a totally different system of delivery.
(shameless plug :D)
, still sort of on topic.