Hi everybody,
Now it’s my turn to turn the spotlight onto someone else …… Jim Roselando…
Jim said :
“Small differences running between the arts. Including all south fist there really is only small differences.”
I think differences are pretty discernible.
But that’s just me, what about you folks?
Warmest Regards.
Eric
Ps Robert, you turned the “Karma Wheel” …….
i thnk southern mantis definetly looks different from hung ga, choylay fut, and bak mei. some of the styles i cant tell the difference between. thats because i dont studdy southern arts or see a lot of it.
In my opinion it’s entirely subjective depending on what parameters you use for commonality. There are obvious groupings, at least by what has been posted and published. For example Hakka styles like SPM, Bak Mei, Loong Ying, have glaring similarities, at least in appearance from outsiders. Mixed “southern” styles like Choy Lay Fut, Jow Ga, Hung Fut, Lau Ga, also have glaring similarities. The differences are easily discernable as well, but within those groups you see a similarity in basic structure and techs.
Gwa, Sow, Chaarp, Pow, Ping (Bean), Pek, Chum, Chuynh, Dat (dar), in similar or easily identifiable small combinations are recognizable between, the “mixed” southern styles I mentioned above. Even though thier origins are at least half, completely unrelated.
I have an idea that geographical development plays a good deal on similarities between “southern” styles.
To be more clear, take a look at Hakka styles, and subsequently, “mixed” southern styles that came out of Toisan and how similar they are. In addition take a look at almost all styles that developed at least 50yrs in and out of HK, and see the similarities in concepts. They are there. If you want to be even more abstract, take a look at San shou/San Da fighters from such schools. Look at the Choy Lay Fut full contact fighters out of Sifu Tat Mau Wong’s schools, Sifu Li Siu Hung’s shcools, and from Sifu Lacey’s Buck Sing Schools, from the D.C., MD, VA Jow Ga schools, Hung Fut, and even Hung Ga from NYC. Then look at the fighters from Sifu Yee’s Jook Lum, from the Sifu Yip’s Loong Ying in NYC, from Yau Kung Moon on the west coast. What do you think? Am I off base?
Hey Eric,
When I say small differences I am refening to the arts like:
South Mantis, Fukein Crane, Lung Ying, Wing Chun, Bak Mei etc..
They are all essentially real similar in hand Shapes/tools but primary difference being cultivation/dna.
Example:
Wing Chun has Tan Sao
South Mantis has Choc Shu
White Crane has Water Palm
etc…
Same basic hand shape/concept but whats the difference? Ging/Body Dynamics
I am not talking about Hung Gar/Choy Li fut and other arts common to the south but rather the Fujian/Hakka related systems.
Good topic.
Hi Eric,
[QUOTE=Eric Ling;755606]Hi everybody,
Now it’s my turn to turn the spotlight onto someone else …… Jim Roselando…
Jim said :
“Small differences running between the arts. Including all south fist there really is only small differences.”
I think differences are pretty discernible.
But that’s just me, what about you folks?
Warmest Regards.
Eric
Ps Robert, you turned the “Karma Wheel” ……. :D[/QUOTE]
Excellent!
Here’s some info on Luoshan Pai (Mount Luo’s styles)
—
Enjoy
Warmest regards
Robert
Hi everybody,
Jim , I agree and disagree with you.
Those styles that you listed, at some levels, are related but still, there are perceivable differences.
Now I don’t really get it when you guys go DNA this and DNA that but I assume you are referring to “Mu Quan” or “Mother Fist Methods”.
At that fundamental level, yes I see your point. Or like Bruce Lee said: A punch is a punch and a kick is a kick.
But to me, there are many ways to kick or punch
If you were to ask for Wing Chun, White Crane, Bak Mei, Southern PM, Chu Gar or Saolim “Mu Quan”, I bet you that you’re going hear differing answers.
Entire training paradigm is designed around “Mu Quan” and that to me, lead to different ends.
Some common characteristics, yes.
But overall, still different.
Brothernumber9, imho, I think distinctions in the arts became blurred when they landed in places like USA.
This could be due to more “openness” practiced there.
Take my experience for example; when I was there I was doing seminars/workshops and I see folks from many styles attending and I wonder how much of what they picked up ended up in their training syllabus. I had teachers from other styles coming to my seminars….
Here in SE Asia, older Sifus are reluctant to give you more than a glimpse of their arts.
This mindset is only starting to change and humbly, I think it could be, in small way, due to folks like me.
Warmest Regards.
Eric
ps Robert, it’s 3 in the morning here in Kuching … but I viewed the clip you linked and noticed something interesting. Will get back to you on that one…
“Brothernumber9, imho, I think distinctions in the arts became blurred when they landed in places like USA.”
Eric, could yo elaborate a little more on this for me? I’m not sure what you mean by it. How does “openness” blur the distinctions, especially when many of these teachers are first generation immigrants, and had no prior contact or in many cases knowledge of each other.
Some say, well wing chun has tan sau and biu jee, SPM hook, swallow, spit, with Phoenix eye, Bak mei has similar with perhaps less “connecting”, Bak Hok has water palm. However, I beleive they all have what the other has, just favor different techs over the other with variances in power generation, particularly including or excluding waist movement/amplification and anchor from the back foot.
similarities and differences?
Depends on what POV one is using. To my mind…if one wants to do wing chun, one needs a good wing chun teacher.
Some knowledge of other southern arts may give some small cerebral understandings of wing chun-but one has to do wing chun to learn it.
joy chaudhuri
Hi brothernumber9,
Just an observation based on the folks I came into contact with in the US.
• One person doing multiple styles quite readily accepted.
• Workshops/seminars or short courses opened to all.
With all that “cross-training”, I expect some amount of blending to take place.
Maybe not with the early immigrant Sifus but I am more referring to contemporary
scenarios.
I think I goofed when I said “landed in USA”….:o
Robert, in the clip you posted, what do you make of the “leading leg stomping and leading hand striking” technique in almost every form ….
Warmest Regards.
Eric
Hello Eric,
The root of these arts is 3 Step/Tri Post Bow body.
Some call it:
3 Battles, 3 Steps, 3 Arrows, etc..
Hands can only flip and turn so many ways since they are built around Jung Sein principle boxing. What makes the difference then between them? Conditoining of the body and power generation.
DNA:
With regards to the wai gong aspects lets think of dna in this way.
Human 1: conditions his muscles with dip gwat gong from south mantis
Human 2: conditions his muscles with snake slide caccon from emei
Human 3: conditions his muscles with weight lifting from the gym
The result will be a different “”“Texture”“” to the muscle. When each person does there thing it will look the same but produce a different result on the end do to the conditioned Texture of the practitioner.
Power Generation:
This is simple enough. How you power the tools. (mange force vectors) The human body essentially can only flex open and close. Do you Press Up/Open mainly? Do you Drop/Close mainly? Etc..
Heart/Mind:
Ahhhhhhhh! Sensative topic! No time to get into this. Another avenue for art process discussion.
There is are only so many ways to move or twist the body. The way we condition it and deliver it make the major differences.
What makes Wing Chun Wing Chun is the Rou component. If you look at Crane being practiced with the Tri-Post horse I would say imagine if someone pulled the front leg back to even with rear leg? “”“Almost”“” (dont shoot me for saying that) Yi Ji Kim Yeung Ma. Someone took the San Chin idea and came up with Siu Lin Tau root idea. Legend states we are are the snake style of crane. With White crane having 350 years of solid written records, and effects on so many of the south tradititions, I would say we are just Soft Crane. 
Gotta run,
Hi Jim,
High hand, high hand indeed ….
“There is are only so many ways to move or twist the body. The way we condition it and deliver it make the major differences.”
Wouldn’t you say that these major differences constitute “perceivable differences” in the overall presentation of the art form?
I agree that SanChin permeates most Southern Fukien styles and to a certain extent, some Hakka.
Imho, because it’s such a complex concept, it spins off in many shades in various styles.
And with added elements from other concepts, some forms, even stemming from Sanchin, assume a different characteristics identity in a major manner.
Errrhhh, I hope you understand what I am trying to convey… me and my awkward writing.
To illustrate, take the case of White Crane.
Most would agree that it all started with Fukien White Crane or Yong Chun White Crane.
Over a period of time, it branches off to many substyles.
And if I just take Whooping Crane and cross reference it to the mother Crane, I not only see disparities in forms but also in deliveries and many other aspects.
Coincidentally, this was a topic that I discussed with both GM Pan Cheng Miaow and Ruan Dong when I spoke to them.
I did the same with Taiwan’s Sifu Liu Chang I.
And we agreed that we came from the same source but flowed in different directions; to the point that we’re perceivably different.
Have to concur that if you reduced it to DNA level, you see much sameness.
Errrhhh maybe I am splitting hair here?
Warmest Regards.
Eric
Nanquan (southern boxing), can be divided by regional characteristic, i.e., Guangdong and Fujian.
For example, Guangdong styles prefers the mabu/mah bouh (horse footstep) and gongbu/gung bouh (bow footstep); where as the Fujian prefers the erzibu /yih jih bouh (two character footstep) and the jiuzibu / gau jih bouh (nine character footstep).
Hi Eric and everyone, this is a great topic.
I have to agree that Southern Styles display a great deal of difference. This is because Southern Styles as a group display a wide range of flavours.
Basically, everyone has the same range of technical expression, we all hit, kick, lock and take down but the way its applied, the technical application, is different depending on the tactics chosen. For me tactics is a key component of a styles flavour i.e. what make Bai He the same or different from Lohan.
This basically comes down to the choice of different masters in the past as to what was effective for them and by extension what is effective in general. Sometimes this can be discerned by an expression like hands out stay out like Eric has commented before of the Hakka styles. (apologies Eric if I got the term wrong)
Thats why you also have a root system and can have many expressions down the line as various masters improve or adjust the basic flavour of a style.
This IMHO is something special in TCMA - it allows traditional and change states to exist at the same time and keeps the styles ALIVE.
Thats also where the ART of MA comes in and I think we as martial artists should look at and appreciate the different flavours of the styles rather than just compare technical similarities or differences as the specific techniques developed by a style, say a Wing Chun style punch as apposed to a Lohan style flat fist, cant be compared on their own merits in isolation but only in relation to the flavour of the style in application.
So even if maybe from a technical point of view things can seem to be reduced to similar things I feel its really the flavour of a style that differentiates one style from another.
Its like with noodle dishes something close to my heart. Take char koay teow, you can put more dark sauce or less, you can have clams or lap chong or both, more or less bean sprouts, prawns, etc but its still char koay teow. Change the ingredients and sauce a bit and you get char hor fun a different style even though the dish technically is kind of the same.
Hi Dave from Ozzy and everybody else ….
Thank you thank you,
Finally someone using terms like “ART OF MA” and “FLAVOR”…
For a while there, I thought I am the only one to still think of CMA in those manners.
Sorry I am really lousy in breaking down CMA into microscopic pieces and comparing.
For me it all about feel, flow and rhythm …. a kick might be a kick and a punch might just be a punch ….
But I dance to my own music.
Bottoms up Dave …..
Warmest Regards.
Eric
Btw…I like my noodles with fish balls, chilies, tomatoes sauce, minced pork and shi-ta-ke mushroom …. Like the way they serve it in Singapore…
I like the idea of a root or mother system, or core concepts, and different flavours evolving from the core.
If you were to take two people, put them in a vaccuum, meaning have no outside influence, and tell them to develop a close range fighting system, out of nessecity, they would need the following:
1-narrow, close stance, protecting the groin, and vitals,while maintaining movable root,quick mobility
2-elbows in,concave chest, chin tucked,to protect the vital targets
3-touch bridge sensitivity/reaction, as at thhis range, you are in contact with your opponent’s bridge most likely-eyes,brain,reaction cannot occur at this range
4-most likely some sort of “iron body” strike absorbtion
5-short power,inch power, shock power,scared power
6-specialized hand-fung-an choy,geurng ji kuen,biu,jow,etc needed for striking vital points-penetration of such, with above delivery system
7-a shorter,miserly breathing pattern, based on 4,5,and 6
That being said, what will you have? How can anything else have been developed? Yes, there are different flavours, but these core concepts are the ties that bind us all together. We are more similar than different.
(I didn’t know fish had balls:-)
Hi Eric, no way are you alone on this.
This is a way of appreciating things, having respectful dialog between practitioners and learning. We learn our Gung Fu with our hands, we express it with our hands, and if we want to learn more we show respect with our mouth to all others in Wu Lin.
Its what I picked up from my Teachers in Singapore. This is also how you touch hands and learn - safely. If you want to learn you have to eat someones Kung Fu not find intellectual ways of belittling it or putting yourself forward.
Gung Fu is “Art” as you can only appreciate art not compare. As soon as you compare there’s only one way to settle it.
Really, I think if practitioners talk in terms of comparison, youre better off not talking at all as such conversations invariably end up coming to a heated stale mate with each practitioner trying to convince another, whos not going to shift their ground anyway, that they are right or that their method is more correct, true to the source, refined, blah, blah, blah. I believe the Cantonese have a nice expression for this Talking down the cows horn, it comes to nothing.
We learn with our hands, when we talk here on the board we can get pointers to go out and test with our hands and you Eric, have provided many and I thank you but we cant learn anything until we do that.
I guess, basically, Im just a bit wary of what I think I know, as I do know, that my body will only do what it really knows and no more.
So for me Flavour is the best term to talk about the way styles express themselves. You can get a taste from the forms but it only really gets interesting when you touch hands.
Ten Tigers
I agree with you, but the Flavour of a style and its development from a root or “master sauce” (yep, I like cooking) is a bit different from its characteristics be they similar or different. Its like a life story you can kind of touch down the ages and it takes time to develop. This is why I dont do MMA cause its kind of like eating nothing but plain rice porridge - keeps you going and does the job but theres that and more in TCMA.
Dont get me wrong I think we all need to put the gloves on and get a bit of porridge. I just appreciate all the side dishes that come with TCMA as well, including the fish balls. Im a greedy b@$tard.
Ok, I’m done philosophising
So in the interest of continuing on in the theme of the thread I’d like to ask everyone what you think of this.
To me, Wing Chun has more of Hakka flavour than Crane - what does anyone else think?
[QUOTE=Jim Roselando;755888]
DNA:
With regards to the wai gong aspects lets think of dna in this way.
Human 1: conditions his muscles with dip gwat gong from south mantis
Human 2: conditions his muscles with snake slide caccon from emei
Human 3: conditions his muscles with weight lifting from the gym
The result will be a different “”“Texture”“” to the muscle. When each person does there thing it will look the same but produce a different result on the end do to the conditioned Texture of the practitioner.
There is are only so many ways to move or twist the body. The way we condition it and deliver it make the major differences.
[/QUOTE]
please explain this in greater detail
Hi everybody,
“1-narrow, close stance, protecting the groin, and vitals,while maintaining movable root,quick mobility
2-elbows in,concave chest, chin tucked,to protect the vital targets
3-touch bridge sensitivity/reaction, as at thhis range, you are in contact with your opponent’s bridge most likely-eyes,brain,reaction cannot occur at this range
4-most likely some sort of “iron body” strike absorbtion
5-short power,inch power, shock power,scared power
6-specialized hand-fung-an choy,geurng ji kuen,biu,jow,etc needed for striking vital points-penetration of such, with above delivery system
7-a shorter,miserly breathing pattern, based on 4,5,and 6”
Hahahaha, this forum is full of high hands…
Cannot argue with you on the above.
Rik, you , more or less, encapsulated most features for close fighting.
I could add :-
Chin –na/suppressing
Throwing/groundworks
Bridge-breaking – taking out opponent’s body weapons
But then again, not all styles employ everything.
Some specialize in one or configuration of a few of the above methodologies.
To me, the permutation is endless considering that we are only limiting ourselves within the scope we define. Some styles are combo of both North and South elements and that open up the premises.
I like the way Dave put it. CKF is ART and as in any art, there are no predeterminations or absolutes.
To accurately say 2 arts are similar; not only in texture but also elemental components, would mean understanding both “porridges”.
Can anyone here honestly say that they have that capability?
You never know until you do, to quote Dave.
Dave, we say “renowned Sifus produce adept students”; who is your Sifu in Singapore ?
Warmest Regards.
Eric
Rik, fish balls are meatballs using fish for ingredient. See I told you folks words get in the way….
[QUOTE=Ozzy Dave;756288]Ok, I’m done philosophising
So in the interest of continuing on in the theme of the thread I’d like to ask everyone what you think of this.
To me, Wing Chun has more of Hakka flavour than Crane - what does anyone else think?[/QUOTE] Hello Dave , Have you seen Eric Vids on Fan Zhuang and shaolin hakka mantis?, These are hakka styles but have similar techs to crane and in body posture, what we refer to hakka in the west is the concept from lung ying , bak mei and the chu gar , juklum, iron ox ETC body shapes, but this is not exaustable. We all can get the same food ingrediants but the way we cook and the outcome of the taste and look of the dish is very different.
This is interesting stuff ,
Hopefully Eric i will see you in May will be there 25th may onwards. Carlsburg in hand.
sean