[QUOTE=RenDaHai;1203726]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8NrLSCa16no DaTongBeiYiLu
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HQbZsgJ-pb4 DaHongQuanYiLu
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xub2tLJYzRY XiaoHongQuanYiLu
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O85HqfdCU74 TiShouPaoChui
[/QUOTE]
OK, I’ve just had independent confirmation from an expert that these forms are not Wushu based! 
So why are the monks practising Wushu if they practise Hong Quan? I don’t get it. 
[QUOTE=falkor;1203835]OK, well argued, my friend! We’ll revisit this debate another time… but right now I’m out of my depth. However, I’ve just found a UK supplier for Gene Ching’s Shaolin Trips–my order has been successfully placed! Thank you for your time debating with me, as you are the only one whose really contributed to this discussion together with some good simple suggestions coming from Gene Ching. Just tell me one last thing before I go away and contemplate your teachings… have you spotted any patterns between northern and southern styles of Kung Fu? If so, what southern styles are most similar to northern, and what are the forms common to both?[/QUOTE]
Fair enough.
Their are similarities in technique. But not so much in performance.
The closest is CaiLiFo (CHoyLayFut)
Even though its techniques are the same as other southern styles the way it performs its forms is close to northern style. So it is easy to see the same techniques.
Look up Black Tiger, HeiHuMen or I believe Hak Fu Men in cantonese. This is also very similar in technique.
Even WIngChun contains the same moves, but it is harder to see because they are all used in the small frame and the forms contain less foot work.
[QUOTE=falkor;1203831]
*Today’s Shaolin Kung Fu is nothing like what was taught 18th/19th centuries.
*Many styles of Shaolin/Kung Fu have been lost.
*5 Animals is originally from Shaolin and survives through styles of the south.
I stick by that, but I already know you don’t agree, so you don’t have to defend yourself. :p[/QUOTE]
You came to the forum with questions, but now it sounds like you already have answers. Where are YOUR sources?
[QUOTE=falkor;1203837]OK, I’ve just had independent confirmation from an expert that these forms are not Wushu based! So why are the monks practising Wushu if they practise Hong Quan? I don’t get it. [/QUOTE]
Because Wushu looks nicer and the job for a lot of ‘monks’ is performance. So they practice wushu for the performance. They rarely perform traditional sets.
There is more buisness in Sanda and Wushu and performance than in traditional so that many people favour those options. Actually there are 4 choices in Dengfeng, Sanda (kickboxing) Wushu (competition), BiaoYan (performance) and Chuantong (traditional).
Performance and Wushu are different as one is to look good, the other is to stick to rules of competition performance. Its more sport less drama.
I practice ChuanTong and Sanda. (if it was all the same they wouldn’t have these different classes).
[QUOTE=RenDaHai;1203838]Fair enough.
Their are similarities in technique. But not so much in performance.
The closest is CaiLiFo (CHoyLayFut)
Even though its techniques are the same as other southern styles the way it performs its forms is close to northern style. So it is easy to see the same techniques.
Look up Black Tiger, HeiHuMen or I believe Hak Fu Men in cantonese. This is also very similar in technique.
Even WIngChun contains the same moves, but it is harder to see because they are all used in the small frame and the forms contain less foot work.[/QUOTE]
So you agree there is some connection between southern boxing and northern Song Shan styles? Do you believe in the Southern Shaolin Temple? Shout “objection” if you don’t wish to answer that question.
Subscribers help support this forum
[QUOTE=falkor;1203796]It looks like I need to buy your book ASAP! If I subscribe to the magazine do I get access to back issues, including all past articles (I see you already allow free access to cover articles)? I don’t think subscribing to future issues is going to help me a great deal as my novice questions would have more chance of being addressed in earlier issues. BTW, the masters section sounds really interesting.[/QUOTE] We only provide the cover stories and a few select feature articles as free access web articles. While a subscription won’t help you tap our archive of back issues, research in the Chinese martial arts is vital, so you’ll want to keep up with the latest. Also, each issue is composed to appeal to the beginner and expert alike, so many of the basic questions are answered time and time again, often with new insights, but at the very least, as introductions to set up present articles. You’ll notice that many of your questions are answered in the early chapters of my book. Same may well go for many of the feature articles we publish.
[QUOTE=falkor;1203841]So you agree there is some connection between southern boxing and northern Song Shan styles? Do you believe in the Southern Shaolin Temple? Shout “objection” if you don’t wish to answer that question. :)[/QUOTE]
Yes. i don’t know if it called itself Shaolin or was affiliated with song shan, but I believe there was a central zen temple connected to the transmission of the southern styles. The fact the southern styles are generally similar in performance to each other and yet wholly different to the northern styles (in performance) suggests they are all related closely.
There are religious elements to southern styles and more Buddhist than Taoist (though both exist and some with no affiliation).
There is of course connection. The technique is the same if you look at it with experienced eyes. But whether that comes from Song shan or not i don’t know. Most northern styles are very similar indeed.
[QUOTE=GeneChing;1203842]We only provide the cover stories and a few select feature articles as free access web articles. While a subscription won’t help you tap our archive of back issues, research in the Chinese martial arts is vital, so you’ll want to keep up with the latest. Also, each issue is composed to appeal to the beginner and expert alike, so many of the basic questions are answered time and time again, often with new insights, but at the very least, as introductions to set up present articles. You’ll notice that many of your questions are answered in the early chapters of my book. Same may well go for many of the feature articles we publish.[/QUOTE]
OK, well said! Look forward to receiving the book first before deciding on subscription. Thank you.
Just an addition;
What is a Shaolin Temple Kung Fu form and what is not?
There is this myth that Shaolin was this ISOLATED temple where no one was allowed to leave and secret kung fu was practiced within the walls only.
This probably never happened. Shaolin Kung fu was in constant flux crossing with the Kung fu of the local villages and absorbing the Kung fu from monks of all china who came there.
There is no way we can say whether a form was created inside the temple walls or not. Why? Because quite literally the walls were not always there. Think of Song Shan as a city and Shaolin as a district.
Where then do we draw the line? Kung Fu from all china pays homage to shaolin.
The line is SONG SHAN. Why? Because when Kung fu goes to another part of china it is influenced by the local styles. But in SOng Shan all the local styles are Shaolin. So things stay shaolin like. That is why all the Kung fu in SOng Shan has that Shaolin flavour.
SO when we see Shaolin Kung Fu from another part of China, it is not quite Shaolin. Even when it has a strong lineage it will be influenced by its local styles. So it looks less like Shaolin.
Kung Fu that comes from Song Shan keeps the influence of other SOng Shan styles and the SHaolin temple itself and so Song Shan Kung fu is the ancestral Shaolin.
You cannot seperate SOng Shan and Shaolin. Song Mountain is a breathing creature and the Shaolin temple is its heart.
(This reminds me of a wonderful local legend that ShaoShi Shan is hollow and inside lives a gigantic snake that is fed by the people of the mountian)
[QUOTE=RenDaHai;1203840]Because Wushu looks nicer and the job for a lot of ‘monks’ is performance. So they practice wushu for the performance. They rarely perform traditional sets.
There is more buisness in Sanda and Wushu and performance than in traditional so that many people favour those options. Actually there are 4 choices in Dengfeng, Sanda (kickboxing) Wushu (competition), BiaoYan (performance) and Chuantong (traditional).
Performance and Wushu are different as one is to look good, the other is to stick to rules of competition performance. Its more sport less drama.
I practice ChuanTong and Sanda. (if it was all the same they wouldn’t have these different classes).[/QUOTE]
I guess I’ve had my 3 questions already, but if you’ve got time for one more: why does Wushu imitate animals like southern boxing styles but Chuantong doesn’t!?
Southern styles dont really imitate animals either. The animal style thing was played up in hong kong cinema back in the day and alot of people used that to market themselves and their schools.
[QUOTE=falkor;1203847]I guess I’ve had my 3 questions already, but if you’ve got time for one more: why does Wushu imitate animals like southern boxing styles but Chuantong doesn’t!? [/QUOTE]
Because they know that many people have seen all the old HongKong movies from the which contain all the animal stuff. Those are the same movies they got to watch. So they rebranded the southern mythology like it was from SongShan which it isn’t.
Its simple marketing. That is what people expect of Shaolin because of the movies. NOtice the 1982 movie actually doesn’t do the animla stuff. It does the drunken but thats another story.
Actually modern Wushu is a very specific sport. It also doesn’t contain the animals so much. It has famous styles (which include Eagle and Mantis). It is the recent Shaolin Performance stuff that does all the animals.
Thanks again for clearing that up. You said there are only 4 classes taught, so what is the difference between modern Wushu and the “recent Shaolin performance stuff that does all the animals”? Does the latter have a specific name?
[QUOTE=falkor;1203850]Thanks again for clearing that up. You said there are only 4 classes taught, so what is the difference between modern Wushu and the “recent Shaolin performance stuff that does all the animals”? Does the latter have a specific name?[/QUOTE]
Na, we just say performance.
It is similar but in Performance it is still necessary to use explosive power and use Intent. Sport wushu is a different kind of power and has to snap into perfect stances with straight lines. Performance it is good to add drama, expression and make the stances look coiled as they should be.
Either way both are mainly jumps. Where as sport wushu has very specific jumping kicks performance you can do more gymnastics and tricks.
Not to knock them they are extremely good training. They give you speed, power balance and agility in a way like nothing else.
Performance;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_VQkDx03Kpg
Sport;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t1l19hFwD28
You will notice how different both of these are to the traditional forms I posted earlier.
Traditional;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8NrLSCa16no
animals everywhere
[QUOTE=RenDaHai;1203849]NOtice the 1982 movie actually doesn’t do the animla stuff. It does the drunken but thats another story.[/QUOTE] There’s tanglang in that film. The head monk was played by Yu Hai and tanglang is his specialty. A few of the actors in that film came from Shandong like Yu; Shandong is the cradle of mantis. This became much more overt in the later films of the trilogy. See my cover story The Big Monk of Shaolin Temple: Mantis Grandmaster Yu Hai from our 2007 Shaolin Special.
[QUOTE=GeneChing;1203854]There’s tanglang in that film. The head monk was played by Yu Hai and tanglang is his specialty. A few of the actors in that film came from Shandong like Yu; Shandong is the cradle of mantis. This became much more overt in the later films of the trilogy. See my cover story The Big Monk of Shaolin Temple: Mantis Grandmaster Yu Hai from our 2007 Shaolin Special.[/QUOTE]
True. Yuhai is awesome too.
But it doesn’t contain the 5 animals (snake crane dragon tiger leopard).
I wouldn’t even consider southern styles as imitating animals. IMO, actually imitating a tiger, would be a man literally getting down on all fours and trying to look/act like a tiger, roaring, etc. Or a man slithering around on the ground, arms against his sides, flicking his tongue, trying to be a snake.
But even southern five animals movements are all human movements that drew inspiration from animals. For example, CLF’s Tiger Set (Fu Ying Kuen) is human movements meant to be practiced with the tiger’s ‘spirit’. Which is quite a different thing from imitation.
[QUOTE=RenDaHai;1203728]It is top of my to do list.
I am going to release a video of all 4 roads of Shaolin Temples XHQ and then videos of 3 other village XHQ I think are of interest.
I have to do the performance myself and get someone to film it and find a nice location first though. Videos don’t exist of most of this stuff.[/QUOTE]
It would be awesome to get to see the variations from the village styles…I’ll be sure to check it out when you finish!
[QUOTE=pazman;1203839]You came to the forum with questions, but now it sounds like you already have answers. Where are YOUR sources?[/QUOTE]
he sounds like a kenpo guy. i think you guys are spending too much energy explaning all this.
[QUOTE=bawang;1203908]he sounds like a kenpo guy. i think you guys are spending too much energy explaning all this.[/QUOTE]
I agree. If he can’t understand that Shaolin Kung Fu was also practiced outside the temple grounds, in the immediate vicinity, or that the destruction of the temple didn’t mean that everyone in the neighborhood instantly forgot how to do Kung Fu, then your wasting your breath.
Sees the performing monks doing wushu and assumes that’s all that is taught, then ignores the guy that’s lived there and all the others that have trained it? Don’t understand how the old masters couldn’t have been practicing modern wushu before it was invented. I know a thread he’d be right at home on. :rolleyes:
I’m surprised how serious people take the government bans on martial arts. Lots of governments in lots of countries banned martial arts. That don’t mean people never practiced them. Okinawa and Japan also banned MAs. We still have their arts.
Do they not have any idea how difficult it would be to police every mountain village for possible martial artists? Where would the resources and political will to do something so difficult come from? You know pot is illegal in the States. Been for quite some time, hasn’t disappeared though.
It just seems ridiculous to believe ancient China’s government would have had the ability to eradicate MAs in rural areas. Close the big schools in the cities? Sure, they could do that. Stop every person in the countryside/mountain villages from training, many who may not even have known of the law?? Pretty doubtful.
The Taiwan/Hong Kong thing is far fetched too. If your on the southern coast, close to these areas and wealthy..maybe. In Henan, with no ties to these areas, thousands of farmers are just going to up and migrate to Taiwan, many of them traveling by foot…c’mon now…