Zhao Yang Quan, Mizong Quan, and a couple others

[SHemmati]

a bit on misunderstandings…

not quite related to your questions, but since i mentioned the word “MISUNDERSTANDS”, let clear it a bit with some examples. each one of these requires an all-new thread of its own:

[QUOTE=SHemmati;1315676]the most common misunderstandings include: …[/QUOTE]

• misnomers:
  “Stance Training” is the most notable instance of misnomer. there was some exercises people called stance training. later they deepened their misunderstanding and nowadays we see people holding still in Ding bu, and Xu bu, and others like a fool, feeling happy their doing traditional wisdom, but it’s actually a misunderstanding.

• different things with similar names:
  in Shaolin there’s pao quan, tong bi quan, chang quan, etc., mizong quan as well. people think that this pao quan or tong bi quan is the same as the non-Shaolin pao quan and tong bi quan, etc., while these have NOTHING in common. they’re just different things with the same or similar names.

• mixing modern concepts with Shaolin:
  for example, some people say: in Ma bu your feet should be parallel with toes pointing forward. this is wrong. this is what people in southern China do. we in never do it that terrible way in Shaolin; in Shaolin we naturally lay our feet outwards pointing to sides.
  or people say: in Ma bu your thighs should be parallel to the ground, the feet should be apart 2 shoulder widths. this is also not true in Shaolin. this STANDARDIZATION comes from modern Wushu, in Shaolin stances could be quite higher or lower, wider or narrower; there’s no standard.

not only newbies, but famous instructors are also infected with misunderstandings. for example, consider a famous name like Shi Deyang. he teaches all the above misunderstandings in his videos!!! everything about mizong quan he says in his videos are plain misunderstandings.

[Djuan]

[QUOTE=SHemmati;1315677]not quite related to your questions, but since i mentioned the word “MISUNDERSTANDS”, let clear it a bit with some examples. each one of these requires an all-new thread of its own:

• misnomers:
  “Stance Training” is the most notable instance of misnomer. there was some exercises people called stance training. later they deepened their misunderstanding and nowadays we see people holding still in Ding bu, and Xu bu, and others like a fool, feeling happy their doing traditional wisdom, but it’s actually a misunderstanding.

• different things with similar names:
  in Shaolin there’s pao quan, tong bi quan, chang quan, etc., mizong quan as well. people think that this pao quan or tong bi quan is the same as the non-Shaolin pao quan and tong bi quan, etc., while these have NOTHING in common. they’re just different things with the same or similar names.

• mixing modern concepts with Shaolin:
  for example, some people say: in Ma bu your feet should be parallel with toes pointing forward. this is wrong. this is what people in southern China do. we in never do it that terrible way in Shaolin; in Shaolin we naturally lay our feet outwards pointing to sides.
  or people say: in Ma bu your thighs should be parallel to the ground, the feet should be apart 2 shoulder widths. this is also not true in Shaolin. this STANDARDIZATION comes from modern Wushu, in Shaolin stances could be quite higher or lower, wider or narrower; there’s no standard. [/QUOTE]

Right, a lot of stuff get lost in translation. I figured the mizong quan performed by Shi DeYang was its own apart from the other styles calling itself that.
it’s not just in martial arts, in any form of recorded history dealing with art, politics, trade, spirituality, even language, as time passes the story and thus the “essences”, are subject to change, for whatever reason. (too many to list)
because Shaolin has its curriculum, we have some what of a ruler to measure the art with, yet its still based on each masters ‘signature’ of their intent, personal variations which will be unique to the individual, and poise throughout the form. (take the difference in Shi De Yang, Shi De Cheng, and Shi De Jian, all from the same generations, yet express the same forms completely different, yet equally fierce and with their own grace to it.)
So some things will remain , and others will always vary.

to the eye, Zhao Yang Quan and XiaoLuohan Quan resemble. Makes me think Zhao Yang is a Buddha hand like the more popular Luohan Hands. (another example , the Luohan shibashou taught on Shi De Yangs dvd, is version for the dvd, very sharp and linear. Shi De Jian has made popular a totally different, rounder expression of the same form.)
ChangHuixnyinmen Quan is VERY fundamental, yet in the short version commonly taught, pu bu doesnt happen as a stance or in transition in the entire form, which for a fundamental Shaolin fist, thats unusual. where as Du Li bu happens in transitions a few times, and in instances where one draws power from above rather than below. Though you can draw power from below using that style by inserting pu bu quickly in certain transitions. Shi Yong Zhi has a dvd teaching it, and its like the one taught in the US, with no pubu variation of the sort though, that expression of Changhuxxinyimen is popular so its expected to draw power from above when you use it.

this is in plain sight. so some study can be done regardless, even with Shi De Yangs philosophy in the mix, his performance style is unique to him for sure.

not only newbies, but famous instructors are also infected with misunderstandings. for example, consider a famous name like Shi Deyang. he teaches all the above misunderstandings in his videos!!! everything about mizong quan he says in his videos are plain misunderstandings.
lol he’s still performed it best I’ve seen in that way!!! also he’s surely reducing the intent, and talking for the videos sake.

For the record, I stand by his style of taolu as one of the sturdiest on the planet when it comes to traditional Shaolin Quan of Songshan, with no added fluff for show, and I know he can use it to fight beyond what he’s showing on those short dvds. I dont know him personally, however I know for a fact the applications he teaches in books and dvds, along with his brief philosophy and history on each style, is brief at best, and definitely not revealing the non-noob/non-civilian chamber of Shaolin Quan fa. I know he tailors the subject matter for the western and modern audiences who have either, too short an attention span, or too busy a schedule, or both.. and prefer to learn things short, and quickly. though that short and “politically correct” dose of Shaolin Gong Fu doesnt satisfy the in depth scholars who like to pick it all apart and put it back together just for learning (guys like us lol) , I am still very thankful to have even that much access to seeing it.
With that said I dont hold anything against how he teaches them there. Im sure he’d be more expansive in the offering to a personal student or disciple of his in person.

For example, advanced teachers wont generalize stance specifics in a way that doesnt complement the student and strengthen that student specifically. And he’s beyond advanced. With the dvds comingg out how they do, a general description for things would be needed, I get that part, and it doesnt bother me so much, because Im at peace with knowing I know so little, and have so many questions lol, only thing that could fix the quest for knowledge is actually going to see him ad asking in person lol.
You know like I do, one form can be of study for years, decades. So hes not giving the whole kit in an hour video, with Shaolin , its just not possible to give it all up in an hour lol

with defining the movement, its hard to do because nothing is really absolute, with traditional Shaolin…Taolu is a great example of “emptiness is form, form is emptiness” because essentially , you would have to be the exact same height, weight, and possibly age, having the same agility, flexibility, TIMING/BREATHING, INTENT, alignment and weight distribution etc etc to do the form as described and performed by your master, however, though you cant perform exactly it the same, you can certainly apply your masters performance to yours as a measuring.

One advantage adept students have with learning this way now, is a solid foundation. So interpreting Shifu De Yangs material would be easier and more fruitful to you than it would be to a newbie who would take everything he says and does on face value. Plus its cool to see so many masters putting their signature on styles we learned from our masters, and refining your performance to suit you. Thats why I appreciate it. As of yet, for now, I havent been to China, so some of his work and like works from other Shaolin masters have helped me that way with my study here in the US, seeing thing I learned performed and explained from the points of views of the masters at Shaolin.and since Ive been at it for more than half my life, its easy to digest and decipher , even with the language barrier and minimal explanation.

This very old guy told me before , that there was this world before the internet where you might see you master do something once, and he wont show you again lol, you just have to know enough ad be present enough to receive the transmission when he feels you are ready. Like a Zen transmission, some people, search and search, and still dont get the answer from the master, while some meet the master and are instantly enlightened .

Amituofo

[SHemmati]

ok. turns out the misunderstandings topic i noted was quite related to the subject:

1. that one instructor’s form seems different from others’ is most the times not difference, they’re doing the same form. in traditional kung fu, the range, width, height, direction, right/left of every move is flexible. so every time i perform a form, you see it visually different from the previous times. this is true traditional performance. standardizations that fix the extension, width, height, direction, left/right, etc., of moves are a misunderstanding, as i first mentioned above.
   (for example, as i previously told, in traditional Mabu stance, the feet could be as wide as just a few inches up to 3 times the shoulder width or more if possible. its height could be so low that the butts touch the ground and so high the your knees are straight. these are all Mabu, and no width or height is considered better or more standard.)

[SHemmati]

2. in the case of mizong quan, there are at least 2 absolutely irrelevant things, having nothing, neither historical nor technical, in common, while both are called mizong:

• the mizong yi or mizong quan of Huo Yuanjia and others, which is also called Yan Qing quan, is a typical northern style with its own history, lineages, and technical contents that are totally different from Shaolin kung fu. it’s a style with it’s own stuff and several forms.

• the one or pair of the forms called mizong or xinyi or xinyi mizong in Shaolin kung fu are a totally different thing. these forms are neither similar to Yan Qing quan nor even to Shaolin! look like 2 made-up forms as a mish-mash of various techniques which are mostly irrelevant to Shaolin kung fu style.

2 different things with similar names. later generations, like Shi Deyang, don’t know this, and judging by the names, erroneously consider these to be the same or at least related!

Huo Yuanjia’s mizong quan and Yan Qing quan are not related to Shaolin. but those 2 forms called mizong are practiced in the temple, and i’ll describe their technical content (which is mostly unrelated to the Shaolin style) in the next post to end this topic.

in other threads i’l explain more about various misunderstandings!

[Djuan]

[QUOTE=SHemmati;1315715]2. in the case of mizong quan, there are at least 2 absolutely irrelevant things, having nothing, neither historical nor technical, in common, while both are called mizong:

• the mizong yi or mizong quan of Huo Yuanjia and others, which is also called Yan Qing quan, is a typical northern style with its own history, lineages, and technical contents that are totally different from Shaolin kung fu. it’s a style with it’s own stuff and several forms.

• the one or pair of the forms called mizong or xinyi or xinyi mizong in Shaolin kung fu are a totally different thing. these forms are neither similar to Yan Qing quan nor even to Shaolin! look like 2 made-up forms as a mish-mash of various techniques which are mostly irrelevant to Shaolin kung fu style.

2 different things with similar names. later generations, like Shi Deyang, don’t know this, and judging by the names, erroneously consider these to be the same or at least related!

Huo Yuanjia’s mizong quan and Yan Qing quan are not related to Shaolin. but those 2 forms called mizong are practiced in the temple, and i’ll describe their technical content (which is mostly unrelated to the Shaolin style) in the next post to end this topic.

in other threads i’l explain more about various misunderstandings![/QUOTE]

Understood. That solves the questions I had about mizong quan , I’d like to know what its combined of and who combined it that way. I can dig that up though.

Also gained a better understanding of Zhao Yang Quan too. very helpful and insightful. more than before, it still seems like a child of Luohan.

about the Luohan hands, I think it said something about there being 8 versions of Luohan Shibashou. Shi De Yang has the first version , or simplest version on his dvds, and Shi De Jian teaches the 8th version, or most complex version.

Amituofo

[Djuan]

fine tuning Zhao Yang Quan

[QUOTE=SHemmati;1315714]ok. turns out the misunderstandings topic i noted was quite related to the subject:

1. that one instructor’s form seems different from others’ is most the times not difference, they’re doing the same form. in traditional kung fu, the range, width, height, direction, right/left of every move is flexible. so every time i perform a form, you see it visually different from the previous times. this is true traditional performance. [/QUOTE]

Amituofo

As my luck would have it, I have learned a version different from Shi De Yangs video, yet recently, I have been trying some of his variables in transitional moves because his form is pretty sturdy. So as I was going thru the video, I noticed during the segment where he demos the entire form, in the start and finish of the video, he uses a move not displayed in the “step-by-step” instruction of the same segment of the form.
Its during the “3rd segment”, moves 20 thru 23 are different than his performance of the form when he displays it in its entirety. To give him the benefit of the doubt, its a plausible mistake, while going thru loads if taolu, to mix and extra punch on accident, lol, for the sake of study however, I’d like to know if he did that on purpose, which would render the instructional video flawed in its delivery to the student who hasnt learned the form to begin with.

Little nuances like this might seem small, yet if you were trying to preserve a taolu precisely as it was transmitted to you “every finger and toe counts” as my teacher would say.

I imagine the only way to clear up Shi De Yangs delivery of the form would be to read the poem of his version. In this forms instruction, move 20, which would be a variant on pu bu qie zhang, moves to punching in ma bu with the r hand, and he teaches it this way in the step-by-step instructions, (not how he performs it)
and it could be a mix up of the first pu bu qie zhang earlier in the form @ 4:57 in the video Example , where you transition out of pu bu, into R gong bu punching with the Left and blocking with the Right. At 4:59, Example 2 .. he makes the transition from pu bu to gong bu, again, which is fine if thats how its supposed to be. Here Instruction Example In the step by step segment, he clearly, even says it, that the “next move is thrusting fist in horse stance, and it starts with cut palm in pu bu”

…

you would think, if the form is supposed to be as it is in the beginning of the video, they would catch on and fix it, or just re-perform the intro to match the instruction, however, this mix up is left there, so I bring it to you for some understanding.

Amituofo

[RenDaHai]

[QUOTE=Djuan;1313902]

So first question, structural integrity of mizong quan, what is its root? how much of mizong quan if found in other Shaolin quan, and why so?

then structural integrity, and root of Zhao Yang Quan (bright Sun fist),

also origin of this style, little to no information found on it. why is this fist not more popular?

next, is the style of Qixing quan and changhuxinmen quan? what branch do these styles originate from, and how did they integrate into becoming a staple "Shaolin Fist"?

next, why is the structural integrity and flow of these two fists so different from Zhao Yang, which relates, in opinion, to Da Lohan more than Xiao Hong Quan or QiXing Quan? which when asked, most students would agree are foundation hands, wu bu quan, jin ben gong, louhan shibashou aside....when fists become the topic, xiao hong or qixing is more popular, in different styles, still same hands are most popular.

Amituofo[/QUOTE]

Hi Djuan.

From what I know of these forms;

There is a style in china called Mizong Yi and YanQing Quan. However Mizong is not always related to this. The name is also given to a form that has lost the track of its lineage. Sometimes when there is a random form that no one knows where it comes from but they want to preserve it they call it Mizong. I slightly suspect Shaolin Xinyi Mizong may be of the kind as this. Its techniques are clearly Shandong Province but its hard to say more. ITs a great form though.

Zhaoyang quan is mainly Luohan Quan material and a bit of Shaolin TanTui. Actually there are 4 forms. There is the short one which gets called variously Zhaoyang, Chaoyang and Guanchao, then there is the old one which is very long, that has 3 sections. It is always called Zhaoyang. It has 3 sections so there are a total of 4 forms but it is itself all one connected form. One of my Masters, Shi YongWen, knew the whole thing but didn’t teach it. He did publish a book in the 80’s with the second section in it. I know from him the manual. It is more interesting than the short form. But as I say, it is mainly Luohan Quan. It was passed down by Shi Degen so is probably Temple orthadox. Judging by the 3 sections I would say it is nanyuan pai.

Here is the list of techniques in the 3 section old Zhaoyang:
, , ,.

QiXing Quan:

QiXing Quan is from Qixing Ba. Qixing Ba is a set of individual techniques based on the 4 animals “Gibbon, Rooster, Tiger, Dragon”. There are 4 taolu forms, one for each animal. The popular Qixing Quan is a combination fo the Gibbon and Rooster forms. IT si the version from Mogou village (where Changhuxinyimen also comes from). The old QiXing Ba with 4 forms is much more interesting and has an overlap of techniques with Xinyiba (such as QiLuo shaungba and Hupuba and Yishenshanba). Qixing quan is part of Shaolins “Xinyimen”. There is much xinyi style in the area and this is the meeting of xinyi styles with Shaolin proper.

I learned all 4 forms, I have a video of the Dragon one, may try to upload soon. All the forms follow the same pattern but with different techniques.

Changhuxinyimen. This form is a combination of the Mogou village Xiao Hong QUan combined with Xinyimen Shaolin.

The Xioahongquan of Mogou is from Emperer HOngWu, the first emperor of the ming dynasty. There was a large battle fought in songshan and many soldiers stayed and local conscripted so the whole area has taizu hong quan (taizu means first emperor of a dynasty so there is both ming taizu and song taizu and they often get confused).

Hope that helps, I don’t have so much time to get on here often

RDH

[Djuan]

[QUOTE=RenDaHai;1316142]Hi Djuan.

From what I know of these forms;

There is a style in china called Mizong Yi and YanQing Quan. However Mizong is not always related to this. The name is also given to a form that has lost the track of its lineage. Sometimes when there is a random form that no one knows where it comes from but they want to preserve it they call it Mizong. I slightly suspect Shaolin Xinyi Mizong may be of the kind as this. Its techniques are clearly Shandong Province but its hard to say more. ITs a great form though.

Zhaoyang quan is mainly Luohan Quan material and a bit of Shaolin TanTui. Actually there are 4 forms. There is the short one which gets called variously Zhaoyang, Chaoyang and Guanchao, then there is the old one which is very long, that has 3 sections. It is always called Zhaoyang. It has 3 sections so there are a total of 4 forms but it is itself all one connected form. One of my Masters, Shi YongWen, knew the whole thing but didn’t teach it. He did publish a book in the 80’s with the second section in it. I know from him the manual. It is more interesting than the short form. But as I say, it is mainly Luohan Quan. It was passed down by Shi Degen so is probably Temple orthadox. Judging by the 3 sections I would say it is nanyuan pai.

Here is the list of techniques in the 3 section old Zhaoyang:
, , ,.

QiXing Quan:

QiXing Quan is from Qixing Ba. Qixing Ba is a set of individual techniques based on the 4 animals “Gibbon, Rooster, Tiger, Dragon”. There are 4 taolu forms, one for each animal. The popular Qixing Quan is a combination fo the Gibbon and Rooster forms. IT si the version from Mogou village (where Changhuxinyimen also comes from). The old QiXing Ba with 4 forms is much more interesting and has an overlap of techniques with Xinyiba (such as QiLuo shaungba and Hupuba and Yishenshanba). Qixing quan is part of Shaolins “Xinyimen”. There is much xinyi style in the area and this is the meeting of xinyi styles with Shaolin proper.

I learned all 4 forms, I have a video of the Dragon one, may try to upload soon. All the forms follow the same pattern but with different techniques.

Changhuxinyimen. This form is a combination of the Mogou village Xiao Hong QUan combined with Xinyimen Shaolin.

The Xioahongquan of Mogou is from Emperer HOngWu, the first emperor of the ming dynasty. There was a large battle fought in songshan and many soldiers stayed and local conscripted so the whole area has taizu hong quan (taizu means first emperor of a dynasty so there is both ming taizu and song taizu and they often get confused).

Hope that helps, I don’t have so much time to get on here often

RDH[/QUOTE]

much thanks for this RDH !!
Amituofo

[Djuan]

Shi De Yang’s latest version of Zhao Yang Quan

This is near exact to the one I learned. Theres another variation where there are single cannons (punches) during the “boy worships Buddha” segment of the taolu, instead of triple cannons during that same segment like this style of the form.
both variations are accurate.
just subtle Songshan Shaolin nuances lol “do ya wanna punch the guy once or thrice?” , its totally up to you lol

Amituofo

//youtu.be/R3klDNne39Y

[Djuan]

Practie it Well

[QUOTE=SHemmati;1315677]not quite related to your questions, but since i mentioned the word “MISUNDERSTANDS”, let clear it a bit with some examples. each one of these requires an all-new thread of its own:

• misnomers:
  “Stance Training” is the most notable instance of misnomer. there was some exercises people called stance training. later they deepened their misunderstanding and nowadays we see people holding still in Ding bu, and Xu bu, and others like a fool, feeling happy their doing traditional wisdom, but it’s actually a misunderstanding.

• different things with similar names:
  in Shaolin there’s pao quan, tong bi quan, chang quan, etc., mizong quan as well. people think that this pao quan or tong bi quan is the same as the non-Shaolin pao quan and tong bi quan, etc., while these have NOTHING in common. they’re just different things with the same or similar names.

• mixing modern concepts with Shaolin:
  for example, some people say: in Ma bu your feet should be parallel with toes pointing forward. this is wrong. this is what people in southern China do. we in never do it that terrible way in Shaolin; in Shaolin we naturally lay our feet outwards pointing to sides.
  or people say: in Ma bu your thighs should be parallel to the ground, the feet should be apart 2 shoulder widths. this is also not true in Shaolin. this STANDARDIZATION comes from modern Wushu, in Shaolin stances could be quite higher or lower, wider or narrower; there’s no standard.

not only newbies, but famous instructors are also infected with misunderstandings. for example, consider a famous name like Shi Deyang. he teaches all the above misunderstandings in his videos!!! everything about mizong quan he says in his videos are plain misunderstandings.[/QUOTE]

one thing I also observed relative to the ma bu standards, and Shi De Yang, he definitely makes it known and understood that with ma bu, the 90 degree angle at the knees, with toes pointing forward, is NOT required or recommended for beginners or advanced students. the phrase he uses teaching stances is “practice it well” …so when he speaks on ma bu, he says “holding it low with 90 degree angle, and toes pointing forward, you can practice it well.” …then also says not to get discouraged if you cant do that because its not an absolute law, and practice at the depth you can get the best training for a said duration, other wise you’l bend your back and torso, and breath incorrectly hence you wouldnt be able to “practice it well” . focusing on depth in ma bu, without understanding posture, hip joint balance, and spinal alignment , you will think the important part is thigh muscles only, its uselss to train the thigh muscle with poor posture and breathing tho.

also about depth in stances during transition, Shi De Yang teaches it correctly, unlike modern wushu, which is graded on different terms, in Shaolin Quan fa, bending the torso in transition is taught as something that disrupts the 6 harmonies and thus compromises kinetic power. for instance, reaching for a super low dingbu, or pubu , xie bu, or xubu, and attempting to change direction, orientation, or deliver a strike, even with super strong thighs/calves etc…you lose the power transfer at the hip which is the main bridge linking ALLL that leg power coming up from the ankle and knee joints up into the back/shoulders/elbows/wrist… so the emphasis is not to have the lowest, squarest stance.

the emphasis is in expressing the technique, or whole taolu, with a spine relaxed /core engaged for optimal breathing in all centers and diantians, and 6 harmonies in natural flow guided by your 1 unified awareness. as you “practice it well” , the stances get stronger. yet still , if the depth is question depending on body type and style, you still wont be sinking super low or getting too square for “wushu aesthetic”, if that will disrupt the shen fa, distribution of fajing, etc then work the stance/transition at best balance point and best flow of the harmonies

Amituofo

[YinOrYan]

So true. Just noticed that video “Shi De Yang’s latest version of Zhao Yang Quan” you posted in 2020. Well done!