Original Shaolin Staff and Sword

[GeneChing]

There's always a lot of dicssuion here about Shaolin origins so I thought I'd share a recent experience.

I've been working on an instructional video project with Grandmaster Chan Sau Chung - the monkey king. Two of the forms from his Tai Shing Pek Kwar system overlap with Bak Sil Lum - the broadsword and staff. The TSPK broadsword is called lau yip dao or willow leaf broadsword. In BSL it's (interestingly enough) the Pek Kwar Broadsword. The TSPK staff is the Kau Chow staff, the same as in BSL, although when I worked on the BSL WLE video series we translated it as Nine Province Staff. The character literally means 'continent,' which is how we translated for this new TSPK series, despite the fact that there are only 7 continents. The implied meaning is the same - it's just the way they said 'the whole world' in old China.

Anyway, it's always fascinating to find different versions of the same set. Surely anyone who studies Tan Tui or praying mantis Beng bu, knows about variation. An old collegue of mine, a student of Brendan Lai, used to collect different Beng Bu - he said he had over 50 of them and that was over a decade ago. He practiced them all.

My instinct tells me that the TSPK version is older than the BSL version. It is simpler, shorter and there's that issue of the name of the broadsword set. I think I could pick up the TSPK versions fairly quickly since they are so close to sets that I already know, but I probably won't. Despite my feeling that these are closer to the original, perhaps even the original, that holds no value for me personally. After all, they're just sets. Variation in interpretations are minor details really - both versions are completely valid. Both are real kungfu.

But it did get me thinking about Shaolin in general, especially that discussion we have here so often about the validity of the modern Shaolin Temple. When I assume that the TSPK version is the original and BSL is the more modern version (at least within this century) and if I stick to the BSL version, I chuck out a lot of that original nonsense. Being the original, or even just a little earlier on the evolutionary chain, does not mean superior. Now let me back step a little and state for the record that I don't mean to imply that the TSPK is inferior at all. What I want to say is that original is not necessarily superior. I'm just sticking to the successor becuase in this case, I don't see that there is much more I could draw out of the older version.

We often get in this loop about the modern temple not being valid because it has lost connection to the previous incarnation. To me, this TSPK vs. BSL situation is very much the same issue, just from a different angle. Older is better if you're a simple Confucian. Then you have to honor the hierarchical relationships unquestionably. But if you've read Confucious carefully, he did leave an 'out' - the relationships are based on having a superior ruler. If we assume that this is not the case, all bets are off. Taking the Chan perspective, well, it's not about orthodox dogma, it's about the moment.

Anyone else familiar with the TSPK and BSL braodsword and staff?

[buddhapalm]

Nice post Gene :-)

I agree with you, older is not necessarily better. Unbroken lineages are not necessarily more effective.

And as you stated so well "its not about the orthodox dogma".

Though, I do believe that techniques (within older forms) that are time tested in battle or in duels should be reliable. Whereas newer techniques, that may look better, or different, may have lost their original meaning, or usefulness.

The tree will always grow, but will it grow straight ? (..to the principles of real combat)

That to me is where good lineages comes into play. If your master or grandmaster etc was a good fighter or swordsman, then if the art was passed down correctly, we should have the same potential. If we train properly.

We all know that kung fu is based upon the principles and mechanics of combat. Subtle changes in angle etc could render the technique useless, if they dont follow the principles they were intended for.

Or perhaps more usefull if following new superior principles.

If a saber or stick set is changed, is it changed for the better or for the worse, its hard to say. Only in application can we tell.

That is why I am wary of changes made in the last 60 years or so, because any new techniques (talking mainly weapons) would not have had a chance to prove and refine and develop themselves in combat. In the older times a bad technique would leave you without a head. (Zatoichi style)

To my interpretation, sets are just a dictionary of techniques. Memories of what worked from past masters. The pages can be re-arranged in any order according to the situation. But if the pages are ripped, or the pages are unclear, then they are useless.

We are taught that, from practicing the set over and over, then the meaning will come to you in time. If we practice moves that have been changed beyond use, then we will never figure out a usefull meaning of them even after a hundred years.

So what I am trying to say is, it is important that we pass down the technique correctly, and make sure what we have been given works, otherwise it is not martial art, but physical art.

By the way Gene. May I ask, is the Pek Kwa Dao of BSL the same as the one known as Ba Kwa Dao of Jing Wu Association ?

I had read that Kan Tak Hoi of Tai Shing Pek Kwa was good friends with many masters, could the saber set have been taught to him in trade by a Bak Siulum Sifu perhaps ? Or maybe in reverse. Perhaps Ku Yu Cheung learned it from Kan Tak Hoi.

I look forward to purchasing copies of the TaiSing Pek Kwa tapes when they are ready.

Could you tell us which sets will be on the tapes, besides the stick and saber mentioned. How about "Wu Song Breaks Handcuffs" Set ?

Warmest Regards

Buddhapalm

:)

[Gold Horse Dragon]

Hi,

I believe the real issue when it comes to the Shaolin Temple today is not older vs modern, but rather traditional vs comtemporay wushu which has been so drastically changed that it no longer can be classified as true kung fu. Contemporary wushu has: 1. had most of the martial art applicability removed or so modified to make it ineffective, 2. the hyperextended stances and limbs do not provide the internal alignment of tendons, ligaments, bones and muscles to allow for proper flow of energy and blood and does not give proper power generation...as well, the hyperextended limbs make them totally vulnerable to limb breaking techniques found in traditional kung fu.
Traditional kung fu and older kung fu may or may not be the same, as traditional sets can be more new, but follow proper alignments and principals of good kung fu...to develop the practioner properly. I believe older kung fu systems, if learned properly and passed down, will contain these principals, whereas contemporay wushu does not.
The real complaint, when it comes to the modern Shaolin Temple is I believe, that they attempt to pass contemporary wushu off as traditional and legitimate kung fu or systems...it is not.

GHD

[NPM]

“Gou Jau Gwun” or Nine Province Staff is originally from Bak Sil Lum (Ku Yu Cheung and Man Lai Sing lineage). This set is also known as “Luk Hop Yat Lo Gwun” or Six Harmony First Staff. This set was from the “Luk Hop Mun” or Six Harmony School of BSL.

“Pek Kwa Doe” is originally from the Pek Kwa style of Northern China. This style was later named Tai Shing Pek Kwar after Kau Sze (who developed his own monkey style) and his student Kan Tak Hoi.

At one time, Ku Yu Cheung of BSL and Kan Tak Hoi of TSPK exchanged students who in turn exchanged forms and as a result these two sets were shared.

During the 1970’s, I happened to study “Pek Kwa Doe” from both lineages at different times and know that they differ at the end of the form. I believe that the differences were a result of modifications made by one party for whatever reasons they chose.

I read this information from a Chinese martial arts magazine during the 70’s. I am open to hearing other versions of this since I am not a descendant of either lineage nor am I an authority of their histories.

NPM

[GLW]

"I believe the real issue when it comes to the Shaolin Temple today is not older vs modern, but rather traditional vs comtemporay wushu which has been so drastically changed that it no longer can be classified as true kung fu."

This is not as pervasive as people want to think. There are some very valid routines and methods that are still around that many might classify as Modern Wushu. For example, the orignial Compulsory changquan routine is at its core very much like the Traditional Zha quan system. There are only two or three movements in the entire form that you do NOT find in the Zha Quan or Pao Quan systems that it was based on. However, the problem is that if you are NOt taught the ideas behind it, you end up with flash and no substance...which is way common. Now, the NEW Changquan Complusory routine....that is another matter. It is heavy on acrobatics and level of difficulty moves...but it simply does not flow well. There is no clear sense of martial purpose for the entire routine and it has some moves that are used as training methods but would never be in a traditional set...in my opinion...it is a BAD routine.


"Contemporary wushu has: 1. had most of the martial art applicability removed or so modified to make it ineffective, 2. the hyperextended stances and limbs do not provide the internal alignment of tendons, ligaments, bones and muscles to allow for proper flow of energy and blood and does not give proper power generation...as well, the hyperextended limbs make them totally vulnerable to limb breaking techniques found in traditional kung fu."

On item #1, I agree that there are SOME of the new routines that fall into this category. The new Changquan for example. But a lot of the problems you see with the way these routines are done is NOT the routines but the people doing them. This would change in a short time if the competition areana began to REALLY follow their own rules. The rules specify that the elements you are discussing MUST be evident and the deductions are pretty severe if they are not. However, I have seen very few of the judges who actually follow the rules. They would fit well into the Olympic Skating set.

As for item #2, the basis for much of the competition sets is found in styles like Zha Quan....which is characterized by long and low stances, extending stretching out to hte ligaments, etc.... The zha Quan system is very difficult to do the right way but if you get the ideait is like a continual snapping of rubber bands from one technique to another...fast and continuous. Again, it is the ideas behind the methods that are often omitted. There are teachers who know the old ways and teach them with some of the new routines...and the flavor of those routines from those teachers is way different.


"Traditional kung fu and older kung fu may or may not be the same, as traditional sets can be more new, but follow proper alignments and principals of good kung fu...to develop the practioner properly. I believe older kung fu systems, if learned properly and passed down, will contain these principals, whereas contemporay wushu does not. "

I think we are saying the same thing here. A new routine, if done properly is still traditional. An old routine, if done wrong, becomes the flash with no substance as well. I have seen both. It is truly strange to see a traditional Zha Quan routien, for example, done with the flavor of a dance....

Traditional shaolin has a different flavor than many of the styles that claim to be northern shaolin. The name became something kind of like COKE for referring to a soft drink. The flavor of Traditional shaolin is not as open or exended as say traditional Zha Quan...and this is even more confusing with the cross pollination that happens...like systems having routines that they both do ...but different ways to do them...or routines with the same name...but they are 100% different.

These differences can be quite interesting..but there are very few teachers who know the distinction...and many of them (or most) are in their 70's now.

[Gold Horse Dragon]

No...the problem is with the contemporary wushu routines, right from their inception, you could see the hyperextended stances and limbs. It is not some people performing them that are the problem as all the performers of contemporary wushu 30 years ago and present, perform them in the same way ie. hyperextended stances and limbs...the problem is with the sets. Contemporary wushu rules are exactly what these stylists are following when they perform in order to attempt to win a competition. The rules definitely do not reflect principals of traditional kung fu even when taking into account differences between styles, but rather reflect what is identified as contemporary wushu.

True some of the sets and systems you mentioned have more extended stances, but none have the hyperextended stances and limbs if they are being performed according to the principals of traditional kung fu...whether Shaolin in origin or not.

GHD

[GLW]

GHD...

that is where you go wrong. The extension of those routines IS supposed to be just like the extension in systems like Zha quan.

I KNOW this from having talked with members of the older generation who started this. The INTENT was to take the older methods, create standard routines from the same basics and then promote the ability to compete...before this, the ability to compete and show was limited to having only a very select set of judges whose level was extremely high.

The meetings back in the day tended to have a Shanghai contingent who maintained that the applications were of equal importance to the art and health benefits and that it was NOT wushu without all three.

Problem is, that Beijing does not always go with that. Then you have the politics that enter in and pretty soon, you have people who win that do things a certain way - right or wrong...and those who follow them emulate them because they won. Eventually, you have a lot of people who do it wrong and that is the way folks think it is. For a GOOD example of this, look at the 42 Posture Taijiquan routine. The team members do it one way...but if you look at the description of the movements - the STANDARD - it is not the way you see it done.

you end up with coaches who will swear that bad body mechanics are correct. This is NOT true. BUT...on the other side, you also have a large number of 'Traditional' teachers who do northern who do NOT extend enough. The training is to get the optimum extension and then in use, it naturally comes down to a very fast workable level. Just like stances - the Zhaquan saying is "Train low, use high"

This idea is even more clear in the number of the older founding generation who did NOT go in for the Duan system in China...it was politely done but if you know what that means it is them saying that the newer folks are straying from the ideals that the older ones started in the 1950's and 1960's.

the bottom line is if a routine is done with correct alignment, good flow, power, speed, and it flows correctly, it is good...period. If it is NOT, then it is BAD period. It is NOT a Classical vs. Modern thing.

Such sweeping statements make the entire thing way to simple...it is NOT black and white.

[Gold Horse Dragon]

Nope...your information is flawed. Contemporary wushu is based on long fist routines (and after.. others), but bas tardiized into what you see in comtemporary wushu. The bas tardization is even more evident in the Nan Quan (southern fist) sets In fact they (communist government) took this bas tardization and injected it into western gymnastic floor routines (except it has a martial arts flavor... ie. go here on the mat and do this -points, go there on the mat and do that - points ie. point spreads for this and that. This is clearly visable to anyone with knowledge and what to look for.
There was not any application or proper alignment (from a traditional point of view) right from the inception of contemporary wushu.
End of story.

GHD

[GLW]

Quite amusing...since I personally know several of the architects of Modern Wushu who started this in the 1950's...

That was NOT their aim nor is it now. In fact, there WERE those who wanted to do just what you said and the folks I know fought against it. They worked at creating new routines that WERE traditional.

the Nan Quan...this one seems to be a major sore point... I know a number of traditional Hung Gar folks who are taking it up for the fun of it...if you have a solid traditional base it can be a decent routine...but you would NOT score well if you made it traditional. So...there you have a point. For the previous version of changquan, if you did it with a traditional flavor...you would score better provided you were fast powerful and had good basics.

you may dislike what it is...but the us vs. them argument is pointless. they both have merits and the difference between the two is not too broad.

What many pass of as traditional...no matter how you slice it is substandard.

If you are passing off a Shaolin form as truly shaolin, it should have a history. There I 100% agree with you. Don't call a cat a dog... But to make other distinctions...well it is a case by case proposition.

Up until the last round of compulsories, I was not too concerned. However, if the trend I see in the new compulsories continues, what you claim to already be fact will indeed become fact...it just is not that way yet.

But please...try to keep an open mind. your dislike for the modern routines is evident...fine, don't do them and feel free to dismiss them entirely. but sweeping generalizations and statements that others who have knowledge are misinformed..well, at no time did I say who my sources were or are...so there is a jumping to conclusions...

I think that you may want to distinguish between how you see the routines done and what they are intended to be. There is night and day there. But...the pity is that what the Beijing team does becomes what everyone thinks of as being correct...and this is far from the truth as well.

[Gold Horse Dragon]

Amusing? Perhaps the original architechs as you say may have intended for the new routines to be traditional, but it never came to fruition. From the 70's when contemporary wushu became to be know to the world and up until today, all evidence - books, 8 mm, video, demos etc. support what I say about what makes a traditional set a traditional set, not being found in contemporary wushu. These sources do not support what you say...that said however, as you mentioned, maybe the intent was different. But as I said above, it did not come to be.
Curiously, why the architechs would want to create new sets, when they had a plethora of existing traditional sets to choose from and from which they could have choosen a number to be used for competition, I do not understand, unless...it is as I have said...the original intent was to take the tradtional ie proper alignment and martial arts applicability out.
Please do not be presumptuous....no where did I say I liked or disliked contemporary wushu....what I do not agree with is it being passed off as 'traditonal' kung fu or shaolin, when it clearly is not.
Traditional being substandard!...hmmm sounds to me you have communist leanings ha ha...traditional has survived for over 1500 years and served its proponents well in maintaining health, fighting wars, invaders and bandits...does not appear to be substandard to me! tradtional Kung Fu (Shaolin) - practical, contemporary wushu - points for performance, "fancy fists and embroidered legs", pretty to look at but use it in a deadly confrontation and you are toast. Bak sillum when done properly has proper alignment and combat principals, wu shu does not..they are very different from one another to an experienced observer or practitioner.
But this has gone of topic from my first post which was the differences being more due to traditional vs contemporary rather than old vs new.
This post ends my discussion on this topic.

GHD

[xiong]

As a wushu practitioner who also briefly studied Bak Sil Lum I'd just like to add my two cents to the arguement.

If I understand GHD's arguement correctly, it seems to be popular train of thought, Contemporary Wushu has watered down the martial aspects and is nothing more than gymnastics.

I personally agree with GLW's counter arguements and here is why.

Let me start by saying that my shifu is Li Jinheng and he always makes a distinction between how the techniques are to be performed for competition vs. for self defense.

I have already learned two different Longfist forms(Beijing short form and 32 form) and neither of them seem to me to be appreciably different in character from the concepts of the BSL forms(#6 Duan Da, #4 Chuan Xin?) that I learned previously.

I have not learned the new cumpulsory longfist but I do recognize the areas where it deserves criticism. There are a few sections where it does look to be more gymnastic and less martial.

GLW's point about training low but applying high I think is the key point. Many of the things we do in training are ludicrous in a combat situation. The compulsory competition routines are, IMO, really only useful in that context.

I hear people complain about poor judging at tournaments, or judges not knowing jack about their style. Wushu is a format to have a standard for judging and competeing. Rather than marginalize wushu and it's athletes because you don't agree with the competitions themselves it might be better to look at what the wushu teachers and practitioners are doing outside of competition.

Finally I totally agree with not coopting Shaolin. I think that Shaolin and Kungfu are so over used as a marketing tool that their meaning has become blurred.

Well thats my opinion I'm sure many will not agree, just thought it needed to be said.

[GeneChing]

bp: You gotta trim the branches to make the tree grow straight. Unfortunately we didn't do the video for Wusong, but we have an upcoming feature on it in the mag. Funny you should mention it tho... My understanding is the Jingwu Pek Kwar sword is from the same root as both of these.

ghd: None of the monks attempt to pass mod. wushu off as traditional. Yes they do demonstrate wushu. Perhaps the English narrator says something to that effect, but the monks don't understand English narration nor are they in the position to comment on it. Ask any monk, they will clearly delineate between mod. wushu and trad. shaolin. But then, shaolin's tradition is to absorb other styles - this even exists in it's relative BSL - so mod. wushu and sanda has become part of it. What is traditional shaolin? Burce plaguerized it - "absorb what it useful"

NPM: My BSL sifu Wing Lam teaches Lok Hop (kuen & dao) and he once mentioned that there was another staff that he didn't remember. 6 harmonies is an addendum to his system. This implies that 9 continents was separate, but who knows? I wouldn't surprise me at all if Kan and Ku exchanged. When you learned Pek Kwar Dao from TSPK, what did they call it?

GLW: I'd love to see you put your points together into an article about the traditional connections of wushu. You make some fascinating points...

[buddhapalm]

Gene said:

"bp: You gotta trim the branches to make the tree grow straight."

Ouch ! I wouldnt want to cut the wrong one, or I will end up working in the palace :- o

Just joking...... couldn't resist :-)))

I am doing a little research into Pek Kwar and would love to learn more about this style, especially "Wu Song Breaks". When is the article coming out ? Next edition.

You said:

"My understanding is the Jingwu Pek Kwar sword is from the same root as both of these."

Interesting !

The version I know is quite a bit different than the standard JingWu version, I was told it (my BaKwaDao) was "tuned" by Sun Yu Fung in the Canton Jing Wu.

Sorry to be so off topic guys.

Warmest Regards All

Buddhapalm

[NorthernShaolin]

Buddhapalm: The only root that Pa Kua Saber from Ching Wu (Jing Mo) and Pek Kwar saber (Pi Chi Saber) is that both are of shaolin root or contain the same basic saber cuts. The translation of the chinese writing is different.

Gene: NPM is right but to expand it further, Lui Ho (Luk Hop) full name is Wei T'o Lui Ho which is part of the Shaolin family from Honan. Some people call it Northern Shaolin Lui Ho style for short.

Here where the confusion is: Kuo Yu Chang and Wan Li Sheng were very close friends. Both respected each other and traded ideas and techniques. If you notice, in WLS's famous book, the Lui Ho hand set appears to be is missing the ending part as we currently practice it. It was KYC who made the additions with WLS's approval and thus made the set more fluid. WLS did not like to teach and had very few students which Yim Shan Wu was very lucky to be one of them before learning NSL from KYC. Majority of KYC students had martial art background from other styles and hence many of his students learned weapon sets at the 'middle level' and not from the beginning level of weapon sets for NSL.

Yim Shan Wu was one of these students who learned his basic Northern 'stuff' from Wan Li Sheng before learning from KYC and hence some of the basic beginner NSL weapon sets such as the saber were not taught. After much research, I cannot identify specifically what was the basic NSL saber set when KYC learn his NSL. During the 1800's, some Northern weapon sets were well known and became shared, traded and incooperated into individual styles such as Lui Ho Spear and Plum Blossom Spear.
The lack of beginner weapon sets did not cause a problem because, typically like all great masters during this time, he taught only the advance students. Learning a beginner weapon set never became an issue and certainly the students were not going to ask for it when they're learning the advance 'stuff'.

YSW uses Pi Chi Saber as a basic saber set for NSL before learning the next level of NSL saber sets. This is okay since the Pi Chi saber is of the same family of shaolin and contains the same basic saber moves. As in everything, there exist differnt levels of for each weapon and should, at least, have a beginning and advance set.

YSW also incooperated other Lui Ho weapons such as Nine Island Staff, Lui Ho Saber, Lui Ho Spear. and Lui Ho Double Sabers (This is not the same as in 7*) into his curriculumn of NSL but people give KYC credited for it.

Pi Chi Saber cause from Pi Chi Style which is a branch of Shaolin. When Kau Szu developed his Monkey style he combined Pi Chi Style with his Monkey style. Thus the Pi Chi saber became part of TSPK. This is one of the few original weapon for TSPK. Keng Te Hai picked up many of the current TSPK weapons during the post 1928 First National China tournament. Some of NSL weapons were adpoted by TSPK and installed into their curriculum.

The ending of Pi Chi Saber is different in NSL and in TSPK because it is the signature of the sifu which is related to their particular style. The signature could be either KYC or YSM for NSL and Kau Szu or Keng Te Hai (Kan Tak Hoi) for TSPK.

With all respect to TSPK and all styles that are a branch of Shaolin, if one goes back far enough in time, all their weapon sets were borrowed from Shaolin and contains either elements, flavor, moves or techniques of past and forgotten proven weapon sets of shaolin. To their credit, they evolved these techniques and developed them into sets that fit their style of fighting and thus giving the weapon their flavor of their style to it. That is why most weapon sets appear to the untrained observer as 'looks like the same but in different order'.

There are no original sets anymore. Only sets with deep roots and sets without roots. Existing sets do not improve or develop because no one today has the real ability to improve any existing sets with deep roots. Knowing the existing sets have evolved from somewhere, that the set(s) have deep roots into the past is important. We have to trust that our past masters had the ability and the knowledge and the forsight to evolve their sets with time. All we have is our faith in our individual style that this occurred. That is why we practice what we learned from our sifus.

[buddhapalm]

Thanks for the clarification NorthernShaolin,

Cheers

Buddhapalm

[beiquan]

Wan Li Sheng also has a version of Nine Province Pole in his book, which from what I could tell from the pictures (it's hard to tell, definitely) looks a bit different from the set that i've learned.

[buddhapalm]

Where could I get a copy of Wan Li Sheng's book ? Featuring Nine Province Pole.

Cheers

Buddhapalm

[GeneChing]

NS: Nice post - where did you gleen this info? What romanization are you using to get Lui Ho? Is it the same character as Lok Hop (Liu he in mandarin?)

And I echo bd"s request of bq - where can you find that book now? Can you send me a cover pic of your edition?

[beiquan]

i am not sure if this book is still in print; if it is, i need to get a copy for myself!! i found it just browsing through the e. asian library at my school, ucla... i photocopied and scanned nearly the entire book. i might be able to put some of the scans up of his 9 province pole, although the pictures themself are of pretty poor quality...

[NorthernShaolin]

The information that I gain about NSL has been over the many long years of studing the art. Information gathered from my sifu and my sihings and the many sisuks who learned directly from YSW and from LTH and also from reading New Martial Hero Mag. and Martial Mag. from the 1970s.

Yes, Lui Ho is the same as Lok Hop. I'm just using an older Chinese (Mandarin) dictionary and I'm just showing my age and refusing to change with the world.

Wan Li Sheng's book is a rare collectors item because it is a classic. I understand the book can stilll be purchase in Taiwan. Gene, I'll fax you the cover.

[bean curd]

you can get a copy of wan lai shen book from the shanghia national library, but since it is old written they ask for more money to copy it for you hahaha.

there is also now a three book writting that has just recently come out from mainland, on du xin wu.

only written in chinese though

[NorthernShaolin]

Bean Curd,

This is great news. Tu Hsin Wu (Du xin wu) who originally taught Northern Shaolin Lui Ho and later learned Sponteneous Boxing, was regarded as China's Greatest Fighter during his times (late 1800's-early 1900's) because of his unbeatable 'Shaolin Death Kick'. He taught only eight disciples which Wan Li Sheng and Kuo Yu Chang whom were among the chosen few.

[buddhapalm]

Hi NorthernShaolin,
Could you tell us more of Wan Lai Sheng's famous "Shaolin Death Kick" ?

What type of kick was it ?

Or did he have a special method of training to develop it ?

Sounds most interesting.

Thanks.



Buddhapalm

[NorthernShaolin]

Buddahpalm,

Not Wan Li Sheng but his sifu, Tu Hsin Wu, who performed the Shaolin Death Kick. I posted this info already in this post but here it is:

Up until the 1900's Tu Hsin Wu became famous for his 'Shaolin Death Kick'. This is before Tu Hsin learned Spontaneous Boxing, and he was a well known master of Northern Shaolin Lui Ho. He was the last known master to have used this technique.

This kick was so unique and devastating that his foot would travel up close to his body from his center line to his chin, then deliver a strike out horizonally like a punch to the head of the opponent. It was like a third arm punching, only it was a kick.

With this technique, he never lost a fight.

Of course Tu Hsin Wu was very flexible and was known to be able to kick his opponent over his shoulders as they were attacking from behind. He could use his feet as most fighters used their hands.

For example, for the fun of it, he would move his queue with his foot whenever it dangled in front of his eyes.

When he was over 60 yeras old he went to visit Cheng Man Ch'ing, a famous Tai Chi master and one of the top student of Yang Cheng Fu. In this fight, no matter where Cheng Man Ch'ing turned, Tu Hsin Wu foot caught him and kicked him.

[buddhapalm]

WOW !!!

Thanks NorthernShaolin.

Your telling of the old masters is really inspirational. They were really made of "good steel".

Buddhapalm

[Gold Horse Dragon]

Gene,

Yes I understand that the monks may not understand, but I am sure a few do and for sure the head guys know what is going on and I am sure the monks would not go against the party line. However, none the less contemporary wushu is being passed off as traditional shaolin...this should not be so, for there are many in the western world that think the high flying acrobatics and incorrect stances (from traditional standpoint) are authentic shaolin because of contemporary wushu being done by the monks on tour and in tapes and it being called shaoin.
Keep what is useful...Ah!...Grasshopper...if you always throw out what you think is useless, you may only be left with chaf in the end.

GHD

[bean curd]

northern shaolin,

yes very true on du xin wu and chi yin mun, a most intereting style on all acounts

his kicking skills also bring forth his good relationship with liu bai chuan and also liu's great skills of coarse. this is evident in du xin wu also permitting wan lai shen to be instructed by liu bai chuan, and why the travelled with each other too the tourny in 1933, as well as other places.

due to du xin wu's skill he was also very close to sun yat sen, but that is another story

[GeneChing]

NS: I'll look forward to that fax. You know, we really should get together for lunch sometime since I'm just down the bay from you. If your ever near the office, let me know - I'd be happy to give you a tour. Actually same goes for all of you. Ok, well most all of you ;)

GHD: The sticky ground is that monastaries aren't neccessarily organized with a lot of hierarchy. Monks come and go. Some stya a long time. Some do not. So what becomes of the monks that stay a year or two, then go on to promote themselves as Shaolin monks even though they have left? This is complicated by the fact that most CMA people could care less about the wenseng - I mean seriously, how many have taken Buddhist vows? We are martial artists so we focus on the wuseng - the warrior monks. The warrior monks are even more impermenant. Many will admit that they are only training at Shaolin as MA, the Buddism is secondary. Once those wuseng "re-enter the world" they can do as they please. This has nothing to do with the party line. This is about private business and self promotion. You can't control what the ex-monks do individually.
As for the western world, the only people who know the difference between wushu and traditional kungfu is us. Most karate/tkd people don't even know, never mind the non-MA. Promote CMA first, then, after more people understand, you can discriminate between styles. For a pop show like Shaolin Wheel of Life, wushu is far more appropriate.

[Gold Horse Dragon]

Gene,

I can see your point for a very flashy acrobatic show, but having contemporary wushu done by apparent shaolin monks does a disservice to traditional CMA in that propspective students come looking for Shaolin CMA from a knowledge base of what they see in c wushu....and when they see the traditional arts they do not think it is real shaolin...so we have to go throught a whole education process which takes time. Represent traditinal shaolin as traditional shaolin and contemporary wushu as just what it is.


GHD

[NorthernShaolin]

Gene,

You should be looking for the fax when you return to you office on Monday. I faxed 9 pages which includes the complete Lui Ho set as it was documented by Wan Li Sheng.:) ;)

[r.(shaolin)]

Hi buddhapalm

Liu He Dao and Wu Song Dao (full name -

[buddhapalm]

Hi r.(shaolin)

Wu Song Dao sounds interesting, "Liu He" and 'Cha Hua Dao' too.

I think in the book "All Men Are Brothers"/Outlaws of the Marsh, Wu Song was famous for using the single or double dao. I think I will start reading it again this weekend.

Do you know if "Wu Song Breaks Handcuffs Fist" is a known or listed Honan form ?

I would be most interested in seeing the three saber sets sometime.

Best Regards

Buddhapalm

[GeneChing]

I got the FAX - thanks! Page 8-9 didn't come through, but I get the idea. Very cool.

[r.(shaolin)]

bp

In the tradition of Shaolin Lohan Men

[buddhapalm]

Thanks for the information r.

You mentioned:

"In the tradition of Shaolin Lohan Men that I practice there is also a Paqua Dao set. It was definitely part of the tradition as earlies as the 1840's and most likely before that."

I wonder if it is similar to ours.

In the middle does yours have: a wrist flower in a cat stance (spinning towards your face), then back of dao hits other hand in front of chest, then wrist flower changes direction, then wrap saber around body and cut across waist, step, jumping double front kick, spin around and cut down to right side with right chop in full horse.

Actually my Kung Fu Uncles call the set PaQua Dao, but our side calles it BaMen Dao (Eight Gate Saber). So I dont know what is the original name for it, but 8 gates and 8 trigrams are kind of a similar concept, I think.

I wonder if your systems Liu He Dao is related to the Liu He of Wan Lai Sheng.

The funny thing is that Leung Shum's (of Ying Jow Pai Eagle Claw)Lie He Dao set on tape has almost the same first 10 moves as in my BaQua/BaMen Dao.

It would be most interesting to compare all these saber sets side by side.

Perhaps Gene, you could do an article on all the different Kung Fu saber styles one day. Perhaps you have already and I am just an unfaithful reader :-(

Cheers

Buddhapalm

[GeneChing]

That's too big a topic. I was contemplating something on variations akin to what we've discussed on this thread, but it would be more focused on a single form. All the dao forms would be too much.

I always assume wusong was a Liangshan form: that would seem to make the most sense. Perhaps it's another form that shaolin adopted.

As for changing moves, I think much of our discussion is academic. It's evolution. Not survival of the fittest as most might beleive, but net reproductive success. In short, you got to respect the ****eroach, golden or not.

Sorry, I'm right against deadline on a big project, so my referneces maybemore arcane than usual, but I hope those that got that one, really got it.:D

NS: got the rest of the fax - Thanks!

[rik]

Hi Buddhapalm

---
Buddhapalm wrote:
I wonder if it is similar to ours.

In the middle does yours have: a wrist flower in a cat stance (spinning towards your face), then back of dao hits other hand in front of chest, then wrist flower changes direction, then wrap saber around body and cut across waist, step, jumping double front kick, spin around and cut down to right side with right chop in full horse.

----
The PaQua Dao we do doesn't have this combination.
NorthernShaolin, does your version have this?
r.(shaolin)

[NorthernShaolin]

rik,

Yes , my version which is from Sun Yu Fung's Northern Shaolin Lo Han, does have that or something very similar.

Buddahplam, maybe you remember that it was very similar. With the exception of a flower spin, we do a vertical reverse cut spin, stopped by the hand, then vertical forward spin, wrap around the head, horzontial cut across the chest , step, double kick, etc.

[buddhapalm]

Hi there,
Actually my description seems different, but I was meaning the same thing, I think.

I was calling the "vertical reverse cut spin" a wrist flower, but it looks like we are talking about the same move.

Rik,
The saber form that me and NorthernShaolin practice come from the same root. It got changed a little on the way, but basically the same.

Cheers all

Buddhapalm