Hsing-i

[Lews]

Has anyone came into contact, sparred (using wing chun), or taken this art?


I would love to hear feedback have a good day fellas!!!

[hunt1]

Harder to find good Hsing-I than good Wing Chun which is near impossible. With that said footwork , bil sao and two hands at once will play havoc with most Hsing-I.

[[Censored]]

I've seen a little and played with a little, and I wasn't tempted to abandon Wing Chun training. The experience did remind me that hard hitting and agile footwork are core skills, not merely accessories to structure and sensitivity.

[anerlich]

I did about 5 years worth in the early 80's. My then instructor was highly skilled himself, but had personality flaws which made him a poor teacher. One of my seniors there was Robb Whitewood, the author of "Untraditional Hsing-I" who was quite talented, though he left a fairly short time after I started - he would have had to do that to reach his potential.

Xingyi is an internal martial art - "internal" in the sense that its foundation is on fundamental pronciples of TCM, most specifically (but only partly) on Wu Hsing, the five elements and theor cycles and relationships. Where Xingyi is concerned, "internal" is NOT the same as "soft" - good Xingyi can sometimes be as hard as a fist of diamond. Arguably, Xingyi is more internal than Bagua or Taiji because the TCM principles underlying it are much more prevalent and obvious than with the other two. If one takes the tenets of TCM at face value (I don't, I'm a skeptic where TCM is concerned) its use in healing and health cultivation is far more precise and powerful than the other two internal systems. Each of the five basic movements of Xingyi (corresponding to five elements) works a particular area of the spine, which provides nerve stimulation and chi flow to specific meridians and yin organs - or so the theory goes.

Xingyi is (largely) linear, direct, fast and hard hitting. That a good Xingyi practitioner can hit very hard is undeniable. My instructor of the time could break all sorts of materials including untreated Aussie house bricks without difficulty - although he was also a fourth dan in Karate and was built like a pocket sized Schwartzenegger.

Some of the techs employed would confuse your average yobbo due to their unusual nature, but would be unlikely to faze someone with solid training behind them. More often than not it is taught with Bagua, as the linear nature of Xingyi and the circular movements of Bagua are complementary.

Many of the problems with Xingyi out there are the same as those with taiji - and Wing Chun. Not so much the art itiself, but the focus and spin put on training in it. One can become too concerned with strict adherence to principles and "political correctness" in the art, whereas true effectiveness requires a more flexible and pragmatic approach, and acceptance that the real world is not regular but chaotic. Basing an art on TCM theory/dogma rather than on pragmatic analysis of human biomechanics seems to me to be taking a roundabout trip if your goal is effective defence.

As hunt1 said, good teachers of this art are very hard to find. And to my mind there are easier ways to learn effective self defence.

[cha kuen]

Hsing yi's linear attacks and footwork are similar to wing chun but they don't have extenseive trapping and counters like wc has. But Hsing Yi guys can come at you from all different angles. Straight punch, lower straight punch, uppercuts, overhead hits and such.

Wing Chun Books (http://cgi6.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewSellersOtherItems&include=0&userid=taichimaster06&sort=3&rows=25&since=-1)

[teazer]

Originally posted by hunt1
Harder to find good Hsing-I than good Wing Chun which is near impossible.
True


With that said footwork , bil sao and two hands at once will play havoc with most Hsing-I.
Perhaps with most, but there is some very functional Hsing-I out there. As always, much depends on the individuals concerned. H-I can also use both hands, just a little differently.

anerlich - agreed on the whole.
From what I've done, there is less focus on sticking (just developing fundamentals rather than the technical detail seen in WC), rather H-I prefers generating enough power that the opponent must deal with you. On the whole, some similarities in movements used, but differences in strategy.

[t_niehoff]

Without going into the Xing Yi vs. WCK debate . . .

anerlich wrote:

Many of the problems with Xingyi out there are the same as those with taiji - and Wing Chun. Not so much the art itiself, but the focus and spin put on training in it. One can become too concerned with strict adherence to principles and "political correctness" in the art, whereas true effectiveness requires a more flexible and pragmatic approach, and acceptance that the real world is not regular but chaotic. AN

I see "the problem" rather differently. IME many of these folks tend toward being "theoriticians", i.e., they have an (often mistaken) idea of how things should work that mainly comes from being told how it should work (perhaps this is what you mean by "political correctness") rather than "practitioners", i.e., actually being able to do it themselves. Making WCK's principles functional only comes IME from our own investigation of these "principles" and learning to make them work for ourselves (as Hawkins Cheung says, "Theory is great but can *you* do it."). So I don't see the problem stemming from a "strict adherence to principles" but rather a "strict adherence to untested theory." I agree with you 100% that "true effectiveness requires a more flexible and pragmatic approach." But I don't think that means throwing out WCK's principle-based approach in favor of a "it's good as long as it works" approach. TN

Basing an art on TCM theory/dogma rather than on pragmatic analysis of human biomechanics seems to me to be taking a roundabout trip if your goal is effective defence. AN

I don't think these fighting arts are "based" on TCM (in that they began with TCM and developed from there) but rather were fighting arts first (the "base" is fighting) and then the founders/developers used TCM as a (common) paradigm *explain* why they were doing what they were doing (or why it worked). TN

Terence

[anerlich]

Terence,

your comments regarding principles were IMO on the mark.


I don't think these fighting arts are "based" on TCM (in that they began with TCM and developed from there) but rather were fighting arts first (the "base" is fighting) and then the founders/developers used TCM as a (common) paradigm *explain* why they were doing what they were doing (or why it worked). TN
That may be true in a wider context. I was really speaking from my own experience (which as I already said, was not particularly positive when the overall result is tallied).

But, in my own experience, we were taught that there were five basic tachniques (splitting, drilling, something I can't remember though it's written down somewhere including Robert W Smith's books, pounding and crossing) corresponding to the five elements of TCM (and Chinese alchemy, directions, and 1000000 other concordances).

Each basic tech led into the next via the Sheng (productive) cycle. Each was countered via the tech two further on in the sequence via the Ko (checking) cycle. Both cycles are mainstays of TCM diagnosis and treatment. Both sequences and all the techniques appear in the intermediate forms, esp. one called Wu Hsing Lien Han.

We spent many hours runnnig through these set sequences as solo and partner drills. On numerous occasions the TCM origins were mentioned and reinforced, with the additional comment that "anyone who tells you different hasn't learned xingyi from a REAL teacher", a phrase which has correlates familar to any student of a CMA whose origins and factional veracity are disputed, two excellent examples being taiji and WC.

Our teacher liked to obfuscate and "mysterize" (TM) everything, continually bringing in links to TCM and other aspects of Chinese culture to what should be a *reasonably* simple set of combat techniques and strategy. He also hinted at lots of hidden knowledge that would be revealed when we were ready. I learned lots about all sorts of peripheral crap related to TCM and Chinese "philosophy", but not enough about using Xingyi to fight.

Questions like "why can't I counter splitting/metal with crossing/earth instead of pounding/fire?" were met with a benign smile, as one would give a loved but somewhat retarded child. But not answered other than by gently guiding one back to basic TCM.

I'm sure Xingyi can be (and is, and certainly should be) taught more practically and pragmatically and be made to work and work well. But my experience is detailed above.

[Tvebak]

I have been lucky enough to find a very skilled and open Xingyi teacher, who also has been practising Wingchun.
Xingyi does contain trapping and some of the students who are exWT students say that the arts are a lot of the same.
Basic diffrence, WT spend a lot of time training to punch fast punches following one another where xingyi seems to be more about power.
My teacher has never spoken against any art, and he has many times told how Wingchun and Xingyi can help and support each other very well.

[TjD]

i think good wing chun is a lot less about quick chain punches, and much more about very powerful strikes that can be executed at any moment - and taking the path that can get them there in the shortest :)

i think wing chun's power gets extremely glossed over by many people, in that it really isn't focused on and emphasized until later in the system, as beginners have much to learn about root and relaxation. with a good sifu - wing chun teaches you extremely powerful strikes when you are ready

[SirenOfAcreLane]

That was a great read, anerlich. Thanks.