Anti-Manchu creation stories [Archive] - Kung Fu Magazine Forums

CFT

12-16-2005, 04:55 PM

CFT,
The obvious question is why?Tony,

Granted that there were many different anti-Manchu revolutionary societies, did they really all need to invent their own method of training "foot soldiers"? If these really were "basic" training methods then why should they look so different? OK, I am not experienced in any of the arts I listed (WCK more than any other), but don't they all look rather like any other martial art that does not claim a-M rev. status?

Of course I don't mean they are "run-of-the-mill", they are all unique in some way but you wouldn't look at it and think it was some kind of army basic training methodology.

To me the simpler, though not necessarily correct, answer is that they are just "traditional" martial arts with a creation story plausible for the time period that they first emerged as a formalised training system.

Another question would be how the basic hand-to-hand combat training for various armed forces around the world compare? Is there more uniformity or distinct approaches?

ghostofwingchun

12-16-2005, 07:50 PM

Hendrik

12-16-2005, 08:57 PM

A good book written 1931,

http://www.pgw.com/catalog/catalog.asp?DBKey=198&CatalogKey=349678&Action=View&Index=Page&Book=334913&Order=234

Find out how the Qing trains.. even by today's standard.

and find out if what one train today and thinking it is the best Anti-Qing matial art created to defeat Qing can sustain the Qing guard?..

anerlich

12-17-2005, 06:17 PM

The following all claim to be designed for anti-Manchu revolutionaries:

Wing Chun Kuen
Choy Lee Fut
Chu/Chow Gar Praying Mantis

I'm pretty sceptical of most TCMA history.

For example, I heard once that Choy Li Fut was specifically designed to combat Wing Chun's guard and structure, the flailing punches designed to knock it aside and the twisting punches to snake around it.

Then again, it's also (depending on who tells the story) supposed to be a fusion of three family styles, Choy Gar, Li Gar, and Fut Gar.

Then you have the anti-Manchu stories. With the long standing bitter rivalry between CLF and WC, no wonder the Manchus prevailed, the WC and CLF guys would have been too busy squabbling with each other, and perhaps this gives (more) credence to the first explanation.

Very little makes sense if you look at it closely. But you could say that about much European and modern history as well.

There is little doubt that there were anti-Qing revolutionaries. But from what you say above, they were apparently disjoint, disorganised, and as preoccupied with internecine rivalry as with fighting the Qing. And generally speaking, they did not achieve their goals.

Chango

12-17-2005, 10:08 PM

Hey so we don't take this thread down the usual path. I think it could be quite a large statement to say "Wing chun was created for the purpose of etc...." I think a better way to approach this would be possibly asking was Wing Chun used in the many different forms of Rebelion against the Manchus? I think no matter what side of the fence you are on on this topic. It is safe to say it was used at some point in the rebelion. Now however you relate to this connection it can be a matter of point of view. (given the amount and quality of historical info you have)

One thing I know is that not all lineages are the same so to make a blanket statement such as "wing chun is not good for this or that." Is like painting yourself into a corner and sets the tone for others with a different P.O.V. to disagree. I say maybe your Wing Chun training fits this model but I'm not sure your are qualified to speak for mine or others.

I think a healthy excercise here would be for those who feel that Wing Chun was not adaquate for training an "anti-Qing movement" could list what they think is needed vs what thier experiences with Wing Chun has to offer. This will teach us more about each other.

Just a suggestion in a healthy direction.

Chango :D

the last words of a fool "hey watch this!"
a wise man's words last heard by the fool "hey watch this"

canglong

12-18-2005, 01:06 PM

originally posted by CFT
Granted that there were many different anti-Manchu revolutionary societies, did they really all need to invent their own method of training "foot soldiers"? If these really were "basic" training methods then why should they look so different? OK, I am not experienced in any of the arts I listed (WCK more than any other), but don't they all look rather like any other martial art that does not claim a-M rev. status? Chee,
What are your thoughts on the possibility that the various training methods were not really that different seeing how you believe "they all look rather like any other martial art that does not claim a-M rev. status?".
originally posted by Chango
Hey so we don't take this thread down the usual path. I think it could be quite a large statement to say "Wing chun was created for the purpose of etc...." I think a better way to approach this would be possibly asking was Wing Chun used in the many different forms of Rebelion against the Manchus? I think no matter what side of the fence you are on on this topic. It is safe to say it was used at some point in the rebelion. Now however you relate to this connection it can be a matter of point of view. (given the amount and quality of historical info you have)
Chango,
Excellent point, it is usually much easier to view these topics by first examining your own family's relation to the topic and then work from there.

anerlich

12-18-2005, 03:47 PM

Wing Chun was not adaquate for training an "anti-Qing movement"

I don't think anyone said this, I certainly didn't.

I think the point of the discussion is the profusion of claims of development of different arts for anti-Manchu revolutionary use, and the spiral into absurdity which threatens if they are taken all together at face value.

There is no reason to assume that other styles do not have scholars researching them who are every bit as qualiifed and committed as those researching WC.

wongjunlam

12-19-2005, 12:59 AM

Yes Wing Chun Was used in the revolutions.

Fung Siu Ching, Student of Dai Fa Min gam (from the red boats) was an imperial marshal, and at one point in time the body guard of the Sichuan governer. He was involved in three battles against the Tian Di Hui. His martial brother Fok Bou Chun was in Imperial Constable and most probably would of been involved in some scuffles too.

Hey so we don't take this thread down the usual path. I think it could be quite a large statement to say "Wing chun was created for the purpose of etc...." I think a better way to approach this would be possibly asking was Wing Chun used in the many different forms of Rebelion against the Manchus? I think no matter what side of the fence you are on on this topic. It is safe to say it was used at some point in the rebelion. Now however you relate to this connection it can be a matter of point of view. (given the amount and quality of historical info you have)

One thing I know is that not all lineages are the same so to make a blanket statement such as "wing chun is not good for this or that." Is like painting yourself into a corner and sets the tone for others with a different P.O.V. to disagree. I say maybe your Wing Chun training fits this model but I'm not sure your are qualified to speak for mine or others.

I think a healthy excercise here would be for those who feel that Wing Chun was not adaquate for training an "anti-Qing movement" could list what they think is needed vs what thier experiences with Wing Chun has to offer. This will teach us more about each other.

Just a suggestion in a healthy direction.

Chango :D

the last words of a fool "hey watch this!"
a wise man's words last heard by the fool "hey watch this"

CFT

12-19-2005, 03:22 AM

Chee,
What are your thoughts on the possibility that the various training methods were not really that different seeing how you believe "they all look rather like any other martial art that does not claim a-M rev. status?".Sorry, Tony. I was probably a bit glib here.

Of the examples given, the present day systems of Southern Praying Mantis (as an example), Choy Li Fut and Hung Kuen all have extensive numbers of sets, AFAIK. THis may not have always been the case historically, but for the sake of argument say that it is. To me this would seem counter productive if these were "basic combat training systems".

The construction of the systems in terms of numbers of empty-hand sets, numbers of weapons sets, inner power cultivations sets, partnered drills, etc. are the "same" as any other martial art not claiming to be designed for anti-Manchu activities. Of course the details are different - each arts has different ways of doing things but there is nothing significantly "short-cut" or "basic" about any of them. Maybe any training system can be generically described this way - maybe it is just too general a view.

But, in my view, WCK could fit the bill in terms of system "compactness" - a handful of empty-hand forms and just one long-range and one short-range weapon form. However, from reading on these forums, just because the training material can be covered in a short period of time the same may not be true for developing functional power. Maybe it wasn't necessary because the WCK trained foot-soldier was mainly going up against similarly trained government troops.

I wasn't trying to say that these systems are no good, just why there were so many to achieve the same results.

Hendrik did actually bring up a good point - what did government soldiers have in the way of basic training? I don't think this was standardised either.

Chango

12-19-2005, 03:23 AM

Wongjunlam!
Your post adds much more to the thread! WOW! It would be a good practice to note the activities of some of the notable accounts of wing chun's use in the rebelion from a historical stand point. If you ask me I would not choose any other system to have on my side! LOL! I guess we all feel that way here! If you ask me we are all blessed to have the treasure that is wing chun. :D

canglong

12-19-2005, 04:36 AM

Chee,
That cleared up a few points for me, thanks. Before we address the points of your last post lets first see what we understand as far as what ghost had to say earlier.
originally posted by ghostofwingchun
I am wondering why anyone wishing to train army or revolutionaries would be concerned with hand to hand fighting in the first place . . . wars and revolutions are fought with weapons not with hands . . . or why bow and arrow not part of martial art . . . certainly major weapon of war . . . but I guess it makes for good stories.
This is an excellent point because Chi Sim Weng Chun and Hung Fa Yi Wing Chun history record that weapons were traditionally trained first.

CFT

12-19-2005, 07:40 AM

Tony,

All this is just "idle" speculation on my part. It's just that my interest was piqued the other day by someone who had posted about CLF being design to train anti-Manchu revolutionaries. My first thought was: "What! CLF as well"? Then it got me to think about Chu/Chow Gar Praying Mantis, etc.

So does CSWCK and HFYWCK still train the weapons first or empty-hands?

canglong

12-19-2005, 09:47 AM

What! CLF as well"? aaaahh, got cha now you prankster Chee.
You need to see it as cracking the code or piecing together the puzzle so its not so draining on you. Enjoy the stories while researching the facts there are quite a few knowledgable people here take advantage ot that.
So does CSWCK and HFYWCK still train the weapons first or empty-hands?Chee,
Well I can only speak to the history of Chi Sim as far as them training the traditional way today no doubt Grandmaster Hoffmann's knowledge is such that he could whether he does or not we would need to ask him.

As for Hung Fa Yi like Chi Sim Weng Chun it is a Philosophy a Science and a Physical martial endeavor of the 2 as well. Our Grandmaster's knowledge of the system is such he can teach an individual starting anywhere in the system based on the individuals ability to learn or apply what it is he is being taught. We have so many private students and disciples being taught in a Hou Chyun San Sau setting it would be impossible for me to know if any one of them was training in the traditional manner. Generally speaking though in our public classes we are not being taught weapons training per say each individual weapon, however; we do learn principles of weapons as they apply to hand-to-hand combat from the very beginning of our training because a majority of those principles are derived from weapon applications.

ghostofwingchun

12-19-2005, 10:44 AM

Chee,
That cleared up a few points for me, thanks. Before we address the points of your last post lets first see what we understand as far as what ghost had to say earlier. This is an excellent point because Chi Sim Weng Chun and Hung Fa Yi Wing Chun history record that weapons were traditionally trained first.

Mr. Jacobs . . . what weapons are these . . . butterfly swords and pole like rest of wc . . . or are there other weapons? I ask because neither pole or butterfly swords are weapons typically used in war . . . even in ancient times . . . weapons in ancient war were bow and arrrow, spear, sword and shield, and so on. I am thinkng that martial art for soldier would include these weapons.

Thanks,

Ghost

reneritchie

12-19-2005, 12:56 PM

In the time and place of WCK, rebellion raged in the form of God's Chinese Son, Hong Xiuquan, who proclaimed the Taiping and began a movement that would end in over 20 Million deaths.

Think about that number.

In the time and place of WCK, the Red Junk Opera, under the leadership of Li Wenmao, rose up behind Chen Kai in support of the Taiping, and marched in Foshan in what would become the Red Turban Rebellion and the proclamation of teh Daning.

This was a fading time for martial arts, where Britain had forced open ports and the concession of Hong Kong under threat of armored steamers, cannons, and guns the likes of which were seldom seen before.

The Taiping forged their own armada of boats and claimed river power, armed themselves with bombs and guns, and drove through the south and seized Nanjing itself during their height.

Local militia, wealthy gentry, and even the townspeople of Foshan fought the rebels in the end. There were Manchu, no doubt, but the world was far more gray by then, and allegiences shifted and stories bubbled up as part of the wars, even as they still do today.

Scholars have recorded that the spectacular flips and acrobatics of the Red Junk let them fight the Qing. I don't know how many flips and acrobatics are in standard WCK, but we do know WCK was historically on the Red Junks at the time.

Hendrik

12-20-2005, 09:52 PM

My old post...

http://ezine.kungfumagazine.com/forum/showthread.php?t=36355&highlight=lee+man+mau

Phil Redmond

12-20-2005, 10:18 PM

I am wondering why anyone wishing to train army or revolutionaries would be concerned with hand to hand fighting in the first place . . . wars and revolutions are fought with weapons not with hands . . . or why bow and arrow not part of martial art . . . certainly major weapon of war . . . but I guess it makes for good stories.

Ghost
Not quite true. All Armies trained in hand-to-hand combat. I know I did in the Corps. In fact, the U.S. Marine Corps has a martial art with a belt ranking system now.
PR

canglong

12-20-2005, 11:57 PM

Ghost,
At least the knives and the spear yes the pole is the spear with the tip removed because it was not allowed in the temple.

reneritchie

12-21-2005, 09:51 AM

When I was in Guangzhou, the army was entertaining the idea of training in TKD and some of the local WCK people thought the idea of belts and all was a better commercial model if they had to compete....

ghostofwingchun

12-21-2005, 11:55 AM

Ghost,
At least the knives and the spear yes the pole is the spear with the tip removed because it was not allowed in the temple.

Mr. Jacobs are you saying that wc pole is spear with tip removed? This is what I don't understand . . . if wc pole come from shaolin temple then what is spear doing there in first place? Why also would it be ok for buddhist monk to strike with pole and not with spear . . . blunt object can kill too? I am thinking that technical element of spear would not be the same as pole . . . just as technical elements of stick is not the same as sword . . . perhaps some overlap . . . dog brothers do not look like fencing! . . . but different qualities of weapons I am thinking would change how they are used.

Thanks,

Ghost

anerlich

12-21-2005, 03:14 PM

blunt object can kill too

Indeed, William Cheung inherited a pole which allegedly was used to kill 6 people in combat.

Jeez, lots of things can kill.

One of my training buds showed me a newspaper clipping the other day where a 47 year old karate BB instructor in New Zealand (I think) collapsed and died of a heart attack while sparring with a ten year old girl who he was encouraging to "hit me harder" during a grading. The girl was understandably upset and is undergoing counselling.

I'm 51, going to stay the heck away from kid's classes :D

reneritchie

12-21-2005, 07:07 PM

People have suffered 'Sudden Death' after being hit by baseballs...

12-21-2005, 08:36 PM

One of my training buds showed me a newspaper clipping the other day where a 47 year old karate BB instructor in New Zealand (I think) collapsed and died of a heart attack while sparring with a ten year old girl who he was encouraging to "hit me harder" during a grading. The girl was understandably upset and is undergoing counselling.

I'm betting this is the same one: Black belt dies in bout with girl, 10 (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/story.cfm?c_id=1&ObjectID=10360491)

Regards,
- kj