Longfist Vids

Here are some more sample Longfist vids from my Taiwanese teacher's DVDs for those who might be interested:

Longfist:

Taizu Longfist Form Two Demo: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qb1znn33EJM

Sample of Taizu Form One DVD:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n_BBn5omRLQ

Taizu Form Two Kicking Applications: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P7YmI-R6Q7c

Xiao Hong-quan Applications:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B4FT_ETpcOA

Any comments welcome! (other than "get a haircut" and "nice sound fx lol"--I've heard those a few times....)

Thanks.

I have seen that face repeatedly on YOU TUBE but know nothing about this teacher. Is there a location that you can recommend that speaks to his background and variation of TAIZU Long Fist that he represents? Thoughts? Its hard for me to get excited about someone only because they offer DVD-s. Help?

Best Wishes,

Bruce

He does Shandong Tai Tzu, it is the one that is most like Cha Quan, not the Shaolin derived Tai Tzu.
They are pretty different from each other and probably unrelated.

Thanks, Sal.

From what I have been able to pull together CHA QUAN is one of the more combative forms. I have also had a chance to view the YANQING QUAN (aka: "Lost Track"), some HONG QUAN, and HUA QUAN (aka: "Flower Boxing"). One Northern tradition that I have had a hard time locating is the "other HUA QUAN" in which "Hua" reflects the sense of a "Greater China". Are you familiar with this tradition? Ever seen it in motion? Thoughts?

Best Wishes,

Bruce

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bruce W Sims

Thanks, Sal.

From what I have been able to pull together CHA QUAN is one of the more combative forms. I have also had a chance to view the YANQING QUAN (aka: "Lost Track"), some HONG QUAN, and HUA QUAN (aka: "Flower Boxing"). One Northern tradition that I have had a hard time locating is the "other HUA QUAN" in which "Hua" reflects the sense of a "Greater China". Are you familiar with this tradition? Ever seen it in motion? Thoughts?

Best Wishes,

Bruce

---

Hunh? more combative? ALL the styles are combative. It's the person doing the style that is the driver in the car, the automobiles all get you there no matter what they look like, whether it is a sports car, van, sedan, or whatever.

Lost Track is from the Song dynasty also, it is a clue to what Shaolin stuff was like back in the day. It is most "classic".

Hua (Wah is a better pinyin word for it) Quan that you are looking for I am familiar with and have learned. It looks like a combo of Shaolin and Cha Quan.
You can find some really great VCDs of the style on the internet many places. One of the very best fighters in China was of this style, Cai Long.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sal Canzonieri

Hunh? more combative? ALL the styles are combative. It's the person doing the style that is the driver in the car, the automobiles all get you there no matter what they look like, whether it is a sports car, van, sedan, or whatever.

Sorry. I was not sure how else to put it. General Qi would have referred to "flowery hands and embroidered feet" to describe practices he deemed not combat worthy. For myself, I still see a difference where QI-KUNG and MA are combined, in that some styles seem to go heavier on the CHI-GUNG and lighter on the MA, while others are just the reverse. At any rate, I note that a number of resources view the CHA QUAN with its supposed roots in the HUI community as being more aggressive. FWIW.

Lost Track is from the Song dynasty also, it is a clue to what Shaolin stuff was like back in the day. It is most "classic".

I have the 2-book set by CHEN Fenqui and CHEN Youliang (See: ISBN 7-5054-0126-2) and am thoroughly taken with the spirit forms demonstrated in them as well as the 2-person forms.

Hua (Wah is a better pinyin word for it) Quan that you are looking for I am familiar with and have learned. It looks like a combo of Shaolin and Cha Quan.
You can find some really great VCDs of the style on the internet many places. One of the very best fighters in China was of this style, Cai Long.

So far the only material I have been able to locate is "HUA QUAN" where the term is meant to reflect "flower" or "blossom". There is probably some source out there for DVD or VCD but I have yet to find it. Usually I am pretty lucky with Jarek (Szymanski) (See: Inside of China website) but in this case I am still looking. Any thoughts on a good location?

BTW: Maybe its a coincidence but one of my favorite Chinese forms (a work in progress as I write this) is " WU SONG BREAKS MANACLES" (See CAI Longyun). As I continue my research I am surprised at how similar certain biomechanics in that form are with the "Lost Track" material. I mention this only because you commented on the family name CAI as relates to WAH QUAN. FWIW.

---

Best Wishes,
Bruce

Onyomi, what a great sifu you have.

I really like his skills.

He is really great.

:)

I am really curious as to the origins of those forms. I know they are Shandong, BUT how far back do they go, and who created them.

I am particularly interested to find if they are, or are not, developed out of old military long fist from the early Sung dynasty.

Only knowing the actual history of these sets will really answer my questions though.

I am looking for the names of the creators, when they were created, and what styles were in the creator's backgrounds before developing them.

I have 4 more sets from Shaondong Tai Tzu Hong Quan I'd like the same answers for as well.

Thanks, Royal:

Well said; I am of the same mind. Its not that I have a problem if an activity is of more recent development. I have the greatest respect for the material that has come out of the Nanking Institute and the JING WOO folks and it matters not at all to me if someone identifies what they do with these fine efforts. The problem I run into, most often, is that folks seem to want to invoke a relationship to much, much older material without any direct connection to older material. What I find is that people often invoke institutions rather than individuals when providing "bonafides" and rarely do verifiable individuals go back ****her than three or four generations. A great example is the SHAOLIN monastery itself, wherein the institution was destroyed in the 1920-s yet people represent that what they practice is original to that institution going back many generations!
To my way of thinking we need to have a very clear and documented "chain of custody" (to borrow a term from Law Enforcement) if someone is going to represent what they do in a particular way. Thoughts?

Best Wishes,

Bruce

Thanks, Royal:

Well said; I am of the same mind. Its not that I have a problem if an activity is of more recent development. I have the greatest respect for the material that has come out of the Nanking Institute and the JING WOO folks and it matters not at all to me if someone identifies what they do with these fine efforts. The problem I run into, most often, is that folks seem to want to invoke a relationship to much, much older material without any direct connection to older material.

Reply]
See, here is the thing, those institutions were BUILT on much, much, much older arts. A lot of what was taught was just the same things that HAD been taught in other places for generations. Now, at the SAME TIME, they also created sets of thier own. So when someone says a form came from Nanjing what needs to be determined is if it is a really old set that was taught there but actually came from somewhere else, or was it a set they created themselves?

What I find is that people often invoke institutions rather than individuals when providing "bonafides" and rarely do verifiable individuals go back ****her than three or four generations.

Reply]
Maybe the institution does not go back any further than that, but if they are teaching styles that have been around for a really long time, the styles themselves could be old as dirt.

A good example would be a newly constructed elementary school...maybe it was built 3 years ago, but does that mean the mathematics it teaches are only 3 years old?


A great example is the SHAOLIN monastery itself, wherein the institution was destroyed in the 1920-s yet people represent that what they practice is original to that institution going back many generations!

Reply]
Shaolin has been an institution in the Chinese martial arts for 1500+ years. Many of it's styles and teachings ended up in the local villages surrounding the temple. So, just because the buildings of Shaolin themselves were destroyed, does not mean the arts they taught were. So when someone who is from a line of Shaolin that got taught to a local village in 1640 AD says they are doing Shaolin, it really has no bearing on the temples destruction in 1928. They got the system hundreds of years before Shaolin was burned down.


To my way of thinking we need to have a very clear and documented "chain of custody" (to borrow a term from Law Enforcement) if someone is going to represent what they do in a particular way. Thoughts?

Reply]
Yes, and no. Many times the "Chain of Custody" is not available, so we have to look at the movements themselves.