Who created Wu Bu Chuan?

[GLW]

Actually, it is not that far off from traditional Chaquan beginner work.

By that I am referring to Tan Tui. In 10 line Tan tui, you have one line being done over and over until you reach the end of the training area. They are generally linear.

So, you have #1, Two hand strike, elbow, sweep block to punch, then cover and kick...

But, there is also what is called (excuse the bad pinyin or spelling) Chuan Tan Tui - staked Tan Tui - where you do ONE of line one, flow to line 2 do one of it, then line three, etc...so you do one of each of the 10 lines back to back...up one line for the first 7, turning back for # 8 and then coming back for 8, 9, and 10.

Done this way, the aspect is not unlike Wubuquan....Where you have Yi Shou - block punch, Er Shou - kick punch, San Shou - block with Ma bu punch, Siu Shou - block down while stepping back to sitting stance and cover over to punch, Wu Shou - Thread palm up to Du Li throat strike or eyes... Liu Shou - Pu Bu down to groin or leg, Chi Shou - up to Gong Bu to block, grab and step up to strike from empty stance. Each of these could be done by themselves sort of like Tan Tui...

It is simply way to simple to say it is Modern or Traditional...

Traditional sets often seem like: Beginner sets - linear. Intermediate, you hit the corners and diagonals...but not circular. Advanced level, you take over ALL of the area with linear, diagonal, and circular stepping and movement forward, sideways, and backwards....

Now, of course, that is my perspective from a Chaquan viewpoint...which is not exactly a Shaolin approach.

[Royal Dragon]

So maybe it is an ancient set, just new to Shaolin?

I'm personally going with the theory that it is a couple of ancient drills combined into one form to work all the major stances. My guess is one coach started doing it, and the rest folllowed until noone really knew who started doing it like that.

[GeneChing]

My guess would be that Wubu's roots lie in Cha. I don't really base that on anything beyond a gut feeling. I only dabbled in Cha when I was younger, but a lot of modern wushu is based in Cha.

The issue of modern and traditional can be quite blurry. GLW, I find your corner/diagonal/intermediate theory quite interesting becuase I've often defined modern wushu as playing to the corners (because that's where the judges sit). Coming from a Shaolin root, which is very linear where footwork is concerned, that was a simplistic defination, this definition can work for Shaolin style, but falls apart outside Shaolin. It's an easy way to spot traditional vs. modern at Shaolin.

[GLW]

An interesting different perspective...but supported by all of the descriptions of Shaolin vs. other northern styles...where it is said that true Shaolin is powerful with stable and quick footwork...but more "meat and potatoes" approach than other styles.

Coming from a Chaquan base, I notice that the directions and how much of the floor you cover gets more complex and bigger with the more advanced routines....but certain ones are simpler than others....For example, Huaquan is very different in use of floor than Chaquan...but both are similar in other ways. Hongquan tends to be more linear than Chaquan, and so on....

[r.(shaolin)]

I believe that Cha Quan is an offshoot off Northern Hong Quan. That is Hong Quan is older than Cha, as is Shaolin Xiao and Da Hong Chang Quan. Xiao and Da Hong Chang Quan are important base long fist sets in Shaolin and have been practiced at Shaolin for centuries. In looking at the chang quan set posted on 'Traditional versions to Wushu sets' thread and looking at combination wushu exercises like 'wu bu', I would say that basic and intermediate northern Shaolin (in the tradition I practice) has much in common with wushu - minus things like running in a semi circle across the mat. From my point of view, the roots of modern wushu is Shaolin. Having said that, traditional Shaolin is a much bigger, more varied and, combatively speaking, a deeper system than modern wushu.
r.

[Shaolinlueb]

Originally posted by r.(shaolin)
Having said that, traditional Shaolin is a much bigger, more varied and, combatively speaking, a deeper system than modern wushu.
r.

thank you captian obvious

[GeneChing]

I've practiced both Xiaohong and Dahong from Shaolin and I see no significant connection to modern wushu. None of the moves seem even remotely parallel. I've also practiced Chaquan #4 and took a lesson in Cha#5 in China once, and that has a much closer feel to modern wushu. In fact, I took that lesson in Cha#5 at a cultural exchange when I was representing the USA on the national AAU team in '91. The lesson was sprung on me by my Sifu, who had taught me Cha#4. The cultural exchange didn't go so well, because they didn't provide enough translators, so to lubircate the situation, my Sifu set me up with this woman master and she just started teaching me Cha#5. I got about half way through, and at the time I felt what the woman was teaching me was modern wushu. Then she took me to her master, this old guy. He showed me a bunch more, exact same set, but this time, it had a totally traditional feel. There was actually a pic of me during that lesson published in IKF March '92. It totally reshaped my perception of what wushu and traditional was.

[GLW]

Bingo Gene...

The difference between the two...well ignoring the NEW compulsories like the Changquan one - just doesn't flow well in my view...

The difference is more being one of how you interpret it instead of the routine.

[r.(shaolin)]

Gene wrote:
I've practiced both Xiaohong and Dahong from Shaolin and I see no significant connection to modern wushu. None of the moves seem even remotely parallel.
.........................................
In looking at the xiao hong quan on http://www.nacma.net/index.cfm?ac=shaolinT2004 being done by some students (I am assuming this is the same form practiced at Shaolin today,) I see what you mean. From what I can see, it appears that this version came from Liu BaoShan who had learned it from his father Liu Jinwen a lay master from Henan.

Our version of these sets clearly resemble Cha Quan, and as I said earlier, Cha Quan is closely related to Hong Quan. In our lineage of Shaolin, which also came out of Henan province, the full names of these sets are Xiao Hong Chang Quan and Da Hong Chang Quan (Hong Long Fist).

Re: Wushu
Early modern wushu coaching manuals, clear identify the source of early wushu forms as Hong, Cha and Hua. I find it interesting that older shifu like Cai Longyun, in-spite of being one of the architects of early modern wushu, having being taught traditional long fist by his famous father, did his bow and arrow step in the traditional manner out of habit, as opposed to the modern wushu bow and arrow, which has the front knee over the heel and often behind the heel.

r.

[GLW]

I wouldn't be so qick to say that he did that out of habit and that the new way is right while his way is "Traditional" and not what was intended in Contemporary Wushu.

Virtually every original generation teacher (back to the 1950's) and then the first generation teacher (up to just before the Cultural Revolution) that I have seen do the Traditional stances.

Then, just after the Cultural Revolution (not much to talk about from 1966 to 1976 - except bad things), the first group did not have the years of training in childhood when they reached the Physical Education colleges. That was the time that the split off into something else seems to have started. It was very slow and met with a lot of resistance at first.

However, as a newer generation of coaches came along, they wanted to make their bones...and the tie to the past had been seriously damaged by the 10 years of madness. A lot of the coaches I have seen from that generation of students (just coming into their own now) talk a good game about Wude, tradition, the lineages and such of Wushu...but in practice are more "Whatever gets the win...and to the devil with ties to the past"

Even in the Contemporary Wushu circles this is being acknowledged in their talk of "old school" vs. now...and how the "old school" folks had to have a broader base of basics but may not have been as acrobatic...

[r.(shaolin)]

GLW wrote:

Virtually every original generation teacher (back to the 1950's) and then the first generation teacher (up to just before the Cultural Revolution) that I have seen do the Traditional stances.
......................................

GLW I think your are right in this.

r.

[Shaolinlueb]

this thread is becoming really interesting and I'm enjoying it a lot.

[GeneChing]

True, there are different forms of hong quan - my observation was based on the Songshan version. I've seen the version that the Lau sisters taught when I worked on their videos for WLE, and it's quite different. Was that a Jingwu version? Was that closer to yours, r.(shaolin)?

As for Cai Yunlong, check out our Sep/Oct 2004 issue. The 'big dragon with the magic fists' posed for our got qi? subsription ad. Our publisher Gigi met with him informally on her last trip to China. More to come there...

As for the mantis form, the most common mantis form at Shaolin is the modern Yu Hai form. Yu Hai was a noted first gen traditional-to-wushu master from Shandong. He played the big monk in the film Shaolin temple. That form was left at Shaolin after he made the movies. It's very recognizable. FWIW, my own Shaolin teacher, Shi Decheng practices a more traditional 8-step mantis. I think it's something he learned prior to his study at Shaolin, and it's not a regular part of the Shaolin curriculam, unless you've studied under him or his school.

[r.(shaolin)]

Hi Gene,

Who are the Lau sisters? Is there a Jingwu version?
I haven't seen any of these. The only other versions I've seen
is the ones being done at Shaolin now.

r.

All the best on your birthday SL

[MasterKiller]

Originally posted by r.(shaolin)
Hi Gene,

Who are the Lau sisters?

Eagle Claw masters Lily and Ginny, I presume.