Anti-Manchu creation stories

[CFT]

I sometimes question the "designed to fight the Manchus" story.

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

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

Why so many? I'm sure there a more. Anyone like to add to the list?

[TenTigers]

Hung-Kuen-especially since the name Hung, comes from Hung Mo-Jue, the first Emperor of the Ming Dynasty, whose line was ended by the Manchu invasion.

[CFT]

Not Hung Hei Gwoon?

[TenTigers]

nope-Hung Hei-Guen's surname was Jew-he changed it out of loyalty/patriotism. or to hide his identity from the Manchus, as there was a price on his head.
-or so the story goes.

[canglong]

I sometimes question the "designed to fight the Manchus" story.

CFT,
The obvious question is why?

[CFT]

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]

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

[Hendrik]

A good book written 1931,

http://www.pgw.com/catalog/catalog.a...4913&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]

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]

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

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

[canglong]

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]

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]

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

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

[CFT]

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]

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.