The Only Truly Authentic Shaolin System

[r.(shaolin)]

Ethnic cultural identity is a sensitive and deeply emotional issue. What makes up ethnic identity is complex - it is not just hard facts that create deeply held cultural feelings. Cultural identity is as much defined and shaped by stories and legends; cultural heros, both mythical and real, as it is by facts (assumed or otherwise). Many Chinese have dedicated their lives and in many case literally given their lives for their culture and country. This is particularly pointed for Chinese people (in China and abroad) that after 50 + years of an attempt to have their traditional culture destroyed first by the West then by the communists.

Shaolin kung-fu is regarded as an intrinsic part of the Chinese cultural heritage and many Chinese martial arts consider it part of their lineages. It is sometimes hard for western enthusiasts to understand this. For centuries, Chinese at home and abroad have been proud of Shaolin. For hundreds of years, there are countless Chinese disciples and martial artists who have identified with Shaolin. How can any individual or one school claim to own Shaolin? When 'outsiders' diss traditions that are dearly held part of cultural identity, many Chinese are sure to find this offensive.

r.

[Sal Canzonieri]

Although Shaolin monks may have contributed to the spread of Hong Quan in Shandong, the oral tradition I practice says that Hong Quan was not developed by Shaolin monks and that only two sets of Hong Quan were practiced (mostly Shaolin did not absorb entire systems). Further more these two sets were considered fundamentals and were used in tests of basic skill. The system(s) practiced in Shandong, Shaanxi and Gansu provinces is much more extensive and complete and in fact is widely practiced in all the northern provinces of China today, especially in Shaanxi, Shandong, Gansu, Ningxia, and Xinjiang. It first spread in the provinces of Henan, Sichuan and Gansu.

Pretty well every oral and recorded legend says that Zhao Kuangyin (960-976 ), the first Song Emperor (posthumous temple name -Taizu) created Hong Quan. Zhao came from a military family in Luoyang, (not far from Shaolin Si). Here is what was passed on concerning development of Hong Quan by Huang Baoshan 黄寶珊 to one of his students in 1993. Huang Baoshan was a very knowledgeable Hong Quan practitioner from the town of Tianshui, Gansu province. Huang and his older generations, believed that the major systematization of the style is most probably during the Qing Dynasty (1368-1911) in the provinces of Shandong and Shaanxi and was spread by teachers connected with the military.

Huang Baoshan - 黄寶珊 (1905-1998) trained with Sun Yanbiao 蓀彥彪 (1884-1981) a famous Hong Quan teacher in North west China. Sun Yanbiao also taught Wang Ziping (1881-1973) and Wang Bugao (1885-1960). Sun Yanbiao's teacher was General Shao Yinhuan 紹銀環(1862-1930). Huang Baoshan (黄寶珊) also studied with General Gao Zhankui 高占魁 who was a famous expert in Hong Quan one of the three important generals to spread Hong Quan in Shaanxi. This is documented in the "Shaanxi martial arts records" and the "Sanyuan county annals" . As well according to the Gaoshan Shilu 高山史錄 "Records from Gaoshan " Gao Zhankui was a military instructor in Xian and responsible in winning a battle at Wucheng.

In 1920 Huang Baoshan also visited and studied briefly at Shaolin Si. This was during the time that Venerable Miao Xin (1876-1934) was there. According to him, before 1928, the monks of the Shaolin monastery used to practice Hongquan, but after the reconstruction following the movie "Shaolin Temple" in the 80s , the Hongquan forms they have now, although have same name, are different. The Hong Quan before 1900 was known in Shaolin within two sets, the Shaolin Xiao hongquan and Shaolin Da hongquan. In keeping with oral tradition that has been passed on to my older generation, these two forms where developed outside the temple and were imported into Shaolin. In the original system of Hongquan, the movements are long, and are classified as long range boxing (Changquan ). According to Huang Baoshan, Hong Quan movements are long, clear-cut, elegant and clear in their steps and application. Huang Baoshan, also said that the "two roads Hong fist" (erluhongquan), at Shaolin were basic routines. Having seen what was practiced at Shaolin in 1920 he said that at the Shaolin temple today, the moves are cut and short, unlike the original Shaolin Hong Quan, which is fluid with long movements of the arms.
r.

Okay, first, everyone has to stop bothering to mention modern public show Shaolin cause it is just a circus act, it has not bearing on anything anyone is concerned with. I am only concerned with the sets that all the oldest monks have passed on to Shi De Gen, Shi De Yang, Shi De Gian, Shi Se Yuan, the two Liu's, and so on. There is no use bothering with any other things that "Shaolin" circus group does. ALL THESE OLD lineages, indeed do "The Hong Quan before 1900 was known in Shaolin within two sets, the Shaolin Xiao hongquan and Shaolin Da hongquan. " I have documentation of these sets, and have learned them, this Da Hong Quan is actually the Lao Jia Quan, many people do not know that. This other Da Hong Quan that people often see is the 6 Roads of Da Hong Quan. What Huang didn't know (realized, whatever) is that there is the Xiao Hong Quan (that everyone is familiar with) then these 6 Roads of Da Hong Quan, and then there is Lao Hong Quan, they are all from Zhao Kuang Yin's Song Hong Quan, that he passed to Shaolin at some point.

Second, Shaolin Quan means all the various long fist styles practiced throughout Henan Province that was once derived from the early sets created by the martial guards at Shaolin under Fu Ju's supervision, such as Song Tai Tzu Chang Quan. There is a series of signature moves that come from this set and if they are not found in a style's sets, then they are NOT Shaolin Quan, but some other kind of long fist.

Third, Yes, but which Hong Quan do you mean?
I've been researching Hong Quan and have found that there are several style named this.

- There is a Tang Dynasty era Hong Quan practiced by their military along with a type of Pao Chui. Sometimes this style is called Long Fist Tong Bei, but it is not related to Qi or Shi Tong Bei.
- There is a Hong Quan that was practiced all along the Yellow River that was derived from the 6 Step Boxing set (which is also mentioned in General Qi Chi's famous book).
-There is Shanxi Hong Quan
-There is Denfang village Hong Quan
- There is Shaolin Hong Quan (Xiao, Da, and Lao Hong Quan sets) that comes from Zhao Kwang Yin.
- There is Shaolin Hong Quan sets that are from 1200s that come from Li Sou (of bai Yi Feng and Jue Yuan fame).
- There is Louyang Hong Quan
- There is Shandong Cha Quan system's Hong Quan
- There is Shandong Shaolin Hong Quan
- There is Shandong Ming Tai Tzu Hong Quan done by Ming Dynasty military (composed of sets named Xiao Hong, Da Hong, and Tiger Claw).

10 different Hong Quan stlyes. They are all different from each other and also there has been some interaction between these depending on the lineage.

Next, can you read Chinese? If so, please read these articles on Song and Ming Tai TZu Hong Quan,
They are all by that researcher, tell me what you think.

http://www.wushu2008.cn/viewthread.p...a=page%3D4
http://www.tanglangquan.net/Html/Art...102180940.html
http://www.tanglangquan.net/Html/Art...102181121.html
http://www.tanglangquan.net/Html/Art...102181332.html
http://www.tanglangquan.net/Html/Art...102181643.html

http://www.wulinzhi.com/other-chinese-martial-arts/2494

[r.(shaolin)]

Hi Sal,

The only link that's seems to be working is the first.
on first looks it - interest.. . . with some obvious, IMO, incorrect info. i.e. Qi Meigun is not a ten foot + stick.

r.

[r.(shaolin)]

Hi Sal,

The only link that's seems to be working is the first.
on first looks it - interest.. . . with some obvious, IMO, incorrect info. i.e. Qi Meigun is not a ten foot + stick.

r.

oh I see, the comma, these are two different weapons.

r.

[Sal Canzonieri]

Hi Sal,

The only link that's seems to be working is the first.
on first looks it - interest.. . . with some obvious, IMO, incorrect info. i.e. Qi Meigun is not a ten foot + stick.

r.

I fixed the links they are all working for me.

[Siu Lum Fighter]

originally posted by David Jamieson
Pretty elitist thinking don't you think?

You have to consider the diaspora of shaolin kungfu and the subsequent transformations and numerous iterations of same.

to say that one style from 300 years ago is the only true style does disservice to the spirit of shaolin kungfu. Not to mention, it immediately brands that 300 year old stuff as irrelevant because it is stagnant.

It may sound that way, but I was not trying to be an elitist. It's just my belief that Northern Shaolin, with all of it's weapons sets and fluid movements, is the essence of the old Shaollin. By "old" I mean before the destruction and burnings in the 1700's and afterwards. Of course, the style has been added to over the the centuries. The last great masters to make additions to the lineage of my school were men like Kuo Yu Chang, Yim Shan Wu, and Wong Jack Man. To say the style is "irrelevant" and "stagnant" would be false. When I look at all of the myriad sets and styles at Shaolin Temple today, it seems like chaos from where I stand. And to add all of this modern wushu in there for show?

originally posted by Sal Canzonieri:
Gan Feng Chi there is no real historical evidence that he taught people his Shaolin,
maybe he did to a few people, but he would be too young, the years don't match up to where he was at the time.

For a long time he was in Emei learning 3 Emperor Pao Chui,
and then he spent most of his adult life as a anti-Qing rebel, he spent time developing Hua Quan, and its 4 long set and few weapons sets.
THAT is what he is documented as teaching, it is not Shaolin.
He was executed by the Qing government once he was caught.

I had looked at the dates, it doesn't match up to the BSL story.
It was people from modern times that started claiming him.
They grabbed his name cause he was famous.
Same as using Chi Yuan as a founder, he is always used a founder by many other styles of long fist, only because he is the only long fist monks that they heard of.

The monks from Songshan Shoalin that left in the 1700s went to Shandong Shaolin temples, there is a researcher in China that has been verifying this.
And, what they taught people and all over Shantong province they do this Shaolin art, is called Hong Quan, and it is a part of the Shaolin Song Tai Tzu Hong Quan system, SO THERE IS YOUR PROOF that of what the Songshan Shaolin monks were learning and teaching when they left: Hong Quan which is Tai Tzu Quan.
There are verifiable lineages, with documentation, because these monks taught bodyguard companies and there are records of their employees and what they learned. And Wang Zi Ping, the famous long fist martial artist, also learned from these monks and their descendants in the Shandong area.

From what I've read, Gan is mentioned as a Shaolin practitioner in the Wushia (or Wuxia in nonsensical pin yin), not necessarily as the originator, but the 1st laymen to bring it out of the temple, and thereby a founder of sorts. It's un-provable either way.

Anyway, most of our history was received orally, as in most styles, but from people with credibility. Just because they did not write it down does not take anything away from what they said. Many of the real fighters were not educated and could not write. It was not until the 1920's and 30s that students started writing our history. I know in the academic world this is not good enough because it is all based on oral transmission, but is it less valid than research that only just began a little over twenty years ago after Shaolin became this huge phenomenon? How can you tell me Kuo Yu Chang's students are less credible than researchers claiming they've uncovered new evidence 70 to 80 years after the history of Northern Shaolin was written down from the oral transmissions that go back over 150 years? Just because monks were teaching Hong Chuan in Shandong doesn't mean Monk Chih Yuan didn't flee to Hopei Province where he taught many villagers in the area. The lineage continues with Feng Shao Ch'en from there.

[Immortal_Dragon]

Okay, first, everyone has to stop bothering to mention modern public show Shaolin cause it is just a circus act, it has not bearing on anything anyone is concerned with. I am only concerned with the sets that all the oldest monks have passed on to Shi De Gen, Shi De Yang, Shi De Gian, Shi Se Yuan, the two Liu's, and so on. There is no use bothering with any other things that "Shaolin" circus group does. ALL THESE OLD lineages, indeed do "The Hong Quan before 1900 was known in Shaolin within two sets, the Shaolin Xiao hongquan and Shaolin Da hongquan. " I have documentation of these sets, and have learned them, this Da Hong Quan is actually the Lao Jia Quan, many people do not know that. This other Da Hong Quan that people often see is the 6 Roads of Da Hong Quan. What Huang didn't know (realized, whatever) is that there is the Xiao Hong Quan (that everyone is familiar with) then these 6 Roads of Da Hong Quan, and then there is Lao Hong Quan, they are all from Zhao Kuang Yin's Song Hong Quan, that he passed to Shaolin at some point.

Second, Shaolin Quan means all the various long fist styles practiced throughout Henan Province that was once derived from the early sets created by the martial guards at Shaolin under Fu Ju's supervision, such as Song Tai Tzu Chang Quan. There is a series of signature moves that come from this set and if they are not found in a style's sets, then they are NOT Shaolin Quan, but some other kind of long fist.

Well generally this is where these kind of "research" threads end up. It turns into a debate where opinions are slipped in often revealing the authors true beliefs. This is the whole problem. The BSL people say they are learning the "real traditional" shaolin sets, the Songshan Shaolin people say they are learning the real traditional stuff and even the Shaolin Do people say they are learning shaolin. Who cares? Why does it matter? If whatever style you train works for you and there are good useful fighting techniques why does anything else matter? Why not just ask your sifu for pete sakes on what the lineage is?

The whole problem with CMA in general is that its all a big jumbo puzzle. Noone is clear on who did what or who came from who in the real down the line lineage. Thats just the way it is. You dont see these kind of debates going on with the Tae Kwon Do stylists or karate stylists. Its because their systems have been solid documented and practiced the same for the longest time. The same form is done the same way no matter which school they came from or if it was done 20 years ago compared to today. Its still the same form practiced the same way.

[Sal Canzonieri]

I't s a silly question / statement in the first place.

Well, I;m bored of this topic, I would like to discuss Shaolin history / forms, etc with people who would like to do so,

So, I am starting a new thread on Hong Quan, and please if you want something to contribute answer that thread, thanks!

No offense to anyone meant, please

[Siu Lum Fighter]

originally posted by Sal Canzonieri:
BSL movements are not ancient forms, they are a distillation of moves from various teachers.
The closest the come to material still preserved in Shaolin is the Kan Jia Quan style of Shaolin, which has similar named sets but the forms are much longer. Kan Jia Quan was developed at Shaolin during the late Yuan time period to protect the monks from invading Taoist who were pretty much at war with the Buddhists over land rights and stealing temples from each other and collection boxes.

I just wanted to emphasis again that this statement is far from being true. The Kan Jia Chuan sets are actually much shorter and they're anything but a perfect match as Royal Dragon had stated earlier. Any other theories out there? I feel this is important to clarify since I feel it is dangerous to all of a sudden rewrite the history of a style when there's only speculation to justify it.

I also wanted to mention that I've recently read that KYC wrote (or had someone write for him while he was alive) several books. The books were, BSL Sword (Dragon Shape Sword), a History on BSL, and some hand sets with fighting theory. It's just hearsay since these books are still in China, and held by a disciple of his direct lineage and obviously he does not want to release them.

I'm sure there is other material out there that could be held up as "proof" since there are MA books that are locally published in limited numbers that never leave the province that they are printed in.

[Pk_StyLeZ]

Well generally this is where these kind of "research" threads end up. It turns into a debate where opinions are slipped in often revealing the authors true beliefs. This is the whole problem. The BSL people say they are learning the "real traditional" shaolin sets, the Songshan Shaolin people say they are learning the real traditional stuff and even the Shaolin Do people say they are learning shaolin. Who cares? Why does it matter? If whatever style you train works for you and there are good useful fighting techniques why does anything else matter? Why not just ask your sifu for pete sakes on what the lineage is?

The whole problem with CMA in general is that its all a big jumbo puzzle. Noone is clear on who did what or who came from who in the real down the line lineage. Thats just the way it is. You dont see these kind of debates going on with the Tae Kwon Do stylists or karate stylists. Its because their systems have been solid documented and practiced the same for the longest time. The same form is done the same way no matter which school they came from or if it was done 20 years ago compared to today. Its still the same form practiced the same way.

exactly what i been trying to say.....but much more better put =)

[sha0lin1]

Even then I read through thousands of topics in this forum about what your saying. Yeah there is a difference between "contemporary" wushu and shaolin wushu. I feel a few hand sets are tossed in there to certify it as "traditional". True wushu translates all to martial arts but it's been the most used statement about the whole shaolin debate. The problem that I personally have seen with the modern shaolin schools is that each monk would take one specific form but modify it. So the same form is done three different ways by three different schools. What is real; what is fake? I am not against any of it and by no means am I trying to scrutinize who anyone trains in modern shaolin. It just depends on what you seek.

Well this problem is not likely to go away soon. Throughout a monks training at the Temple he is taught by different masters. Some masters have different ways of teaching the same forms, one master may teach a technique such as a low crouch knee break where you go down to the thighs being paralell with the ground, another may teach halfway down, and another may teach standing erect. Also some masters may teach the same form with one or two different movements. There are also different sets of the forms, for instance, Xiao Hong Quan has a 24 posture form as well as the longer 56 posture version. Tong Bi Quan has several different sets in the same form. This can account for the variations you are talking about. Maybe this is as it should be, or maybe each form and their sets should be standardized that is a question that I or anyone cannot answer, we should leave that one up to the Temple. Each monk though teaches according to what he was taught by his main master. No doubt that some monks may add or subtract movements based on what they believe is effective or ineffective. This has happend for centuries and will continue to happen for centuries. However, the core of the form remains the same. Some monks make up forms. In our school our master has created a staff form that he used in competition and for performances. This form is based on traditonal staff techniques. We teach this to our students as the second staff form they learn. We call it Xing Ying Guen (Xing Ying Staff). Now, is it "real" since it was not taught in historic times? I guess that just depends on your beliefs and preferences. The techniques are real and it is a cool form and that is all I need. Forms like this one only add to our heritage and besides, this will also continue, like evolution, descent with modification.

[xcakid]

Over the course of Chinese history, the term Shaolin has been overused and applied to many things that were NEVER part of Shaolin and in general the legend of Shaolin is overblown

Good Eaxample: Shaolin Kempo

[Fei Li]

Hi all.

To me the most comprehensive and reasonable summary about what shaolin is or is not,
I read in Adam Hsu's "A sword polishers record" and "Lone sword against the cold cold sky".

I will scan it if I find the time.
(It is by the way one of the best if not THE best book about kung fu I ever read)

Just a brief summary of what he found out in his travels to the temple:
There was only one Temple, the one in the north.
Shaolin itself was not really known for a long time, but became popular trough the Swordman tales. As a result many MA Schools tried to take advantage of this popularity.
He also states that Shaolin was more of a MA Melting pot than a distinct style.
The monks had a life before entering the temple and they brought different styles in.

Again this was just a brief resumee from what I remembered, read the book, it's worth your time!

[richard sloan]

a picture which may be of interest:

[Fei Li]

No doubt that some monks may add or subtract movements based on what they believe is effective or ineffective. This has happend for centuries and will continue to happen for centuries. However, the core of the form remains the same. Some monks make up forms. In our school our master has created a staff form that he used in competition and for performances. This form is based on traditonal staff techniques. We teach this to our students as the second staff form they learn. We call it Xing Ying Guen (Xing Ying Staff). Now, is it "real" since it was not taught in historic times? I guess that just depends on your beliefs and preferences. The techniques are real and it is a cool form and that is all I need. Forms like this one only add to our heritage and besides, this will also continue, like evolution, descent with modification.

Well theres is certainly an evolution in MA…
BUT the big difference to past times is, that back then if you modified your style and it did not work in reality you got hurt or died.
In our days changes in a system do not really get proofed if they work.
So in my oppinion in our pacific times we can not just change a style that has been tested in real combat for centuries before.