2 questions

[GeneChing]

i just assumed you shaolin bald donkeys are all together, like a family.

Themz figtin werds!

Oh wait. I've let my hair grow out again. Never mind.

Just don't listen to bawang if he tells you to ride the yellow dragon backwards...and if you hear the phrase 'reverse cowgirl'... run like hell.

WHAT?! You live? Didn't we sacrifice you yesterday? **** forum members. Can't get nothing done right.

[Lucas]

No, the sacrifice was a complete success. Resurrection is a bad habbit of mine. The mighty Thor, in honor of your day of birthing celebration, saw fit to use your un-used and wasted fertility that was bestowed upon you, to bring me back to the land of the living.

[bawang]

So you mean, Bing Bu, Shun bu dan bian, Yao Bu Xie Xing, Xiao Qi Xing, Hui tou wan yue.

Dan bian and Xie Xing are the same root move there is no need to list both as one implies the other. I would add Pan Zhou instead. That way you have leading with the elbow becoming the fist (dan bian) and leading with the fist becoming the elbow (Pan Zhou).

dan bian and xie xing are the same kind of attacks, but the leading and twisting body mechanics are fundamental fist seeds. its just that these two postures are the most common ones to represent these elements.

The others are fair enough. Bing Bu is an excellent technique that is underused by most.

the thing is shaolin has evolved away from the old five elements, for example old hongquan has now separated into da hongquan/xiao hongquan. to complete the five elements you have to know both da/xiao hongquan.

Hui tu wan yue requires some experience but is the base of much of Hong Quans kicking technique.

this is spot on.

[RenDaHai]

dan bian and xie xing are the same kind of attacks, but the leading and twisting body mechanics are fundamental fist seeds. its just that these two postures are the most common ones to represent these elements.

Yeah thats true, I see what you mean.

the thing is shaolin has evolved away from the old five elements, for example old hongquan has now separated into da hongquan/xiao hongquan.

The thing is the Hong Quan theory is dissolved in favour of a theory that covers all of Shaolin technique and the many substyles.

Shaolin Xiao and Da Hong Quan are in the same progression. If you see XHQ roads 1,2,3,4 you see it gradually become Da Hong Quan as though Da Hong were just roads 5 and 6 of XH. The problem is that no-one learns one style completely in Shaolin these days, rather they take random forms from different sub sytems which don't really go together.

[bawang]

The thing is the Hong Quan theory is dissolved in favour of a theory that covers all of Shaolin technique and the many substyles. This would be covered by theory 'BaZi', 8 words which is in relation to Shen fa.

this is true, shaolin was a melting pot, and ideas change over time.

Shaolin Xiao and Da Hong Quan are in the same progression. If you see XHQ roads 1,2,3,4 you see it gradually become Da Hong Quan as though Da Hong were just roads 5 and 6 of XH. The problem is that no-one learns one style completely in Shaolin these days, rather they take random forms from different sub sytems which don't really go together.

yep, today most people learn a little qixingquan here, a little xiao luohan there, and some chaoyangquan on the side. whereas in the past you stuck to one for your entire life. people think if they dont have variety, they are missing something. but they end up missing everything.

i think this is also why all the shaolin forms today look the same, with no unique spirit.

[wenshu]

dan bian and xie xing are the same kind of attacks,

Then why the differentiation in the first place? Seem unnecessarily superflous and imprecise, especailly since you went to such great lengths to explain how universal, precise and absolute the theory explained in your ass documents is.

I can see how they are related, but they're not the same, and if you say they are you are straight up contradicting yourself.

[wenshu]

Well, we are both familier with WC terminology so we are making analogies to it.

thats fucking disgusting

[RenDaHai]

Then why the differentiation in the first place? Seem unnecessarily superflous and imprecise, especailly since you went to such great lengths to explain how universal, precise and absolute the theory explained in your ass documents is.

I can see how they are related, but they're not the same, and if you say they are you are straight up contradicting yourself.

Xie Xing is Dan Bian ACROSS the body, Dan Bian is Dan Bian ALONG the body. The Shen fa, footwork and power generation are different though the Shou fa is the same. When BaWang was talking about the elements he is referring not to hand techniques but Body work. Within each of the body methods their are many variations of hands.

So XieXing are both the same and different. If we are talking about hand techniques then I would include the two under 1 heading. But talking about the Body work it they are very different.

For example, Do Dan Bian in Xie Bu..... Is this dan bian or Xie Xing? It depends on the action rather than the appearance of the finished posture.

[LFJ]

thats fucking disgusting

lol, bad experience with WC? There is certainly a lot of garbage WC out there, but I could argue and demonstrate that all WC actions and fundamentals are present in Shaolin Hongquan. It's not a bad system, there are just folks who butcher it.

[wenshu]

Xie Xing is Dan Bian ACROSS the body, Dan Bian is Dan Bian ALONG the body. The Shen fa, footwork and power generation are different though the Shou fa is the same. When BaWang was talking about the elements he is referring not to hand techniques but Body work. Within each of the body methods their are many variations of hands.

This is what I mean, the core argument is over the precision of the naming of techniques and your collective arguments are a tangled mess of contradictions.

First you said the shou fa is not the same, now you say it is the same. Then you explain bawangs arguments as shen fa which you say is not the same (which is clearly the case) and that there are variations which is the opposite of what bawang was arguing in the first place (which is that the techniques are the same, in contradiction to different shen fa; same attack different seed. Thats two complete reversals in one argument!). You guys are all over the place.

Trying to parse this abortion of logic is like trying to drive in the fast lane during a Chinese Traffic Jam.

Saying xiexing is a strike outwards is like saying wozhen is a strike downwards. Sure that is where the hands end up but the technique is about the shenfa that gets them there, the hands are secondary and classifying the technique based sole on the hands independently of the shen fa is missing the forest for the trees.

So XieXing are both the same and different. If we are talking about hand techniques then I would include the two under 1 heading. But talking about the Body work it they are very different.

Then just say they are different! You don't need to collect 100 variations of a form and waste hours making up wildly speculative historical fictions about their origins to know that two of the most basic techniques that are differentiated by name are not the same.

If you want to stay bogged down in arcane poetry and superfluous detail you can successfully argue as you did above that the hands are related because they vaguely share core distinctive properties and symmetry, but even then, the similarity is superficial at best as it compares just the hands, a fraction of the total. Danbian and xiexing are clearly not the same technique either in execution or the posture they result in.

[RenDaHai]

@ Wenshu

I get your point, I do, and I do hate to be illogical.

Unfortunately there is a lack of logical nomenclature in Kung fu techniques.

Some techniques are named after the hands, some the stance some the overall shape, some after the application.

XieXing for example is the posture and shen fa, the hand technique is called XieCeng.

We can't just say they are different, because it is important to find the commonalities between techniques.

There are 100 different ways to do XieCeng and Dan bian, many with different names but if you always separate them and call them different things you will become very confused, where as if you understand one of them properly, all of the others fall into place.

If you understand the similarities between Dan bian and Xie Xing then you can go a long way in understanding them and many other techniques better. So it is important to draw relations between them.

For example, do ma bu with dan bian perpendicular to the line of the stance... is this Dan bian or Xie xing? It is neither and both but if you understand the technique 'Ceng' (tear apart) then it doesn't matter. In the application of one technique we may cover several stances and shen fa methods and the stance as it is in form is gone. How do we describe some of these techniques?


Traditional Northern Kung Fu is still a comparitively new thing to the west, certainly talking about it in the detail we do. There is not a logical naming system set up yet, but it is by conversations like these that these systems of logic are brought about. I realise what I said before was confusing, and I apologise, but it is important that we explore as much as possible.