BSL vs. SSSL: GeneChing's New Topic

[r.(shaolin)]

Gu Ru Zhang was a real historical figure. His claims about his style were recorded by his disciples and others. The actual men he learned from were part of a lineage of masters that were famous in their own right. Sure, when one goes back to about the early 1800's and late 1700's some of this stuff starts to sound like tall tales but much of it still has some element of truth to it.

You are right. In the villages of the time there were a lot of so called 'big fish' in small ponds. In the larger cities of the time however, specially in larger coastal cities such as Shanghai, no one could hide. Gu Ru Zhang was a well known contender in that bigger arena. The man had, and has more credibility than the village styles that are being reconstructed in China today . . .which is, if what we are seeing online any indication, rather thin.
cheers,
r.

[wenshu]

I wasn't necessarily saying you were being pretentious but some of these other jokers are saying I'm bragging about my style and such just because I don't agree with the new theories about where Bak Siu Lum came from. I'm not just using "myths and legends" to support my side either. Gu Ru Zhang was a real historical figure. His claims about his style were recorded by his disciples and others. The actual men he learned from were part of a lineage of masters that were famous in their own right. Sure, when one goes back to about the early 1800's and late 1700's some of this stuff starts to sound like tall tales but much of it still has some element of truth to it.

What we're really debating is the actual history of Bei Shaolin and Kanjiaquan based on historical facts and not the legends and tall tales. That's the "big deal" here. Again, what's the whole point of having a thread called "BSL vs. SSSL" if we're not going to discuss this. Why do you try to paint me out to be an obsessive weirdo when that's the whole point of having a forum. Why are you posting here?

And fine, I'm not saying the Cultural Revolution utterly destroyed China's history but it can't be denied that it did a hell of a lot of damage. You can't just ignore the significance of that.

The facts concerning who Gu Ru Zhang's teacher, Yim Chi Wen, learned from are somewhat debatable but the most accepted version, the one that lists Yim Po was documented by men like Hsu Szu Ya in New Martial Hero #1, HK 1972, and by Yim Shan Wu (disciple of Kuo Yu Cheong) and Hwang Ken Wang in Martial Arts Association Limited, August 1970, Hong Kong Chinese Martial Arts Association Limited. Some think it was Wan Pang Ts’ai but there’s no real evidence for that.

The research done by Sal Canzonieri in the late eighties or early nineties (?) was what yielded this theory that Yim Chi Wen was a younger classmate of Yang Xiushan. It has been debated that the character used for Yim Chi Wen’s name is not the same as how it was usually written and besides that the two styles have drastic differences. I'm not saying they couldn't be loosely related, but it shouldn't be set in stone that that is the style that should be considered Bak Siu Lum's ancestor. In the face of such questionable evidence, why couldn't we say Kanjiaquan came from Bak Siu Lum? Just in this thread alone it's been pointed out that there's a version of Kanjiaquan with 10 forms and not the 13 that were recorded when Sal first did his research.

I think because Sal’s research seems to have been done with Shaolin Temple’s blessing, people tend to want to think, "that's it, it's set in stone, no more need for debate." But Sal didn’t even discuss any of this with Bak Siu Lum schools outside the country. Maybe because he felt that most schools listing Yim Po as Yim Chi Wen’s teacher and not Yang Xiushan's teacher could just be brushed aside. I actually can’t even find the name of Yang Xiushan’s teacher any where on the net. Maybe someone can enlighten me?

Fair enough. I was not trying dispute the man's existence or cast aspersions on BSL, it appeared to me that you were disputing the historical veracity of other's claims while justifying your position with myths and legends of questionable origins. I will say that I view Sal's research with the same skepticism that I view students recitation of the stories they've been told as if historical record. Unfortunately we do not have much more to rely on than word of mouth; even extant records are only someone's word.

[Siu Lum Fighter]

So I guess it's settled then. Based on all of the evidence presented, it can be deduced that Bak Siu Lum and Kanjiaquan are related only in that they are both Shaolin related styles.

Now, it's still my opinion that if one style came from another then it is Kanjiaquan that was based on some early version of Bak Siu Lum. This probably would've happened within the last 200 years or so. For those of you who might jump all over me for saying this, realize that I have a right to my opinion and I'm not trying to claim that one style is superior to another. If it came down to it though, probably every other Bak Siu Lum school in the world except maybe the ones (or the one that I know of) in mainland China and, as ginosifu said, every sifu who came out of the Jing Wu era would agree about which is older.

I would also like to mention that if Kanjiaquan had been related to Bak Siu Lum all along, then why wasn't there ANY mention of this in any record anywhere before the 1980's? There's barely any mention of Kanjiaquan by anyone before this time and it was a totally obscure village style before it was all of a sudden discovered and propped up as Bak Siu Lum's predecessor. Bak Siu Lum, on the other hand, was famous before WWII and there was never any mention of a relation to Kanjiaquan in any way. Bak Siu Lum (or Bei Shaolin) was the only style that was referred to as "Northern Shaolin" and along with styles like Preying Mantis, Eagle Claw, and Mi Tsung Lohan, it was believed to have originated at the temple itself. Then came the massive upheaval of war and The Cultural Revolution when even Buddhists were persecuted. Now you're going to tell me that I should recognize Kanjiaquan as BSL's predecessor when it never was before during the time when there would have been more evidence to draw from? I don't think so.