I guess I'll keep responding even though I'm finding it difficult to commit as much time to this thread as others.
originally posted by Royal Dragon:
At what level do the Kan jia sets not match the Kyu yu Cheong Ten Hand sets?
Is it just the form choreography?
There are postures and techniques in some of the Kan Jia Chuan that I've seen that I've never seen done in BSL, at all, ever. There are completely unrelated moves in there. I don't know what "percentages" of similiar moves or techniques you guys are dealing with, but I don't even see how many of the sequences in the forms even match up at all. It's true that, as BSL was taught through the years since the 1700's, each grandmaster was allowed to add one technique to one set of his choosing (one that he favored) and nothing could ever be subtracted from the original. But it's only been about 300 hundred years since then. If, originally, they were all the same length, then it would make sense that they were added to since the 1100's since some of the sets are so much longer (69-83 moves compared to 37-45 moves) than others and, from what I gather, they're all longer than the sets in Kan Jia Chuan which seems to me like a cousin of BSL (not a twin brother) that was created later (I'm guessing in the Yuan Dynasty).
Either way, the Ten hand sets were not ever practice in Shaolin. They are newer formalised routines that are built on Shaolin technology, and with Shaolin techniques. From the clips I have seen online, it looks to me like someone took many standard and common Shaolin Long Fist techniques, mixed in techniques from the most wide spread Moslem styles that could be found, and assembled them into new forms.
Once again, I challenge this because, in my view, there is no credible proof that they weren't. It's true, there are some moves from the Moslim styles, but there is simply no absolute proof that it is a new style or that the forms were "assembled" much later. Assembled by who? This goes against the oral and written records of my style and it is complete conjecture in my opinion.
originally posted by Sal Canzonieri
Sorry, nothing personal, but it is very frustrating to try to talk to someone that has not done the research to find out the history of this stuff, especially after people, me included, have done decades of searching for answers.
Sure you've done a great deal of research, but I still question the credibility of some of your sources. There has been historical research done for decades that has turned up false or fragmented information before.
But why do you say "the PRC"? The PRC isn't saying anything. There is no Official office of martial arts. The old masters in HK, Taiwan, UK, US, EEC in fact ARE the people I have received my archived info from. You have to have their confidence for them to tell you what's really true. Also, many of today's "masters" no matter how great they are have no knowledge at all about their style's history and development, if anything the know some legends, that's all.
Do you seriously think that PRC government workers or communist party members are assigned to create super obscure forged documents that about 100 people in the whole world would even be reading it? Makes no sense again.
These preserved books aren't "in their hands", they are in the hands of the families that have passed them on from generation to generation. Not at some government office building. Why would they care about it there?
There is nobody assigned to officially deny or not deny any style, come on do you realize how totally silly that sounds? All that time and expense to fool like 10 people?
Who did you talk to in Hong Kong or the U.S.? You certainly did not speak with anyone associated with Yim Shan Wu's lineage, that's a given. Even if you did talk to anyone with some credibility, that doesn't invalidate my styles lineage. The reason I have to keep mentioning the PRC is because they have there hands in everything having to do with the Shaolin Temple these days. From the very start, when it was realized that Shaolin martial arts could pull in a significant amount of revenue and prestige for the country during the 1980's, the PRC has been heavily involved. It's so obvious!! There were monks who both left and were kicked out of the temple during this time because of the corruption at the temple and because they were displeased with the new Abbot. They wouldn't even have to do that good of a job forging documents. If the PRC sponsored Shaolin monks say they're authentic, nobody is going to dispute them. And, like I said, many of these families knew that they'd have much honor and fame bestowed upon them if they came forward saying they had been doing real authentic Shaolin. Especially when the temple became so famous in the 80's. What needs to happen is some unbiased lab should carbon date these "preserved" documents.
yes, and it is an amalgamation of Shaolin martial arts taught after the 1700s and some Cha Quan, some Southern Choy Li Fut, and some Tan Toi.
Excuse me, Southern Choy Lay Fut?! Where, pray tell, are there any Choy Lay Fut or Southern moves in Buck Pai Siu Lum? You heard this from whom? Where did you read this false information?
So, many different people from many different countries have preserved documents that match each other, and you say "so what". And these people from all over the world from many different linages do pretty much the same sets, and you say "so what". Very logical, ha.
The Buck Pai Siu Lum traditions have also been preserved in different countries and we can all trace our lineage to when the Shaolin Temple was destroyed in the 1700's. We know that it left the temple and ended up in Shantung with the common people. Of course, you're going to tell me I'm wrong or "so what". But it's always been accepted that before the temple was destroyed, nobody even knew what went on there. So you can't have any more hard evidence than I do. You're saying that there's Choy Lay Fut in my style so how can you expect me to trust your "form archaeology".
Last edited by Siu Lum Fighter; 08-04-2007 at 12:12 PM.
The three components of combat are 1) Speed, 2) Guts and 3) Techniques. All three components must go hand in hand. One component cannot survive without the others." (WJM - June 14, 1974)