Does Shanxi XY do a Tan Toi set?

[salcanzonieri]

Sal,

Interesting, Even ChenTziChings family in Baoding dont credit CTC with being the creator of Eagle Claw. Nor does anyone else in either CTC village or the Liu family village. They all point it back to Liu Si Chun.

Everyone in that area states Shi Lu Xing Chuan was around before CTC, that he only added two extra rows of techniques to it . No doubt he certainly did a lot for eagle claw and it's promotion, but the system was quite cohesive before him. This is agreed upon by family members and descendants in both villages.

Having studied the Chuan Pu in Baoding Govt offices, and from both sets of family. I am inclined to go with the information based on site survey and documents there.

I am confused as how you arrive at Liu Chung Yo being a third generation student of LiuSiChunn when he is actually 1st generation, I agree he may not have been LiuSiChun's 1st student, but he certainly was a a 1st generation student of Liu Si Chun

The system was known as Faan Tzi Ying Jow Pai, it was later changed to Ying Jow Faan Tzi Mun.

Thanks for your input and thoughts, it is appreciated.

Just presented you some notes in a notebook written back in the 1980s. That's what someone I interviewed had told me.
I agree with you and thought that these notes were agreeing with you too.

I think it was clear that Liu Si Shun, from all the notes posted, was the main founder of the system. When I read it, it seems to be saying that Chen named the style it's current name, maybe it is because I wrote the notes and know what they meant when they were said to me, and thus it isn't clear to others. Not that he was the CREATOR of the whole "eagle claw" idea/style, but rather he popularized it.

I am confused as how you arrive at Liu Chung Yo being a third generation student of LiuSiChunn when he is actually 1st generation, I agree he may not have been LiuSiChun's 1st student, but he certainly was a a 1st generation student of Liu Si Chun

That's not what it means, it means that Liu Chung Yo was of the 3rd generation, a student of Liu Shi Chun (2nd generation), who was a student of someone else (1st generation). Not that he was a third generation student of Liu Shi Chun (how can you have a 3rd generation student? That would mean your student's student's student, yes? All your students are first generation from you, and 2nd generation to you. And 3rd generation from your teacher, yes?)

[salcanzonieri]

Sal, you think people dont talk about you over a beer and laugh as well? I know a few who do...and none of them post with fake names. Have fun in make believe history land.

I don't care, it's your cartoon image in your mind that you made up when getting mad about what you think I meant.
While you were wasting energy doing that, other people have been reading my posts, have already contacted me and provided very useful information, and showed my where things were correct or not in the posts. Them I thank very much. You, you added nothing to the conversation except negativeness.

[Finny]

My last post on the subject:

Sal, Mr. Ellis Amdur and his research into the roots of Aikido came up earlier in this thread.

He has just announced that he has compiled much of what he posted over at aikidojournal.com forums into a book, and is about to publish it.

When he publishes what he posted (under the name Ellis Amdur) - The Author's name will be (guess what) Ellis Amdur.

I've never heard of anyone plagiarising his works, though that may well have happened.

He is always open and willing to provide further info - expound on what he means etc. Because it's a "discussion board"

As a result I've NEVER heard anyone impugn his research, methodology or personal integrity.

YOU, on the other hand, post your "research" as if it were verifiable, genuine study.

You blatantly crave respect, and want to be seen as some sort of "serious MA researcher"

Yet your methods are so flawed it's laughable, you refuse to provide any sources - now you admit that you deliberately post false information in this supposedly serious "research", you post under a false name, "no-one knows your real name"

And you continue to backflip when it suits you, claiming to be "just thinking out loud"

I guess we can all see what your "research" is worth.

Like I said, this will be my last post on this topic - I'm not looking to "spoil" your discussion, I'm not mad at you - like I said before, I don't really even care about what you're discussing - I'm just making some observations about your methodology.

And there have been plenty of others who have agreed, both in this thread and in the past.

[salcanzonieri]

How can I "crave respect" from an anonymous discussion group, of typed words on a screen?
No logic to what you are saying. You just want to argue for your personal enjoyment.

And I could not care less about what you are saying because it is all in your mind.
You are seeing into my "posts" motivations way more than is rational.
For some reason, you have a need to do it.
Like I said, those that want to talk more contact me and do it. Simple as that.
The rest of the time here is spent talking about talking and arguing about arguing because of people like you.

[edededed]

The best one can do is trace "Who taught what to whom, when and where", that's all you can find, a trial that connects people, places, and styles together.
Some styles adopt a set from another style, some adapt a set from another style, some styles have many sources. Tracing the people movement tells you the most about a style. By our time period much information becomes obscured, so learning "who taught whom what, when, and where" uncovers many details long forgotten.

We do what we can, but in my opinion, the main "problem" (in terms of research, but not necessarily for martial arts) is that first, Chinese often teach one thing to one person and another thing to another; second, they tend to change things to a large extent every generation (this is different from Japan, where they are sticklers for keeping whatever they learned exactly as they learned it). These things make comparison somewhat difficult; at least, to cope, we should find many examples of whatever we want to compare, just in case.

Shanxi people learning Ba Fan Shou, some Shanxi people told me that in another discussion group many years ago.
Maybe it was the case back in the 1980s, maybe it still is, you go find out more if that interests you, take a survey in Shanxi.

Okay - fair enough.

Fanzi Quan goes under many different names and there are many different branches, most are located in the regions that General Zhao taught it.
The Beijing style is officially known as Chuojaio-Fanziquan. The different branches have different names. Many do entirely different sets than other branches.
Also there are branches from other provinces that have much older lineages.
There is a really good website that give a lot of historical and other info, including videos:
http://www.satirio.com/ma/chuojiao/history.html

Go there and keep pressing "next" and you will get pages of historical info.

Thank you - I have seen that site before, it is a very good one.

I have compared some of the eagle claw sets with the chuojiaofanzi sets based on books; it is quite difficult to see what is similar (at least, the sets seem to be very different). It is interesting to explore, though.

[salcanzonieri]

Fanzi Quan goes under many different names and there are many different branches, most are located in the regions that General Zhao taught it.
The Beijing style is officially known as Chuojaio-Fanziquan. The different branches have different names. Many do entirely different sets than other branches.
Also there are branches from other provinces that have much older lineages.
There is a really good website that give a lot of historical and other info, including videos:
http://www.satirio.com/ma/chuojiao/history.html

Go there and keep pressing "next" and you will get pages of historical info.

Thank you - I have seen that site before, it is a very good one.

I have compared some of the eagle claw sets with the chuojiaofanzi sets based on books; it is quite difficult to see what is similar (at least, the sets seem to be very different). It is interesting to explore, though.

Hmm, well, there are some chuojiaofanzi styles that are much older than the Hebei branches.
By finding what is similar to eagle claw from that Hebei branches, you might instead be finding what developed in parallel to eagle claw.

The Liu family material comes directly from General Zhao, so there is the material that the first generation of Liu family learned, and there is the material that General Zhao learned from someplace else (his teachers are documented at that site).
And there is the material that comes from other older lineages than General Zhao's.

So, you have to pick what you want to compare?
First generation Liu stuff to your eagle claw sets?
General Zhao's generation? Which would be the Yue Shi Ba Fan Shou, Ba Fan Men, complete Chuojiao-fanzi system, and various Shaolin sets (Er Lang, Jin Gang Chui).
Other lineages?

Also, unless make try out the movements yourself and physically compare you can't really do it by looking at the books and videos only.

Case in point, I learned Shaolin Luohan 18 Hands 8 Sets of 144 movements. When I learned single, double palm changes, I realized that I did this already, just with a different flavor (like languages have dialects?). I could see who slight adjustments in movement and theory changed the movements from Luohan to Ba Gua.
Same as with Chen Yi Lu, I had already learned Shaolin Tai Zu Quan and Hong Quan, so when I learned Chen Yi Lu, I found I "knew" what the next move was going to be because I realized it was following the same "frame" as the Shaolin sets. That led to a lot of physical comparing, talking to people who taught each style, tracing who was where and when, etc.

There were other styles that "looked similar" but there never was any "who taught whom what, when, and where" between them, so this was just convergence of ideas. Not evolution from one style to another.

With eagle claw, you have evolution of what was originally Ba Fan Men system into something else because some people pulled out parts and emphasized them more and dropped other parts, added in ideas and movements from other systems or styles, etc.

It's fun to trace that evolution, I think.

The Okinawan styles are doing that for the last 20 years very heavy. They have been learning a lot that they never realized.
Recently they have discovered that one of their mostly lost and forgotten sets came from the set in General Qi's book.
Some Korean MA researchers have been discovering the same thing about one of their sets, even being able to match up the same names for their moves and the ones in Gen Qi's book.

[edededed]

Of course I can only compare the various fanzi-related styles in a shallow way, being that I don't practice any of them... So it is just for fun, perhaps I will try again someday if I do ever actually learn some of these.

As for Shaolin and baguazhang, I guess you and I have learned different versions of various forms (like I said, this is a difficult part of CMA research) - in short, in my experience I have not seen much similarities between Shaolin and baguazhang forms (even noting that luohanquan as included in baguazhang is not the same as luohanquan from Shaolin); of course I still have my eyes open and am willing to see new things.

It sure is fun to trace the evolution sometimes - like Dai xinyi -> Che xingyi -> (Song xingyi) -> Guo Yunxing xingyi -> Li Cunyi xingyi for example (very interesting changes, little by little). However it is also difficult because, for example, different people of the same lineage have different material.

As for Korean MA researchers... well... I think that they may be trying too hard to link their material with the Muyedobotongji (which is linked to Qi Jiguang's book) to legitimize it somewhat; they have often used the Muyedobotongji to create sets based on it (for example, the Korean gumdo people have one), so I hope that they are not trying to ratify these new sets by linking them to Qi Jiguang...

[ngokfei]

Hey Sal

the Fanzi/Bashanfan/bafanshou, fanshou, etc. material is really interesting. I see there are now multiple vcd on this form available.

The Walking Fist set is obviously one of the oldest sets from what Liu Shijun knew along with his other fanzi/bashanfan material.

CZC's main accomplishments is formulating 2 additional roads to the Walking Fist set and IMO the expansion of the Yue Shi Lian Huan Quan set. I've seen 3 versions of this set and there are differences in structure. Some credit it to CZC constantly making changes to it but that doesn't explain the set coming from other family members (wong ying would have 1st hand info on how this set is performed in the ancestoral village).

In all its nice to see one of the original sets actually taught by the Recognized Founder/Sijo Liu Shi Jun.

History has also to remember that Liu Cheng YOu 1st learned from other teachers including Liu Dekuan before ever studying with Liu Shi Jun in his golden years when he retired tot he village.

It was the late Kenny Gong who had told me that CZC had learned from many teachers including his Sifu's Senior - Liu Dekuan and he learn the Liu Family Style (as it was known) which included BAfanshou, Liu He Spear and XY & BG. this might also explain the similarities in structure that Eagle Claws Linking Fist set has to XY? as well as a very unique training exercise known as the Lin Wan Jeung (Linking Connecting Palms) which is done with circular stepping footwork. I was taught to use a Heavy Bag but my teacher said he use dto use Sappling/baby trees. (it has to be remembered that my Sigung was 1st a student of CZC for around 5 years then a student & Instructor under LFM