Does Shanxi XY do a Tan Toi set?

[salcanzonieri]

Here's another person doing the Yue Shi Ba Fan Shou, it has the names in chinese of the rows:

[salcanzonieri]

[This is NOT the same as Tan Tui Row 1 at all. It does not look like the 10 routine Tan Tui from NanJin Inititute, and it does not look like 12 routine Tan tui from JinWu either. The way to execute the moves are even more different than the way to execute of any Tan Tui. The way the person execute his moves is more Xing Yi flavor.

The difference in systems is not only bacause they have different forms, but also they way they practice their forms or routines or moves. Some systems use the same form in their currilulum, but the way they practice the form or move in the form are different. That is the reason the systems are different.

To use the look or the names to categories CMA systems is simply WRONG. For example, LF has a form called "Si Lu Beng Da" that 7* PM also shared with some minor different moves. But, the way to practice the form from LF and PM are very different. China is a big country with many different CMA styles or systems. Those systems usually have their own set of froms and training methods. Sometimes they may shared the same forms, but they practice it differently.

XY has its own set of forms and training methods other than any other systems that may it unique among CMA systems. The same applies to Tai Chi, Ba Gua, LF, PM, and many others. they all have their unique way of practice. The way Tan Tui practiced in Jin Wu is very different from the way we pracitce Tan Tui in LF. That is why there are 4, 6, 8, 10, 12 different rows of Tan Tui. Every system use it to fit their own training.

Of course, that is understood. The WAY movements are practiced are what makes things a different style, understood.

The tan tui has been used by many many styles as a good foundational start.

But, if you don't see how the first row of Yue Shi Ba Fan Shou can be derived from or was derived from the first row of tan tui, then I can't help you. I can clearly see it, especially knowing and doing both sets, it really wasn't that different, even the rolling hand thing before the groin is there (just no kicks).
The essence and function of that row is there in both sets the same way - - - which doesn't mean to say that they are both the EXACT same set done the exact same way, but that they is some kind of derivation happening from one to the other. The question is which came first? And it would be interesting to find out WHO did the derivation as well and when.

What's also cool is that if you know this XY form, then you can play with the tan tui set, and you can play with the Yue Shi Ba Fan Shou set, more material to work with in making you better at XY. Or you can play with the tan tui set and be able to do it XY style (like Che must have done).

And, it's the Shanxi XY Lian Quan set that is the one that I said was most like tan tui, this Yue Shi Ba Fan Shou set was like the prototype for it, something maybe ancestral to tan tui or to XY, or both.

[Robert Young]

But, if you don't see how the first row of Yue Shi Ba Fan Shou can be derived from or was derived from the first row of tan tui, then I can't help you.

Do, I don't see how they can be the same at all. I can help you either. No only the moves are not the same, the way to punch and moves are also totally different.

What's also cool is that if you know this XY form, then you can play with the tan tui set, and you can play with the Yue Shi Ba Fan Shou set, more material to work with in making you better at XY. Or you can play with the tan tui set and be able to do it XY style (like Che must have done).

No, that was the point I wanted to make. You don't take other system's form casually to fit in your system. You have to be very careful in this kind of situation. The way some system pratice may be very different form other system. The practice method usually conflict with each other. If other system are similar to yours, then you don't need them either. Unless you can completely manage one system, then you may try to use other system's practice. On the other hand, if you already manage one system, you DON'T need to use other system's practice. That is the reason we call a system. A system should already cover most of the aspect of martial arts.

If you already good in XY style, you don't need Tan Tui at all. Most of the famous XY masters in the past did not practice Tan Tui at all. XY already has certain routines that will give you the same effect form praticing Tan Tui. If not, then you learn from the wrong teacher. China has hundreds and hundreds of forms from so many systems. You really want to minimize the forms you practice to get the maximum out, instead of learning many many forms and get nothing out of it. Because you are going to end up spending all your time learning all kinds of forms and have not time to focus on any one of them. Even in the same system, we were taught to manage a form at a time instead of practicing them all together.

[edededed]

I agree with Robert - playing with older forms that you suspect may be related to your current style will not necessarily result in better skills... note that "older" does not necessarily mean "better" (it surely does ignore any evolution the style may have gone through since then). Plus, not all forms have the same objectives in a style - often, tantui is simply used as a training method for kids (that does not mean that tantui cannot be used for fighting or is not useful, it does mean that the xingyi people decided to change what tantui meant for them).

[salcanzonieri]

I agree with Robert - playing with older forms that you suspect may be related to your current style will not necessarily result in better skills... note that "older" does not necessarily mean "better" (it surely does ignore any evolution the style may have gone through since then). Plus, not all forms have the same objectives in a style - often, tantui is simply used as a training method for kids (that does not mean that tantui cannot be used for fighting or is not useful, it does mean that the xingyi people decided to change what tantui meant for them).

I don't agree with that one bit.

I totally believe, know, and have done it, and have taught it to others who were able to improve their understanding and skills in the Big Three.

I guarantee you that if you learned Shaolin Rou Quan, Tai Zu Chang quan and hong quan first, it would make you WAY better at tai ji quan.
Same with Luohan 18 Hands, it would make you way better at yin or cheng ba gua.
Same as learning Shaui Jiao and Tong Bei would make your Shaolin WAY better.

All the greats in the Big Three styles, were first experts at Shaolin, Tong Bei, Hong quan, Mi Song, Ba Fan shou.
Yang Lu Chan, the Wu brothers, Chen wang Ting, Sun Lu Tang, yin fu, cheng ting hua, Jiao, Cao, li cun yi, and many more were first experts at these other styles.
IT did make them way better at understanding the Big Three.

People today can't even master one style, these people were experts are 4 or 5 styles or more. Experts.

Because the foundational styles were used atsthe frame to hang the new theories and strategies of the Big Three styles.
It freed them from having to concern their time with "what to do" and go direct to "how and why to do".
Their learning curves were drastically reduced.

Most people today do not know why they do what they do in their style (and all internal styles, Big Three, were developed from the foundational material of Hong quan, tong Bei, ba shan fan, Luohan, tai zu, rou quan), and hence, they can NOT use what they have learned for self defense.

Easily I have defeated tjq, bagua, etc, people in sparring because I knew "Why" their style was that way and I know what to do against it.

Yield, redirect, absorb, and release - I learned that through Rou Quan first.
Rise, drill, fall, turnover - I learned that through Luohan 18 Hands first.
Step toe out, step toe in, move in a circle while walking a straight line - I learned through Luohan first.
XY stepping patterns - learned that first through Rou Quan, Ba fan shan, and tongbei quan first.
Sword techniques also made my empty hand techniques better.

I used what I learned for self defense many times over the last 33+ years, never failed me.
Most people haven't ever even been in a physical self defense situation.

I think if people trained the old way, they would be way better than they are now, CMA would now be in a better state than people feel it is now.

If it was good enough for Li Cun Yi and Sun Lu Tang, it is good enough for me.

[salcanzonieri]

I think Sal is talking about the Tan Tui set from Che style.

Okay, found another tape of the same set, it is called Xing Yi Tan Tui indeed.

So, the set is based on the standard tan tui.

okay, it's still interesting how this Xing Yi Tan Tui is so much like Yue Shi Ba Fan Shou.
Pretty much Che just added the tan tui kicks to the Ba fan shou set, not much else is different.

So, that does beg the question, since there wasn't much to change, just add some kicks (which XY is not big on), then why is there some connection between tan tui and Yue Shi Ba Fan Shou.

This Shanxi XY Tan Tui form even uses the same names for each row as YSBFS does, instead of the names that the standard tan tui uses for each row.

And, it's not just using the YSBFS names for the heck of it, the rows show some relationship, and Che and others must have recognized it.

[Josealb]

Sal, if you think hard enough, you can adjust anything to fit any particular point of view or interest. Of course you see these relationships as facts instead of hypothesis....because you want them to be. But think of this idea for a second, you just said that you learned XY stepping patterns by training Rou Quan, Ba fan shan, and tongbei quan first. Do you really think those would teach XY stepping patterns better or exactly like XY itself? not by a long shot. Thats the difference.

[edededed]

Regarding old masters being experts in another style first - having learned something previously does not necessarily make one a "master." Also, I think people like to believe that all the baguazhang people were "masters" of something first to fit their own image of baguazhang, but... for example, older references to Cheng Tinghua (i.e. Sun Lutang, etc.) do not mention his being a "master" of shuaijiao, but people like to say that nowadays.

There were also many famous masters who were not known to have learned anything before as well - Liang Zhenpu, Ma Gui, etc. Many famous teachers today also have only done their one style, and they are just fine (lots of Zhaobao/Huleijia people, the Dai xinyi stylists, etc.). I think that many people learn many styles mainly because it is fun and they have the opportunity to do so.

That said, of course learning other things can be helpful sometimes - I'm just saying that it's not all the time.

[salcanzonieri]

Sal, if you think hard enough, you can adjust anything to fit any particular point of view or interest. Of course you see these relationships as facts instead of hypothesis....because you want them to be. But think of this idea for a second, you just said that you learned XY stepping patterns by training Rou Quan, Ba fan shan, and tongbei quan first. Do you really think those would teach XY stepping patterns better or exactly like XY itself? not by a long shot. Thats the difference.

I didn't say they were 'facts', this is a discussion group, so I was discussing.
Which means people can discuss the topic with me.

I think a lot of you don't know how to think logical, or do inductive or deductive reasoning.

Cause obviously in the above comment of yours, you jumped to conclusions and put words in my mouth that I haven't said.

Better or exactly like XY, no didn't say that. Prepared me for XY, that's what I said.
the stepping patterns were already familiar, so more time was spend on why and how XY energy is that way when doing movements.

Same as knowing the Tai Zu Chang Quan set made it easy to learn the Chen Yi Lu steps, so more time as instead spend on what Chen energy is.

The foundational style sets frees one to worry less about the form and what the next movement is and spend more time on why this new style is that way.

[Josealb]

I think a lot of you don't know how to think logical, or do inductive or deductive reasoning.
Cause obviously in the above comment of yours, you jumped to conclusions and put words in my mouth that I haven't said.

Logic, induction and deduction should be free of preference, Sal. It just looks to me that youre seeing these connections because you want to see them. Notice how other xingyiquan guys dont quite agree with the theory. Plus, if you think that im jumping to conclusions and adjusting your facts to suit my theory....then it proves my original point.

Prepared me for XY, that's what I said.

Maybe im reading it wrong...but you clearly said..

XY stepping patterns - learned that first through Rou Quan, Ba fan shan, and tongbei quan first.

You learned it. Clearly meaning that since those arts are older, Xingyiquan obviously imported those exact methods from them. Anyway, i would still find it interesting if you could get the names of the moves in the form. So far, the first one on both is "Paoquan in Horse Stance", right?

[Robert Young]

I guarantee you that if you learned Shaolin Rou Quan, Tai Zu Chang quan and hong quan first, it would make you WAY better at tai ji quan.

Tai Zu Change Quan is one of our LF form, and I'm very good at it. We also had Hogn Quan too. I know very well how they work. The way Yang's Tai Chi training is very differnt from LF also. The fighting strategy, the principle, and emphasize are all very different between Tai Chi and LF. If you simply "LOOK" at the postures and moves then they may seem to have so many similarity and you think they are the same, then you are dead wrong. You simply look at the form as "What" they look like, but you don't see "How" they supposed to train. That make you think they all the same. That is the biggest problem of your research.

All the greats in the Big Three styles, were first experts at Shaolin, Tong Bei, Hong quan, Mi Song, Ba Fan shou.

WRONG again. They were not expert in Shaolin first at all. They stick to what was in their own system and make the best out of it. Every system in CMA has their very own unique way of training. This is the thing you don't see. For me, I think you have created your own world of Ivory Tower. You only "LOOK" at the postures or the moves of the forms without knowng "HOW" they executed and trained.

You won't become a good CMA proctitioner from research, you do that from good lineage and hard work. A real CMA practice with their blood and sweat, others practice with their talks and papers.

[Robert Young]

I think a lot of you don't know how to think logical, or do inductive or deductive reasoning.
Cause obviously in the above comment of yours, you jumped to conclusions and put words in my mouth that I haven't said.

Logic, induction and deduction should be free of preference, Sal. It just looks to me that youre seeing these connections because you want to see them.

RIght on the money. To train and be good in CMA does not come form how good you think, it come from how good you train. It is the way people train that make the different, not just what forms they learn.

[salcanzonieri]

Fact is that an observation was made from seeing many versions of tan tui. For some reason the impression was made that it was seen before in another context.
Turned out that there was indeed a Shanxi Tan Tui set.
Something about that set seemed familiar too, which led to realizing that in Shanxi, a Yue Shi Ba Fan Shou set is often used for foundational training, like tan tui sets are used.
There seems to be some overlap between the Shanxi tan Tui set and the Shanxi Yue Shi Ba Fan Shou set.
For example, movements, postures, and names of rows being very close.

So, there MIGHT be some overlap between standard tan tui and Yue Shi Ba Fan Shou, maybe.

In Shanxi, the full version (24 moves) of the Yue Shi Ba Fan Shou set is taught by Zhang Xi Gui. I found out that one of his teachers (he knows many styles besides XY) was Hao Xue Ru, who was a student of Sheng Zi Rong, who taught the Ba Fan Shan style. Both of these two people had studied under Wang Xin Wu. Wang's Ba Fan came from Ji Zi Xiu. Ji learned from Liu Shi Jun. (Liu also taught Liu Du Kuan, who was an influence on the founding of Eagle Claw, which does the tan tui as one of their beginner sets).

Done.

[salcanzonieri]

I guarantee you that if you learned Shaolin Rou Quan, Tai Zu Chang quan and hong quan first, it would make you WAY better at tai ji quan.

Tai Zu Change Quan is one of our LF form, and I'm very good at it. We also had Hogn Quan too. I know very well how they work. The way Yang's Tai Chi training is very differnt from LF also. The fighting strategy, the principle, and emphasize are all very different between Tai Chi and LF. If you simply "LOOK" at the postures and moves then they may seem to have so many similarity and you think they are the same, then you are dead wrong. You simply look at the form as "What" they look like, but you don't see "How" they supposed to train. That make you think they all the same. That is the biggest problem of your research.

All the greats in the Big Three styles, were first experts at Shaolin, Tong Bei, Hong quan, Mi Song, Ba Fan shou.

WRONG again. They were not expert in Shaolin first at all. They stick to what was in their own system and make the best out of it. Every system in CMA has their very own unique way of training. This is the thing you don't see. For me, I think you have created your own world of Ivory Tower. You only "LOOK" at the postures or the moves of the forms without knowng "HOW" they executed and trained.

You won't become a good CMA proctitioner from research, you do that from good lineage and hard work. A real CMA practice with their blood and sweat, others practice with their talks and papers.

You just like to argue with people for the sake of it.

First of all, your Tai Zu from your system is from Shandong province, it is named "tai zu" as meaning ancestral, it has NOTHING to do at all with Shaolin Tai ZU Chang Quan. Your Tai Zu set is a mixture of Shandong martial arts, like Yang Qing Quan, Hong Quan, and Cha Quan. Your Hong Quan is from a different system than the Shaolin Hong Quan that Chen village used along with their Pao Chui.

Second, every biography I read said that they were expert at a shaolin or related style first. Even in their own writings they said so.

Third, you don't know what you are talking about, you are comparing apples and oranges.

Fourth, I am confident that my training in foundational material means I can take you.

[Robert Young]

[
First of all, your Tai Zu from your system is from Shandong province, it is named "tai zu" as meaning ancestral, it has NOTHING to do at all with Shaolin Tai ZU Chang Quan. Your Tai Zu set is a mixture of Shandong martial arts, like Yang Qing Quan, Hong Quan, and Cha Quan. Your Hong Quan is from a different system than the Shaolin Hong Quan that Chen village used along with their Pao Chui.

I don't think you know our Tai Zu Chang Quan at all. I'm a LF lineage holder. I think I know our forms and history. And, you don't know anything about them.

Second, every biography I read said that they were expert at a shaolin or related style first. Even in their own writings they said so.

That is another problem you have. You believe whatever you want to belive. CMA don't publish a lot of information in public, especially those information that they can identity who is who and what they do or train.

Third, you don't know what you are talking about, you are comparing apples and oranges.

I believe most people here will say that about you instead of me.

Fourth, I am confident that my training in foundational material means I can take you.

You are welcome any time. And, I believe you have never trained with real CMA master in your life at all. You probably learn things form vedios and books that will never give you anything about real CMA.