Bakmei Pai and Xingyi comparison

[Iskendar]

I used to think that there was a fair amount of similarity between these two until I had trained in both Hsing-I and Lung Ying (Dragon Style). I know that Dragon and Bak Mei share many similarities, and in some lineages even share various Fist Sets. I can assure you that Dragon at least is NOTHING like Hsing-I, at least not in the mechanics, alignments and power generation. The resemblance there is only external/ superficial. I suspect the same holds true for Hsing-I and Bak Mei...

Could you elaborate a bit on that? What, in your opinion, are the main differences in mechanics, alignments and power generation between the two? Just curious.

[drifting]

Thats a hard question to get an answer that isnt highly biased, but since Bak Mei and Lung Ying are no longer styles I belong to Ill give my opinion.

I learned Lung Ying from a disciple of Lum Yiu Gwai, and Bak Mei from a disciple of Jeung Lai Cheun. In between I experienced many teachers that learned both branches and many who stayed with just one. Honestly, I believe Bak Mei and Lung Ying are meant to be the same thing! However, as is they are not and here are the 3 primary differences:

1. BM maintains an erect posture at all times. LY leans about 30 degrees forward though does maintain a straight spine. You can see this in any photo comparisons of Jeung Lai Cheun and Lum Yiu Gwai.
2. BM uses the phoenix-eye fist exclusively. LY originally had it but was removed by Lum to a regular flat fist. This was documented.
3. BM uses the Kim Yeung Ma (inverted side horse stance, like Baji uses) and Saam Gok Kim Yeung Ma (forward horse stance, called 60/40 in IMA). LY uses Bow Stances and Square Horse Stances, with some but little of the stances I mentioned for BM. BM though does use the Bow and Square stances but in weapons only for stability.

Other than this both styles match principles identically. Some say LY has more floating and sinking or BM has more expanding and contracting, but that is biased and only represents their limited understanding of the other style. So, I guess you could say that if there are discrepancies in the principles then it is how the same thing is being interpreted by the other, which honestly is more about the practitioner than style.

Why do I consider them to be the same? Its because of the identical principles that are in other arts too, just check out the thread on Crane in the video section. But what about the 3 differences I mentioned? Here:

1. The lean of LY I truly believe was due to Lum Yiu Gwai's body structure. He was a large man, in the mid section I mean, and its like that almost pulled him forward. Definitely it helps to put your weight into the strikes but it has a problem that cant be ignored... you cant rotate your waist effectively while leaning forward. And, you only have force in 1 direction as opposed to 6 which is in the LY principles. That was his personal LY, but it is up to the student to decide if it is suitable for themselves.
2. The removal of the phoenix-eye fist from LY gave it a different type of feeling, a different power or energy if you will. This is acceptable and I actually think both have benefits. No phoenix-eye makes the strikes more heavy which unites the body better for stability, and having phoenix-eye makes the strikes quicker and more penetrating. Each method compliments the other.
3. LY using those stances restricts the waist heavily, which is fine if your doing a long fist style but not for the upper body that LY employ's. This again I believe is due to Lam's body type, and is a compensation for the extra forward weight while leaning. Practitioners who do both styles often alter the stances of LY to match BM and everything instantly balances out!

If I knew how to upload images I would place a sample here

[Iskendar]

Ermm... Definitely interesting. But I meant the difference between BM/LY and xingyi, actually

[drifting]

Having already said Bak Mei and Xingyi are similar their differences are very interesting actually. I wont speak on the differences between being internal and external, because done properly both styles are internal, and done improperly both styles are external.

The major difference comes about as a result of northern vs southern styles. Who knows the difference distinctly... it took me a lifetime to realize clearly what is actually obvious providing one has really done their training in both. Northern styles (Xingyi in this case) focus on structure, specifically precise structure to give total relaxation of the body and deliver a smooth natural power and allow chi to flow. Xingyi thus delivers great power and moves in waves. Southern styles (Bak Mei in this case) focus on the tendons, structurally reorganizing to intentionally induce tension in the body to build force and manipulate chi. Bak Mei thus generates great power and moves in pulses (pull and release).

To someone who has really done their training you could make a similar argument about Chen Taiji and Yang Taiji.

So Bak Mei is like a southern counterpart to northern Xingyi. If you remove the "structural reorganization" from Bak Mei then it would morph unintentionally into Xingyi. The principles are actually the same, just the terminology differs.

But perhaps an answer you are looking for more simply are the circles. Xingyi moves straight, but spirals and screws at the same time. Circles are there but very small and yes throughout the body. Bak Mei also moves straight but in a much more curved path due to the structure. The spirals and screws are amplified making more of arcs. This is the visual mechanical contrast.

In terms of combat as Bak Mei is heavy and Xingyi is light, Xingyi is far quicker and more combat mobile though doesnt produce (nor need to) the array of techniques and counters that Bak Mei does. Bak Mei is quick but requires a root that isnt always easy to move around with, so the style prefers to engage and take ground (comparatively speaking). Knowing that distinction its funny seeing the forms of each style: Xingyi fights quite mobile with varying footwork but its forms appear less than lively than that in combat. Bak Mei fights grounded with heavy steps for rooting, but its forms appear like a running tiger with so many steps...

Both styles are an interesting comparison in so many terms!

[evolvingtradition]

Drifting thats good breakdown, cheers buddy.

Certainly I have always considered Bakmei a wholly internal system, in as much as the central themes are nurturing of dantien and intrinsic energy, development of very strong rooting power and short range striking force. My teacher's ability in listening and changing from the bridge is equally on a par with the couple of 'famous' TJQ masters I got to touch, extremely light to the touch but with the capacity to become rock heavy in a moment.

Seems like Xingyi and Bakmei do then have much common ground.

[evolvingtradition]

Drifting , or others.....what do you foresee would be the net result and pros and cons of training both systems side by side, and I mean trained seriously? Possible , or foolish?

[drifting]

Theres either no Bak Mei people here or they have nothing to say it seems.

Training both systems? I train Xingyi daily, and do Bak Mei only when I teach it by request (some like my Bak Mei), but that alone gives me a bit of insight on how to answer you.

Training Xingyi will benefit Bak Mei as it loosens you up and focuses on precise motions that travel sharp like a laser beam. Bak Mei would not aid Xingyi at all though as the benefits you receive from Bak Mei training require that particular framework to have any use. What would and does go very well with Bak Mei is Chen Taiji and Bagua as they share that particular framework and similar body requirements. Xingyi would be complemented with Yang Taiji and Bagua (this one can exist on either side) to expand its own skills without getting too side tracked.

So its not foolish to do both Xingyi and Bak Mei, but as they simply cannot combine you would always be doing two separate things, and in application as well would still be separate. I would say the best benefits definitely are from choosing one or the other.

[evolvingtradition]

Drifting, what is it in the Bagua framework which makes it equally compatible woth both? Is that a specific type of Bagua or they all share that frame?

[wayne hansen]

So its not foolish to do both Xingyi and Bak Mei, but as they simply cannot combine you would always be doing two separate things, and in application as well would still be separate. I would say the best benefits definitely are from choosing one or the other.[/quote]

+1

[drifting]

Drifting, what is it in the Bagua framework which makes it equally compatible woth both? Is that a specific type of Bagua or they all share that frame?

Liuhebafa is thought of as the holy grail of internal kung fu, not for what it is but for what it represents... unity of all with little to no arguable exclusion! There has never been a successful fusion of the 3 internals, its been attempted but the product always falls in one of the 3 categories (taiji - xingyi - bagua) and never recognized as a new internal branch in and of itself. Sun Taiji is a mix of the 3, but not accepted as Bagua nor Xingyi. Xingyibagua isnt accepted as Xingyi. Baguataiji (Ive yet to witness) isnt accepted as Bagua. There are many other examples of the same, but Liuhebafa as I mentioned represents them all but isnt considered a mix of the 3, but as a 4th branch of the IMA. Im just using it as an example please, and not trying to turn this good thread into a discussion of Liuhebafa or other unrelated).

My point being that bagua's concept can remain but its shape can alter. It melds with either Chen or with Yang Taiji, which as I mentioned before are purposeful opposites of one another by my definition. Its been melded with Xingyi successfully as well! So its flexible to the extent that it could even meld with Choi Lei Fut or Bak Mei or Wing Chun ("Side-body Wing Chun" was said to have some cross-over relation in the past) and still remain Bagua in concept and function! If one were to look at the various branches of Bagua and really know their kung fu then they could see which branch would go best with which other style for a highly complimentary relationship!

[GrahamB]

Liuhebafa is thought of as the holy grail of internal kung fu,

News to me. I guess I must have missed that meeting?

[drifting]

I expected someone to say something like that, so I was careful with my wording. I said

"Liuhebafa is thought of as the holy grail of internal kung fu, not for what it is but for what it represents".

Do I think Liuhebafa is the ultimate? No. Do I think the concept of Liuhebafa, theoretically being all encompassing, to be the ultimate? Yes, who wouldnt! Regardless of that though, it helped to make my point.

The other thing I said to avoid anything was:

Im just using it as an example please, and not trying to turn this good thread into a discussion of Liuhebafa or other unrelated.

I can be long winded when Im trying to make a point, and sometimes I need examples to do so. I endeavor to be careful with my words and not make too bold a statement as to undermine other people or their styles.
Just doing my best to contribute!

[GrahamB]

Do I think the concept of Liuhebafa, theoretically being all encompassing, to be the ultimate? Yes, who wouldnt!

Er, me?

I have also never heard of anybody saying that Water Boxing was the "holy grail" of internal kung fu for either what it is or what it represents....

Just sounds like marketing to me.

[drifting]

And again you missed what I was trying to contribute to this thread. I have no desire to discuss how you think fragmentation is superior to consolidation, but thank you for saying so.

Im not the first one to say what I said even if you havent heard it before. Every time someone has something strong to say about a style doesnt mean they are marketing it! I spoke indepth about Bak Mei on this thread and at the same time stated that it is not my style, so if thats marketing it then I have no benefits.

Any comment on Bakmei Pai and Xingyi comparison that this thread is trying to discuss?

[GrahamB]

OK, sorry I popped in. I'll pop out again. I don't do Bak Mei.

Looks like my Grail quest is over...