Robert Young wrote:salcanzonieri wrote:[
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.
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.
edededed wrote:EVERY biography? C'mon, that is going too far - sure, some masters learned Shaolin first, but not EVERYBODY. And who are all the greats, anyway?
salcanzonieri wrote:
I know your TZ form and the rest of the system that now resides in Taiwan, I learned it long ago (and other forms in that system such as Lian Wu Zhang (Ditang Quan), Xiao Hu Yan, etc), I know all about it's history, who the people are that brought it to Taiwan, where they learned it from in Shandong and so on. It's the same TZ set that Yang Jing Ming teaches here in the USA. Entirely unrelated to the Shaolin TZ Chang Quan and Shaolin Hong Quan that I mentioned.
I have been training since 1975, I used to judge tournaments in the late 1980s, early 90s, I have used it for self defense many times in many places around the world. I am totally confident.
Many people from here and other discussion groups have met me and they know and have seen that I know what I am doing and am talking about. Also, I teach seminars on what I am talking about in my history articles, and recently did one in Spain, so plenty of people all over the world have met me and have seen me doing real CMA, and had hands on demonstration of how some styles are interelated.
salcanzonieri wrote:edededed wrote:EVERY biography? C'mon, that is going too far - sure, some masters learned Shaolin first, but not EVERYBODY. And who are all the greats, anyway?
every bio on the people I mentioned, duh.
Now this is getting silly and boring.
People can't talk about the actual topic, so they have to throw in crabby comments to way lay the topic.
Robert Young wrote:salcanzonieri wrote:
I know your TZ form and the rest of the system that now resides in Taiwan, I learned it long ago (and other forms in that system such as Lian Wu Zhang (Ditang Quan), Xiao Hu Yan, etc), I know all about it's history, who the people are that brought it to Taiwan, where they learned it from in Shandong and so on. It's the same TZ set that Yang Jing Ming teaches here in the USA. Entirely unrelated to the Shaolin TZ Chang Quan and Shaolin Hong Quan that I mentioned.
That tell me that you have NO idea what our TZ form is. Only some indoor students of LF knows our history. All you know is the things on the internet that you can read.I have been training since 1975, I used to judge tournaments in the late 1980s, early 90s, I have used it for self defense many times in many places around the world. I am totally confident.
Many people from here and other discussion groups have met me and they know and have seen that I know what I am doing and am talking about. Also, I teach seminars on what I am talking about in my history articles, and recently did one in Spain, so plenty of people all over the world have met me and have seen me doing real CMA, and had hands on demonstration of how some styles are interelated.
You can believe or have all the confident in youeself. For me, I don't think you know anything about CMA at all. I don't think you have even trained with real CMA teacher at all. You like to look the the forms from vedio or yutube and come up with all the theory which has nothing to do with real life.
This is a typical scholar or historian approach on CMA.It is all talks.
edededed wrote:Hi Sal,
Not trying to be crabby or trying to waylay the thread... (sorry if you felt I was...) Just trying to discuss here... (Usually saying something like "all" or "every" or "never" is a red light for me, guess I overreacted?...)
However, I already mentioned that Cheng Tinghua having been a "master" of Shuaijiao/Shaolin is a point of contention (in modern days, many people say this, but looking at older references (more primary references - such as Sun Lutang's works, Sun Xikun's book, etc.), it only says something like "he liked martial arts" and "he had no teacher"). Yin Fu, etc., may also be a point of contention if you look at the older references to them.
As for your 6 points:
1. Sure, that's reasonable.
2. I also mentioned a Song style tantui set (there are 12 lines).
3. I have never heard that Bafanshou was used for foundational training in Shanxi - could you elaborate on this?
4. Maybe (I am not familiar with the two sets).
5. Yes, perhaps.
6. Interesting, I didn't know that Ji Zixiu taught Wang Xinwu... (Zhang Xigui sure did have a lot of teachers, though.) Do you know who else learned from Ji Zixiu?
Graculus wrote:So Sal,
This is at a slight tangent, but...
at what point do you speculate the legs were added to give the Tan tui sets that most people are familiar with (ie the 10 and 12 road styles connected with Cha Quan and Jingwu)?
Graculus
edededed wrote:Thanks for the fairly long description, Sal.
I wonder if Cheng learned any luohan or Shaolin (before or with Dong) at all; it is debatable, but I don't think we know enough to say either way.
As for bafanshou in Shanxi, does anyone teach bafanshou as foundational training in Shanxi? I guess I have never heard of this... Tantui, yes, but not bafanshou...
Return to Xingyiquan - Baguazhang - Taijiquan
Users browsing this forum: Trick and 20 guests