the rum soaked fist: internal martial arts forum

This is not XY, BG och TJQ but i throw this out here because i know you guys have a lot of experience. Maybe you can come with ideas, opinions or what ever is in your head about a couse like this.

Im going to hold a 4 session (each 1 1/2h) crash course with focus on:
"ChangQuan applications: Joint locks, throws, punches and kicks
We review applications (locks, throws, punches and kicks) taken from changquan 1-7, traditional training approach to learn the applications, how to bridge from form training to free fighting, and tactics and theory of how to use ChangQuan in free fighting."




It going to be a mixed crowd so the it will be fairly basic but i also want to touch and give ideas to the people that has more experience. Most of them have done ChangQuan for Taolu competitions for fairly long time so they have done the moves many times and now we are going to touch the applications and a more traditional way of training.

Im going to select a bunch of moves from Cha (zha) Quan that are also in the standardized ChangQuan 1-7 and build the course around them. Im thinking maybe 4 throws, 2 joint locks, 2 kicks and 2 punches.

Session 1, Throws:
Theory: Balance, stability, power generation, "Long power in distance short power over time"
Practice: Stances and how to move from mabu to gongbu.
Theory: up rooting, breaking balance, leverage,
Practice: 4 Different throws, wrestle try to do the throws.

Session 2, Joint locks:
Review from session 1
Theory: Joint manipulation, twisting/shearing, breaking, small circle/big circle
Practice: Wrist lock with big circle and another with small circle, some shoulder attack (figure 4?)
Theory: From joint lock to throw, from joint lock to hit/kick, defending against joint locks/grappling, The ideas behind changquan grappling
Practice: same moves as above but different variations. Defending/ resisting the attacks and counter. (more sparring like training) Wrestling try to do the throws or other learned in session one - use defensive strategies learned in this session.

Session 3, Punches:
Review of session 1 and 2
Theory: ChongQuan, power generation and the "idea of long boxing" / extended libs/ "explosivnes"
Practice: Punching pads
Theory: Angles and directions. Ideas of how to bridge the gap between moves to sparing to free fighting
Practice: Punching pads while "moving" (Angling), Wrestling try to do the throws or other learned in session one - use defensive strategies learned in session 2 and mix in some light punches to chest with open palm.

Session 4, Kicks (and footwork):
Review of session 1, 2 and 3
Theory: extending the kick and kicking with out "telegraphing"
Practice: Snap kick and side kick (?)
Theory: Extending the kicks and moving in to other ranges using footwork. Tactics and ideas of changquan fighting and more of ideas of how to bridge the gap between moves to sparing to free fighting
Practice: Kicking and punching pads. Really light free sparring topped of with wrestling.



So? what do you guys think is this a good idea? A waste of time? Did i miss something really important? Should i do it in some other way? fire away!!!!

Changquan is a curious beast. It has many variants, which (I suppose) is what makes it one of the most practiced MA in China, and the most recognizable of the wushu sets.

But however athletic and elegant it may be, Changquan's applications are generally unclear, even when compared to close cousins such as Mantis. How DO you decipher them? Or is the only key to be shown them?

Even when Changquan is applied, many of the moves look extremely dodgy to me: Draeger's book on "Shantung Black Tiger," for eg, contains some very elegant forms, but also page after page of almost ridiculously ineffectual apps. The same is true for various books on "Northern Shaolin" produced in the US and Hong Kong in the 1970s and 80s.

Finally, of course, Changquan is one of the ancestors of Taiji, and Taiji is another art where combative application is intensely problematic. This makes me wonder whether Taiji has been let down by its own ancestry - ie was Changquan always an art that had very hidden application? - or is the de-martialization/hidden martialization of Changquan a relatively recent trend?

Given the above, anyone working to put a bit of fight back into the art is to be commended. Good luck!

Andy_S wrote:Changquan is a curious beast. It has many variants, which (I suppose) is what makes it one of the most practiced MA in China, and the most recognizable of the wushu sets.

But however athletic and elegant it may be, Changquan's applications are generally unclear, even when compared to close cousins such as Mantis. How DO you decipher them? Or is the only key to be shown them?

Even when Changquan is applied, many of the moves look extremely dodgy to me: Draeger's book on "Shantung Black Tiger," for eg, contains some very elegant forms, but also page after page of almost ridiculously ineffectual apps. The same is true for various books on "Northern Shaolin" produced in the US and Hong Kong in the 1970s and 80s.

I have tried to write a good answer to your post 3 or 4 times now, and all i can come up with is "I dont really know.... "
CQ is very common, you can find some kind of CQ or people doing CQ almost all over china. Even yin BaGua use to teach a lohan set as a foundation builder, and CQ is a great foundation builder.
Though everybody knows what is changquan, the term is so widely used so its hard to actually define. I was fortunate to have dinner with Gao Xiaojun, chairman of chinese wushu association, talking about traditional competitions and he spoke about the foundation of categorizing wushu has to be chang-, nan- and taiji-quan. So i guess that 1/3 of all cma is cq?

So maybe its a mixture of that its so common: watered down/confusion of what cq actually is, a foundation builder: so people tend to practice it at young age and then move on to other styles, and as one of the oldest CMA it maybe not based on, but weapon handeling was a major part of the art: making a lot of the stance- and foot-work looking weird if you look at it from a purely barehand point of view.

One of the great things about cq is just the extension of the libs, opening of the joints. Creating a long power over a short period of time. When you train its very clear where you are stiff, weak or having a bad technique. This extending and exaggeration while training forms/moves also creates a distancing problem, if you want the application to look clear and be using the point of the body that seams to be the part used, the applications may look strange and ineffective.

This is maybe not the best example but this move:


is a variation of the move at 1.08 in this video:


But then we come back on my experience and what i have gained from my teacher. Its imposible to say that there is a key to cq, why it look unclear and dodgy .
Im just teaching my interpretations of my experience... what else can one do?

I will post clips of the crash course so you can se more of what we are up to. =)

Andy_S wrote:Finally, of course, Changquan is one of the ancestors of Taiji, and Taiji is another art where combative application is intensely problematic. This makes me wonder whether Taiji has been let down by its own ancestry - ie was Changquan always an art that had very hidden application? - or is the de-martialization/hidden martialization of Changquan a relatively recent trend?

Given the above, anyone working to put a bit of fight back into the art is to be commended. Good luck!

Thanks!

So, what you are trying to show is the ChangQuan practiced from Chinesa WuShu association?

Robert Young wrote:So, what you are trying to show is the ChangQuan practiced from Chinesa WuShu association?

nicklas wrote:Im going to select a bunch of moves from Cha (zha) Quan that are also in the standardized ChangQuan 1-7 and build the course around them.

When i say standardized CQ 1-7 i mean: http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLE1E250B5D0943717
When i say Cha Quan i mean Cha Quan that is passed down from ChangZhenFang (常振芳 http://tieba.baidu.com/f?kz=859048298), my teacher is ZhangRuShi (张汝志)
Another student of ChangZhenFang is ZhangWenGuang (张文广) seen as the "creator of standardized changquan" so... the moves from my chaquan is very very similar to the moves in my changquan

So, it is ChangQuan from New WuShu in China.

The reason I asked is that there is a northern CMA system called Chang Quan, or Long Fist. And, that is what I'm teaching. I simply wanted to clarify.

Robert Young wrote:So, it is ChangQuan from New WuShu in China.

The reason I asked is that there is a northern CMA system called Chang Quan, or Long Fist. And, that is what I'm teaching. I simply wanted to clarify.

If I understand it right you are teaching long fist from the nanjing wushu institute? So your standardization is 20 year older then my standardization, so i guess mine is New wushu. =)

So what do you think of the couse outlines?

If I understand it right you are teaching long fist from the nanjing wushu institute?

Not really, our Long Fist is NOT from NanJing Institute. It is from Sang Dong province where my GM Han came from. Although GM Han went to NanJing Institute, most of our materials are not from NanJing. The only forms we practice from NanJing is Lien Bu and Gong Li quan. In our case, Chang Quan or Long Fist is the name of our system.

extending the kick and kicking with out "telegraphing"

This is something I like to see.

If anybody's interested here's a short clip of what we did last friday at session 1, throws.

Well done with your course Nicklas I hope you had some good feedback from the participants. It looked like some useful material in the Throwing video.

Keep posting the videos.

I think yours is a great idea, Nicklas - I spent three years as a teenager learning changquan (wushu), and had the opportunity to learn a routine of chaquan in China; but I admit I still do not really understand how it would be used in actual combat.

Changquan is definitely the "image" of Chinese martial arts today for most people, which is ironic as very few people actually understand how it is used!

I think the pictures looked very promising. It's great that you teach practical Long Fist. Not too common in the west. Most long fist is Wushu related.

Andy_S wrote:
Finally, of course, Changquan is one of the ancestors of Taiji...

nicklas wrote:Even yin BaGua use to teach a lohan set as a foundation builder, and CQ is a great foundation builder.
(snip)
One of the great things about cq is just the extension of the libs, opening of the joints. Creating a long power over a short period of time. When you train its very clear where you are stiff, weak or having a bad technique.

I don't know anything about LongFist as a style, but I've noticed over the years that when I have met someone whose Taiji looks really good to me, I usually find out after talking to them that they started out with LongFist as their first style. I've met too many people like that to ignore it. So I think you really made a good point when you said that it is a great foundation builder.

Thanks guys, I will make "highlight clips" of the other seminars as well. Ill keep you guys posted, and i appreciate all feed back, good or bad!

chud wrote:...I've noticed over the years that when I have met someone whose Taiji looks really good to me, I usually find out after talking to them that they started out with LongFist as their first style. I've met too many people like that to ignore it. So I think you really made a good point when you said that it is a great foundation builder.

jonathan.bluestein wrote:I think the pictures looked very promising. It's great that you teach practical Long Fist. Not too common in the west. Most long fist is Wushu related.

Thanks.
My wushu is very much what i guess you meen when you say "wushu related". Its a big subject but if i try to put it in a few words i believe that the sport wushu is exactly what everybody needs. Taolu for competition, even if you dont want to compete and just practice with friend at the club, is not only a great foundation builder but can also be a meen by it self. Pushing you to become stronger, faster, more flexible, more stable, more explosive.. to be able to do that really demanding forms.

The actual techniques in all the standardized competitions routines are the same as in the traditional routines.
I agree that there is a problem in some coaches training methods, but thats a competition regulation problem. When the rules change the training methods change. I would never change the techniques that is not regulated in the competition rules so it would look cooler or easier to do for my student that compete, but i would take away the techniques the student does bad (if its there own choreography) and i have changed the way i teach JiBenGong. Adding rotation practice, jumping into stances much more and changing the order we do things to minimize the risk of injury doing the demanding acrobatic moves that has become more and more common.

I guess we all start doing wushu when we are to old, and we then have to compensate for that our hole life's. Its very hard to do a decade of competition wushu just to get a good foundation to build the rest of your wushu on, but thats actually what i think you need to do. Other wise you have to find out some other ways to "cut the corners", and i havent seen any way of doing that.

I teach my students that way and if they dont have a _good_foundation_ i wont teach them the rest of the stuff, not to be a jerk, or "thats the traditional way" or what ever, its not just worth it... in my opinion its a waste of time to go to B before you have done A.
This short course is maybe because im softening up, im getting old and week in my mind, people have been nagging to long or I just want to show i have some of this stuff

Disclaimer: I may come out as some one "that knows it all" and can do "it all perfect"... thats not the case, its just my opinion and what i think, and i started doing wushu way to late (i was 15) and unfortunately i (was a spoiled jerk and) didnt like to eat bitter when i was young so i have a lot of stuff to work on now when i am old(er)...

Nice pics and video - looks very comprehensive.

Are "libs" like "ribs", but with a Japanese accent?