Xinyiliuhequan curriculum

Discussion on the three big Chinese internals, Yiquan, Bajiquan, Piguazhang and other similar styles.

Re: Xinyiliuhequan curriculum

Postby Trick on Thu Sep 19, 2019 1:09 am

Yes, as ‘nicklinjm’ say, I would like to have said, but just came up with this -

I wouldn’t pay to much attention to that writings and sayings, it shows of little knowledge and somewhat disrespect of the other XYQ.
That Xingyiquan has 12 animal shapes instead of ten,and the 10 was originally 6, which steam from the three ‘fists’ does not mean ‘more is less’, in this case....or anyway should not mean that.
Before any knowledgeable teacher throw students into all the animal shapes one has to ingrain the core practice of the fundamentals, it’s a methodically step by step process in all the XYQans

But anyway i myself has shortcomings on the subject, i do see quite a few similarities to the point I would say XYLHQ and XYQ are basically the same.
Both work with force on the vertical and horizontal plane, while the slight difference I think I can detect is that xylh is slightly more pronounced toward the vertical, while xyq on the horizontal plane....As I said I only so far have a couple of months of xylh practice to compare with my other stuff’s of many years......So probably nothing to pay attention to here too 8-)
Trick
Wuji
 
Posts: 2698
Joined: Sat Jul 23, 2016 1:30 am

Re: Xinyiliuhequan curriculum

Postby Storm on Tue Sep 24, 2019 12:39 am

nicklinjm wrote:Think there is a lot of (unintentional) misinformation in that link that you posted Storm. It is not that there were originally 6 animals.

The animals in the link Storm referred to (Chicken Leg; Dragon Waist; Bear Shoulder; Eagle Talons; Tiger Covers Head; and Thunder) are body qualities (shenfa) which need to be manifested in all the movements. There are individual movements which correspond somewhat to these names but they are within the 10 animals.....


Considering the article was written by a Xinyiliuhequan practitioner (it is indicated so but I do not speak Chinese so have no access to primary sources to check that) I do not believe that a practitioner would do such a blatant mistake (to confuse body methods with forms). I assume that the writer believed that there were originally only 6 forms. If that is correct I don't know.
Maybe someone who speaks Chinese (so has access to direct source material) and practices Xinyiliuhequan can shed some light on this- if there are other schools/teachers who indicate a smaller number of forms originally.
Last edited by Storm on Tue Sep 24, 2019 12:41 am, edited 1 time in total.
Storm
Santi
 
Posts: 33
Joined: Tue Feb 21, 2017 12:41 pm
Location: Deister, Germany

Re: Xinyiliuhequan curriculum

Postby dspyrido on Tue Sep 24, 2019 3:09 pm

It's funny - in science progress says newer is better. In IMA the sentiment feels that older or original is somehow better.

Anyway changes in number of moves from 3-> 6 -> 10 -> 12 -> 500+ is kind of irrelevant. The key to xylh forms is building the body's strength, elasticity & coordination through drills. This also leads to a mental discipline when learning to practise the same move 1000s of times. This applies to every martial art - born naturals or not advances tend to be made in repetition so that moves become second nature, flow more easily, with better structure and power.

Xylh tends to be taught with a mindset of less is more until the foundation is in place. Then it explodes out into many moves that are open to creativity. The supplementary moves are learnt.
Individuals will make up moves. Xylh and xy animals also have a mental element around the essence of the animal that opens up many possibilities.
User avatar
dspyrido
Wuji
 
Posts: 2160
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 5:03 am

Re: Xinyiliuhequan curriculum

Postby Storm on Wed Sep 25, 2019 5:25 am

dspyrido wrote:It's funny - in science progress says newer is better. In IMA the sentiment feels that older or original is somehow better.......


Interesting point which also reflects my bias.
I considered why and this would be my assumption (I am a chemist that's why I chose this comparison): let's take chemistry/alchemy vs martial arts.
I consider that progress in a certain field comes from a high number of innovative people (often experts in that field) working in that field.

So in science- e.g. chemistry we have more people now working on this discipline, with much better qualifications compared to let's say the 16th century alchemists which leads to novel discoveries aka newer stuff.

In martial arts this only partially applies. If we take weapons e.g. spear fighting we would have less people and with worse qualifications now compared to the 16th century so any new discovery improvement might actually make things worse.
For unarmed combat we probably have more people training it compared to the past but regarding quality I am not so sure. Only comparatively few people train for combat a significant number of hours/day (trainers, MMA guys, Olympic wrestlers, Judokas). Most of us train martial arts as a hobby (maybe in average 1-2 hours/day). In the past I assume there were more "professional fighters"/martial artists so the quality was probably higher.
I assume that for certain disciplines e.g. Judo the technical quality in a competitive environment is higher but would this apply to the "old days"? Would a technical innovation which helps you win an Olympic title apply on a old fashioned fight? (maybe with some weapons). I think not so I am indeed biased but for a good reason.
Last edited by Storm on Wed Sep 25, 2019 8:23 am, edited 3 times in total.
Storm
Santi
 
Posts: 33
Joined: Tue Feb 21, 2017 12:41 pm
Location: Deister, Germany

Re: Xinyiliuhequan curriculum

Postby dspyrido on Fri Sep 27, 2019 11:40 pm

Storm wrote:let's take chemistry/alchemy vs martial arts.


Food for thought: what happened to alchemy when it stopped being a secret mystical tradition and became a science?
It went from being a tradition passed down through cryptic philosophical methods often followed because of the reputation of those who said it was so... and then it transmuted itself into science. Parallels can be drawn on the impact video has had to traditions and how things can be handed down now.

Storm wrote:In martial arts this only partially applies.


You would be right to assume not many people rest their lives on spear or sabre skills anymore. But the problem is assuming what came before is accurate and gospel. Here's some thoughts on the subject:

1. Martial arts is really a personal journey
What one martial great says to others might work for them but does one size fit all? Do we all have the same body types? Temperament? Reaction skills? etc. Nope - each is different and this should effect how each person learns and applies what they learn. Imagine a Mike Tyson specialising in just a jab and cross to keep distance - his coach saw the potential of his stature/strength and honed his skills towards it. Result - the writings or views of the past need to be adapted to the individual.

2. Is what is being shown really correct?
Many great martial artists where not great authors - they were usually honed professionals. Many had ghost writers. How much did they capture along the way? How much did they lose? Did they just try to promote themselves and kept the good stuff hidden?

3. The medium of a book and oratory traditions
The greatest contribution to modern martial arts isn't the adoption of any new techniques but access to video of them. Both books & traditions are very likely to lose a lot of the essence of the training and practice. Especially if the tradition is not passed on well with the same rigorous experience that formed it in the first place. Plus how about language and interpretation problems?

4. Are you following a myth or ideal vs. reality?
Ever read something someone wrote and thought it was fascinating and sounds amazing only to find out they are really just puffing themselves up? How often do we think this happened? Even today in the day of video we have many self proclaimed masters who on the surface sound amazing until they are seen in action to get their arses handed to them. Just because someone says they are good or wrote about it does not mean they were. We can't be really sure how good someone was 100+ years ago.

5. Time
Someone who trains for 8 hours a day vs. someone who trains for 1 hour a day. Should they both follow the same training method?
I don't believe it makes sense yet following the original texts without context might mean making a big mistake.

To come back to the topic - XYLH has gone through changes over the years. Some are good and others bad (I saw some people doing XYLH in a big group slowly and without any effort at all ... cringe).

At the fundamentals there are basics. These are most likely the true original parts of the style. As things progress to advance stages it can be said that each person makes it their own and has a bias to certain areas. I can try to teach someone what I learnt but in the end they will interpret it in their own way to adapt to their preferences.
User avatar
dspyrido
Wuji
 
Posts: 2160
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 5:03 am

Previous

Return to Xingyiquan - Baguazhang - Taijiquan

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests