Fanzi Quan / Luohan connection?

[Sal Canzonieri]

ABout Fanzi Quan and Shaolin Luohan connection:

Well, upon a deeper investigation of postures and movements between the two systems.

I have to say, there are MANY exact same postures with the exact same names for the postures!

So, what gives? Who came first?

I had thought that the 144 posture/ 8 sections 18 Luohan Hands form had many postures the same as in Ba Gua.
So, I was wondering Dong Hai Quan perhaps had some exposure to these 18 Luohan forms.

Then, I re-read the Professor's thesis that talks about Dong Hai Quan practicing Fa Shan Fan (fanzi quan) in his youth and that many postures were the same, etc., etc.

Well, these same postures are in Luohan, Fanzi, and Ba Gua.

So, what going on here?

What comes first? The Luohan or the Fanzi forms?

They even have the same names for postures, such as:
Both Hands Push Open the Windows.

Many of these postures are unique to Fanzi Quan and to Luohan only
(except the Yue Jia Quan styles, they share a lot of moves from Fanzi Quan
and thus this Luohan)

This is most likely why people in past times (in folklore or in fact) said that fanzi quan was derived from Shaolin or that Zhou Tong, as Fanzi (Ba Shan Fan) master learned from Shaolin.

Perhaps it was the other way around, this stuff was taught to Shaolin, via Zhou Tong or others, as some oral transmissions say instead.

Most famous Fanzi master from 1800s, Zhou Canyi knew and taught BOTH Fanzi Quan AND Shaolin forms to people. Maybe he is the source of the folklore linking Shaolin and Fanzi Quan via Zhou Tong?

Looking at the various Fanzi quan systems around. There are some older lines that have forms that are Luohan forms (called Khao Zen forms), and a 32 posture Tai Tzu form too (which is at Shaolin).



DOES ANYONE have ANY kind of information that can shed some light on this?
Like when? where? Who? What? How?
Anything!

thanks!

[Royal Dragon]

Looking at the various Fanzi quan systems around. There are some older lines that have forms that are Luohan forms (called Khao Zen forms), and a 32 posture Tai Tzu form too (which is at Shaolin).

Reply]
Is this the same 32 posture form I do? Or something different?

[Sal Canzonieri]

Looking at the various Fanzi quan systems around. There are some older lines that have forms that are Luohan forms (called Khao Zen forms), and a 32 posture Tai Tzu form too (which is at Shaolin).

Reply]
Is this the same 32 posture form I do? Or something different?

I haven't seen it yet, I have just the lyrics for each move.
It has 32 postures, they have different names for the moves than the Shaolin version.

But unless I see it I have no way of knowing if it is the same or not.

It might match another tai tzu form from another system.

[Shaolin Master]

Sal,

I have probably mentioned before but the connection of postures does not and will never be the sole assessment of the relationship amongst a martial art.

Having practiced Luohanquan and Chuojiao/BaFanmen for most of my life I can tell you that the connection from an intention, power generation and derivation of posture are different between Luohan and Bafanmen. Lastly, you probably have not seen real Bafanmen, possibly only the Dongbei methods which are only a small segment from which we practice in Hebei.

Additionally, Wang Zhiguo was a well known Bafan master as were many others such as Li Gong prior to Zhao Canyi. There is a lot more history than you can find in texts available to you and I would suggest given your keen research interest that the only way is to practise the martial arts and search for roots in China not just in text.

When I complete the Bafanquan section of my site it may assist.

Kindest Regards
Wu Chanlong
http://www.satirio.com/ma/home.html

[Sal Canzonieri]

Sal,

I have probably mentioned before but the connection of postures does not and will never be the sole assessment of the relationship amongst a martial art.

Having practiced Luohanquan and Chuojiao/BaFanmen for most of my life I can tell you that the connection from an intention, power generation and derivation of posture are different between Luohan and Bafanmen. Lastly, you probably have not seen real Bafanmen, possibly only the Dongbei methods which are only a small segment from which we practice in Hebei.

Additionally, Wang Zhiguo was a well known Bafan master as were many others such as Li Gong prior to Zhao Canyi. There is a lot more history than you can find in texts available to you and I would suggest given your keen research interest that the only way is to practise the martial arts and search for roots in China not just in text.

When I complete the Bafanquan section of my site it may assist.

Kindest Regards
Wu Chanlong
http://www.satirio.com/ma/home.html

Well, the answer is DUH, of course what makes a style different from another style is what makes it different, BUT that still does not preclude that there has or has not been an evolution from one style into an another style.

Also, just what style of Luohan Quan do you practice? There are many, from many different regions, lineages, time periods, etc. How do I know that what you are talking about concerning Luohan Quan doesnt ONLY pertain to the particular version of Luohan Quan that you do exactly?

So many people are so hostile to the fact, not only the idea, that styles evolved from other styles. Styles dont arise out of nowhere.
Once "who taught what to who, when and where" is examined, a pretty clear picture of evolution can be seen.

The various Karate styles have been investigating their roots and evolution from its mother styles for some time now and are learning a lot from the research.
but the Chinese martial arts encounter roadblocks from many people, who just say no without at least helping out in doing the research and seeing where it leads.

[Shaolin Master]

Sal,


Zhao Canyi taught Erlangquan and Huaquan (not necessarily Henan Shaolin, again Shaolin was used in context of Yingquan as opposed to ruanquan for comparative not factual)

You have not practiced any of the arts that you are trying to associate, for example Kao Zhanlian was referred to as Luohanying because there are 18 in accordance with the records BUT this is more of chinese linguistic beautification/poetry than fact.

All martial arts are related, but assertions based on texts and postures which is what you often do is not a correct approach. For example what are the principles of Luohan or those of Fanziquan, what are the key energies or power generation methods.

Have you ever practiced Fanziquan or have you just watched and read it?
Which Luohan do you do ?

It is not about roadblocking as much as avoiding misguideed assumptions based on inexistent experience. There is enough misguided hsitorical associations out there, we do not need more of it. My research is based on each martial art mostly seeking out existent masters and roots within each on the principles and method, not on trying to bundle it all into one hogwash mishmash of correlated looking postures with no essence.


Regards
Wu Chanlong

PS:
Shi Gaocan - Fojiapai Luohanquan
Shi Degen - Shaolin Luohanquan
DaZhi - Fuzhou Luohanquan.

[Royal Dragon]

It looks to me like you guys are both looking to the opposing end of the same coins. Sal is seeking to follow the postures and techniques themselves, and Shaolin Master is following the body mechanics, and energies of motion.

Both are not only two seperate things, but also one.

In the case of Tai Tzu, it can be seen that the Shaolin 32 is at least partially contained in Chen styles oldest form. However, so are many of Tai Tzu's energies.

I myself would say that there is a another thing to consider. That would be the entry, exit and delivery tactics each style uses. In the case of Tai Tzu, did that follow into Chen style as well? Or does Chen have it's own way to use the techniques?

One really must look at all angles. What did the newer style take from the older one? was it body mechanics? Just the techniques? or tactical useage?

Maybe it was none of these, and it's the training methods? Maybe the new style is just the old style taught with a diffferent curriculem? For example, the forms are all different, but on close examination are just all the same moves choreagraphed in a different order.

The last thing to take into consideration is this, maybe some styles DID NOT evolve from older ones! Maybe some guys were just badd assed fighters of thier own accord, and the style was born when they attempted to teach what they did naturally. Similarities to anything else practiced at the time is purely coincidental.

[Sal Canzonieri]

Sal,


Zhao Canyi taught Erlangquan and Huaquan (not necessarily Henan Shaolin, again Shaolin was used in context of Yingquan as opposed to ruanquan for comparative not factual)

You have not practiced any of the arts that you are trying to associate, for example Kao Zhanlian was referred to as Luohanying because there are 18 in accordance with the records BUT this is more of chinese linguistic beautification/poetry than fact.

All martial arts are related, but assertions based on texts and postures which is what you often do is not a correct approach. For example what are the principles of Luohan or those of Fanziquan, what are the key energies or power generation methods.

Have you ever practiced Fanziquan or have you just watched and read it?
Which Luohan do you do ?

It is not about roadblocking as much as avoiding misguideed assumptions based on inexistent experience. There is enough misguided hsitorical associations out there, we do not need more of it. My research is based on each martial art mostly seeking out existent masters and roots within each on the principles and method, not on trying to bundle it all into one hogwash mishmash of correlated looking postures with no essence.


Regards
Wu Chanlong

PS:
Shi Gaocan - Fojiapai Luohanquan
Shi Degen - Shaolin Luohanquan
DaZhi - Fuzhou Luohanquan.

Well I am not trying to argue against you, you have provided much useful information in most of your posts, which I really appreciate.

BUT, You are the one that said Luohan most likely came from Fanzi Quan, in another thread in the Kung Fu section. I explored what I could in that direction and had some preliminary observations.

I have no definitive anything yet,
I am ASKING you and others if have anyone has any further information that might point towards what YOU said.

I pointed out that there are some postures that overlap between Luohan quan forms and Fanzi quan forms, and that they even use the same names for the postures often.

Fanzi is old enough and spread wide enough in China to be a possible root influence on other stlyes that clearly came after.

I am looking forward to whatever input you might have the topic, thanks.

(I have been learning Fanzi Quan by the way for years, and I have been doing Luohan Shaolin for over 10 years)