Shaolin Boxing before 1780

[Xian]

Hi everyone,
in a bigger German Martial Arts Forum there is a guy who is
continuously repeating the same mantra "There was no Shaolin Boxing before 1780"
and all that stuff.
After reading it again and again I am getting a bit annoyed of it. I have read a lot of stuff here since I have registered here in 2010.
And nothing of it gave me the impression that I should doubt that there was Shaolin Boxing before 1780.

So I want to ask you, whats about that ?Who makes such claims ?Also he said that Taizu Chang Quan was created by Qi Jiguang and he himself should have said that..


Best regards,
Xian

[bawang]

So I want to ask you, whats about that ?Who makes such claims ?Also he said that Taizu Chang Quan was created by Qi Jiguang and he himself should have said that..


Best regards,
Xian

he is talking out of his ass.

[RenDaHai]

Hi everyone,
in a bigger German Martial Arts Forum there is a guy who is
continuously repeating the same mantra "There was no Shaolin Boxing before 1780"
and all that stuff.
After reading it again and again I am getting a bit annoyed of it. I have read a lot of stuff here since I have registered here in 2010.
And nothing of it gave me the impression that I should doubt that there was Shaolin Boxing before 1780.

So I want to ask you, whats about that ?Who makes such claims ?Also he said that Taizu Chang Quan was created by Qi Jiguang and he himself should have said that..


Best regards,
Xian

Whoever makes such claims is someone who has an alterier motive (usually to promote their school over Shaolin) who has not spent much time in the area if any, does not understand the nature of training and has not made an extensive enough study of the history.

I have personally visited villages in Song Mountain that absorbed Shaolin forms in 1641 after shaolin monks fled their because of a massacre at the temple. These forms are remarkably similar to their current versions, yet more primitive and at the same time more profound. Similarly I have been to villages that absorbed shaolin tradition even earlier, where the techniques are still the same.

Since he mentions Qi, Lets look at Qi JiGuang (16th century):

"...the fist, quarterstaff, knife, spear, woman's hairpin, rake, double-edged sword, halberd,
bow and arrow, barb, sickle, beating shield, etc.--none doesn't first use fist methods to exercise the body and hands. These very fist techniques constitute the source of martial skill."

Shows that even the weapons schools use fist techniques as their basic practice. Qi himself says 'NONE does not first use fist methods...' as in ALL schools of these weapons also use the fist methods form practice. Earlier in the text he alludes to using the same weapons techniques but with the fist. Also we know from weapons techniques that a lot of kicks and fists are present within weapons practice and capturing the opponents weapon is important. It is ludicrous to assume that one would practice weapons without also practicing these techniques in isolation.

To QUote Qi JiGuang further:

"Looking at Master Wen in the present day, we have the 72 moving fist methods, the 36 combining and locking
techniques, the 24 counter-spy techniques, 6 9 the 8 flash flips, and the 12 short strikes. These are the best of the lot. As for Lu Hong's 8 blows, while they are firm, they do not measure up to Min Zhang's short strike. The leg techniques of Shangdong's Li Bantian, Eagle Claw Wang's grappling methods, Thousand Stumble Zhang's stumbling techniques, Zhang Bojing's strikes, the Shaolin monastery stick fighting art, together with the Green Field cudgel methods, all stand as equals. Mr. Yang's spear arts together with the open hand, fist, and quarterstaff skills, are all famous to the present day."

THis is in the FIST fighting section of the manual. Yet he notes Shaolin here. Also he puts it along side other fist methods even though he calles it stick, Why? For one he has already confirmed the existence of the Shaolin stick method (prior to 1780) and confirmed that no one practices stick without also practicing fist, but also even though the whole manual is largely about weapons he chooses to put the shaolin method in the section all about fists. This implies heavily that although called Shaolin stick it is the umbrella term for Shaolins MA. It is not uncommon even today to refer to Shaolin MA as 'Shaolin Gun' and Wudang MA as 'Wudang Jian'.

[bawang]

taizu changquan is at least 700+ years old. in 1550s it was already called "ancient". shaolin boxing is 500+ years old.

from Q&A of Shaolin staff fighting manual in 1560s:

"Q: I hear shaolin temple is famous for its staff, so why do I always hear so much about shaolin boxing?"

"A: boxing is a new phenomenon in the world. We keep up with our peers and train what is lacking."

[GeneChing]

I tackled the origins of Taizuquan in our Shaolin Special 2013 which just came off the newsstands. Read The Long Fist of the Emperor.

[David Jamieson]

He's wrong and there is loads of information to show him so.

[lkfmdc]

He's wrong and there is loads of information to show him so.

well, SOME PEOPLE won't change their statements no matter how much counter information you present them with

[CrazyPalms]

here an old form for ya... 1600-1700
http://youtu.be/KXYHY6tmjRk

[lkfmdc]

here an old form for ya... 1600-1700
http://youtu.be/KXYHY6tmjRk

what evidence do you have to say this form was around in 1700???

[LFJ]

@lkfmdc

Since these are the only clips of Mogou village Shaolin online, from one individual, I wouldn't expect many people to be familiar with it. Not that it is anything secret, just not widespread, concentrated in a single village. So, to call me presumptuous if you indeed have no experience with it is taking a bit of a troll attitude, just trying to be smart.

What you are missing though is where the significance lies with this stuff. You can find good and bad performers of any style. So what? Talking evidence there has been plenty of discussion on it here. You can look at Xiaohongquan as done in various villages which each have a timeline, compare the movements and see a logical transformation that couldn't have been done in a short amount of time, given the separation and the way they have transformed and overlap with other things elsewhere and their timelines. It's just irrational to say this was all done in less than a couple hundred years.

[lkfmdc]

and see a logical transformation that couldn't have been done in a short amount of time, given the separation and the way they have transformed and overlap with other things elsewhere and their timelines. It's just irrational to say this was all done in less than a couple hundred years.

you are completely wrong... I"ve been in the arts around 30 years and seen evolution of systems and forms in that period of time

just consider that 50 years ago no one had heard of yip man and only like 50 guys had learned his sets

The sets Wong Fei Hung taught about 100 years ago are so varied now they are no longer recognizable in some forms

you pressume far too much, sorry

[LFJ]

just consider that 50 years ago no one had heard of yip man and only like 50 guys had learned his sets

The sets Wong Fei Hung taught about 100 years ago are so varied now they are no longer recognizable in some forms

I would say there's an obviously different quality to this type of transformation, than with what is seen between the various village styles of Xiaohongquan.

[lkfmdc]

I would say there's an obviously different quality to this type of transformation, than with what is seen between the various village styles of Xiaohongquan.

why do you try to obscure simple ideas with fancy words?

in short, NO, the differences are NOT different, you just WANT them to be different

the entire shaolin thing is absurd when you understand that in 1986 the place was in ruins and there were only 5 or 6 old monks there... the whole thing is a rackett

[rett]

you are completely wrong... I"ve been in the arts around 30 years and seen evolution of systems and forms in that period of time

Yes, but that is in an environment where there is a lot of contact between people with different backgrounds, different styles and so on. You get a melting pot effect promoting rapid change. Your situation is the opposite of a very remote mountain village in an era before tv, radio, youtube, newspapers, magazines etc.

In that situation the practice will likely have been much more conservative and have changed very slowly, by analogy with similar processes in linguistics and dialectology.

[lkfmdc]

Yes, but that is in an environment where there is a lot of contact between people with different backgrounds, different styles and so on. You get a melting pot effect promoting rapid change. Your situation is the opposite of a very remote mountain village in an era before tv, radio, youtube, newspapers, magazines etc.

In that situation the practice will likely have been much more conservative and have changed very slowly, by analogy with similar processes in linguistics and dialectology.

read the original post more closely, because you missed the point entirely....