Help with identifying northern forms

[SJON]

Hello.

The following apparently northern Chinese forms are found in a couple of Korean lineages. I wonder if anybody can help me identify the Chinese forms they are based on, bearing in mind that they may have been simplified or "Koreanised" to some extent, or may even be fabrications.

Firstly a two man set which is presumably some kind of Long Fist drill (two versions):

Secondly, a solo form which to my unschooled eye looks Long Fist or Mantis-like:

And finally two excerpts of something quite different:

I would much appreciate any halp.

Best regards,

Simon

 

[clfsean]

Hello.

The following apparently northern Chinese forms are found in a couple of Korean lineages. I wonder if anybody can help me identify the Chinese forms they are based on, bearing in mind that they may have been simplified or "Koreanised" to some extent, or may even be fabrications.

Firstly a two man set which is presumably some kind of Long Fist drill (two versions):

Secondly, a solo form which to my unschooled eye looks Long Fist or Mantis-like:

And finally two excerpts of something quite different:

I would much appreciate any halp.

Best regards,

Simon

No idea. The first two man set looks to be a nondescript paired set. It might've started in China, but at this point I couldn't tell you.

Same thing for the next single set & I'm guess Jang is Korean for Long, which would make this set by name "Long Fist". Again non descript & to me, non-origin traceable.

The last ones... again no idea.

In South Korea, there is a small CMA community (Long Fist, some Praying Mantis (Mei Hua I think, could be Taiji not sure) & some internal stuff) there that keeps things the way they were handed down. If this was something that was brought in from the outside, like you said it was definitely Koreanized. Which that's not to say a bad thing, but now it's Korean to be certain.

Have fun!

 

[SJON]

Thanks for the input.

Anyone else care to comment?

Cheers,

Simon

 

[Flying Crane]

I took a look at them too and didn't recognize any of it.

 

[SJON]

OK, many thanks for having a look.

 

[Xue Sheng]

Nope, I do not see a Chinese Northern style there. There are a few similarities to some Long Fist forms but there are a lot of things that look similar to long fist that are not connected to it at all.

In one of those videos did I hear someone mention Mongolia?

 

[SJON]

These are forms that come from one particular lineage of pre-TKD Korean arts. The founder of the school in question grew up in modern-day Jilin province and apparently studied some form of Quan Fa to a level that led Toyama Kanken of Shudokan Karate to consider him a peer when they later trained together in Japan. The Quan Fa training was said to be under a Mongolian instructor, and also included a form which is clearly Xiao Hu Yan Quan 小虎燕拳, but I forget where I saw that.

These forms are preserved by some branches of that pre-TKD lineage alongside what became the bulk of their syllabus, which were Shorin Karate forms. I do not practice this style, but am interested in unravelling the Chinese connection out of curiousity.

Considering that the available information is mostly oral tradition, that the forms (AFAIK) are preserved as "heritage forms" rather than "application forms", that the names have been subject to transliteration, and that the forms themselves have undoubtedly acquired a "Korean-style" air, it's a bit difficult. My working hypothesis is that the style in question was the instructor's own personal collection of Long Fist methods rather than a particular "old style" or a standardised Jingwu-type syllabus, that the whole syllabus has not survived and that performance of the surviving parts has mutated somewhat.

Best regards,

Simon

 

[Xue Sheng]

Quanfa (拳&#27861 means "fist principles"

Chángquán (长&#25331 means long fist

Chángquán is a Quanfa but Quanfa is not only Chángquán

 

[SJON]

Yup, got that.

My understanding of the CMA's is that of a non-practitioner (I am KMA) but one with a reasonable grasp of their organisation (in the loosest sense) and history. I think I have an idea of the historical and modern implications of the term Long Fist 长拳. I also have an academic background as a historian and linguist, though not specifically Chinese.

What I mean is, feel free to aim the discussion a little higher, because I'll probably understand it. No sarcasm intended. Just in case you're holding back in order not to befuddle a newbie .

 

[SJON]

Here we go, some more from the same lineage:

There's also supposed to be a "Dan Kwon" out there somewhere.

 

[Xue Sheng]

Not trying to befuddle anyone just anyone just some clarification that might help you in your search. Quanfa could be just about anything and the term Changquan is only slightly narrower in focus since there are a lot of styles, within China, that can claim to have at its base Long Fist. And yet there is a specific style knows as Changquan, but even there you get a split between what is real Changquan (traditional Wushu) and what is performance/spot Changquan (Modern Wushu). Add to that the linking of people (mythological and real) to styles they may or may not have anything to do with in order to gain some legitimacy as well as claiming links to styles they may or may not have trained and then claiming to be students of teachers that they may actually have trained with but only once or twice and you get a real had to follow path to the root of just about anything

Generally you get to a point where it is historically provable and that is generally not all that far back as compared to how old some of these styles claim to be

 

[SJON]

Indeed. I appreciate your caution.

The legitimacy of the individual's training and knowledge are not really the question, though. I'm talking about Yoon Pyung In, who was documented as being awarded a 4th Dan by Toyama and recognised by him as a master of whichever Chinese style he had trained in to the extent of it being a peer relationship between the two rather than a master-student one. The question is whether I can establish a reasonable hypothesis regarding what he studied in China.

Yoon only called his style "Joo An Pa", i.e. Quan Fa, which I'm aware is akin to saying "Chinese boxing" with no further specification. He was only active on the KMA scene for a few years before disappearing in the Korean War, so he may not have instructed his students in great depth, may have omitted forms, and the students almost certainly forgot, altered or adapted what he taught them.

As far as I'm aware, 长拳 can refer to:

• a few specific historical styles
• a general categorisation of traditional northern styles with similar body mechanics and some shared forms
• "standardised traditional" styles such as the ones presented by the Jingwu association or the Nanjing Institute
• a single "traditional compilation" form
• a form of modern "performance" Wushu

I suspect that what Yoon learned would fall into the second category, and what he passed on were parts of that.

 

[Xue Sheng]

Indeed. I appreciate your caution.

The legitimacy of the individual's training and knowledge are not really the question, though. I'm talking about Yoon Pyung In, who was documented as being awarded a 4th Dan by Toyama and recognised by him as a master of whichever Chinese style he had trained in to the extent of it being a peer relationship between the two rather than a master-student one. The question is whether I can establish a reasonable hypothesis regarding what he studied in China.

Yoon only called his style "Joo An Pa", i.e. Quan Fa, which I'm aware is akin to saying "Chinese boxing" with no further specification. He was only active on the KMA scene for a few years before disappearing in the Korean War, so he may not have instructed his students in great depth, may have omitted forms, and the students almost certainly forgot, altered or adapted what he taught them.

As far as I'm aware, 长拳 can refer to:

• a few specific historical styles
• a general categorisation of traditional northern styles with similar body mechanics and some shared forms
• "standardised traditional" styles such as the ones presented by the Jingwu association or the Nanjing Institute
• a single "traditional compilation" form
• a form of modern "performance" Wushu

I suspect that what Yoon learned would fall into the second category, and what he passed on were parts of that.

And that is likely as far as you can get it, but I wish you luck in your search. And it is always best to search of the Chinese Characters since there can be vast differences in the spelling once you get it to English

Also you had a Little tiger set in none of those videos this is a set from the Changquan of Dr Yang that is called little tiger swallow set

 

[SJON]

No Chinese characters, I'm afraid, just romanised Korean pronunciation.

The Yoon lineage "Little Tigers" form is called So Ho Yun or So Ho Yon and often translated as "Little Tigers Play". There are a number of versions on Youtube with varying degrees of similarity to the example you posted. So Ho Yun would be approximately consistent with the Korean pronunciation of 小虎燕.

A quick question. Does 小 in the context of 小虎燕拳 refer to the size of the tiger or the importance of the form? Is it a little tiger, or is it a little form as compared to a similarly-themed but larger or more important form?

 

[Xue Sheng]

My reading of characters is not all that good but I do know 小 which is xiao which means little

小虎燕拳

小 = xiao = little
虎 = lǎo hǔ = tiger
燕 = yan = swallow
拳 = quan = fist

Now clfsean may be around to correct me soon, I believe his reading of characters is much better than mine.

 

[clfsean]

Wow!!! Thanks Xue!!! Trust me... I'm not all that, but I appreciate the pat on the back!!

In my experience the use of Xiao/Siu in a set normally notes 1 of 2 possibilities.

The first is it's a "little" set, not large content, but carries the same topic/ideas in a more basic manner as a larger set (Siu/Dai Lawhorn Kuen, Siu/Dai Hung Kuen, etc...).
The second is just a set name (Siu Moi Fah Kuen/Small Plum Blossom Fist) where there's not a corresponding larger, encompassing set.

 

[SJON]

Thanks!

That's exactly what I mean, like the way some Japanese kata have a Dai and a Sho version, dealing with similar material but in a more or less detailed way, or with one as a kind of appendix to the other.

I know next to zero Chinese, but the linguist in me says that the clause structure, this being a noun clause, should have a way of indicating whether the adjective 小 refers to 虎燕 or to 拳. The obvious way would be to put it next to the 拳 character if it refers to the form rather than the tiger.

Also, is a "tiger swallow" a particular kind of animal in CMA-speak (a particularly ferocious stripey bird with long curved wings and teeth, perhaps? ) or does the name indicate that the form displays characteristics of both the tiger and the swallow? Or those of a tiger that likes to swoop about like a swallow?

Coming from the linguistically "dry" KMA background, I find CMA naming conventions both fascinating and disconcerting, though after 10 years visting China and Korea the difference between the two tendencies doesn't surprise me.

 

[SJON]

I know next to zero Chinese, but the linguist in me says that the clause structure, this being a noun clause, should have a way of indicating whether the adjective 小 refers to 虎燕 or to 拳. The obvious way would be to put it next to the 拳 character if it refers to the form rather than the tiger.

Also, is a "tiger swallow" a particular kind of animal in CMA-speak (a particularly ferocious stripey bird with long curved wings and teeth, perhaps? ) or does the name indicate that the form displays characteristics of both the tiger and the swallow? Or those of a tiger that likes to swoop about like a swallow?

Much googling has led me to the conclusion that the name refers to a small form which purports to emulates certain charateristics of both the tiger and the swallow.

 

[clfsean]

Much googling has led me to the conclusion that the name refers to a small form which purports to emulates certain charateristics of both the tiger and the swallow.

Makes sense. Wouldn't be the first time that's happened.

I used to practice a Praying Mantis set "Bai Yuan Tao Tuo" or "White Ape Steals the Peach". It was a single movement in the entire set.

 

[SJON]

I've noticed that kind of difference in terminology. What some CMA people call a "set", I would call a "sequence", which when combined with several others makes up a "form". But then you've also got Xingyi with certain animal "forms" that in terms of length barely exceed what I'd call a "sequence".

Going back to the Tiger Swallow thing, can anyone tell me whether there is a "large" (or even a "medium") Tiger or Tiger/Swallow form in Tanglang or any of the other northern styles? I assume that if there's a "small" one, there must be a larger one too.