Liu He Ba Fa

[oxy]

There is really no end to a Tai Chi posture either, kinda sorta. There is a definite place where one posture ends and another starts but the form itself does not stop, One posture flows into another.

I know, that is very easy to see. But, compared to LHBF, at least from the videos I see, there is a bigger time gap between each posture. In LHBF, there's a much more finer line between what East Winds calls "stopping without stopping" and "dancing" because the time gap between each posture is so small.

As to Tai Chi Rooting, watch these 2 links, this is what I am talking about. Watch the feet and where the power comes from and goes to.

Chen Zhenglei - Taiji - Chen Style 18 form

I gave a somewhat close analysis of that video in my reply to East Winds.

Just to expand on that, when I watch this video, there seems to be a disconnection for power transferrance between the lower half and the upper half of the body. He's got strong legs for sure, but his torso does not turn consistently at what I would consider "application delivery" points in that form. His arms are not in complete synchronicity with his torso which in turn is not in complete synchronicity with his legs.

It's not something we have in LHBF because we turn the back foot to allow the torso to turn. This is where most power comes from because this whole action allows the whole body to move together. Legs -> torso -> arms.

This is the Tai Chi style where I see the most similarity to LHBF foot work

Tai Chi Cheng Man Ching
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2933659771259335758&q=Tung+Ying+chieh&hl=en

[/QUOTE]

I would agree with your assessment. But I want to ask one thing. Do all the videos of him have the same foot work? I want to make sure because it could very well be a one time thing due to the type of ground he's performing on (leaves and dead plant matter) and I haven't seen other videos of him.

Assuming it's not a one time thing:

His form is very close to what LHBF philosophy is. The difference with his foot turns, from the LHBF point of view, though, is that he turns on his heel. In LHBF most back feet turns should be pivoting on the toes.

Other than that, his body is straight on for the single whip (and similar postures) because his back foot turned to allow the leg to be more comfortable. This is something we encourage in LHBF. Personally, I like the look of this video more than the others from an LHBF perspective.

The thing is, while my father still lived in Hong Kong, he read a lot of Taiji books, one of which was authored by Cheng Man Ching. If I remember correctly, he told me that the book talks about turning the foot. Of course, my mind could be making this up so don't trust my memory on this.

 

[oxy]

I think thats what XS was saying about Xingyi.

Exactly. Xue Sheng and I actually seem to agree more than is shown on this thread or forum.

You have to keep in mind that I'm also carrying a simultaneous discussion with East Winds. With him, it seems like he is blindly transferring Taiji ideas to LHBF exclusively and forgetting that LHBF is neutral and contains elements that bear resemblance to all three internal arts.

I'm only saying that I disagree with East Winds when he proposes rooting to such an effect that there's a disconnect between the the time when the front foot plants and when force is applied.

There's less of a difference between Xingyi and LHBF footwork than there is between Taiji and LHBF.

 

[East Winds]

Oxy,

If you consider there is a disconection between Chen Zhenlei's upper and lower body, then you have an incomplete understanding of energy in the internal arts and therefore there is little point in continuing with this discusssion.
I therfore respectfully withdraw from this thread.

Very best wishes

 

[oxy]

Oxy,

If you consider there is a disconection between Chen Zhenlei's upper and lower body, then you have an incomplete understanding of energy in the internal arts and therefore there is little point in continuing with this discusssion.
I therfore respectfully withdraw from this thread.

Very best wishes

First of all, my understanding of energy is DIFFERENT. Not incomplete. As far as I know, no single Daoist martial art has any complete monopoly on "energy theory". I say there's a disconnection because even on the pure physical level, in that video, his torso does not synchronise with his legs completely. On the LHBF philosophy, that is disconnection.

If Taiji is complete in its energy theory, then tell me why do many internal martial artists practice more than one? Many Taiji practitioners, at least in Hong Kong, also train in Xingyi because they feel the footwork in Taiji is lacking in so many ways related to energy. If you feel that Taiji energy theory is "above all" and should be transferred to all Daoist martial arts, while completely ignoring the fact that other Daoist martial arts do have different theories on energy, then I'm afraid you are deluded.

Secondly, you avoided the fact that in the video that you said was a good example of rooting, the guy TURNS HIS FEET on more than one occasion. Both the Paul Dillon and Chen Zhenlei's exhibit prominent foot turning. Check the times I listed in my other reply. You can see his foot turn. In those cases, they should be called adjustments.

I completely agree with you that there's no point in continuing this discussion. I have absolutely no interest in talking to people, who under some misguided views on internal martial arts, deliberately uses one single disagreement (and blames it on the other's supposed incomplete knowledge) to allow themselves to bow out while completely overlooking that their assertion that rooting requires static feet was completely shown to be false in a video they consider to be exemplar.

You also ignore the other video that Xue Sheng posted that featured very prominent foot turning. Foot turning that I would very much consider compatible in theory to LHBF. In that video, I can definitely see that there is no disconnection between the upper and lower part of the body. So in doing this, not only are you saying that Taiji rooting requiring static feet is unnegotiable, you are saying that the style of Taiji you practice is more "complete" than another style of Taiji.

In summary:

You excused yourself from this discussion so that you don't have to face the rest of my observations regarding the foot turning that is present in that video. How convenient.

Good day to you. And I'll try to find someone to talk to who realises that Taiji, even the different styles of Taiji, is not the be all end all of internal martial arts energy theory.

 

[Xue Sheng]

I think thats what XS was saying about Xingyi.

Exactly. Xue Sheng and I actually seem to agree more than is shown on this thread or forum.

You have to keep in mind that I'm also carrying a simultaneous discussion with East Winds. With him, it seems like he is blindly transferring Taiji ideas to LHBF exclusively and forgetting that LHBF is neutral and contains elements that bear resemblance to all three internal arts.

I'm only saying that I disagree with East Winds when he proposes rooting to such an effect that there's a disconnect between the the time when the front foot plants and when force is applied.

There's less of a difference between Xingyi and LHBF footwork than there is between Taiji and LHBF.

Rook is correct and so is Oxy, I do see similarities between the Xingyi front foot and LHBF front foot. I also see differences between the back foot. That is not so say one is better of worse they are just different approaches.

Xingyi Philosophy varies from other Internal CMA styles. Xingyi uses attack as defense where many other Internal CMA style will not. I am just a beginner at Xingyi so my views here may be off base but as mentioned just before the hit the front foot roots and very shortly there after the back foot roots. It seems to me that this is why when you are hit by a Xingyi person you get the feeling you have just been hit by a freight train it is kind of like this Bang Bang thing. You are hit hard and then get hit with more force so quickly after that it feels like one very hard hit.

 

[oxy]

I also see differences between the back foot.

About this.

Currently, I'm trying to figure out how to go about showing the similarities between the LHBF and Xingyi back foot. On video if possible.

What I plan to do is to try and show how a Xingyi back foot step (one that we can interchangeably use in the Coiled Dragon form) "morphs" into the LHBF equivalent.

Let's hope it comes out well.

 

[Xue Sheng]

I know, that is very easy to see. But, compared to LHBF, at least from the videos I see, there is a bigger time gap between each posture. In LHBF, there's a much more finer line between what East Winds calls "stopping without stopping" and "dancing" because the time gap between each posture is so small.



I gave a somewhat close analysis of that video in my reply to East Winds.

Just to expand on that, when I watch this video, there seems to be a disconnection for power transferrance between the lower half and the upper half of the body. He's got strong legs for sure, but his torso does not turn consistently at what I would consider "application delivery" points in that form. His arms are not in complete synchronicity with his torso which in turn is not in complete synchronicity with his legs.

It's not something we have in LHBF because we turn the back foot to allow the torso to turn. This is where most power comes from because this whole action allows the whole body to move together. Legs -> torso -> arms.

First understand this is a teaching video from Chen Zhenglei, there will be some gaps in movement. It is also a form of his design to teach beginners the basic movements of Chen Style. But I also see your point as compared to LHBF but I think that comes down to different approaches that different styles have. My main reason for posting was to show you what I was talking about when I was talking abuot rooting in Tai Chi.

I would agree with your assessment. But I want to ask one thing. Do all the videos of him have the same foot work? I want to make sure because it could very well be a one time thing due to the type of ground he's performing on (leaves and dead plant matter) and I haven't seen other videos of him.

Assuming it's not a one time thing:

His form is very close to what LHBF philosophy is. The difference with his foot turns, from the LHBF point of view, though, is that he turns on his heel. In LHBF most back feet turns should be pivoting on the toes.

Other than that, his body is straight on for the single whip (and similar postures) because his back foot turned to allow the leg to be more comfortable. This is something we encourage in LHBF. Personally, I like the look of this video more than the others from an LHBF perspective.

The thing is, while my father still lived in Hong Kong, he read a lot of Taiji books, one of which was authored by Cheng Man Ching. If I remember correctly, he told me that the book talks about turning the foot. Of course, my mind could be making this up so don't trust my memory on this.

There is a video of Chen where he is outside and I believe it is a different form and the footwork is very similar but you will see differences based on the surface he is on. If I can find it I will post it.

As to Cheng Manching, yes that is how the style is taught. I did train it briefly and I will admit I was very impressed by it, but I could not get the power in some areas based on the back foot turn. In others however it was very obvious that the power came later that in traditional Yang style. But the upper body movements where changed to compensate for this. It was explained to me that it was done this way to allow for better qi flow.

I need to add though that the Sifu and his Sifu had absolutely no problem with power generation. There seemed to be a lot more subtleties to Cheng's style than Yang. But once again it still does not make one better than the other, just different.

The history of both says that Yang Chengfu, who was Cheng's teacher, was undefeated. It also says Cheng was undefeated as well. That is if you can believe the histories.

 

[Xue Sheng]

About this.

Currently, I'm trying to figure out how to go about showing the similarities between the LHBF and Xingyi back foot. On video if possible.

What I plan to do is to try and show how a Xingyi back foot step (one that we can interchangeably use in the Coiled Dragon form) "morphs" into the LHBF equivalent.

Let's hope it comes out well.

I think I see the problem here.

You are talking Xingyi 12 animals and I am talking Xingyi 5 elements and I only know 5 elements. I will be learning 12 animals sometime but not yet. At best I can say I have only played with the 12 animals forms.

EDIT: I look forward to the video and I will take a look at a video I have of 12 animal and compare there.

 

[oxy]

First understand this is a teaching video from Chen Zhenglei, there will be some gaps in movement. It is also a form of his design to teach beginners the basic movements of Chen Style. But I also see your point as compared to LHBF but I think that comes down to different approaches that different styles have. My main reason for posting was to show you what I was talking about when I was talking abuot rooting in Tai Chi.

Thanks for clarifying. There are no disagreements from me. Different approaches and philosophies and all that.

I could not get the power in some areas based on the back foot turn.

If you don't mind me asking, were you taught to pivot on your heel our your toe? Just today I tried both and the former feels awkward at first since I wasn't used to it.

The way Chan Yik Yan, his students, my father and his students were taught was through having to actually grab their teacher's heel and calf muscles to get the best feeling of how to generate power from the back foot turn.

I need to add though that the Sifu and his Sifu had absolutely no problem with power generation. There seemed to be a lot more subtleties to Cheng's style than Yang. But once again it still does not make one better than the other, just different.

Exactly.

The history of both says that Yang Chengfu, who was Cheng's teacher, was undefeated. It also says Cheng was undefeated as well. That is if you can believe the histories.

Mate, I don't even believe a lot of LHBF's history either.

You are talking Xingyi 12 animals and I am talking Xingyi 5 elements and I only know 5 elements. I will be learning 12 animals sometime but not yet. At best I can say I have only played with the 12 animals forms.

Actually, I was talking about the second LHBF form called Coiled Dragon (as I've seen it translated). I used to think it was called Straight Dragon since the form is in a completely straight line and the chinese name for it (Zik Long) sounds homophonous to Straight Dragon. Given that I do not know Classical Chinese, "Coiled" might be a homophone to "Straight" and I've mistranslated.

Either way, the Xingyi step can be incorporated into every posture of LHBF and vice versa.

I'll try and show as best I can how the two steps are conceptually the same and also try to show how I use it to generate power in a similar way to the Xingyi step.

 

[Xue Sheng]

If you don't mind me asking, were you taught to pivot on your heel our your toe? Just today I tried both and the former feels awkward at first since I wasn't used to it.

It was all of a month of training but it was pivot on the toe in CMC Tai Chi. This is different from Traditional Yang (as taught by Tung Ying Chieh) or Chen the pivots tend to be on the heal or ball of foot in a few cases. I have trained Chen much more than CMC and Yang much more than Chen.

The big issue for the power with me is that it appears to come mainly of the front foot in CMC and not much from the back. Like I said I just could not get a handle on it. But I know from experience that the Sifu and his Sifu could. I was used as a demo guy.

Actually, I was talking about the second LHBF form called Coiled Dragon (as I've seen it translated). I used to think it was called Straight Dragon since the form is in a completely straight line and the chinese name for it (Zik Long) sounds homophonous to Straight Dragon. Given that I do not know Classical Chinese, "Coiled" might be a homophone to "Straight" and I've mistranslated.

Either way, the Xingyi step can be incorporated into every posture of LHBF and vice versa.

I'll try and show as best I can how the two steps are conceptually the same and also try to show how I use it to generate power in a similar way to the Xingyi step.

OK, my bad, but I am still going to take a look at the 12 animals video I have from China to see how it compares.

 

[oxy]

The big issue for the power with me is that it appears to come mainly of the front foot in CMC and not much from the back. Like I said I just could not get a handle on it. But I know from experience that the Sifu and his Sifu could. I was used as a demo guy.

The last bit is partly the reason why I prefer to teach by being the "demo guy" for my students instead. But that's not the topic right now.

Maybe my video explanation of how turning on the back foot generates power could bring you insight into how LHBF does it. It might or might not be different from CMC, but it's one method. There are probably countless others to generate from back foot turning. In my experience, I tend to focus on the back foot a lot, but somewhere along the line I begin to feel how power is generated by both feet simultaneously.

 

[Xue Sheng]

The last bit is partly the reason why I prefer to teach by being the "demo guy" for my students instead. But that's not the topic right now.

Maybe my video explanation of how turning on the back foot generates power could bring you insight into how LHBF does it. It might or might not be different from CMC, but it's one method. There are probably countless others to generate from back foot turning. In my experience, I tend to focus on the back foot a lot, but somewhere along the line I begin to feel how power is generated by both feet simultaneously.

I Look forward to the video.

I Just watched a video of Xingyi dragon style and although the rear foot does lift it is completely different in the direction of force than anything I have seen so far in LHBF. The direction of power is going to the front and downward at about 45 degrees and then comes up with a kick.

Xingyi 12 animal, the first one is Dragon.

But while watching the video I thought of something that could be a problem with the comparison being made between Xingyi and LHBF. I have ONLY trained Hebei style and I do not believe I have ever even seen Shanxi or Henan styles (and there are others I have not seen) so there may be a different step there I am entirely unaware of that may be similar to what you are talking about. I would very much like to see the YouTube video you plan on posting.

Now, I Just read through this thread again and I found there were a few things that I missed that I should address. I understand that you do not trained Tai Chi that this is the reason for the comments (and I know many where not directed at me - but I will say I do trust East Winds assessment of things Tai Chi). But it is likely much the same reason I have made comment about LHBF, I do not understand it or train it so I do not know. But I am hoping to learn in this post.

It is the belief of some internal Martial artist that you start at Xingyi, then go to Bagua and finally Tai Chi. I do not agree that this is necessary but that can at least explain in part why some Internal stylist know greater than one internal style. Also many lack patience to train the (average) 3 years (if you train 7 days a week – longer if you train less) to become effective with Tai Chi so they go to Xingyi that I believe it is said 2.5 years. Not that it is less effective or inferior to Tai Chi it is just easier to understand the direction of force and application. Philosophically they tend to have at least one big difference; Xingyi uses attack as defense where Tai Chi generally does not.

To say that Chen Zhenglei is showing a disconnection for power transference is not correct, and does show at least a lack of knowledge about Chen Zhenglei and CHen, but as I said it is a teaching video. And I admit a lack of knowledge (roughly equivalent to the Grand Canyon) about LHBF and all the people in the posted videos too.

Chen Zhenglei Traditional Chen style

But there are applications and reasons (such as anatomy) to move your foot on occasion. As well as moving power from the foot to the upper body, Tai Chi is not supposed to be ridged. It is also possible that is what is going on with the LHBF clips I have seen so far since I do not train LHBF so I have no way of knowing, but I am trying to understand.

And the “Other guy” you are referring to is Tung Ying Chieh who was one of the students that Yang Chengfu allowed to carry on Yang Style that was NOT a member of the Yang family. His ability is or I should say was extremely high. Not to mention he was my teacher’s teacher so I may be a bit overly sensitive here and I will not comment further.

I am equally willing to admit that I have an apparent incredible lack of understanding about LHBF and I am beginning to believe that if I wish to understand it I will need to train it and there is a class near me that teaches form and form only but I have do not have the time to dedicate to it and my free time becomes even more precious starting this week. Also as a note and question on my observation of the class near me and this is going to sound REAL strange coming form a Tai Chi guy, but are all LHBF forms taught at such a slow speed in the beginning?

As to Tai Chi lacking energy in Hong Kong, What styles and what were they learning? I cannot comment unless I know more and I can only comment on Yang, Chen and to a much lesser extent Wu.

I am not trying to defend anything here, but if I based my assessment of all Tai Chi styles based on the Yang 24 I saw in the parks in Beijing I would run not walk to the nearest Xingyi School. But I know there is much more to Tai chi than what I saw there. ANd if I were training with those people I would as previously mentioned high tail it to the nearest Xingyi school.

I am trying to keep this post as a way of understanding another style and not disrespecting LHBF or Tai Chi is anyway. I do understand we all can get very sensitive about our chosen art but I am trying to keep this civil in order to understand better.

I have another question; Why do you feel that Liu He Ba Fa is so rare today?

 

[oxy]

Great post, I must say. Lots of meat.

I Just watched a video of Xingyi dragon style and although the rear foot does lift it is completely different in the direction of force than anything I have seen so far in LHBF. The direction of power is going to the front and downward at about 45 degrees and then comes up with a kick.

Xingyi 12 animal, the first one is Dragon.

In short, it seems the majority of stances of Xingyi are in the 4/6 (or a similar stance with more weight on the back foot) position rather than bow (7/3) stance. Since in LHBF, we twist the back foot when we move from 4/6 to 7/3 and vice versa almost in equal numbers, the 7/3 step is more prominent. When we train in Praying Mantis (we use it to introduce LHBF principles because we didn't know about the LHBF 12 animals back then) we do a 7/3 Xingyi step which makes the direction of power for the back foot around just a little bit backwards from vertical. But in LHBF or Praying Mantis when we do the Xingyi step in the 4/6 stance, then the direction of power is actually as you say for Xingyi.

But while watching the video I thought of something that could be a problem with the comparison being made between Xingyi and LHBF. I have ONLY trained Hebei style and I do not believe I have ever even seen Shanxi or Henan styles (and there are others I have not seen) so there may be a different step there I am entirely unaware of that may be similar to what you are talking about. I would very much like to see the YouTube video you plan on posting.

I think the difference you pointed out earlier might be spot on. There just doesn't seem to be a common bow Xingyi step in Xingyi. But now that I know about this, I'll try to concentrate on the 4/6 part of LHBF for the video instead.

It is the belief of some internal Martial artist that you start at Xingyi, then go to Bagua and finally Tai Chi. I do not agree that this is necessary but that can at least explain in part why some Internal stylist know greater than one internal style.

I have also heard this and I similarly do not agree with that belief either. But there are who take Xingyi after Taiji because the footwork is not adequate for them.

Also many lack patience to train the (average) 3 years (if you train 7 days a week – longer if you train less) to become effective with Tai Chi so they go to Xingyi that I believe it is said 2.5 years. Not that it is less effective or inferior to Tai Chi it is just easier to understand the direction of force and application. Philosophically they tend to have at least one big difference; Xingyi uses attack as defense where Tai Chi generally does not.

Of course there are those who lack patience. I realise how my earlier post sounded. I didn't mean all those who took Taiji and Xingyi did so for the same reason. But many feel Taiji footwork to be inadequate. As you said, that's probably down to the difference in philosophy and not "one is better". I would, however, say that one style is necessarily better depending on what each individual wants and how their way of thinking is better suited to one style.

To say that Chen Zhenglei is showing a disconnection for power transference is not correct, and does show at least a lack of knowledge about Chen Zhenglei and CHen,

I really need to expand on my comments. In my reply to East Winds at least, that what I actually meant was that from the LHBF perspective that Chen Zhenglei shows disconnection. I agree that I know little of Chen like how you know little of LHBF. My point was that there are philosophical differences between LHBF and any kind of Taiji and it was a mistake (what East Winds earlier proposed) to say that "proper" LHBF should have identical theory to Taiji. From all the Chen style videos I have seen, yes they're all pretty much the same so that must mean it's quite standard.

The example I used earlier would be the Single Whip posture. In the other Chen video you posted, his torso was facing the camera with his arms stretched out to the side. The different philosophy in LHBF would dictate that his body be facing towards the left of the camera. I would prefer the LHBF way. No doubt you would prefer the Chen way. Objectively speaking, there probably isn't a "best way". They are different and the "best" way would be different under a different philosophy. And for East Winds to criticise LHBF philosophy (ie, the Wu Yi Hui -> Chan Yik Yan -> Choi Wai Lun (and my father's teacher) lineage) because it is different to his idea of Taiji and Taiji = LHBF philosophy is wrong.

Also, I did not mean that Chen Zhenglei showed disconnection throughout the whole video (from the LHBF perspective). Much of what happened after the Single Whip is at least reconcilable with LHBF (ie, his torso faces the direction of force).

Chen Zhenglei Traditional Chen style

Certainly, he looks better than a lot of other Chen stylists I've seen. I sound like a broken record, but again, from the LHBF perspective there still some disconnection. For example, like in the first push (the one with both hands and the feet move together) his hands move by themselves and are not totally synchronised with his feet moving together. This has a lot to do with my unfamiliarity with Chen, but the point was that Taiji and LHBF are not completely interchangeable.

Chen certainly looks more dynamic (in the body movements but not footwork) than LHBF. I would still say it's a difference in philosophy. One of the main principles (the "Eighth Method") is "Conceal. Develop the ability to conceal [your technique, power, and intent] before you manifest [your attack]" so that in the end, the LHBF from "looks" pedestrian. The drawback of this is that it makes it very hard for students to learn because they can't see. This is why starting from my father's teacher, one of the recently developed teaching methods require the student to actually touch the teacher's abdomen, back, calves, heels, etc so they can feel the movements that they cannot see.

But there are applications and reasons (such as anatomy) to move your foot on occasion. As well as moving power from the foot to the upper body, Tai Chi is not supposed to be ridged. It is also possible that is what is going on with the LHBF clips I have seen so far since I do not train LHBF so I have no way of knowing, but I am trying to understand.

Anatomy is definitely a part of the reason. But it's not the only reason, as far as LHBF is concerned. Since it is more comfortable to change the angle of the back foot to accomodate the angle of the torso, why not use that transition to generate force as well? That's one of the mentalities of LHBF is to use what's there to the fullest. Otherwise the back foot would be wasted if it turned only for anatomy.

The thing is, every video I have seen of anyone from the Chan Yik Yan lineage features the same foot turning (although I must say some may have forgotten to teach it properly). Certainly Choi Wai Lun has it in his LHBF forms and in his LHBF 12 animals form. My father and his teacher has it. His teacher's other students and their students have it. Chan Yik Yan was the one to spend the longest time learning from Wu Yi Hui too but I haven't seen their forms.

And the “Other guy” you are referring to is Tung Ying Chieh who was one of the students that Yang Chengfu allowed to carry on Yang Style that was NOT a member of the Yang family. His ability is or I should say was extremely high. Not to mention he was my teacher’s teacher so I may be a bit overly sensitive here and I will not comment further.

I am sorry if the way I said "other guy" seemed insensitive. I mean no disrespect.

I am equally willing to admit that I have an apparent incredible lack of understanding about LHBF and I am beginning to believe that if I wish to understand it I will need to train it and there is a class near me that teaches form and form only but I have do not have the time to dedicate to it and my free time becomes even more precious starting this week.

From what I read in your posts, your personal understanding of Taiji would make it very easy for you to make the transition into the Chan Yik Yan lineage of LHBF. But I agree that it would be a waste of time to learn the "form only" LHBF. The biggest problem you will have in searching for an LHBF school is one that doesn't have the philosophy that LHBF = Taiji. Even in those schools, despite teaching power and energy and martial applications, you would still wind up learning the "form only" LHBF since you have already learnt those Taiji theory. You would be better off creating your own Taiji form instead.

I don't subscribe to the theory that LHBF was created from the other three internal styles. But whatever the LHBF history actually was, the fact is, as you know, that LHBF contains principles present in the other three. If I were to classify them, it would be: footwork from Xingyi, escapism from Bagua, and Taiji for the arms. But even then, there is a lot of LHBF specific philosophies in those areas too (some from the actual way they amalgamate). To learn LHBF where the instructor eliminates all the other internal principles from other styles and completely replaces them with their version of Taiji, then there's no point in learning LHBF. You would be better off learning Taiji. If I had to, I would say the Helen Liang video is a perfect example of how some teachers threw away all the other principles for Taiji.

Also as a note and question on my observation of the class near me and this is going to sound REAL strange coming form a Tai Chi guy, but are all LHBF forms taught at such a slow speed in the beginning?

Unfortunately, this is a good example of amibuity in the english language.

What do you mean by "taught at such a slow speed"? Do you mean that the teacher was teaching his students to perform each posture very slowly? Or do you mean that the teacher taught very little in one class?

To answer the first possible question: it depends.

My father once saw a guy in Hong Kong's Victoria Park (famous for its many people practicing some kind of martial art) who performed the form REALLY slowly. I mean he would move his posture inch by inch.

In one of the LHBF videos on Youtube (the one by John Chung Li) the guy takes a long time too.

Each teacher teaches different speeds. My father's teacher would teach a reasonable speed but would also tell his students (the more advanced ones) that you should sometimes practice a faster (but less intention), smaller stanced form to get a feel of the flow. People often gets confused by the term "Water Boxing" because they normally take a few (inappropriate) lines from the Dao De Jing where it says that water can be soft and yielding at times but can come down on you like a ton of bricks. That certainly is present in LHBF and is a mentality that is best suited to slow speeds. But we hold the fluidity of water to be just as important, so anything that doesn't allow us to move smoothly is wrong.

My video is 7 minutes, which is faster than my father's time which averages about 12. 9 if he's doing it fast. You might have heard of the designations "Si Hing" and such and that "Si Hing" is the martial arts equivalent of older brother. My "Si Bak", which would be the equivalent of "uncle" does it even more quickly, but he does the fast version I told you about before.

If you meant the second possible question:

Let's just say it took my father 16 years of learning, re-learning, re-learning the same form over and over for him to feel capable of teaching. I only learnt for 2 or 3 years (over the whole course of my life so far that is) which is why I'm only an assistant instructor.

As to Tai Chi lacking energy in Hong Kong, What styles and what were they learning? I cannot comment unless I know more and I can only comment on Yang, Chen and to a much lesser extent Wu.

In Hong Kong, the dominant style should be Yang, I think.

My comment was specifically about the footwork energy as the reason why many take up Xingyi at the same time or Bagua at the same time. Either way you look at it, I have not seen any Taiji video that displays mobility as much as Bagua or Xingyi.

This is a bad example, but it's easier to understand: push hands. Push hands is good for sensitivity training and yielding and all that. But in all push hands video I have seen, the other person loses because their footwork and/or leg structure is appalling. In many cases, I could see multiple opportunities for someone to close the gap with a Xingyi step and in doing so lock the arms of the other person. As I've said, it's a bad example because it doesn't seem push hands is supposed to be teaching about footwork and leg structure.

Again, I stress that people have different philosophies in regards to their own bodies and martial arts, so they feel Taiji as lacking in leg structure and footwork because it doesn't click with their philosophies. Pure Taiji works for some while it is incredibly lacking for others. From the LHBF perspective, most Taiji styles have poor footwork. Just like how from the Taiji perspective LHBF must look like it doesn't root.

I am trying to keep this post as a way of understanding another style and not disrespecting LHBF or Tai Chi is anyway. I do understand we all can get very sensitive about our chosen art but I am trying to keep this civil in order to understand better.

If at any time you feel I'm getting too disrespectful, tell me, as I can't see everything in what I say.

I have another question; Why do you feel that Liu He Ba Fa is so rare today?

LHBF is not as rare as it seems. Only good LHBF is rare. Either way there are a lot of people who really only teach "Taijibafa". If you show them even my video, they would surely say the same thing about me. And there's really no reason for you to believe EITHER of us.

There is no single reason I have heard that really is more convincing than any others.

There is a theory that Wu Yi Hui was the one who invented LHBF and attributed it to Chen Tuan and Li Dong Feng to gain recognition. If he was the first that means we still have less than a century of existence.

Another theory is the closed door theory that LHBF was sparingly taught and only to those who were willing to pay. That is supposedly why Wu Yi Hui and his lineage before him only taught LHBF in the Qing court until it fell to the revolution.

Yet another theory (one that is more related to Chan Yik Yan's reputation in Hong Kong) is that only those who were adept (often to the level of "master") at other styles before would seek out LHBF to learn. In that sense, my father was lucky to be even redirected by Chan Yik Yan to one of his students.

Yet another theory is that a lot of LHBF teachers dishonestly immortalises their art deliberately making student's learning harder than it really needs to be. Unfortunately, I have to say Chan Yik Yan is partially guilty of this because he would not show any posture more than three times. He even complained to my father's teacher about him teaching everything he knows to his students instead of doing the "three times maximum" thing. This makes it rare because most students don't want to put up with such strictness and I don't blame them.

Again, though, I must say that LHBF is much more common than people think. For example, I was quite surprised to hear that you had a teacher near you. My father was quite suprised to find out there is one in our state that we have never heard of. I was also suprised that there was one in Sydney. I've seen all the LHBF promotional websites on the internet, since there aren't a lot. And all of them makes a very cliched promotion that "LHBF used to be so secretive and rare" which unfairly boosts the feeling of its rarity rather. They also make the illogical proposition that LHBF is rare and secretive there it must be good. What would people like us who have a better understanding of the martial arts scene when they read this? I would automatically think that they are probably con artists. I would not be surprised to hear that LHBF teachers have lost students because they promote the art beyond what it actually is. If you went to an LHBF school and find that all they really teach is Taiji principles using a different form and yet the teaching staff claims the art to be super-duper, would you waste your time on them anymore?

Personally, I don't feel it's rare. But that's because I don't want LHBF to be diluted with "forced" popularity. Unfortunately that has already happened.

 

[oxy]

Chen Zhenglei Traditional Chen style

One specific thing I noticed in this video happened at around 2:42 into it. It's the one where he jumps and punches when he lands. It's not exactly the same but it is similar to the way LHBF generates power by turning the backfoot. It's just that we do it more often and without the jumping. If you look closely at his Yin foot (I think it's Yin) he changes the angle just before he lands. And when he does land, I detect that he's also pushing off from the heel of that foot the generate some of the power.

Watch it and see if you see the same thing as me.

I noticed another thing at around 2:53 into the video when he begins to throw the series of right punches. His front foot turns in a similar manner. And I must say it is probably the reason why he's able to generate the power you see in that point in the video.

In the rest of that video there are other times when he changes the angle of his feet. Coincidentally, those points appear more powerful than the rest. Again, keep in mind I say this from the LHBF perspective. I'm quite sure that those "less powerful" parts that he could throw me back 10 metres or more.

 

[oxy]

(Anyone who is interested),

Well, my attempts to make the video comparison has hit a snag. I have currently "lost access" to a camera. And I had devised such a good method to show the power generation too. Current estimates are for a few weeks.

To pass the time, I thought of this:

These are pictures of successive postures in LHBF ordered from left to right. These pictures are linked from the www.waterboxing.com site which has the whole form from Chan Yik Yan's book.

As anyone can see, I'm not hallucinating about having been taught to turn the back foot. The photos I chose (from the 300 on the website) seems to be the most clear in terms of 1: quality 2: camera angle 3: order of posture. The only thing the photos don't show is whether the foot turns on the toe or the heel.

The best thing about this sequence is that it shows a change from 7/3 to 4/6 back to 7/3 stance. So I killed two birds with one stone and the RSPCA are none the wiser.

About the rest of the photos on that website:

It's not a comprehensive set. They look like they were taken during the course of Chan Yik Yan performing the whole thing in one go so some are of transitions. Of all the people I have seen that can be said to actually resemble Chan Yik Yan it really does seem that the direction some postures face are different across practitioners. Like Chan Yik Yan's, some have angular directions. In my form we have a more squarish directions. I don't think it makes a real difference. However, Chan Yik Yan's apparent form trains zig-zagging weight transfer much more than mine. This would be lacking in people whose forms mine resembles as we either have forwards or backwards motions which change direction of motion in 90 degree increments. The benefits of the version I was taught is that turning is being trained more.

I wouldn't have a preference for either. I certainly would go so far to say that there should be no discussion as to which form is the One True Form(tm). For the sake of lossless transmission, right angles are much more easier to remember. But the angular form trains a different mindset. My father's teacher would encourage people to practice "as they see fit", modifying their own practice form.

I think it's a good thing to do so and prevents huge schisms that result from some changing the form to suit their personal needs/environment but not passing on the generic form in favour of a specialised personal form.

Hope this post is interesting enough while you wait for the video.

-------------------------------

I say I come from the Chan Yik Yan lineage (Wu Yi Hui had other students which other LHBF teachers on the internet claim lineage to of which I have no way of researching about). This being the internet, there's no reason why people should believe what I say about my lineage. I actually have photo evidence proving my lineage which I am not at liberty to upload since they are private photos and those featured in them cannot give their permission. Merely mentioning this inability to provide proof makes me look even more shady. So the only thing that is available right now is to compare my video to the photos Chan Yik Yan from the website. I make no claim that my video shows the best form, but it is similar enough to those of the Chan Yik Yan lineage that I have seen.

 

[Xue Sheng]

oxy

I am still here and still reading posts, but I am currently to short of time to give a proper response. I will respond more later

Thanks
XS

 

[Xue Sheng]

I fully agree that there are philosophical differences between LHBF and Taiji and those differences do make it difficult for an old Taiji guy such as me to understand where LHBF is coming from but I keep trying.

As to the other guy, Tung Ying Cheih, no problem, no offense taken.

As to the speed of LHBF I should have been clearer. I am referring to how long it takes to go from one posture to another. Although now that I think about it the Clips that you have posted were no where near as slow as the one I personally saw in my area.

I understand what you are talking about when you refer to push hands much of the problem people have with push hands is they do not realize or they have not been taught that it does move. Part of push hands training in Yang style after you learn stationary single hands and double hands is 3 step and four corner. These are where you begin to learn to move. After this you progress to free style which is very dynamic.

From what I have seen of LHBF and knowing how people have bastardized or diluted Tai Chi I am rather concerned that it will go the same route. Meaning people go learn Yang 24 or Chen 18 and then go off and charge money to teach people Tai Chi when they have no real understanding of it at all. The fact that it is in my area being taught as it is shows me that this is already happening.

As to its rarity in its real form I suspected it was the closed door theory to be honest the only true LHBF I knew of before starting this post was in either Singapore or Malaysia.

I have not yet had the chance to look back at Chen's video in the areas you pointed out, I am having a problem connecting to that site at the moment, but I will take a look at it and get back to you.

Yet another note about stance as compared to Xingyi. Xingyi is a back stance where the back leg actually is the 60 and the front leg is 40 or 70/30 (to be honest I am not exactly sure of what the exact weight distribution is but either way the back leg ends up with more weight.

 

[oxy]

I understand what you are talking about when you refer to push hands much of the problem people have with push hands is they do not realize or they have not been taught that it does move. Part of push hands training in Yang style after you learn stationary single hands and double hands is 3 step and four corner. These are where you begin to learn to move. After this you progress to free style which is very dynamic.

I actually have seen the mobile version of push hands and it is an improvement (a major one) over the less advanced forms. The peculiar thing about Taiji footwork is that it looks like "creeping". When moving, the leading leg takes a step first and then the rest of the body moves. And it seems to be a common thing that when the posture requires the body to rock onto the back foot, the front foot's toes lift up and the leg goes straight. That seems, on a martial perspective, very dangerous since it is much more easier to break a knee joint on a straight leg. I don't know what those who take Xingyi because of a lack of footwork in Taiji (in their opinions) think. And I don't know Xingyi apart from the step. But I think part of their reason is about the reasons I just mentioned.

I hope I don't come off looking like I'm bagging Taiji. Just airing a few reasons which I think explain the attitude in some Xingyi/Taiji practitioners. I don't represent them either, so I could be wrong.

Yet another note about stance as compared to Xingyi. Xingyi is a back stance where the back leg actually is the 60 and the front leg is 40 or 70/30 (to be honest I am not exactly sure of what the exact weight distribution is but either way the back leg ends up with more weight.

Thanks for confirming. So there are (obviously) differences between LHBF and Xingyi footwork. But the 4/6 stance in both have similar theory attached. Now if I can find a damn camera.

 

[Xue Sheng]

I actually have seen the mobile version of push hands and it is an improvement (a major one) over the less advanced forms. The peculiar thing about Taiji footwork is that it looks like "creeping". When moving, the leading leg takes a step first and then the rest of the body moves. And it seems to be a common thing that when the posture requires the body to rock onto the back foot, the front foot's toes lift up and the leg goes straight. That seems, on a martial perspective, very dangerous since it is much more easier to break a knee joint on a straight leg.

I am guessing that you have either not seen advanced push hands or not seen good push hands. The American competition version looks much as you described and it generally is more like wrestling than push hands. And it is as much traditional push hands as is Yang 24 traditional Taiji

As to the rocking, it is part of sensitivity training in the stationary sets.

As to the stepping it is not front foot and drag the body, it is more like walking to be honest. IT is rather relaxed and very lively when done correctly. If you train 3 step the first step would be with the leading front leg of the person advancing and the rear leg of the person retreating but after that it is just stepping.

If you train 4 corners it is a step with a turn from one corner to the other in a box, if you will.

If you train free style all bets are off. The step is what the opponent makes it. And in freestyle if stationary you do not lock the knee as a matter of fact you can use the knee against the opponent as part of push hands.

I hope I don't come off looking like I'm bagging Taiji. Just airing a few reasons which I think explain the attitude in some Xingyi/Taiji practitioners. I don't represent them either, so I could be wrong.

Well of course you did.... just kidding.

I rather like the relaxed movement of Taiji but I will say, in general, it certainly does not advance forward as fast as Xingyi. They are fairly different in movement and basic philosophy although they are both considered Internal Chinese Martial Arts.

 

[oxy]

Okay, I found this *more* descriptive page about rooting at http://members.cox.net/dmurray777/connect.shtml . From the page:

Another aspect of this movement is root. Root does not mean that you are frozen immobile in a deep stance, it means that you maintain a connection with the earth. It is relaxed, and sinking. Unless you are changing gate elevation, your head does not bob up and down. An example of rootless movement is where you step and you get taller as your feet pass each other.

Would that be an accurate description of at least part of Taiji style rooting? Because in short, what that page says about rooting is not entirely compatible with LHBF. In some postures, that applies. In other postures, it doesn't work. Maybe it's because Choi's and my video shows our body moving up and down that makes it, from the Taiji perspective, rootless? I don't know.