Xue Sheng
All weight is underside
Liu He Ba Fa of Master Weilun Huang
Liu He Ba Fa
- Thread starter Xue Sheng
- Start date
Nebuchadnezzar
Blue Belt
- Joined
- May 15, 2006
- Messages
- 212
- Reaction score
- 11
Beautiful. The fact that he recovered from injury as well made it even more so and inspiring. Thanks.
Steel Tiger
Senior Master
I don't know about you but I saw elements of bagua in that form. It makes me wonder if the nei jia are much closer in shape than we might think.
JadecloudAlchemist
Master of Arts
From what I recall Mr. Huang is the only person in the Miami area who teaches Liu he Ba fa he also teaches Bagua and I think Tai chi chuan.
newtothe dark
Purple Belt
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2007
- Messages
- 325
- Reaction score
- 4
Very clean lines loved the jing thanks.
East Winds
2nd Black Belt
More or less the form I learned many years ago, but performed with a slightly different emphasis in the postures (and much more ability). His rooting is impeccable. Must say I like it!!!!
Very best wishes
Very best wishes
OP
Xue Sheng
All weight is underside
- Thread Starter
- #7
I will admit after I first posted questions about Liu He Ba Fa about a year ago I have seen a lot of videos and a few live demos and this one impresses me most.
And Steel Tiger
I see a lot of the Bagua I use to train a lot of taiji and a bit of Xingyi and I agree that there are a lot of similarities to different Nei Jia forms... especially if they are done well.
EDIT
I just found this
Master Weilun Huang
http://www.huangtaichi.com/
Also trained Yang style with Lou Tzi Ling who was a student of Yang Cheng Fu
And Steel Tiger
I see a lot of the Bagua I use to train a lot of taiji and a bit of Xingyi and I agree that there are a lot of similarities to different Nei Jia forms... especially if they are done well.
EDIT
I just found this
Master Weilun Huang
http://www.huangtaichi.com/
Also trained Yang style with Lou Tzi Ling who was a student of Yang Cheng Fu
I can see how people can be impressed with this video, especially since it fits the definition of Taiji Bafa perfectly. First and foremost, it lacks the Xingyi influence. His arms are moving of their own accord: not synchronised with shifts in weight or footwork at all. He does the Taiji thing where a leg creeps backwards or forwards before shifting weight. Not Liu He Ba Fa. Not efficient use of force.
He does the Taiji thing where the movement starts from the shoulders and his arm whips out, elbow first. The feeling of the whip arm should be internal and should not show. It causes the arm to change its shape which is a no-no in Liu He Ba Fa because 1), it violates the everything-moves-at-once principle and 2), it presents a blatant opportunity for qinna.
His back arches backwards. He doesn't tuck his tailbone in (no Xingyi at all).
He looks at his hands and feet too much.
His arms cross the centre line too much.
His movements tell me that he wasn't taught all the applications of the so-called "transitions". In Liu He Ba Fa, the transitions are more important than the posture. This form (and others like it) does not show the Yi (intention) of transitions. Everything in Liu He Ba Fa has a purpose. Nothing is just happening to be "on the way" to the next posture.
In the spirit of everything having a purpose, many of his stances are too low for anything practical but with an increased danger of getting injured. Might as well not have a purpose at all.
His limbs stretch too much. Straight limbs + joint attacks != good. Straight limbs are an indicator of the fact that he uses his arms to generate force instead of his pelvis.
His feet does not turn.
He does the whole Taiji undulation thing. Not Liu He Ba Fa at all. Not good mechanics at all. It's why I prefer Liu He Ba Fa.
In short, this is the Wushu version of Liu He Ba Fa. Compare his form to the photos of Chan Yik Yan. There are absolutely no similarities. Whoever claims they are doing Liu He Ba Fa when they are doing this version of the form should... not. Paul Dillon's form is a lot better than this one and Paul Dillon's form has many problems.
He does the Taiji thing where the movement starts from the shoulders and his arm whips out, elbow first. The feeling of the whip arm should be internal and should not show. It causes the arm to change its shape which is a no-no in Liu He Ba Fa because 1), it violates the everything-moves-at-once principle and 2), it presents a blatant opportunity for qinna.
His back arches backwards. He doesn't tuck his tailbone in (no Xingyi at all).
He looks at his hands and feet too much.
His arms cross the centre line too much.
His movements tell me that he wasn't taught all the applications of the so-called "transitions". In Liu He Ba Fa, the transitions are more important than the posture. This form (and others like it) does not show the Yi (intention) of transitions. Everything in Liu He Ba Fa has a purpose. Nothing is just happening to be "on the way" to the next posture.
In the spirit of everything having a purpose, many of his stances are too low for anything practical but with an increased danger of getting injured. Might as well not have a purpose at all.
His limbs stretch too much. Straight limbs + joint attacks != good. Straight limbs are an indicator of the fact that he uses his arms to generate force instead of his pelvis.
His feet does not turn.
He does the whole Taiji undulation thing. Not Liu He Ba Fa at all. Not good mechanics at all. It's why I prefer Liu He Ba Fa.
In short, this is the Wushu version of Liu He Ba Fa. Compare his form to the photos of Chan Yik Yan. There are absolutely no similarities. Whoever claims they are doing Liu He Ba Fa when they are doing this version of the form should... not. Paul Dillon's form is a lot better than this one and Paul Dillon's form has many problems.
East Winds
2nd Black Belt
Good to know that we have the worlds definitive authority on Liu He Ba Fa posting on this board.:erg:
Very best wishes
Very best wishes
OP
Xue Sheng
All weight is underside
I don't claim to be the world's DEFINITIVE authority. But I definitely know more about it than you. You obviously have no understanding of Xingyi judging by our past discussions so it's quite clear you do Taiji Bafa, not Liu He Ba Fa.
Of course, no one needs to believe me. Like I said in my original post: maybe you can explain why none of his form matches any of the photos of Chan Yik Yan? Maybe you can explain why someone would create something like Liu He Ba Fa only to have it look like Taiji with different movements? Maybe you can explain why ALL of the writings on Liu He Ba Fa emphasise that everything moves together and how the performance in the video somehow achieves that when the guys arms are not moving in time with his weight and footwork?
It's kind of convenient that you continue to ignore my arguments with ad hominem and dismissal. I wonder why you have no other arguments than to cast doubt on my legitimacy? I really find it amusing that, because I'm not an expert at Liu He Ba Fa, all the things that I have said that comes directly from Chan Yik Yan's book suddenly becomes illegitimate and the ramblings of a madman, according to you. I really find it hard to believe you have a degree in science given all the lack of reasoning ability you show on this forum.
The thing is, I come from a line of teachers who've abandoned ALL of their other martial arts in preference of Liu He Ba Fa. They've gone to great lengths to erase the influence of their previous arts. Whereas compare this kind of dedication to others like you who instead of preserving the Liu He Ba Fa have just really added another form to Taiji. You can really tell when people on videos haven't really practiced Liu He Ba Fa that much, forgotten a lot of the principles, and just substituted Taiji into it because that's what they're body's used to.
I mean, the fact that you dismissed the principle that the transitions are MORE important than postures by casting doubt on my legitimacy instead of arguing that the principle is not in Liu He Ba Fa... (not to mention the fact that the principle is one talked about by Chan Yik Yan himself in his Liu He Ba Fa Book)...
Dudedid you just dis taiji
Strangely enough, I'm taking Taiji lessons on Tuesdays and Thursdays because one of my colleagues (I guess I could call her a friend, now) is teaching Taiji.
And her Taiji has more Liu He Ba Fa than the guy in the video.
Of course, it's still Taiji, so the arms are still prone to moving by themselves.
But yes, I do dis Taiji. I place more value on the Bagua/Xingyi combination than I do Taiji. The way they move about, you can see that they place more emphasis on footwork than Taiji does. Luckily, my Taiji teacher also does Bagua, and you can see her understanding of footwork.
Luckily you've had a lot more experience in martial arts with good footwork and not just lived in a Taiji microcosm.
Well, why do it so visibly in the first place?
If you look at Xingyi, you can easily see how their actions contain the essence of the "undulation" but it still looks really straight. It's all internalised. Because it's all about the Yi. The undulation, if present so visibly in Xingyi and Liu He Ba Fa, wrecks the skeletal structure required that would otherwise reduce muscle use.
It's in one of the Ba Fas, the whole skeletal structure thing.
OP
Xue Sheng
All weight is underside
- Thread Starter
- #13
Actually, in good taiji everything is linked and nothing is really moving independently
And to be honest as much as I respect my Xingyi teacher ability my taiji teacher is a better martial artist and he is also at least 20 years older than my Xingyi teacher.
And to be honest as much as I respect my Xingyi teacher ability my taiji teacher is a better martial artist and he is also at least 20 years older than my Xingyi teacher.
East Winds
2nd Black Belt
Has this guy got rooting or what? But hey, what would I know about it?:rofl:
Very best wishes
Very best wishes
East Winds
2nd Black Belt
OP
Xue Sheng
All weight is underside
- Thread Starter
- #16
http://www.wudanglongmen.com/xiaolingliu.html
Liu Xiao Ling studied Liu He Ba Fa (Water Boxing) under Masters Li Dao Li and Liang Qi Zhong
It's seems impossible for you not to twist my arguments into something I did not say or mean.
I know you are an expert on Taiji. You know all about Taiji rooting. But here's the newsflash: Liu He Ba Fa is not Taiji.
In the previous Liu He Ba Fa thread, I described what was essentially the Xingyi step for generating power and you dismissed it (because you don't know anything about it) as inferior. It was only when I mentioned that the step is a part of Xingyi that you mysteriously went quiet.
And considering how Liu He Ba Fa is considered to have elements of Xingyi in it and that you continually show to have no knowledge or the desire to learn about the Xingyi aspects of Liu He Ba Fa, I stand by my assessment that you do nothing but Taiji Bafa. You might as well just call your form another Taiji form.
So you know all about rooting in Taiji. Good for you. But my point is that you know nothing about LHBF, or Xingyi, for that matter.
On a side note: you still haven't told me why your form doesn't resemble anything in Chan Yik Yan's photos. You still haven't told me why what I say, which I unashamedly lifted from Chan Yik Yan's own writings (not to mention the LHBF poem), is wrong. Do you wish to claim that you know more about Liu He Ba Fa than Chan Yik Yan?
One of my teacher's students gave his DVD.
I've seen it.
More Taiji Bafa. Which is probably why you're attracted to it.
OP
Xue Sheng
All weight is underside
- Thread Starter
- #19
I cannot debate Liu He Ba Fa and I will try not to, I have never trained it and I have only seen it in video.
Not trying to start an argument here, actually I am just trying to jog my old memory, but didn't we establish in one of our earlier discussions about Liu He Ba Fa that although there are obvious Xingyi, Bagua Taiji elements that the stepping was different than Xingyi as well, since Xingyi has a tendency to root rather strongly on attack and application?
I recall you saying that you haven't seen the kind of "rooting" in my video. I recall you saying that the step wasn't the only important part of Xingyi.
I do recall saying that LHBF does root completely on attack but only at the moment of contact. That there is no point in continuing the root as it was since the "fight" continues, most probably requiring different reaction.
I do recall saying that LHBF relies on up and down movement of weight as well as backwards and forwards. I do recall me asking whether an important part of rooting was that the torso stayed at the same height off the ground and you answering in the affirmative. I recall replying to that saying that's probably the difference between LHBF and other arts in that our kind of rooting allows us to have up and down movement. I recall East Winds' criticism of my form as too much movement of the torso, which I gather was the up-and-downness, hence why I asked if Taiji rooting was that the torso stayed at the same height off the ground.
I do recall trying to explain, at great length, that the backfoot turning is essentially the same as the Xingyi step from a force generating perspective but not necessarily in appearance. I do recall saying that LHBF is equally 7/3 as well as 4/6 stance (to highlight the mostly 7/3 stance of Taiji and the mostly 4/6 stance of Xingyi) and hence it's slight difference to the Xingyi step.
I do recall saying that LHBF does root completely on attack but only at the moment of contact. That there is no point in continuing the root as it was since the "fight" continues, most probably requiring different reaction.
I do recall saying that LHBF relies on up and down movement of weight as well as backwards and forwards. I do recall me asking whether an important part of rooting was that the torso stayed at the same height off the ground and you answering in the affirmative. I recall replying to that saying that's probably the difference between LHBF and other arts in that our kind of rooting allows us to have up and down movement. I recall East Winds' criticism of my form as too much movement of the torso, which I gather was the up-and-downness, hence why I asked if Taiji rooting was that the torso stayed at the same height off the ground.
I do recall trying to explain, at great length, that the backfoot turning is essentially the same as the Xingyi step from a force generating perspective but not necessarily in appearance. I do recall saying that LHBF is equally 7/3 as well as 4/6 stance (to highlight the mostly 7/3 stance of Taiji and the mostly 4/6 stance of Xingyi) and hence it's slight difference to the Xingyi step.
