On the heels of Wang’s thoughts on taiji comes a great translation by Josh Stout over at EF. I suggest reading the whole thing but here below is an excerpt.
Yet boxing forms and techniques are what are known as artificial boxing moves 所謂人造拳架子是也. Since the advent of the Manchurian Qing dynasty some three hundred years ago, these have been used by common laymen for performing, as tools for those who make a living from demonstrating martial arts. Why, then, would one who aspires to thoroughly study boxing waste their time with practicing them? Not only are they completely without practical utility, they also can have negative effects on the nervous system, the physical body, and one’s brainpower, and destroy some of the body’s innate capabilities. Thus, those who practice [forms] appear to be knowledgeable, but when it comes to practical usage, they are especially incapable. The harmful aspects of such practices are numerous and I cannot fully describe them here; but they are too far removed from the functional and health maintenance principles of boxing, and not worth discussing.
The extreme example of such methods is the theory of the productive and destructive cycles of the Five Phases. In the heat of a fierce fight, how could one possibly have the free time to consider such theories, observe the opponent’s movements, think about them some more, and only then finally make a move against your opponent? It would be rare that such a one would not be defeated. I’m afraid that even a small child would have a problem completely believing the theories of production and destruction; who then believes them?
Since boxing techniques have no utility and many harmful aspects, why is there still no lack of people who teach and practice them? Generally, it is because among such people, the majority have only superficial knowledge and understanding, so they are attracted to strange and mystical things. Even if you inform them of the truth, it will be hard for them to understand; if they understand, it will be hard for them to put it into practice. Such practitioners collect boxing forms and techniques and use them to delight and impress others. Those who teach them are even more guilty of deceiving others with these forms and techniques; they especially collect them in order to take up [their students’] time and thus earn a living. They lack any fundamental understanding of what boxing really is, so they pass their misunderstandings and wrong notions on to others. There is no end in sight to this process; it is truly pitiful, saddening, and, most of all, frustrating!
I’ve trained xingyi with a lot of people that do the creative-destructive cycles in xingyi according to the five elements and never have I run into anyone that believed they would work without ingraining the motions into your body. So Wang’s rejection of the five element theory on the basis that you would have to “stop and think” is way off. If he didn’t understand his base art of xingyi, then what did he understand?
His objection to forms is equally off-base IMO. Forms simply don’t have the purpose this piece says they do.
I’ve always held Wang in high esteem and I’ve always looked forward to the day that I could study yiquan. I think it’s inductive, “bottom up” approach is innovative and unique among CMA. I’ve long admired it. But honestly what Wang has said here and his comments about taiji have caused me to question a lot of things about him and his art.
42 responses so far ↓
1 M. Reynolds // Apr 11, 2008 at 11:17 am
Damn. I didn’t realize they had Crack in Qing Dynasty China.
All I know about Yi Quan is that it was good enough for Wang Pei Sheng, it’s good enough for my master, and hopefully one day I’ll be able to get some of it.
2 Edward // Apr 11, 2008 at 11:30 am
Did Wang Peisheng practice yiquan?
3 Simon // Apr 11, 2008 at 12:13 pm
Why is Yi Quan such a golden goose these days? All the good stuff I see written about Yi Quan’s magical power is done by people who have already made progress in other Chinese internal arts. It’s like the guys who say Systema is the greatest system ever, after they’ve been practicing in the Bujinkan for 15 years.
4 B_Wutang // Apr 11, 2008 at 12:15 pm
This post reminds me that Sun Lu Tang supposedly mastered Hsing-i in a few months ! [Even a great martial artist would take multiple years to even be intermediate level - or am I missing something here ???} He visited a sick xingyi master, paid for a hotel room while the teacher got sicker and sicker, and “took care of him” right before he died and somehow convinced him to get the lineage and say he had master hsing-i! Some day, maybe I’ll write something like dark/Grimm fairy tales based on true martial arts history -
So Sun Lutang got to claim he was one of the first “masters” of tai chi, bagua, hsing-i but h got to test out of the hard work of actual practice.
I’m very skeptical of Wang and Yiquan after reading how he was in bed cross-training with the Liu He Ba Fa folks - which was created to strip the internal martial arts of its tradition and its ties to religion under the communists - - http://waterspirit6×8.tripod.com/id5.html.
5 wayne hansen // Apr 11, 2008 at 4:18 pm
i might be wrong but i think lui he ba fa is a lot older than communism.
what wang was doing is called repackaging,it is used in marketing all the time.
as for sun,if you had already mastered ba kua it would not be that hard to learn the theory and forms very quickly,and then take time to master them.
my own teacher can learn the most advanced things very quickly,he then takes a great deal of time to perfect them.
chen man ching was a great one for repakaging the yang system to a much simpler form.
his skill was not questioned.
yet i am not sure many of his followers were not able to reach the same heights.
my teacher recently told his current students that he did not see how they would outstrip him because not one of them was training as hard as he was.
6 Dave Chesser // Apr 11, 2008 at 4:55 pm
LHBF predates the CCP and is practiced here in Taiwan after Tao Ping-siang brought it over in 1949. Needless to say, it wasn’t invented by the CCP.
Nor did Sun learn xingyi in a matter of months. Those are just rumors.
7 Graham // Apr 11, 2008 at 5:47 pm
Dave,
Before you reject Wang completely it’s worth remembering the historical context he was writing in. In all his writing he’s highly critical of “rottern old traditions”.
Now, why could this be? Remember that he was writing and practicing martial arts up to and during the Cultural Revolution in China. That was not a good time to be a martial artist. Old traditions were being violently rejected. Traditional teachers (of anything) were sent off to labour camps where they were worked to death, or just plain publically executed.
In that climate it might be considered wise to reject the old traditions of everything.
I tend to look at his criticisms of martial arts in this light.
G
8 Graham // Apr 11, 2008 at 5:51 pm
“B_Wutang // Apr 11, 2008 at 12:15 pm
This post reminds me that Sun Lu Tang supposedly mastered Hsing-i in a few months ! ”
B_Wutang, that story you related about Sun LuTang learning from a sick master for a few months and mastering he art is about his training in Wu(Hao) Tai Chi, not his Hsing-I.
He studied Hsing-I and Bagua for many years, and it was supposedly this level of exertese that enabled him to pick up Tai Chi Chuan so quickly. He then modified the Wu (Hao) style he had learned and created the Sun Style Tai Chi.
Cheers,
G
9 B_Wutang // Apr 11, 2008 at 6:47 pm
“LHBF predates the CCP” -
I’ve read about how LHBF goes back thousands of years - but supposedly someone read a book and revived it - that is how it made its return after so many years! I don’t need to tell you how many people write books about martial arts styles they have not mastered yet, right? LHBF seems apocryphal.
I do not believe Sun Lutang could have mastered any internal style in matter of months. I am familiar with more than one high-level IMA master
and that is just plain silly.
10 JC // Apr 11, 2008 at 11:07 pm
I agree with Wang’s position on forms when that is all that is being taught. Competent teachers know that the form represents expression of perfect technique in an idealized environment, with modifications to hide information or exaggerate points as desired by the creator of the form. Wang correctly points out that teachers who only ever teach form without function are incorrect. This is analagous to modern day taichi certification courses where you learn the 24 count or the 48 count Yang form in a weekend so you can “teach” this mystic art in aerobics classes or old age homes.
As my teacher said to me, no fight ever is perfect. You take the information contained in the form and the posture and figure out ways to use it in combat that hold true to the principles of the art and of the posture but are alive and responsive to the situation. As a demonstration and as a way to showcase your art, forms have a utility. But to be taught that you must execute a takedown in all instances by using “Bear Shakes Butt in Woods” is a fallacy and one used only by teachers who do not have the full understanding of the art. Forms are easy - technique is hard, and application is even harder.
11 Dojo Rat // Apr 12, 2008 at 1:12 am
I don’t know, I’ve seen the Ryu Kyu Kenpo guys use the Five-Element stuff pretty effectively. I don’t think it’s that difficult to identify half a dozen meridian points and use two or three of them under a stressful altercation. Especially starting with arm release points against grabs or easy targets like the gallbladder point on the outside of the thigh.
12 Buddy // Apr 12, 2008 at 8:00 am
“chen man ching was a great one for repakaging the yang system to a much simpler form.
his skill was not questioned.”
I think you’d find some boxers (or wrestlers) on Taiwan in that day to disagree.
13 wayne hansen // Apr 12, 2008 at 8:50 am
it is not important if you disagree with someone when they are dead.
did they go for a visit when he was alive.
huang hsien hsen was the boxing champion of fujien provience and a competent hard stylist when he tested cheng.
14 Svet // Apr 12, 2008 at 9:04 am
What does it matter, the aim and essence is the same.
15 scott // Apr 12, 2008 at 9:19 am
Sometimes I think Master Wang was just mad because nobody put him in a Kung Fu Movie!
I don’t blame them, would you want to direct this guy?
Forms are a good place to start a person’s training. Later you can reject them if you don’t care about performing or ritual or tradition or teaching beginners.
Just for the record, he died before the Cultural Revolution in 1963 and I’m pretty sure those interviews are from before 1949.
His voice comes from a weird moment in history when Modernity tried to marry Nationalism. (Much death and destruction came to the reception.)
What would be really cool is if those guys from Body-Mind Kick-Ass would go and interview him.
16 Frank Bellemare // Apr 13, 2008 at 3:44 am
Please don’t imply Wang doesn’t understand xingyiquan because he derides your friend’s training.
Playing with ancient chinese philosophy like the wu xing or the book of changes can be an interesting intellectual exercice for xingyi and bagua practitionners, but it isn’t an absolute must for anyone seeking martial competence.
What’s in a name? Think about those doing related arts like xinyi, xinyiliuhequan or bapanzhang. Are they forever doomed to ignorance because they don’t use the 5 elements and 8 trigrams in their practice? Doubtful.
As far as forms go, they’re an important tool in a big toolbox, but they’re useless without the rest of the tools, which is what Wang is saying in his own brash little manner.
17 Dave Chesser // Apr 13, 2008 at 11:13 am
Frank,
Wang clearly didn’t understand xingyi because his objections to five element training are absurd.
“Playing with Chinese philosophy” is unfortunately how most people interested in fighting will see the issue. Too bad.
18 meow // Apr 13, 2008 at 11:49 am
nah, im interested in fighting and i just see holes in my opponents defense, and attack (does it really matter that i use splitting fist to counter my oponents bla bla bla? no, so long as the job gets done)
wangs basically saying form collectors cant fight, and that alot of m.a. guys dance, and dont know how to fight at all, “even if you inform them of the truth, it will be hard for them to understand”. How many of u guys on this forum fight? can anyone tell me why they stand in such and such a stance, how defensive and offensive positioning work (controlling openings and why etc), or do u just rely on what your teacher tells you to do, and practice forms?
19 tom // Apr 15, 2008 at 3:34 am
“What would be really cool is if those guys from Body-Mind Kick-Ass would go and interview him.”
Curious use of the present tense after you just noted that he died in 1963. ;- )
20 Tabby // Apr 15, 2008 at 6:01 am
> why is Yiquan such a gold goose these days
It’s because CIMA people are trying to salvage just a shred of a tiny baby of exotic mysticism from the murky bathwater of what hardcore materialists view as Taoist bullshit. Ironically Wang himself rejected supposed Taoist bullshit, but Yiquan itself is clung to cause the standing thing gives off just a bit of enough of that internal vibe to satisfy the craving for at least looking like a Taoist mountain master.
Irony is that Taoist energetics are nothing for a kickass fighter person to be redfaced about in the least, as proof I offer you Qian Zhaohong
http://cattanga.typepad.com/tabby_cat_gamespace/2008/04/qian-zhaohong.html
He’s as real world smackdown as they come yet will regale you with Taoist energetics til the sun comes down quite baldfaced without any slight trace of embarrassment.
21 Dave Chesser // Apr 15, 2008 at 9:09 am
“Irony is that Taoist energetics are nothing for a kickass fighter person to be redfaced about in the least, as proof I offer you Qian Zhaohong…He’s as real world smackdown as they come yet will regale you with Taoist energetics til the sun comes down quite baldfaced without any slight trace of embarrassment.”
Tabby,
Apparently no one wants to hear that unless it’s Tito Ortiz or whatever UFC flavor of the month saying it. Considering who they’ll accept (and not) as an authority, it’s pointless to try to establish a dialog. The first question that will be asked is what UFC champ did Qian defeat?
22 neijia // Apr 16, 2008 at 10:39 am
that is some cool cool stuff, irony notwithstanding.
presumably the yiquan folks do sanda for similar mma know your enemy and yourself reasons
23 movingtarget // Apr 19, 2008 at 8:31 pm
Reading this and the previous post on Wang Xiangzhai and the comments, I like to leave a reply. For the record: I’m a XY practitioner.
Although Wang speaks in clear words, Meow seems to be one of the few who understands. Wang’s insights are deep and have the authority of someone who has transcended the student level. I think he was a truly master. It’s difficult for most students to understand a master, especially when the student feels he has to defend himself or his practices and most certain if the student feels he has achieved something.
What do you mean with “Wang’s rejection of the five element theory”? Wang does not reject the XY’s basis of the 5 elements, but the theory of creation and destruction that was added later. This theory is academic in nature, explains nothing in practice and adds nothing to the mastering of the 5 elements.
Read the full interview here: http://taikiken.blogspot.com/2007/09/interview-with-wang-xiangzhai.html
Who of the readers can claim with authority:
“One should know that the original ‘Xingyi’ completely lacked the training method of the twelve forms, but the whole body was meant to express the essence of all these twelve forms. It did not have the theory of the mutual promotion and restraint of the five elements, there were just the five elements representing five kinds of forces. It did not have any fixed techniques, boxing routines or forms of movements either.”
And who will argue with what he says:
“This is the syncretism of the five elements. It has nothing to do with one technique overcoming another technique as the modern people claim. If one first sees with the eyes, then thinks of it again in the mind, and then launches the counter-attack towards the enemy, it is very seldom that one will not get beaten up.”
The use of forms Wang speaks about and the theory of creation and destruction of the 5 elements in particular reminds me of formal music theory, that has nothing to do with the art of making music. It’s academic. Everyone who puts this music theory literally in practice will sound static, not inspired and never creative. They can impress with their intricate arpeggios, fast scale movements, intelligent harmony changes and most importantly with their display of knowledge of theory (what they confuse with music), but never delight the soul. The basis of music are the individual notes and their harmonies; - they are like the 5 elements. In music (theory) you have fixed patterns and progressions: they are the equivalent of forms. All they do is string forms together and show it off as music but they have to leave the stage when a true musician appears who breaks all the rules of fixed patterns and take the minds of the listeners on a journey beyond their imagination. Sound familiair?
And yes, it is important to read Wang’s words in its historical context:
“The boxing arts of our nation are in a chaotic state, thus the people cannot know what course to take. Summed up, they have abandoned the quintessence and kept only the scum, nothing more. […] The people should be very ashamed of this. So we should clean up and carry forward the old knowledge.”
And who is to tell that the situation is now better than in Wang’s time? Would you disagree with me when I tell you that I must laugh when I hear all those recreation Taiji men and women revering their superiour fighting style and the feeling of flowing chi, parading in their shiny costumes and not even trying to disguise their unhealthy body postures and bellies? That I feel disgusted about the practice that someone who has learned Taiji for 1 or 2 years start a school and teach others. How many Taiji students can really defend themselves using Taiji? Where did Wang go beyond reason in his criticism? I think Wong Kiew Kit’s description is to the point: today’s Taiji in general is no fighting art anymore, but Taiji dance (and they even dance to music!). So in my view Wang’s words still stand.
Here speaks a man who was the best student of Guo Yunshen, a man who travelled for 30 years all over China to test his skills and learn from others. Who on this board can claim to have take his art this serious and far? Are you as open minded as he in regard of your own style, to the point that you are willing to see the misconduct of today’s practice and really do something about it?
And why do you feel offended when Wang criticise your precious Taiji? What do you have to defend? I think his words express real concern about this style and its practice:
‘So ruined is this boxing that it has become useless, this is really deplorable. I wish that the powerful members of this school would promptly and strictly clean it up, and attempt to develop it in the future.”
As I read it, he’s disgusted with what this style has become and makes a strong case to return it to the wondeful, efficient style it originally was:
“For the last twenty years, most people who have studied this boxing have not been able to differentiate right and wrong, even if someone has been able to differentiate them, he has not been capable of putting it into practice. As for common students, most of them use their ears instead of their eyes. ”
Are you one of those students that use their ears instead of their eyes, too blind to see the point he makes?
It is said that Guo Yunshen was nearly invincible but that he lost from his gongfu brother Che Yizhai. Che told Guo: “Technique can’t beat strength, strength can’t beat gong, gong can’t beat artistry, artistry can’t beat spiritual.” In my view that’s what Wang did: martial arts training should start with promoting health, tempering the spirit, building (internal) strength, learning techniques and finally put this in practice in a artistic way. And in my opinion Wang didn’t really invent a new style, but he gave the world a new (in fact the ancient and original) paradigm of training martial arts.
24 movingtarget // Apr 19, 2008 at 8:54 pm
excuses for the long post…
and sorry if I should have posted it in the other blog entry about Wang and Taiji….
25 wayne hansen // Apr 20, 2008 at 8:55 am
let us not set up wong kiew kit as an expert on tai chi.
his applications are obviously shaolin.
at the end of his book he states that shaolin is superior to tai chi.
with regard to the five elements ,they are not meant to stick to the wu hsing cycles exclusivly.
a more powerfull wood teq. will overcome a lesser one.
but let us not thow out the baby with the bathwater.
metal,water ,wood.down ,up, thru,what better three strike combo could you have.
defeating wood with metal perfect commonsence.
wang was the end product of a process,dont throw out the process,it works.
learn the process,chew the process,forget the process.
26 Joseph T. Oliva Arriola // Apr 20, 2008 at 11:29 am
“QUOTE: Who on this board can claim to have take his art this serious and far? Are you as open minded as he in regard of your own style, to the point that you are willing to see the misconduct of today’s practice and really do something about it?”
Me…and yes…
27 Dave Chesser // Apr 20, 2008 at 2:48 pm
moving target,
I don’t find your defense of Wang compelling.
28 meow // Apr 20, 2008 at 5:50 pm
“QUOTE: Who on this board can claim to have take his art this serious and far? Are you as open minded as he in regard of your own style, to the point that you are willing to see the misconduct of today’s practice and really do something about it?”
me, i worked 2 years to get the money for uni, then i studied sport science to understand biomechs more and to be able to train myself better (also serves as a useful career (overseas too), although somewhat cut short due to injuries (before uni i thought of joining the army as it is the natural progression for one who trains in martial art.)
29 meow // Apr 20, 2008 at 5:52 pm
still planning to train in taiwan or japan (koryu bujutsu arts, gendai budo are crap imo (although the over reliance of the koryu arts on weapons is a bummer)
30 meow // Apr 20, 2008 at 5:55 pm
wayne, u make it sound like its all theory, a combo is a combo, if your opponent sees it coming / defends against it, its useless, theres more to combat than that. learning the metal beating wood etc, is the same as blocking a punch with forarm, learned response, only prob is it goes out the window when u fight guys that arent xing yi fighters, or the pace is increased, reality tends to work in ways less than ideal.
31 Joseph T. Oliva Arriola // Apr 20, 2008 at 10:55 pm
Just remember, combat isn’t simply using one’s hands and legs. Combat to protect your family, to hunt to feed your family…means going out in the mean streets and “making a living”.
Give me the guy who puts a roof over his family’s head and food on their table…and I’ll show you a guy who is a “real man”.
Sincerely
Joseph T. Oliva Arriola
32 wayne hansen // Apr 21, 2008 at 6:45 am
meow
am i wrong in thinking you are quite young.
the point my opponent blocks my attack he is mine.
his counter is just the start of the exchange,why do you think a boxer has never beaten a wrestler.
the grapplers know this,tai chi is a refined grappling art,so are hsing i and ba kua.
that is the purpose of pushing hands to reengage after the initial counter.
why do you post on a chinese site when you state that you wish to study japanese arts.
as for joining the army,any person who wishes to train long term does not put their equipment in danger of permanent damage.
33 meow // Apr 21, 2008 at 9:42 am
nah im old, 21
i think you completely missed the point of my post (metal beating wood or an up down wateva combo isnt really that significant, its just one way of expressing combat truth.)
i post on a chinese site because im interested in combat, combat is the same regardless of what style or country its in. If you dont put your equipment in danger, youve never fought, and you wont have skill (and i cant think of a better place to learn ranged combat, and get paid)
34 meow // Apr 21, 2008 at 9:44 am
(also i said taiwan in the post above aswel, taiwan being where some hardcore chinese stylists can be found)
35 meow // Apr 21, 2008 at 9:45 am
is there a way to edit posts so that i dont have to add these smaller posts later?
36 Dave Chesser // Apr 21, 2008 at 10:04 am
No.
37 tom // Apr 21, 2008 at 11:30 pm
“No.”
;- ]
38 tom // Apr 21, 2008 at 11:35 pm
The point being, meow, that one ought to think before posting–and perhaps acquire some real-life experience too. You can’t edit a punch once you’ve thrown it. Life is like that.
39 meow // Apr 22, 2008 at 8:39 am
wtf? tom, instead of the ad hominem and condescending talk, show me how my posts are wrong..
40 meow // Apr 22, 2008 at 8:39 am
or just answer the q like dave did (ty dave)
41 tom // Apr 22, 2008 at 9:01 am
Well if you haven’t gotten the point yet, you probably . . .
42 Scott // Apr 25, 2008 at 4:23 am
I love Wang’s voice because he reminds me of my grandmother. She taught me that if you want to keep your mind flexible you have to be devoted to changing it. You do this by engaging with people who make outrageous claims.
It is even possible to do all this while being intimate, friendly, sincere and civil.
Leave a Comment