Obviously, Liokault would smash his face in, but other than that, watching this made me virtually cry, to think of the level of so called 'bagua' teachers we get in this country, compared to the real stuff like this: [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ks_6h8lKdok"]YouTube - Yinyang Baguazhang - 8 footworks ; ç”°æ°é˜´é˜³å…«å¦æŽŒ — å…«æ¥[/ame]
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_JFmMwrYDNA&feature=related"]YouTube - Yinyang Baguazhang - Monkey Style ; ç”°æ°é˜´é˜³å…«å¦æŽŒ — 猴形掌[/ame] [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xsa6H99iLkM&feature=related"]YouTube - Yinyang Baguazhang - Lion Style ; ç”°æ°é˜´é˜³å…«å¦æŽŒ — 狮形掌[/ame] [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MJJ74ba8Cyo&feature=related"]YouTube - Yinyang Baguazhang - Bear Style ; ç”°æ°é˜´é˜³å…«å¦æŽŒ — 熊形掌[/ame] [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qJUMdcuEeJ4&feature=related"]YouTube - Yinyang Baguazhang - Python Style ; ç”°æ°é˜´é˜³å…«å¦æŽŒ — 蟒形掌[/ame] [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4gW4s_ZTpk&feature=related"]YouTube - Yinyang Baguazhang - Eagle St ; ç”°æ°é˜´é˜³å…«å¦æŽŒ — é¹å½¢æŽŒ[/ame] Many more on utube.
Watching it made me virtually cry too. His movements are pretty, ala modern wu shu..... But Ba Gua? Not so much.
fq and old_palden, you are at polar opposite points here, one saying how wonderfull it is, and one saying how non-Bagua it is. OK, from the perspective of what stands out, as an example good or bad or indeed otherwise, relative to these vids or anything else, to identify qualities of Bagua? - whether it be located in the PRC, western countries or otherwise? i.e. what are the characteristics of Bagua to look for? Given the general fud-factor with TCC - which seems to be pretty high - which in turn muddies the good along into the bad; Bagua (which is undeniably an evolved concept of martially aware movement - and other things - I just make a general observation) seems to be much more difficult to get a clearer picture of. Do you folk have exposure and/or experience of Bagua, in the PRC, UK, US or anywhere else; good, bad or otherwise? Myself, I have made enquiries into UK Bagua and it does seem to be somewhat void of realistic possibilities, though I am open to persuasion.
Old Palden's opinon is irrelevant - his 'expert' ness was killed off the day he started promoting, as real, stuff like this: [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mMjOYnj668A&feature=related"]YouTube - Bruce Frantzis Fa Jin 2[/ame] Which every serious martial artist in the world knows is fraud. Actually, the these videos are of Master Tian, the tenth generation inheritor of the famous Tian family. Which, also, shows you just how much Old Palden does, or more accurately, doesn't know. I would say that is, without doubt, the highest level traditional Chinese martial arts I've ever seen - and I have seen a lot. As for 'wushu' - it's a meaningless statement. At the highest level, traditional masters achieve the perfect fluidity that characterizes true wushu, traditional or modern - it's only the folks who sold their souls to mediocrity who continually insist that being mediocre - or worse, blatantly fradulant, like Frantzis, is actually skill.
ok, well what is it about Master Tian's movement expressed in Bagua that makes it 'the highest level traditional Chinese martial arts'? - unfortunately your naked opinion is not quite what I am asking for - though I appreciate your response, and at least from a superficial observation (because I have absolutely no credible exposure), Master Tian's vids do seem to express a lot of very fluid movement which I can see being usefull in a martial context. Is Tian Bagua practised credibly inside PRC and/or outside? As for Mr. Frantzis, I heard good, bad and indifferent. The vid is not his best, there are others where he 'looks' a lot better - so its not a fair comparison. Sticking to bagua - and avoiding discussion about wushu - which I think is a different but related discussion, my non-professional perception of Bagua is that in general, movement is not so much the key, rather mobility and spacial awareness. However, I fully anticipate that timing, subtlety of speed change and evasion and other qualities all feed into the pie. Fundamentally, what I am getting at is, how do 'good' Bagua folk harness these qualities into their training?
The gentleman in the video moves in a lovely fashion, as do many highly trained, modern Wu Shu players. His Tai Chi background is also obvious in his movements, but... again his Tai Chi qualities are more related to modern Wu Shu than classical Tai Chi. Further, Ba Gua is not Tai Chi, and its movements and the energy that drives them are different than Tai Chi. (That is, they are when done correctly.) Finally, his movements are filled with sharply delineated stops and starts, violating Ba Gua's basic principle of flowing smoothly through changes. All movements in classical Ba Gua are driven by the foundational stepping whether practiced in a straight line or a circle, and that connection is not on display in these clips. His heel-toe method of walking is also a dilution of classical monastic or martial circle walking principles, although many modern schools have abandoned the toe first stepping that constitutes Ba Gua mud walking. Further, his Bai Bu (inside foot stepping) is distorted (turned outward from his own center), which undercuts a number of basic Ba Gua principles. I'm sure he does well in forms competitions, and he may even have some ability to defend himself, but his Ba Gua is mostly sizzle and not much steak. Fire Quan loves to insult Bruce Frantzis, if for no other reason to annoy me, and the clip he posts is a fa jin demonstration, and is not presented as a non compliant self defense app. As I've stated on another thread, Fire Quan insulting Bruce Frantzis is like a gnat insulting a dragon, laughable at first, and then just sad. [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D4u5zN69nBQ"]YouTube - Bruce Frantzis Ba Gua Fighting Applications[/ame] .
This vid does demonstrate Mr Frantzis using Bagua in a convincing applied manner. So I can summarise so far 2 aspects of Bagua to look for 1)good movement - though this seems to be open to interpretation somewhat as to what 'good' is and 2) applicability - but these are attributes of pretty much any MA internal or external, nothing specific to Bagua.
Is this consistent for all/many/some interpretations of Bagua? Have some in the Bagua community tacked on bits and pieces of other training/influences (wushu or otherwise) into their practise honestly/dishonestly?
Clearly it's not consistent for all interpretations of Ba Gua, just the ones that remain true to the principles of internal connection that comprise the foundation of the art. As with all styles, many in the community have tacked on bits and pieces both honestly and dishonestly. It's like Tae Kwon Do schools teaching nunchaku forms and techniques, and the masses who consider weapons training to be part of Karate, even though Karate translates as "empty hand". .
Well with nejia/internal arts originating from China, there seems to be more opportunity to 'hide' behind the great wall of hipocrisy/politics/confusion/esoteric twaddle, or plain old fud factor - which has definately migrated its way into western thinking as well i.e. anything other than 'get to the point.' Personally, I dont see a problem for tacking bits and pieces on - it all boils down to the sincerity that it is done in and the motives behind the action, with a result in 'how usefully do these differing aspects join together'? I have seen very good and very bad x-training. In the FMA world, there is rampant theft/borrowing from other styles/influences - but no-one even pretends that this is not going on - everyone is honest about it (though some in the FMA forums might disagree.) So what is 'the foundation of the art' for Bagua? i.e. what is Bagua in essence? Cloudz did a good piece on this a while back.
IIRC "karate" was originally written in a way that meant "Chinese hand", and was later changed to "empty hand" for political reasons.
Absolutely right on the first point. TKD contains no weapons training and was never intended to. IMO absolutely wrong on the second point. As mentioned by SpinMaster the original translation of karate was not empty hand so Okinawan schools of karate at least have a claim to teach weapons. I'm not a karateka however so stand to be corrected I also don't think the video shows "Bagua Fighting". I'm watching with the sound off to avoid waking my kids so forgive me if I'm talking nonsense, but it looks like a choreographed drill performed from an unrealistic distance against a compliant opponent. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that as a demonstration of principles or techinque, and I thought it was quite interesting in some ways, but it isn't fighting. Mitch
Yes, we can dither about semantics, debate whether it was Tang Hand, Chinese Hand or empty hand, but empty is the current, common translation. My comment was to make a succinct point in a common tongue. Please forgive my broad strokes. As to the video: It was an unrehearsed demonstration that Mr. Frantzis did at the request of tournament promoters who hosted his presence at their event. His partner was the overall tournament champion. It was not a competitive match. It was not a street fight. It was a demonstration. I'm not proselytizing, claiming mastery, seeking contention or trying to convince anyone of anything. Only sharing information. .
I know what you mean about broad strokes, but I do feel it's more important than just semantics. Karate traditionally includes weapons training (again AFAIK, someone may correct me). The masses that consider that karate includes such things are correct, people in the community have not tacked things on, honestly or not Mitch
quick note: weapon training in karate stems from kobudo, which is okinawan weapons, and is a sister art of karate, so to speak. adding weapons to karate is like adding tam tui to northern shaolin, or teaching bits of baji to a pigua student or vice versa, they're just two related practices that can be trained separately, or one partly ingrained into the other
@old palden: It's important to argue semantics here, because you claimed earlier that karate weapons practitioners are fakes, because karate translates to "empty hand". Mitch and I pointed out that "empty hand" was not the original name/translation, and therefore your designation of weapons in karate as fakes is flawed. Now you can admit that your premise was flawed, or you can attempt to dismiss my point as "arguing semantics" in order to try to get around the fact that you made a very serious statement and called several people frauds without a valid reason.
My statement/premise was flawed/false. I should have stopped with the TaeKwonDo/nunchaku reference instead of trying to reinforce it with empty hand/weapons. How's that? .
