Liu He Ba Fa

[Xue Sheng]

The thing about East Wind's post is that he did not distinguish between the front foot from the back. The front foot definitely lands much earlier before the strike, but the back foot is almost simultaneous with the strike.

The back foot is planted/rooted/solid either slightly before or at the same instant of the actual strike. Otherwise you loose force and go backwards and Xingyi does not go backwards in this instance of attack (although Xingyi can attack going backwards). Just move forward and extend your arm to hit something and then hit it without that back foot being rooted and you will see you loose power.

Would you know of any Xing Yi videos that looks very representative of the step and could you post it if it exists? In some Xing Yi videos I've seen sometimes the back foot is even completely off the ground at the moment of striking.

I have already post Xingyi videos of Di Gouyong on MT doing 5 elements. If I can locate them I will post a link here.

I cannot speak for all styles of Xingyi. I have not seen or experieinced what you are talking about in Hebei 5 elements or the linking form. Nor have I seen it in the 12 animals form, but I have limited training in 12 animals so it is possible I suppose.

But I have only seen and trained Hebei style and some mixed but I do not believe I have ever seen Shanxi or Henan styles. But it is my understanding that Shanxi has lighter footwork than Hebei and Henan is more aggressive than Hebei, but I cannot tell you this from experience only what I have read about them.

 

[oxy]

The back foot is planted/rooted/solid either slightly before or at the same instant of the actual strike. Otherwise you loose force and go backwards and Xingyi does not go backwards in this instance of attack (although Xingyi can attack going backwards). Just move forward and extend your arm to hit something and then hit it without that back foot being rooted and you will see you loose power.

Exactly what I was talking about where our styles are similar. The back foot is very rooted. It's really difficult trying to describe mental images, but I'll try.

Think of the small period of time between when the back foot is off the ground to make a step and when it roots itself for the strike. Now, replace that moment with the turning of the back foot instead. So now, we basically have the same principle if we think about it further. The foot stops turning basically at the same moment a Xing Yi person would root their back foot. It's the same step, in principle. The back foot moves into position. Then the back foot roots itself just before the strike. The difference is how we move the back foot into position. Everything else is the same.

What you're describing and what I'm thinking of is really the same principle. It's just that it's hard to describe on both sides.

Nor have I seen it in the 12 animals form, but I have limited training in 12 animals so it is possible I suppose.

This is where it gets confusing. Which style's 12 animals are we talking about? Are we talking about the 12 animals of LHBF or Xing Yi or something else entirely? I've lost track

 

[oxy]

Continued:

The back foot is planted/rooted/solid either slightly before or at the same instant of the actual strike. Otherwise you loose force and go backwards and Xingyi does not go backwards in this instance of attack (although Xingyi can attack going backwards). Just move forward and extend your arm to hit something and then hit it without that back foot being rooted and you will see you loose power.

Also, out of curiosity for my learning - in Xing Yi, do you also try to minimize the time between the front foot and the back foot rooting? I can only assume you would.

 

[Xue Sheng]

This is where it gets confusing. Which style's 12 animals are we talking about? Are we talking about the 12 animals of LHBF or Xing Yi or something else entirely? I've lost track

Hebei style Xingyi 12 animals.

You know oxy, I watched the videos again that I previously posted of Di Guoyong and the Xingyi Demo I just post here and this prompted me to go into the stairway of my office and actually see for myself by trying piquan on a wall or two (luckily there was no one around or I would have something else to add to the most embarrassing place caught training post) and I have to say I think you are right about the back foot.

It has been month or so since I trained the Xingyi form for various reasons but I recently have decided I needed to go back to the root I have just been training santi for the last month or so. But I believe the power comes off of what is at the beginning the front foot and ends up the back foot. But the now back foot hits the ground at almost the instant of the strike or just slightly before and that does actually add to the power of the strike in piquan, it adds to that freight train effect. It may appear on film that the foot is behind the strike but it is actually not, it is just incredibly close in timing. I had not thought about it at this level of detail before, thank you for getting my brain to work.

Di Guoyong - 5 elements

Di Guoyong - Xingyi Linking fist (slow and fast motion)

Xingy Demos
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B1MiOZz4f4Y&mode=related&search=

Continued:

Also, out of curiosity for my learning - in Xing Yi, do you also try to minimize the time between the front foot and the back foot rooting? I can only assume you would.

Yes, but I have to say my training is only 2.5 years all together in Xingyi with a few breaks in between sifus, so I would not consider myself an expert on the topic. The lion’s share of my CMA comes from Tai Chi (3 years various styles 12 years Yang Style) and I am currently on a bit of a self-imposed hiatus from internal styles except for Xingyi santi training. I am mainly training non-sport Sanda at the moment. But I believe I will start working on my Xingyi 5 elements again, maybe this evening.

 

[oxy]

As promised, here is a video of me doing LHBF. It's more of a trial to weed out camera problems but it's somewhat close to how I normally do the form.

See my feet turn!

 

[arnisador]

Thanks for sharing that! I am strongly reminded of Tai Chi.

 

[East Winds]

Oxy,

Sorry!! All I saw was upper body movement , no rooting, hence the foot movement!!

Best wishes

 

[Xue Sheng]

I see a similarities to Tai Chi but I have to agree with East Winds I do not see the rooting, at least not off of the back foot. I also do not see the similarity to the Xingyi step. You got me doing Xingyi stepping since I last posted and Xingyi roots of the front and then the back follows and roots which gives a lot of power to strikes.

I do see what appears to be rooting on the front foot however which is very similar to the Cheng Manching style I did briefly. I personally could never get it to work for power but my Sifu and his Sifu sure as heck could.

Nice form though, thanks for posting it.

 

[oxy]

Oxy,

Sorry!! All I saw was upper body movement , no rooting, hence the foot movement!!

Best wishes

It would help if you could tell me what "rooting" is supposed to look like from the Taiji perspective.

Better yet, maybe you can find some time to post a video of yourself doing the form. There's too many different ways of doing LHBF out there already.

I still suspect that it's a difference of philosophy. I also suspect that you don't seem to be able to discern that foot turning is required to transition from bow stance to 4/6 stance (since the angle of their back foot must be different to get maximum power).

 

[oxy]

I see a similarities to Tai Chi but I have to agree with East Winds I do not see the rooting, at least not off of the back foot.

Like I said to East Winds, perhaps I need video to understand exactly how rooting from the Taiji perspective is supposed to look like. Maybe even an exact description and explanation specific to the video would help more as well. Maybe even a few pictures with annotations in the picture.

I also do not see the similarity to the Xingyi step. You got me doing Xingyi stepping since I last posted and Xingyi roots of the front and then the back follows and roots which gives a lot of power to strikes.

I think you may have not exactly understood what I was getting to. I asked you before in a previous post to think about the similarity between the foot turning and the Xingyi step. Of course you're not going to see anything that superficially looks like the step.

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

The thing is, as I have pointed out before, there are philosophical differences between Taiji and LHBF.

If the final verdict is that my LHBF has no rooting, than so be it. LHBF's power, at least from its philosophy, does not come from rooting of a fixed stance but rather from the transition.

Chan Yik Yan himself wrote an LHBF book (supposed to be for his students but none would take it up) which has a passage which specifically states that: it's not the stance that's important, it's the transition between stances. Rooting seems like placing too much emphasis on the stance rather than the transition.

Also, what was not discussed in length in this thread is whether or not the goals of "rooting" can be achieved through other means. In LHBF, I would say that the goals of "rooting" is fully achieved through the LHBF philosophy of "start together, stop together".

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

I didn't want to say anything before I posted the video, but now I will.

I have seen many Taiji videos. I still can't understand which part of what I see can be termed "rooting". I have an idea, though, and if I'm right about what is "rooting, then I must say that anyone who does a Taiji style rooting for LHBF is definitely doing it wrong.

There are many parts of Choi Wai Lun's video that sticks out like a sore thumb (the reason for which could be the floor or could be actual flaws), but the lack of supposed rooting is not one of them.

Taiji rooting (assuming what I recognise in the video is "rooting") definitely breaks the LHBF philosophy of "start together, stop together".

 

[Xue Sheng]

oxy

First I am more than happy to admit I have not got the fainest clue about Liu He Ba Fa, I do not train it. I do train Tai Chi and I have trained Xingyi and even a little Bagua. I have seen various style with many different stances. I am not saying anything against LHBF or your form. I am saying that from a Tai Chi point of view it does not root the same. And I did understand what you were getting at with Xingyi and I do not see the similarity there either, there is no similar foot turn, sorry.

But this is not saying that LHBF is not good or lacking anything. It is saying that I do not understand LHBF and that I do have a pretty good understanding of Tai Chi and a little understanding of Xingyi.

Different styles have differnt approaches that is all. Let me put it this way, my Yang style sifu once said of "Chen style it is to low". A member of the Chen family I talked to said "Yang style is to high". Neither new what the other had said. Does that make one better or worse than the other? Or did that make me stop training Yang or want to not train Chen? No to both.

It may simply be a very similar thing

Tai Chi says LHBF does not root

LHBF says Tai Chi roots to much.

That is all it is.

I am guessing if I asked my YAng Sifu what he thought about Xingyi he would say it is to hard. And if I were able to ask the Xingyi Sifu I saw in China what he thought about Tai Chi he might say its to soft. What differeance does it make.

And just for the record I also said "Nice form"

My best
XS

 

[oxy]

I am not saying anything against LHBF or your form. I am saying that from a Tai Chi point of view it does not root the same. And I did understand what you were getting at with Xingyi and I do not see the similarity there either, there is no similar foot turn, sorry.

But this is not saying that LHBF is not good or lacking anything. It is saying that I do not understand LHBF and that I do have a pretty good understanding of Tai Chi and a little understanding of Xingyi.

I don't and have never thought that you were saying anything about LHBF. I assure you, I understand where you're coming from. This thread is all about discussing LHBF, right? So all I'm trying to do is explain my side of things and get people to explain their side. Of course anything that comes up will appear as if one side views the opinions expressed as criticism, but they're not.

And I did understand what you were getting at with Xingyi and I do not see the similarity there either, there is no similar foot turn, sorry

I don't know exactly how you are looking for similarity. If you're looking for similar appearance, then you won't find it. But if you "look" for similarities with regards to power generation, they're much more similar. That is, you would probably need to try it out and compare the feeling in your leg muscles.

Basically, try this. If you watch the video again, mentally replace every foot turn with a Xingyi step. You will find that, from an applications point of view, the Xingyi step can be substituted into LHBF. I myself have watched the Xingyi videos you posted and I can say I have tried to substitute in foot turning instead of the step and I can still get the same amount of power.

Maybe I'll try to post a video of the Coiled (or Straight) Dragon form with both types of steps.

Different styles have differnt approaches that is all. Let me put it this way, my Yang style sifu once said of "Chen style it is to low". A member of the Chen family I talked to said "Yang style is to high". Neither new what the other had said. Does that make one better or worse than the other? Or did that make me stop training Yang or want to not train Chen? No to both.

Trust me, I understand that you were not saying anything about which is better. But I do want to learn something out of this. I do it by asking questions. In this thread, I'm also doing it by explaining my side and how it compares to Taiji (but only when it actually comes up).

For example, previously, I have stated that Taiji rooting might negate the "start together, stop together" philosophy of LHBF. That post did not mean that LHBF is better than Taiji or that I viewed the observation that I lacked rooting as being critical. It had more to do with explaining why Taiji style rooting is not immediately transferrable to LHBF. It was also more to do with addressing East Wind's opinion that LHBF should have Taiji rooting. But in no way am I interested in saying which style is better. I'm only interested in compare and contrast.

Tai Chi says LHBF does not root

LHBF says Tai Chi roots to much.

That is all it is.

I am guessing if I asked my YAng Sifu what he thought about Xingyi he would say it is to hard. And if I were able to ask the Xingyi Sifu I saw in China what he thought about Tai Chi he might say its to soft. What differeance does it make.

You are right about that. And that's all I'm trying to treat it as. I'm just trying to explain my side of things, given that this is an LHBF discussion thread.

And just for the record I also said "Nice form"

My best
XS

I heard ya.

I hate to sound like a broken record, but I still do not see the opinions you have forwarded as being critical of anything, LHBF or my video. Compare and contrast. Explaining my side of things. Blah blah blah. You get the idea.

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

Anyway, personally, the only thing I find worth looking for in Liu He Ba Fa videos indeed is the amount of synchronisation between all parts of the body. Or, you would call it the "freight train effect". Although in LHBF it's omnidirectional for much of the form I don't know about Xingyi. I'd be interested to hear if you see good synchronisation between all parts of the body and such. Remember, I ask because I want to learn and improve. Don't get put off by my apparent "forwardness", if you can.

 

[Xue Sheng]

I'm not put off and I'm not angry, I am also just trying to learn.

 

[oxy]

Of the LHBF clips , the most technically correct (if the least aesthetically pleasing) is the clip of Paul Dillon. Solidly rooted, feet planted at the end of each posture.

The interesting thing is that I've finally paid attention to that video for once. Your recognition of it being the least aesthetically pleasing (with which I agree) was part of the reason I never looked at it seriously.

One thing I noticed.

Not only does Paul Dillon turn his feet, but he does so in such an unstructured way.

He actually turned his feet where there was no need to turn and his feet do not turn consistently where there is a need for it. His feet turns are almost completely incidental. Several times, I saw his back foot's ankle lift off the ground where it's not supposed to be in the form. One thing that stuck out was in one instance, his front foot turned, again in a place in the form where there was no need.

In LHBF, the foot turns are supposed to generate power. Basically, Paul's foot turns (they are present) do not appear to coincide with any part of the form where the action was supposed to generate power.

Solidly rooted, feet planted at the end of each posture.

I think this part of your assessment needs special mention.

The basic thing is: there should be no "end of each posture". Yes, you are supposed to perform each posture properly and to its fullest, but there should be minimal perceptible "end".

If you are consistent with your own assessment when you looked at Choi's or my video, then I must say that you probably did not see rooting because you were looking for the "end of each posture". While I'm still undecided as to the importance of Taiji style rooting in LHBF, I'm more decided on the fact that the whole form should be one smooth ride from the beginning to the end.

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

There is also no way to convince anyone that this post is not "sour grapes". So think what you want.

 

[Xue Sheng]

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.

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

Tung Yingchieh (1898-1961) - sorry about the quality here, its an old film
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7040453155631206049&q=Tung+Ying+chieh&hl=en

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

 

[oxy]

Thank you very much.

Unfortunately, I won't be able to view them for another few hours because The Ashes are about to start and my internet speed got capped as well.

 

[East Winds]

Oxy,

At least we agree on one thing. I do not expect to see a stop at the end of each posture and I agree that once the form starts, there should be no stopping until the end. However there is a process called "stopping without stopping" . If postures merely meld into one another, blurring one form into the next, then it is dance. The stopping without stopping clearly delineates one posture from another so that you can see the end of one and the beginning of the next. Watch again the Chen Zhenlei clip and you can see this process quite clearly.

Paul Dillon moves his feet during posture transitions and is rooted at the point of application delivery, be that a strike or a Chin Na lock. And that is as it should be.

Let me quote Kumar Frantzis on rooting "The technique of sinking body energy and rooting into the earth. It is difficult to physically move a martial artist who has mastered rooting. In the internal martial arts, rooting gives a practitioner tremendous power". One of my teachers used to quote the Chinese epithet " A tree with a weak root will soon be blown over"

I am afraid that we may never agree about this and that is OK. So long as you and your students are happy with what you are teaching, then no one can argue with that.

Very best wishes

 

[oxy]

If postures merely meld into one another, blurring one form into the next, then it is dance.

No one's talking about blurring. Don't know why you brought it up.

Paul Dillon moves his feet during posture transitions and is rooted at the point of application delivery, be that a strike or a Chin Na lock. And that is as it should be.

That's what I was talking about. Paul doesn't JUST move his feet during posture transitions. There was movement where there didn't need to be. His back heel lifted off the ground at various times - at the wrong times. He even turned his back foot on his heel.

In our LHBF, I would say we are also "rooted" at the point of application delivery. It's just that, because that's also the point we move onto the next posture, you don't see it distinctly. And maybe your idea of where that "point of application delivery" is different from ours. I would say wrong as well, which I will explain later.

I don't see the point of drawing out the rooting at the point of application delivery, at least in LHBF.

Also, maybe your idea of where each "posture" is in LHBF is not the same as ours. Our change in "posture" can be as small as changing the stance from bow to 4/6. If you look at my video closely, you see that correlation with foot turning.

Also, LHBF philosophy places more emphasis on the change of posture. Application delivery should actually happen more on posture changes than at the end of each posture. Scientifically, change in velocity means acceleration. Only with acceleration can you have force. If you are applying anything at the END of each posture where there is negligible change, then you are not getting any useful force.

Let me quote Kumar Frantzis on rooting "The technique of sinking body energy and rooting into the earth. It is difficult to physically move a martial artist who has mastered rooting. In the internal martial arts, rooting gives a practitioner tremendous power". One of my teachers used to quote the Chinese epithet " A tree with a weak root will soon be blown over"

Fine. Rooting is important. Although "argument by quote" hardly does anything for me.

But you have concluded without evidence other than "because you were taught this way" that LHBF must root like Taiji. That's simply not the case. If your LHBF teacher used Taiji rooting in LHBF, then I'm afraid he wasn't teaching you LHBF.

Your quote does not say that rooting should be carried out exactly the same way across all internal arts either. From where I'm sitting, it seems like you're judging whether someone is rooted purely on whether or not their foot is stationary. For you, it seems like a foregone conclusion that there is no way to incorporate rooting and foot-turning into one. I'm here to tell you it can. And we have. And it is essential to LHBF.

I am afraid that we may never agree about this and that is OK. So long as you and your students are happy with what you are teaching, then no one can argue with that.

The thing is, I show them BOTH the feet turning versions and non-turning versions of each posture and all of them agree that the feet turning provides more power. I try each posture on them and I let them try it on me. Their recognition of the fact is clear. From where I sit, it seems you are only reading and not trying it out for yourself. That doesn't help anyone.

I have tried not turning my foot. The power is not as tremendous.

Again, I invite you to post video of yourself so I can see what you are trying to say clearer.

Watch again the Chen Zhenlei clip and you can see this process quite clearly.

What I saw in the video is that during the transition from a 4/6 stance to a bow stance, his back feet didn't turn, which resulted in his body being side-on to the direction of the force. In LHBF, the torso should be directly facing the direction of the force. This is the reason for the need of foot turning. Different philosophies lead to different movements.

Another thing I saw. In the first stance change where he moves onto the right foot, it didn't seem to be driven by a push off the left foot. Maybe it's a different philosophy in Taiji, but in LHBF, all stance changes are foot driven.


The next thing I saw is the single whip. His front foot is on the ground. Then he spends quite some time to actually get the "whip" out. I say this to contrast LHBF philosophy. In LHBF, we would have the foot plant and the "whip" happen at almost the same time. We would also have our torso facing the right of screen.

The next thing I saw after that happened at around 1:50 into the video (it looks like he was doing the first "brush knee" of the form). His back foot TURNED. And on his toes. Where the back foot turns is a different philosophy I would reckon. But by your assertions, his back foot shouldn't have turned. And it was there.

At 2:19 where he was throwing the first punch. His back foot turned AGAIN just before the actual punch. Not good in LHBF books.

Overall, his lower body moves well, but I would say it is exactly the style of rooting that causes his upper body to be disconnected from the lower body. Basically, his arms are moving solely by themselves. Not allowed in LHBF.

Overall, where his foot turns, conversely in LHBF, we would have those areas as "application delivery" as well. Which would mean we turn the back foot on its toes.

 

[oxy]

Right now, I'm watching England vs Australia in the Ashes. I'm guessing it's the same for baseball.

That is, the front foot lands JUST before the bat is swung. That gives a lot of power for little energy and a lot more power than standing in one stance and swinging the arms.

In baseball, the pitcher's front foot lands JUST before the ball is thrown.

That is the philosophy of LHBF.

I cannot say for sure that it is better than Taiji. But it fits in well with LHBF of "start together stop together".

 

[Rook]

Right now, I'm watching England vs Australia in the Ashes. I'm guessing it's the same for baseball.

That is, the front foot lands JUST before the bat is swung. That gives a lot of power for little energy and a lot more power than standing in one stance and swinging the arms.

In baseball, the pitcher's front foot lands JUST before the ball is thrown.

That is the philosophy of LHBF.

I cannot say for sure that it is better than Taiji. But it fits in well with LHBF of "start together stop together".

I think thats what XS was saying about Xingyi.