I have a question that I'm not sure where to post, so forgive me if its in the wrong spot. I am trying to find info about a Chinese man named Tong Gee Hsing, who was a Xing Yi practitioner in the 1940s. He may have been involved with the KMT and helped the Americans in WW2. He is supposedly from the Sun Lu Tang line. He also supposedly trained with the Okinawan martial artist Choki Motobu in Kume Mura, Okinawa. He reportedly moved to Taiwan after WW2 and died there in 1955.

Hsing's name is also spelled T'ung Gee Tsing, and Dong Ji Xing.

Any info or ideas of where I could find info would be much appreciated. Thank you.

Cy

Ask much as I am willing to help, I can't decipher who you are talking about. Is it possible for you to give the chinese characters ?

Has anyone out there heard of a man by the name of Sal Canzonieri? Well, I've chatted with him a bit and it seems he is well known for his independent research into the history of Xingyi. One theory by him is that Xingyi was derived from Chuojiaofanzi boxing. Click HERE! to read his entire post on this matter from the Kung Fu Magazine Forum. Jarek claims that some martial researchers note strong similarities between Chuojiaofanzi and Xingyi. He goes on to say that Chuojiaofanzi is derived from Wen family boxing (See HERE!). Sal states Wen family boxing is derived from Taizu Chang boxing of Song Emperor Taizu (927-976 CE). This was a popular style at the time.

I agree with his assertion since Chuojiao, Fanzi, and Elephant boxing (parent style of Eagle Claw) where the three main styles taught to Yue Fei by the Shaolin Monk Zhou Tong. You can read more about this on my wikipedia article about Master Zhou Tong. I've read from this forum that people take wikipedia articles with a grain of salt. I AGREE!!! However, I've consulted many sources to write it. And despite its length, the article is A LOT smaller than it could be. Many people actually get the “Shaolin monk” Zhou Tong mixed up with the “Water Margin Bandit” Zhou Tong. These are too different people!!!

Why wouldn’t Yue Fei teach the three styles he specialized in to his troops? It makes no since. Plus, I believe that he might have taught them a “compacted” or “abridged” version of these styles, mainly because of time constraints. His troops were constantly on the move and many men joined his army to see battle the very next day, so simplicity was the key. These men would not have been afforded the time to master each individual style. I once read an article about how Xingyi was taught to the Chinese infantry during WWII. The article mentioned how the soldiers were taught a compacted version of Xingyi because of a two month time limit. The training focused on the "Five Fist" forms, which were transferable to bayonet and sword techniques. The 12 "Animal Shapes" were not taught at all. The article went on to say how Western powers tended to rely too much on superior weaponry so their forms of hand-to-hand combat were weak. It cited a study of 1,000 Vietnam soldiers who reacted, in a life threatening situation, completely different than their training. It turns out their training was so unnecessarily complex that they either forgot or paused to remember their next move. Complexity leads to hesitation and this can lead to death, whereas simplicity leads to more "instinctual" reactions and overall survival on the battlefield. I can speak from experience on this as I once served in the U.S. Army 82nd Airborne Division. When I was overseas, I ran into a few situations where I forgot my army training and resorted to the simple Qinna Joint-locking techniques I had learned as a young teenager.

Sal believes Yue Fei’s soldiers continued to practice Chuojiaofanzi and their descendents, eventually mixing in techniques of their own, molded the art into what’s known as “Yue Family boxing”. He thinks that it is this style that might have influenced the creation of Liu he xinyi or Ji Family Xinyi (depending on which lineage or tale you want to believe). Before hearing about Sal from a Chuojiao master in Canada, I had come to the same conclusions in doing my own research. I personally DO NOT feel that Yue Fei created Xingyi! However, I feel that he might have contributed to its “evolution”.

Martial arts can be likened to language. As a language spreads, it changes when it comes into contact with new cultures. An "accent" is picked up here, a word is replaced by a "local one" there. And eventually, you've got a completely new language. However, this new language still possesses characteristics of their parent form. (I would love to take credit for this analogy, but it was borrowed from an acquaintance of mine. I just added a little of my own flavor to it.) So, It could be that Xingyi traces its roots all the way back to Emperor Taizu and his “Long Boxing” style.

Oh, before I forget, if you haven’t read it on the Zhou Tong page, Zhou Tong died when Yue fei was 16 (this is of course not a definitive answer as very VERY little is writtern about his personal life!!!)

I know this might be old knews, but did you guys know that Zhou Tong was not Yue Fei’s only martial arts teacher? The other man, WHO ACTUALLY TAUGHT YUE FEI HIS “SPEAR SKILLS”, was named Chen Guang (陈广). He was hired by Yue Fei's maternal grandfather, Yao Daweng (姚大翁), when the boy reached the Ji Guan (及冠) or "Conferring Hat" period of his life. This was an "adulthood" ceremony held for young man ages 15-20. (Thanks to General Zhaoyin for his help in my research of this stuff!!!)

It is truely exciting to have a member who does their homework in MA history. I commend you for not just buying into the CMA myths.

Anyway, as for whether Chuojiao Fanziquan influenced the development of Xinyi Luhequan, I consider the theory to be possible, but highly unlikely. For a number of reasons. Firstly, Ji Longfeng himself made no references to this system whatsoever. In a culture where self-crediting is frowned upon, one would think he would credit a parent system. But he didn't. Rather he went back to the magic box story.

If Zhou Tong was a Shaolin Monk, his name really doesn't sound like it. All monks has a Fahau, or a buddhist name and upon them beocming a monk, the stop using their 'earthly' names.

Again, if Zhou Tong was a Shaolin Monk, geographically there will be a problem. Mianly being that Shaolin is located in the north and Yue Fei was in the south. Still this can easily be explained by "wondering monks" so this is merely a point to consider rather than any strong evidence.

Zhou Tong was never mentioned in actual history, just the novel.

The technical level is where my main doubts comes in. Both the principles behind the systems as well as the actual techniques of Xinyi Luhemen and Fanzimen are way too different for me to legitimately consider them to be significantly related. One of the primary signitures of Fanziquan are their retating and continuous attacks. Those are few and far between for Xinyi Luhemen. Could the centuries between the Song dynasty and the Ming dynasty was was when Xinyi Luhemen emerged account for that much change in a system ? Sure. But thats really pushing it don't you think ?

Which novel are you referring to? "History of Song - Biography of Yuefei《宋史•岳飞传》 or the one by Qian Cai, which was translated into English by Honorable Sir T.L. Yang? I’m sure there are other versions out there as well. I’ve personally talked with Sir T.L. Yang on the phone and he said he knew even less about Zhou Tong than I did and not to trust Qian Cai’s version for historical data. But I already knew that. Sir Yang is a very nice chap!



From what I’ve read, Zhou Tong was from Shaanxi and Yue Fei was from Henan. If you go by the wuxia novel by Qian Cai, Zhou Tong took Yue Fei as his adopted son when the boy was 7 years old. Granted this is a fictional novel, but its events come straight from history. General Zhaoyin has pointed me in the direction of several Chinese websites and books that mention Zhou Tong as his teacher. He has also helped me to discover that Yue Fei’s father Yue Huo (岳和) didn’t die in the supposed flood of 1103, but in 1122 when Yue Fei joined the army.

The history that was presented to me was that the flood destroyed the family’s property, which forced young Yue Fei to join his father in the fields. He gained great strength from toiling in the fields (岳飞“未冠，挽弓三百斤，弩八石. 《宋史•岳飞传》). It also says that Yue Fei’s spearmaster, Chen Guang (陈广) was Yue Fei’s first teacher and that Zhou Tong came second, teaching him archery. If Zhou Tong actually did take Yue Fei as his son (and remember I’m just speculating here), I believe the monk was the boy’s first teacher. The reason I say this is that if Yue Fei’s parents were so poor, they would have given the boy in adoption to Zhou Tong to give him a better life. Plus, this adoption would promote Yue Fei’s social status: Farmer – Warrior. (And this is a short hop and a jump to Aristocrat if you look at all the power he gained later in life). Anyway, from what I’ve read, Zhou Tong died when Yue Fei was 16. I read this in the Wuxia novel, however, I’ve read this on several internet sources as well (but this doesn’t mean its historically correct). If Chen Guang was hired when Yue Fei was about 15-ish (《金佗续编》卷二八)], it was recorded " 岳飞“及冠”时,外祖父姚大翁聘请当时的枪手陈广教授岳飞枪法"), then this would only leave less than a year for Zhou Tong to teach Yue Fei his skills before his passing. But if he adopted the boy earlier, he could have taught him the skills before Yue Fei started learning the spear from Chen Guang. If you would like, I could send you a message containing the tidbits that General Zhaoyun threw my way. It’s interesting stuff.



I understand what you mean. I don’t have an answer for this. But I do know that the “Seventy-character Rhyme of Genealogy for the Orthodox Caodong Sect of the Shaolin Buddhist Temple at Mt. Song” (LINK) which all monks derive their names from was written by Abbot Fuyu (福裕) (1203-1275), many years after Zhou Tong’s time.

The reason I am so concerned with the martial arts and history of Zhou Tong and Yue Fei is because I’m writing a three volume “historical fiction” novel (one tale per volume) with one tale that revolves around an elderly man who fought under General Yue Fei in his younger days. I want each martial art and event to be historically accurate so when I finally publish, I won’t have historians and martial artists coming up and spitting in my face!!!

I just recently purchased a copy of 铁臂金刀周侗传. But since my chinese is HORRIBLE, it will take me some time to read it. I hope to translate this into english someday.

While I'm thinking about it. Do you know anything about the Léitái (擂臺 or 擂台). I've made a post about it HERE. Maybe you've already seen it.

Both are unreliable. 岳飞传 was written by his grandson decades after his death. Alot of the events that occurred in it were complete fiction. Others is just a matter of common sense. No chance in hell can Yue Fei really kill 5000 enemies by himself. If he could take down 50 he is already classified as superhuman. 說岳全傳 should have as much credibility as Sanguo Yanyi, taken with the whole salt shaker.

If you wish to continue to discuss events about Yue Fei, I suggest starting a thread at the Song, Liao, Xia, Jin forum as not to deviate this one.

I have also heard other tales which totally bipass Ji Longfeng and consider other Muslim masters as the founder of the style. There are so many theories floating around that it would probably fill up a book. Wujiang, what do you think of the research into the origins done by Jarek? A very large majority of his work looks at the Dai family and their famous "Three Fist" method.

As I have noted before, I do not believe it is a good idea to comment on the strengths and faults of individual researchers, which is in turn to deviate from the topic of the thread.

Some theories says that Ju Longfeng was a Hui humself. But there is no real sources thay supports or denies this (then again, i am operating on the top of my head right now)

Know Jarek. He's a great guy. Seen some of his research on Chinafromsinside.com

Based on my understanding, could not find anything that would doubt his research.

q: Have you contact Jarek and asked him qstns about his research?

On the contrary, Fantzi and Xin Yi share a lot of postures and movements, even the same opening and closing 'salutes' for their forms. You have to examine all the different versions of fantzi.

Also shared are distinct side to side movements identical with those seen in the Shaolin Xin Yi ba exercises;
animal shape imitating movements; various hand shapes (especially the index finger knuckle punch).
When examining the Xin Yi's Xin Yi Ba and Ten Big Shapes forms, also shared with Fantzi are:
the distinct method of keeping one leg out in front with the foot upturned,
while at the same time chopping down with one hand while the other hand
strikes to the side (called "Cha Jiao Pi Da" - "Examine Foot Split Join" in Chuojiao and "Tiao
Chui' - 'Raise Hammer" in Xin Yi Quan), staying in tightly closed, while doing a straight line series of movements.
Plus nearly identical postures: "Both Palms Open Window" Chuojiuao = Fierce
Tiger Exits Cave" Xin Yi Quan.
"Dian Bu Gui Tui"- "Sink Step Kneel Leg" Chuojiao = "Qing Long Suo Shen" - "Green Dragon Contracts Body" Xin Yi Quan,
and there are many more postures and ideas shared.

What is not shared is the movements that came from Chuo Jiao, such as their famous back kick, etc.

Jarek's website mentions the similarity between the two styles and how they may stem from a common origin in Wen family boxing,
sharing dantain rotations of the hips, shoulder movements, open palms, and more.

This would make sense, being that the Ten Big Shapes come from Xin Yi Quan, and
Xin Yi Quan has roots in Yue Fei Jia Quan/Fantzi/Chuojiao.

The styles of Fantzi/Chuojiao that most share postures with Xin Yi Quan are:
Cun (wrist) Fantzi, Yenging fantzi, and 9 Yuan Yang fantzi.

The most classic moves of Xin Yi Quan are identical to postures in these Fantzi styles.

Yue Jia Quan/Lie He Quan/Fantzi/Ba Shan Fan/ are all different versions of the same root techniques.
they all stem from ancient military martial arts practiced during the Sung dynasty.
Henan Liu He Quan and Henan Yue Jia Quan are nearly the same material.
What's different is only that Yue Fei Jia Quan is martial art that decendents of Yue Fei and his soldiers have spread all over henan and other provinces and Fantzi (originally called Ba Shan Fan) is nearly the same material but decended from other people rather than Yue Fei's officers and soldiers.

I've got 10 pages of notes on how from the 1100s to the 1900s Yue Fei the legends of Yue Fei founding all these styles all derive from fantzi quan's 900+ year spread from Hebei to Henan province.

If you want I will post them all and the side notes that explain how he became known as eagle claw founder too, and more about fantzi's influences.
If so, then feel free to comment on them, in case some points need better clarification before I make the notes into an article.

thanks!

When I mean by different is relative to other systems of CMA. At the end of the day, if you look hard enough you will find similarities in all martial arts due to the fact they all use the human body as base.

While what you said does ring true, it unfortuately lacks the holistics level of analysis of CMA. The similarities and differences you noted can also be founded in different systems such as Mizongquan, Lohanquan, Yingzhaoquan, Tanglangquan, Huaquan, Bajiquan, Piguaquan, Taijiquan and a number of others. For example, the Ermafengzhong or Taijiquan has almost the exact principle and execution as the Fanshizhang of Piguaquan. The similiarity here are just as close as the techniques you have described. Yet that does not justify any form of direct connection as historically, there are none. Almost all systems of martial arts have a kind of "choujiao lanshou" in one form or another. Nan Shaolin and Bajiquan both has an elbow strike in which the force is generated by the hammering of the foot on the ground. But that doesn't make them sharing a same source. I can even find similarities in Dongjiang systems such as Lungyingquan or even other Lingnan systems such as Hongjiaquan or Lijiaquan. One of th key weakness in the thesis of the connection between Fanziquan and Xinyiquan is Fanziquan's preference of short bursts of continuous and rapid attacks where it clearly takes a more supplimentary level in Xinyiquan. If the two systems did came from the same source, then it makes logical sense that only the execution of this core doctrine is altered but not the doctrine itself.

To just look at those few systems of CMA may often lead to a misrepresented picture as one may enlarge the significance of some things while playing down others as there are no point of reference. When analysing the similarity and difference of two systems, it isn't the specific techniques that should hold centre stage but the overall tactical doctrine in which their taolu follows in reference to other systems within their geographical and chronological proximity. And in this case, it is pretty clear that Chuojiao Fanziquan and Xinyiquan has completely different tactical dispositions for their enemies.

btw, there is no chance in heck that you can ever really prove anything coming from the Song dynasty. Cause all credible tracable lineage of any system today only started from the Ming dynasty earliest.

yeah, I pretty much agree.

One has to also investigate who taught what when and where to trace evolution and fracturing from one style into another one.

But, I would think that even if two styles are closely related, they still might have completly different tactical dispostions, because whatever changed and cause a need for a style to morph into another style is a major factor. Conditions may have changed that made it necessary for lets' say in this example, Fantziquan into Henan Xin Yi Quan.

Also, "Fanziquan's preference of short bursts of continuous and rapid attacks where it clearly takes a more supplimentary level in Xinyiquan." Hmm, Henan Xin Yi can be pretty darn continuous and rabid in attack. I think if you asked any Henan Xin Yi person that they would agree.

While it is true what you say about Henan Xinyi having this tactic, unfortunately there are two main problems in using this for justification.

(1) This tactic is used as merely a supplimentary rather than the core. This means it is likely to have been adapted after the development of the system rather than an evolution of the original. Could it have been Fanziquan in which the system employed it from, possible. But thats already in another disucssion.

(2) If you look at the majority of the taolus within this system such as the 四把捶、二把半、橫開三皇鎖、龍虎戰、鷹熊爭鬥、雞步大劈、虎頭大劈 etc, you will find they make of the greater structure and foundation of the system in which doesn't employ the rapid burst tactic.

Hence, since there are no historical sources in which we can definitively show that Xinyiquan evolved from Fanziquan and there is such a great level of tactical difference between the two, it is actually more likely that Xinyiquan is a system of its own in which incorportated the rapid attack tactic from other systems. These systems might have been Fanziquan, but it is also just as possible it could have been others.

understood, what would help the examination into this is a survey of martial art styles from the region that Henen Xin Yi developed in.
Fanzi Quan, Yue Jia Quan, are very common. Some moslem styles too.
What else? don't know yet.
Also, Henan Xin Yi branches out from Louyang, that's it's real birthplace, from the Ma family.
What were Louyang martial arts?
Well, one of the longest lasting is the White Horse Temple, with their own Horse fist style.
All this bears investigation.
thanks

You seem to be still limiting yourself to Xinyimen. This is actually a somewhat flawed way to look at it. Henan is the birthplace of dozens if not hundreds of martial arts systems. The chances are, interaction between them would have been likely during the course of Xinyiquan's evolution. To limit yourself to just Xinyiquan, Yuejiaquan, Fanziquan etc, is to consciously screen out all the other possible influences on the system and thus once again seeing similarities between those selected system simply because they are based on the human body rather than actual tactical development. Main two factors are for any branches of Xinyiquan to be so heavily influenced by another system that despite the fact that the founder of the branch being originally a Xinyiquan practitioner, the new system can no longer be of Xinyimen's line because the Xinyi part of it has become supplimentary rather than the core

I'll give an example of Yingzhau Fanziquan. Liu Shijun, the founder of this system was orioinally a practitioner of Fanziquan. He merged Yingzhauquan with his own martial arts to find this system. However, if you analyze the techniques and tactics of this system, you will find that while Fanziquan does play an important part, it none the less is but a simplimentary component of this system which supports the Qinna techniques of Yingzhauquan. Hence Yingzhau Fanziquan is, at the end of the day, a branch of Yingzhauquan with Fanziquan influence rather than a branch of Fanziquan with Yingzhau influence. Same can be said for systems like Dasheng Piquaquan, or Mizong Lohanquan.

Xinyimen has a number of branches including that from Henan and Shanxi. I think we can generally say that by the time it has become Xingyiquan of Hebei it has already developed to a point where it is effectively a different system. The subsequent Dachengquan can be said to be a branch of Xingyiquan but only closely but not directly related to Xinyiquan. Kind of like Karate and Baihequan.

So back to the original question. As I have said before, the core value of Fanziquan take only a supplimentary support level in Xinyiquan but certainly did not inherited it as the core. Thus to claim that Xinyiquan is a branch of decendent of Fanziquan is just too far fetched. Rather, it is much more likely that Xinyiquan began out by itself and then as time went by incorporated Fanziquan's techniques into the system. Indeed, if you analyze the very techniques of them, although the tactical doctorine are similar, the techniques in which Xinyiquan uses to put this tactic into practice is but a shadow of what is including with Fanziquan. So much so is that a case can be made that whoever incorporated Fanziquan into Xinyiquan (if such incorporation did take place) was only able to learn a fraction of Fanziquan.

neijia does not mean slowness.
i have two taichi teachers. both of them are very agile.when i move, they alaways move in front of me.they said they can feel my movements.this is taichi's listening( 听劲).
and i do not think neijia is useless in combat. in my city, i have heard a taichi practicer killed a thief when the latter was stealing in his house.he just gave him a jiankao(肩靠) on the thief's chest.of course, he have been in jail for several years.
cases above make me believe that neijia is also usefull.but i admit that neijia is more difficult to achieve the fighting level.