The easiest way to sum it up is that Baji doesn't have the "Chicken Legs" thing going on at all.

There are different ways of emitting power in both Xing Yi and Baji. For instance in Xing Yi some styles favour a whip like action in generating power (sometimes called "Bright Jing"), while some favour a more penetrating arrow-like action (sometimes called "Dark Jing"). But in general the Xing Yi ways of generating power are relatively few in number (although the different expressions are infinite).

In Baji from an appearances viewpoint some styles use a "landslide" type of effect while others punch the body in like a battering ram. But actually there are many different ways of generating power in Baji. These have individual names like beng (not the Xing Yi beng – a different one meaning landslide or something heavy falling in on itself), ai (thrusting through), tu (breaking through), chi (press), chuo (pierce), zhuankao (leaning force), chuankun (winding force) – afraid the translation are my own and probably aren’t so clear. A good Baji practitioner has quite a repertoire of different things he can chose to do in terms of generating power. These are called the "heads of power" – they are not the same thing as Xing Yi jings, which come out of a common root, rather they are genuinely different methods. Baji also has jings, but different ones – "sinking jing", for instance is very important in Baji.

In Baji also power is most often generated in well timed bursts from a wide range of different structural bases - Xing Yi is more consistent in the base that the power comes out of (i.e. San Ti), and the power is somewhat more "threaded into one" at a strategic level. In leading into the application of power Xing Yi is also a bit more deflective against the attack on the whole, while Baji is a bit more demolition minded. It’s a matter of degrees, not black and white.

Incidentally in unarmed practice Baji doesn’t have Xing Yi’s concept of seven stars - in fact it has at least eight, counting the hips and rear as different.

Xing Yi footwork is more obviously fluid than Baji footwork. That sounds like a criticism of Baji until you understand that Baji achieves the same level of mobility in a different way, namely through changes of structure and alignment that achieve the same effect. So for Xing Yi its more "moving platform that can change" while for Baji its more like "changing platform that can move".

Both arts go forward a lot compared to others, but Xing Yi is slightly more reserved in the way that this is done. If the structural integrity of the Baji postures wasn't so good you could describe it as being a bit over extended - but the integrity is very good indeed, and because Baji practice stresses this aspect to a high degree it isn't a problem in practice.

In words it doesn't sound like there's all that much between them, but when you see the two it’s a bit clearer. In a sense San Ti defines much of what Xing Yi is, and Baji hasn't got San Ti (it has got a bunch of other really good structures instead).

Lastly Baji has a significantly larger number of different "set" forms than even the most animal Xing obsessed Xing Yi styles. Some of the Baji forms are very extended indeed. Further weapons forms tend to be different forms from unarmed forms, unlike the case with many Xing Yi styles where the same or similar linking sequences are done both unarmed or with different weapons.

To quote a friend, "Baji and Xing Yi – something similar, something different". That about sums it up. All I’d say is that the "something different" is enough that a common origin is not necessarily indicated – certainly not if Wu Zhong was indeed the founder of Baji. I know the Yueshan Baji people have a different take on the history, but not much more than that – maybe if one of them is reading they may care to comment.

Another interesting note is that Wu Zhong lived originally in Meng Cun, a place that is not more than a figurative stones throw (relative to the size of the whole of China) from Chen village. On the basis of this I’d be happier to believe some kind of Chen-Baji link ahead of a Xing Yi-Baji link. Chen Taiji (particularly Pao Chui) and Baji are more apparently similar in superficial appearance than are Baji and Xing Yi. Honestly though I don’t believe that one either, but I’m confident that I’ll never know for sure

Brickpolisher,

Thanks for taking the time. Some good and thought out answers there.

I'm in agreement about the first (bodyguard) issue, I was just interested in hearing your view.

On the second issue, I think I have a better understanding of what you're saying. Again, my lack of familiarity with Xingyi practise is evident, though. I'm going to largely agree too, except that I would like to emphasize (or at least not de-emphasize) diversity and adaptation in Baji (or ultimately in any martial art performed by a proficient fighter) strategy as well.

Especially when you wrote:

"Being a battlefield thing Xing Yi has a very strategic and reactive base - effectively the enemies actions dictate to a reasonably large extent how you respond. Baji takes a somewhat more proactive approach in this regard. Obviously that's not to say that you can't do that with Xing Yi as well."

My own experience with Baji is exactly as you describe Xingyi here. The opponent's responses dictate the way he will be beaten, the opponents own choices write the script for his downfall. While certainly a more proactive role can be taken initially, via feints/attacks, ultimately the principle is the same afterward.

Your description of the differences between the two arts was interesting. I especially liked your description of Baji footwork. After dabbling in other arts, I have grown to have a great deal of respect for the art's footwork, very no-nonsense and straightforward and entirely connected to the way of generating power. The footwork can get pretty lively at times though. Nothing too elaborate, but lively.

Anyway, good stuff. What's your personal experience with the art(s)?

Brickpolisher: I guess part of my problem is my lack of familiarity with Hsing-Yi. In my system, we often move forward in something similiar to a cat-stance but with no weight on the front foot. For instance, if we strike with a right fist, our right foot may lash forward as a kick or covering leg (protecting the groin, or jamming the opponent's leg) so that side of the body is light and fast while at the same time, the left supporting leg and perhaps a left jerk-hand pushing downward sinks heavily like a sack of grain, anchoring the body while its whole momentum moves forward to add power. I take it this is similiar to the "chicken step" of Hsing-Yi, judging from photos? Sometimes, we will also use a more evenly weighted posture from which the strike is delivered with a simple, powerful stomping action to add "sinking" power to the technique. This, I assume(wrongly?) is something akin to the stomping postures I have read about in Baji? Thank you for the detailed explanation, as I realize how hard these things can be to put into words. BTW, about the weapons, if Hsing-Yi really is made up of adapted spear techniques, then it makes sense. As for Baji weapons being different in principles of movement from its boxing (probably too much of a generalization on my part?) it actually makes sense to move differently since weapons change your capabilities. I mean, why move like you are still fighting empty handed if you possess a sword?

Kenneth Sohl,

You ask "...why move like you are still fighting empty handed if you possess a sword?"

Basic, empty-handed Tai-Jutsu forms are also known as weaponless sword play, because they're equally useful with or without a sword.

Likewise, the US Marine Corps' knife-fighting instruction given to snipers is equally useful when unarmed.

Sometimes one runs across a good set of basic (base) moves with a wide range of application (much like Xing-Yi or Shen Wu offers). Hypothetically, studying a few moves well will lead to good performance more quickly than studying many moves all at once; so finding base moves with multiple usages is a plus.

Systems designed by soldiers for survival on a battlefield tend to follow the KISS principle: Keep It Simple, Soldier.

That has always been a given, but I see so many people take that so literally, they often seem to forget the techniques that are applicable to that particular weapon only. In taijutsu, one practices, say, kusarifundo to be able to use a belt or electrical cord should the need arise. However, if one wishes to master the 3-sectional staff for instance, he must go beyond the lowest common denominator and also drill in techniques unique to that weapon. When I trained taijutsu, we would actually use a phone cord, belt or rope, etc. when we drilled kusarifundo techniques. Most of us didn't even own one. In the same vein, marine snipers don't just train with the M-16 even though marksmanship fundamentals are the same. They train mainly with their remington sniper-rifles. Your point is well taken, just that there is such a thing as OVER simplifying to the point that one is not taking full advantage of a given weapon's capabilities.

Kenneth Sohl:

"In my system, we often move forward in something similiar to a cat-stance but with no weight on the front foot. For instance, if we strike with a right fist, our right foot may lash forward as a kick or covering leg (protecting the groin, or jamming the opponent's leg) so that side of the body is light and fast while at the same time, the left supporting leg and perhaps a left jerk-hand pushing downward sinks heavily like a sack of grain, anchoring the body while its whole momentum moves forward to add power."

We do rather similar things in Baji. Every strike is accompanied with its footwork. In a right foot-forward stance, if I throw a right punch, my right foot will go forward. In the same stance, if I use a left hand strike instead, my left foot will adjust.

In both occasions the other hand will most likely be moved in an 'antagonistic" direction, depending on the strike used. This movement is often also a defensive one (sort of "block"). You basically attack and let these "secondary" movements take care of the defense.

The footwork is done with a sort of 'stomping' movement in the feet, but it should be noted there are a few different ways of stomping in Baji, again depending on what kind of strike is being used.

All these things are done to facilitate full body power in the Baji way.

Yes, if a right punch is thrown forward, then the left hand is usually straightened with a jerk (downward, outward, etc. although other techniques can be used). This seems to expand the force outward from the center, rather than just using armpower alone. Though method of movement and power may differ, we strictly adhere to centerline principles as fanatically as Wing Chun, so we probably have fewer stomps which, incidentally, are also used as leg attacks to the opponent's lower body (we rarely use the conventional "kick") as well as sweeps, low covering actions and invasive stepping. I must confess, my curiosity about Baji is mounting.

You guys would probably like James McNeil's "Splashing Hands" videos (Unique). It's similar stuff.

Speaking of which, is splashing hands the same as Pigua? I read that there is a lot of association between the Baji and Pigua schools.

daredevil,

I wouldn't really disagree with any of your points, and I also share your respect for the subtlety of Baji footwork. I think that from the Xing Yi side as well there would be difficulty in following how this actually works just from a written description. It's a good subject for a book, but I doubt it would sell well I think the essential problem with addressing this issue is that both arts are very flexible in application and therefore anything you say about one can be made to be true of the other through this pathway. Any art is essentially a framework through which you can learn. Baji and Xing Yi present different frameworks that come very close in application, but are more different in where they start off.

On the experience thing Xing Yi for 18 years and Baji for 6 years. 4 teachers - all Chinese. Don't really want to say more than that.

On the stepping issue all I'd note is that "Chicken Legs" comes from Ji Xing and is really about more than just the legs or stepping, it has to do with the overall character of the movement, and while you're right that Baji is used in a kind of corresponding way I do feel that the overall sense of the action is significantly different.

Likewise actively dismantling the guard of the opponent in an "attacking" mode is something that can be done in Xing Yi as well (Yao Xing for instance specialises in this), but it is taught much sooner in most Xing Yi styles (Yao Xing is not something that is taught to beginning students in most Xing Yi styles, but Liu Da Kai is taught quite early in Baji.

Difficult one.

Kenneth,

Yes it does make sense to adapt one's overall posture to a weapon, but with Xing Yi it went the other way around - from weapon posture to unarmed. In moving to the unarmed posture from the armed posture, not many changes were made. As to the rights and wrongs of this, I can't really comment, all I'd say is that it is indeed the case. But in a sense it is surprising how good Xing Yi is "unarmed".

One small note. Li Shu Wen seems to have derived a significant amount of power, training, theory and application from his practice of an 18 foot spear.

The spear, da qiang, training is a major component of baji power training. Without it, you cannot reach any really effective flavors of the baji system.

It is said that Li Shu Wen "invented" the baji sword by applying his spear techniques to the kun wu sword.

Its seems that the big spear training is critical in both xing yi and baji. Maybe they simply have a common root and then evolved as separate systems rather than one coming form the other.

Just a small observation.

For the record, when I give an example, I fully realize how misleading it can seem out of context, and that there are always exceptions in any system. It's tough trying to figure out a course of evolution, I find, even though one would think it easy simply by applying "form follows function" principles. My system is related to Chow Gar, Pak Mei, etc., yet when I checked on these other systems, despite identical postures, hand weapons, techniques and focus, the principles of movement and power were so drastically different from mine that I feel there had to be a lot of "mixed" learning back then. This could explain some of the similiarities - and the differences, between Baji and Hsing-Yi.

While "is X related to Y and how" discussions can be interesting in a scholarly fashion, ultimately I don't attribute too much importance to them. What is the point, to prove your own art's worth by saying that these other -- related -- arts are only extensions of it? We all know the only way to prove your art.

Also, as no man is an island, certainly few arts have existed in a vacuum. There is almost always interchange between stylists of the various arts. Neither are arts created one way to continue existing that one way. Arts evolve and -- I dare say -- constantly. On top of this, a practisioner can learn several arts and bring his own or another style's flavor to all of them.

So, finding out what belongs where and what comes from which may not be as simple a procedure as saying that "X comes from Y".

Just a few thoughts on the subject of martial arts history.

Well put, I guess there is no way to truly find out, and like you say, for what? If it is truly a living system, being used for real, it won't stay the same for long anyway. That is probably the major reason why an art's evolution is so impossible to trace. Take fencing, for example. The latter day thrusters look with scorn on the medieval slashers, yet they are no more relevant to today's knife-fighters than the vikings. Not that they are any worse, just good for their time, period. I once saw an article about whether a giant lobster could exist, like in some sci-fi movie. By the time the writer had taken into account nature's adaptation for gravity's effect on an exo-skeleton, making pincers more efficient for larger prey, etc., he had his giant lobster....a Tyrannosaurus. What's in a name? What is the sound of one hand clapping? No, no matter how brutal one can make sporting competition, there is no substitute for real, absolutely no rules fighting. Without this to evolve an art, it dies.

Kenneth Sohl,

"Speaking of which, is splashing hands the same as Pigua?"

I dunno. Pigua, Horseua... I have enough trouble with English (I'm terrible with foreign languages); all I know is that James McNeil learned a Chinese system of self-defense (a street-fighting Kung-Fu) that he calls "Splashing Hands." Movements are quick; kicks are few & usually (but not always) low; feet stomp into the ground as hand-strikes are being launched (with one hand often moving downward, or inward towards one's own torso as the other moves outward, away from one's own torso).

After each blow is understood, McNeil then puts the blows into small combinations or sets that he calls "Browns" (Brown #1, Brown #2, etc.). Footwork is fast, yet the practitioner generally stays within a one-square-yard area (about a square meter for you Europeans) -- perhaps an area even smaller than this.

Mr. McNeil is also a Xing-Yi instructor. While I've heard mixed reviews on his technique, he punches very hard, and all seem to agree that he's one tough man -- for it's like one just can't hurt him & he'll just keep on advancing like a Terminator (only much faster) until the job's done. He's one of that rare breed that can work like a horse & get by on very little sleep. Luckily, he's a very nice guy (one would not want him as an enemy).

I think I came across his website last year while surfing, but I didn't know what to make of it. From what I can gather, Pigua seems to fit your description. You don't happen to have a link to his website, do you Mike?

A quick search yielded this site: http://www.littlenineheaven.com/spintro.html

There aren't many pictures, but doesn't sound/look like the Pigua I've practised (in a limited capacity as of yet) to me. Couldn't be 100% certain, though.

As for Baji+Pigua, yes the two arts are sometimes taught together (depending a bit on the lineage, I guess) and probably were one style split up originally. Baji is the short-range art and Pigua is the longer ranged art. In my Baji training, I've been taught a few Pigua routines, but a more thorough focus on Pigua will follow having learned the Baji system.

Kenneth Sohl,

Sorry, no James McNeil web link for you -- I didn't even know he has (or had) a website. I just saw his "Splashing Hands" videos & saw him interact with some people (quite friendly); some of my buddies know him (& his capabilities) pretty well. If you're local, then you could probably rent his two "Splashing Hands" videos from Musashi Martial Arts Supply on Beach Blvd. in the Garden Grove / Buena Park area (it's on Beach Blvd. at-or-near Chapman Ave.); this way you can tell without having to spend a lot of dough.

I believe that Mr. McNeil's studio is called "Nine Little Heaven" something-or-other (that may help you find him on the net by using a search engine).

Kenneth Sohl,

Here you go... this is from the HOTBOT search engine:

1. Little Nine Heaven System
Sifu James McNeil integrates Hsing-I, Splashing Hands and other traditional Chinese internal arts at his California school retreat. ... Master James McNeil. Little Nine Heaven Internal Kung-Fu ...
http://www.littlenineheaven.com/ - April 1, 2003 - 23 KB

You'll note that I was a bit off on his studio's name (never trust a government or my memory -- let this be a lesson to you).