Lohan Question?

[mortal]

I don't think there is anything left to stab. You pretty much killed it.

To be honest I could care less the technical names for these forms. Lohan form what I know has 18 basics. Get good at those and you could do any lohan version you want. or you could make up your own. The bottom line is training. Names, movements, techniques and lineages aren't as important as improving your kungfu. Personally I feel unless you have mastered at least some of these forms. Who cares about the names of the rest?

I am not attacking you Sal. You seem to be the shaolin scholar. I don't take that away from you . I just feel it is 1000 times more important to learn to do one form well then name 100 forms.

[onesp1ng]

but he appears to be doing research....hater!

[doc]

I am not attacking you Sal. You seem to be the shaolin scholar. I don't take that away from you . I just feel it is 1000 times more important to learn to do one form well then name 100 forms.

Mortal, I always seem to agree with you, especially your take on the current attitude of the younger monks, but, I kind of lean towards Sal's take on this.

Granted, you're right. In order to get good, it is nice to be able to do one form perfectly, and forget the rest.

But, if we all forget the rest, then, who will remember them?

[Sal Canzonieri]

I don't think there is anything left to stab. You pretty much killed it.

To be honest I could care less the technical names for these forms. Lohan form what I know has 18 basics. Get good at those and you could do any lohan version you want. or you could make up your own. The bottom line is training. Names, movements, techniques and lineages aren't as important as improving your kungfu. Personally I feel unless you have mastered at least some of these forms. Who cares about the names of the rest?

I am not attacking you Sal. You seem to be the shaolin scholar. I don't take that away from you . I just feel it is 1000 times more important to learn to do one form well then name 100 forms.

Well, all I can say is "Duh! No Kidding!". No offense meant of course.
I already know how to do the Lohan forms, I have been doing the Wah Quan 18 Lohan for 20 years. What do you think I am some nerd that just reads books?

This is for the people who care about where things come from, what they are really, and so on.
If you aren't interested, please don't cock block discussion about forms, thanks! (no offense meant again).

[Sal Canzonieri]

I relooked at:
"15. The VCD VW522-6, the Small Arhat (Lohan) Boxing, Old Frame Hammering series, shows a Lohan form that doesn't match up to what is really considered the Xiao Lohan form in correct sources. It is a mystery what form this is really."

and on the VCD they say that this form is also called the Lao Lohan, or the ancient lohan form.

SO, maybe this isn't really the Xiao Lohan but the Lao Lohan?

I don't have a copy of Lao Lohan (nor Duan Da Lohan) in order to make a comparison
and settle the open issue.

Perhaps someone that knows Lao Lohan can see this video and compare?

It doesn't look anything like the real Xiao Lohan form.

[Sal Canzonieri]

Also, Yin Fu Ba Qua teaches a 18 Lohan form that I'd like to see so that
I can compare it with these forms and see if it is one of these somehow
or derived from one of these and so on.

[mortal]

Yes I think you're a nerd! Just kidding. We are all nerds by default just for training to begin with.

So 20 years. I guess its safe to assume you are a Sifu? Please except my apologies.

Would you have a clip of this form? I would very much like to see how good you have gotten after all those years.


I didn't know you could cock block a thread.

Hows about a little joke while I'm at it.

What is the worst part about practicing taichi?


















Tellingh your parents your gay.


LOLOL I love that one!

[jopol]

I have yet to see correct info about Lohan forms anywhere.
Especially if Shaolin is the source of the data, it appears wrong all the time.
Their books, vcds, etc are all wrong. (pardon any mispellings).

There are in reality only these Shaolin Lohan forms that can still be found.

- Shaolin 18 Hands Forms Roads 1 to 9 (Shaolin Shi Ba Shaou)
- Shaolin 18 Fist form (Shi Ba Quan)
- Small 18 Hands form (Xiao Shi Ba Shaou) (Might be more modern)
- Small Lohan (Xiao Lohan Quan)
- 2nd Road Small Lohan (Er Lu Xiao Lohan Quan)
- Large Lohan (Da Lohan)
- 2nd Route or Refined Lohan (Er Lu Lohan Quan)

Okay, so that's about all of them that came out of Shaolin in the last 1,500 years.

1. The Shaolin Encyclopdia, the Shaolin Da Quan, Volume 2, shows 9 Roads (Da Lu) of a form called 18 Hands of Lohan. Road 9 is the oldest road, it comes to Shaolin from the Wah Quan style, back in the Yuan Dynasty period. It is the one made known in the book by Cai Long Yun, the 24 move, 2 person form and two other Shaolin forms books. So, is it out of sequence?

2. The Shaolin Encyclopedia Volume 2 also shows a form on page 188, called Shaolin Lohan Quan, but in actuality everywhere else this form is ONLY THE FIRST SECTION Of the real Shaolin DA LOHAN FORM. it's only a piece of the big Lohan form, the first 29 moves. And sometimes this form is called the Xiao, the small lohan, but that is wrong, wrong, wrong.

3. Shaolin Encyclopedia Volume 2, page 194, what they call the Er Lu Lo Han form, but it in actuality is known most places as the real XIAO LOHAN form, except the version shown in vol 2 is the longest version of the form seen anywhere else. So, the name of the form is wrong, but the fact that it has all the moves that are often missing everywhere else is good.

4. In Volume 2 of the book Shaolin Gong - Fu - A Course in Traditional Forms, by the Ta Gou School, on page 198, they show the correct Xiao Lohan Quan form, but it is missing the end section of the form (which is shown in the Er Lu Quan form in Shaolin Ency, volume 2 ).

5. The VCD BEB-844, Shaolin Lohan Quan, in actuality shows the form XIAO lohan quan, pretty much as shown in Volume 2 of Shaolin Gong - Fu - A Course in Traditional Forms, by the Ta Gou School, on page 198.

6. In Volume 3 of the book Shaolin Gong - Fu - A Course in Traditional Forms, by the Ta Gou School, the correct version of the real ER LU LOHAN Quan form, shown on page 293.

This form is incorrectly labeled as Lohan Quan form in the book Shaolin Chuan Tong Wu Shu Pu Ji Jiao Cai, Shaolin Quan volume, page 101. recently published.

7. Now, the VCD Shaolin Da Lo Han Quan, VW526-7, Chinese Kungu Wu Shu series
is really in actuality really the ER LU Lohan Quan Form, as shown exactly in Volume 3 of the book Shaolin Gong - Fu - A Course in Traditional Forms, by the Ta Gou School in Henan.

8. The VCD, BWS-226, Er Lu Lohan Quan, Chinese KungFu Series, shows the correct Er Lu form, as shown in Volume 3 of the book Shaolin Gong - Fu - A Course in Traditional Forms.

9. Also, the VCD, BWS-166-07 Shaolin Lohan Quan is actually the Er Lu Lohan form (not so great).

10. In Volume 3 of the book Shaolin Gong - Fu - A Course in Traditional Forms, by the Ta Gou School, on page 507, there is a form there correctly called Da Lohan Quan, but it is only 3/4th of the form.

11. The rest of the form is found in a book called Shaolin Shi ? Da Lu, ISBN 5349-1753-0, starting on page 296. Between the two books, the most complete version known so far of Da Lohan Quan can be put together, if a side by side comparison is done. I have done so.

12. In the book called Shaolin Shi ? Da Lu, ISBN 5349-1753-0, starting on page 256, is a form that they call Shaolin Lohan 18 HANDS, that they attribute to Li Shu, during the Yuan Dynasty. I have never seen this particular Lohan 18 Hands form anywhere else before. It looks nothing like anything I have ever seen.
(By the way, this same book shows the long lost Yi, Er, and San Lu forms of the Da Hong Quan forms, NOT the one that is currently taught at Shaolin, but the Da Hong Quan forms that match in style with the Xiao Hong Quan form everyone know, the one that is linked to the Tai Tzu Chang Quan form taught in Shaolin.)

13. The VCD VW522-7, Old Frame Hammering Series, 18 Hands of the Small Arhat (lohan) Boxing shows a very short 18 Hands form that doesn;t match anything I have seen anywhere else. IT is not one of the ones shown in roads 1 to 9 in the Shaolin Encyclopedia, but it is kinda close to Road 1 in that book. It is a mystery what form this very short form really is. Is it really a new training form? An abbreviated Road 1 of the 18 Hands of the Lohan?

14. Also, this VCD is a little bit close to the form called Lohan 18 hands on page 1 in the book Shaolin Chuan Tong Wu Shu Pu Ji Jiao Cai, Shaolin Quan volume and to the form called 18 Hands Route 1 in the Shaolin Encyclopedia. Between these two books, these two forms match, but the end of the form is slightly out of sequence from each other (moves are in reverse order at the end).

15. The VCD VW522-6, the Small Arhat (Lohan) Boxing, Old Frame Hammering series, shows a Lohan form that doesn't match up to what is really considered the Xiao Lohan form in correct sources. It is a mystery what form this is really.

16. The book, Shaolin Quan, volume 3, ISBN 7-81003-236-4, shows a long lost form called Er Lu Xiao Lohan Quan. it is supposed to be exactly what it is named, the second road of the real Xiao Lohan Quan form.

17. Finally, the book Shaolin Quan Wu Shu, volume 2, ISBN 7-81003-285-2, shows two forms from Lohan style, both incorrectly named. Page 38 has a form they call 18 Lohan Hands, which is the same form shown as Er Lu 18 Lohan Hands in the Shaolin Encyclopedia (the second form of the 18 Lohan hands sets). On page 47 there is a form they call Xiao Lohan Quan which is the same as the form called Lohan Quan in the Shaolin Encyclopedia, which makes it in actuality the first section of the Da Lohan Quan form, but for some reason it is called the Xiao Lohan Quan in this book.

Phew!!!!!

Anyone else care to make a stab at this?

The books from Tagou does not show the real traditional stuff. Most forms in there are the more modern versions. From what I understand a better source would be the 4 volume encyclopedia written by shi de qian.

peace

[joncarter]

The phrase "Lohan She Pa Shou" doesn't appear to be a recognizable or standard phrase in English or any language I am familiar with. It could be a specific name, an uncommon phrase, or possibly from a regional dialect or language that is not widely known. https://scamsoldier.co.uk/

[mangaanato]

Your absolute digital sanctuary for the allure of books is mangaanato! Enter a world where the possibilities are endless and each page holds the promise of a brand-new adventure. Our carefully chosen collection caters to readers of all tastes and crosses many categories. visit here :