Wahnam Taijiquan & Shaolinquan courses - A personal comparison

[Zhang Wuji]

Hello everyone

I am finally able to post the first instalment of my comparison between the Wahnam Taijiquan and Shaolinquan courses. I am still writing the rest, so please chip in so that I can edit the posts as I go along. Just a couple of points before I begin.

I was stuck at first as to where to post this thread - under Shaolin Kungfu or here? Finally, my choice of this section for my thread was due to the fact that there is an active thread on the Shaolinquan course in the Shaolin Kungfu section, and I thought it better to put this in the currently less active (relatively speaking) Taijiquan section.

My initial title was “Comparison between the Intensive Wahnam Taijiquan and Shaolinquan courses” but I now think it is silly. The number of intensive Taijiquan courses Sifu has conducted is so small vis-a-viz the intensive Shaolinquan courses. However, many have attended regional Taijiquan courses. The broader title would hopefully encourage those who have attended regional courses for both arts to also share. The initial title might have turned some people off, thinking they had to attend the intensive courses if they wanted to share their experiences.

The third point is, I have only been learning from Sifu for slightly over a year, and the “kungfu” aspect only very recently (although Sifu has kindly given pointers on my own martial arts training from day two. Many of the “qigong-only” Wahnam students will know that Sifu takes every opportunity to help us upgrade our skills using qigong). In addition to what I will be writing about the course contents, I will also touch on Sifu teaching methods. As I did not have the great benefit of learning from him during the earlier days, I had to speculate on how his training methods then differed from now. With this caveat in mind, I hope Sifu and the seniors will bear with me if I do make mistakes or come to asinine conclusions.

And so I begin.

While I had several objectives prior to attending the Wahnam Taijiquan and Shaolinquan (hereinafter, “WT” and “Shaolin”) intensive courses, there was only one major theme in my mind, and that was to seek out the similarities between the two. Since I will be practicing both arts (although I will be focusing on only one), I was intent on finding common ground so that I could save time and effort in my daily training. Imagine having to practice one hour of Shaolin and one hour of WT every day!

To my great joy, as I completed both courses, I found that the two arts overlap so much that at times, I could not tell where Shaolinquan began and where Wahnam Taijiquan ended. It may seem heretical but I began to feel that at a higher level, I could practice these two great arts as one.
Thus, whenever I was asked during the Shaolin course which of the two arts I prefer, I was truly unable to answer.

I have broken down my thoughts into a few sections

“Beginning & End, Alpha & Omega”
Stances and Footwork
Internal Force
Combat skills and techniques
Combat sequences
Combat efficiency

This list is almost certainly incomplete, and I will edit it as I post new instalments.

“Beginning & End, Alpha & Omega”

As any student of Sifu knows, the first thing that Sifu teaches and which is the most important of all is to enter a qigong state of mind, or to relax. Both these terms are modern and tend to carry less meaning than the classical terms which are: 入静, 入禅, 入定 (Entering Silence / Zen / Centre). And so, qigong students of Sifu upgraded from entering a “qigong state of mind” to “Entering Zen or Tao” (I mean this in jest, by the way, all are the same states, but we learnt a more cool way of expressing the same state).

At both the WT and Shaolin courses, the state I found myself initiated into by Sifu was exactly the same. It is a popular belief that Taoist meditation uses visualisation extensively, while Zen meditation focuses on the void. This is of course true, but I believe that the state of Entering Silence is the same for not only these two arts, but also for all great religions. The highest form of Christian prayer, for example, is not to be “talking” to God but to “Be still and know that [he] is God” (Ps 46:10).

Stances

It was heartening to see that both WT and Shaolin shared the same stances, which simplified matters greatly for me. One of my key concerns was how to practise a myriad of different stances everyday. As it turned out, the only difference was the Four-Six stance which was used extensively in WT. However, during the Shaolin course, this stance was also part of our stance training regime. Based on what I have heard from past attendees at the Shaolin course, the 4-6 stance was not included.

In both courses, Sifu constantly reminded us about our stances, particularly since the Bow Arrow stance would often go awry when advancing or retreating. What I found interesting though was that we trained stances every morning as a stand-alone session for 5 days in the Shaolin course but not in the WT one (we did so for the first two days). I am absolutely certain that this was not supposed to be any indication that stances in WT are less important. I suspect the reason was time (or lack thereof), because in my view, the WT course was more intensive in terms of content and volume of material (This is another recurring theme I will revisit from time to time).

One common fault of the WT course participants was to stand in the Bow Arrow Stance with the feet shoulder-width apart, especially those who had learnt a Yang-style form (which was just about all of us). The problem with the Shaolin students, was the length of the stance. I recall Sifu sharply reprimanding a few, including myself, “Longer stance!”

I also found it very significant that yin-yang differentiation was equally stressed in both courses. While this was expected in a Taijiquan course, I was mildly surprised when Sifu used many Taijiquan terms to explain the transfer of weight in our stances, such as the classic Taijiquan principle of “Rooted from the feet, powered through the legs, controlled by the waist and manifested in the fingers”. Imperceptibly, I was being awakened to the realisation that in all great arts, many perceived differences simply merge into a single universal core.

The common denominator in our stance and footwork training was transfer of weight and rotation as a single movement. While this was nothing new to me in theory, this was the first time this simple but important concept was so intensely drilled into my mind and muscle memory. Even though I have been consciously practising my Taijiquan form with whole-body movement, rotation of the waist, and proper transfer of weight, all of that went out of the window since we speeded up our movements. It was just so easy to forget this basic principle, but time and again, Sifu would emphasise the paramount importance of getting this right.

I will post more later. By the way, I wonder if the administrators could change my settings temporarily to allow me to edit this thread. Right now, I am bound by a 30 minutes time frame to edit. Thanks!

[joko]

Thank you, Wuji, I was just about to ask your experience doing both courses.

Keep writing, I will learn much from it.

One common fault of the WT course participants was to stand in the Bow Arrow Stance with the feet shoulder-width apart, especially those who had learnt a Yang-style form (which was just about all of us).

I did practice Yang Style, but as soon as I read about WahNam Stances from websites (which you superbly contributed with Sifu's comments), I gave it a try, and felt instantly the differences and the benefits of WahNam stances.

Since then even when I was practicing Yang style, I used the stances in WahNam way. Fortunately I learned the Yang style by myself, without a living instructor, so nobody troubled me.

That's why I was able to overcome during the Course itself.

After the Course during a session of my stance training, I found out that to change from Yang style stance to WahNam stance is adjust the length, hook the front foot to the inside a little, then without moving the feet turn the waist until the upper body faces the direction in line with the feet line.

The problem with the Shaolin students, was the length of the stance. I recall Sifu sharply reprimanding a few, including myself, “Longer stance!”

Do you mean to say that the Shaolinquan stance is longer than that of WahNam TJQ?
If yes, how far would it be? Or perhaps you could express it in how we should feel about the length, not necessarily the exact measurements.
I am aware that the WahNam stance is already longer than that of Yang Style.

Thanks for your kind attention.

Joko

[Zhang Wuji]

Do you mean to say that the Shaolinquan stance is longer than that of WahNam TJQ?
If yes, how far would it be? Or perhaps you could express it in how we should feel about the length, not necessarily the exact measurements.
I am aware that the WahNam stance is already longer than that of Yang Style.

Uh no, sorry about the confusion. The WT stance is the same length as the Shaolin one. What i meant was many of the students tended to get into a narrower stance than was correct. I, for example, would be in a stance too short relative to my height.

[joko]

Thanks for the prompt reply, Wuji.

I happened to read some of Sihing Korahais mentioning 'Green Dragon Shoots Pearl'. Is it exactly the same with the one we practiced at WT? Please, I want to learn the subtle differences.

What about the other patterns? For instance our 'Low Stance Vertical Punch' is similar to 'Precious Ducks Swimming Across Lake', and 'Fierce Dragon Across Stream', 'Fisherman Casting Nets' with the same names, are there also subtle differences? (Include also 'White Snake Shoots Venom').

What I find interesting is when I read the review section of both Shaolinquan and WahNam TJQ, I can apply the ones mentioned in the Shaolinquan Section into my WT practice.

I mentioned already elsewhere that now I am able to understand Sihing Korahais and others when they explain combat sequences in Shaolinquan.

Regards,
Joko

[Michael Durkin]

Dear Zhang Wuji,

Thank you for making the effort and sharing your experiences. I have often wondered about the similarities and initial differences between the two courses. I do look forward to reading more.

Take care,

[Chiahua]

And as someone keen on going to one of these courses, I'm definitely interested in seeing what you think of the two--especially since both of us come from taijiquan backgrounds.

[Nicky]

Wuji,

This is a really good thread. I am looking forward to the next installment of your comparison.

Nicky

[Zhang Wuji]

Apologies for the delay in posting. Several major crises at work plus some eye problems which made it impossible to type anything for a week. I edited the stuff below as and when I could over this week.

To answer Joko's question first, all of the names of WT postures that do not follow the commonly used names are found in the advanced Shaolin sets. Green Dragon, Fisherman Casts Net, etc, can be found in the Tiger-Crane and Dragon sets. But really, I am only guessing because as far as I can tell, there are some minor differences in the postures in the Shaolin forms and the WT postures. I think the important thing is that the WT names are most apt and give poetic overtones and life to the postures.

Stances and Footwork

In the course of the 2 courses, I was pleasantly surprised that sitting in the Horse stance was no longer painful. Sifu had corrected my Horse Stance on two separate occasions before I went for the WT course, but I still felt acute pain in my knee whenever I did the stance. It is odd but whenever I get into the stance in front of Sifu, no pain surfaces, but whenever I try it at home, out it comes. Anyway, as expected, during the WT course, there was no pain when Sifu was around. For the couple of days after the WT course, I practised only the 3-Circle stance so I did not have a chance to verify if I finally put the knee pain in my Horse stance to rest.

And then during the Shaolin course, the pain actually moved down to my shin. Whether this was an old injury I never knew about or whether I was not relaxed when training in this stance I will never know now, because ever since the Shaolin course, the pain is gone. I had always had the confidence that once I attended the Shaolin course, the 5 days of supervision under Sifu would sort this problem out, and I was fully vindicated. The pain crops up once in a while but I suspect only when my stance is wrong so there’s a great feedback mechanism there.

It is quite interesting that the main defensive stance in WT is the 4-6 stance which weight is distributed between the two legs while in Shaolinquan, the back-weighted False stance is used. Yet, when moving backwards in WT (I won’t say “retreat”), the 4-6 stance almost always changes into a Bow Arrow stance, while the Shaolinquan exponent moves back into another False-leg stance. I think one main reason for this is the emphasis on yielding in WT, since the longer stance allows for more room to manoeuvre when deflecting and countering. It appeared to me that while WT tended to neutralise from the same spot using a Peng technique (Immortal Waves Sleeves), Shaolinquan made liberal use of backward steps into the False Leg stance. If I had to guess further, I think another reason is that many of WT’s techniques and principles are drawn from Dragon and Snake forms which favour longer stances and twisting body movement, rather than darting all over the place.

It would however be a mistake to assume that WT is somewhat inferior in footwork. Following the Taijiquan classics (“When not in an advantageous position, look to the waist and legs”), both the defender and initiator would use steps that straddled all the points on the compass. In fact, only the first 5 combat sequences were linear. The other 7 sequences had both combatants circling around each other in beautifully “choreographed” movements. But I am jumping the gun. Back to footwork.

The footwork training in both course was exactly the same. The only difference for me was that I was less bamboozled during the Shaolin course, simply because I had already gone through it once during my WT course. At the WT course, I was utterly lost, and from the expressions from the rest of my course-mates, they were all at sea as well. Sifu was going very very fast on how to move from back to front and back, back to left and right, using the left or right leg, turning in any direction using either leg, and a host of other steps. The more Sifu demonstrated, the more confused I became, because none of his multitude of examples resembled any previous steps he demonstrated earlier. I realised only later that Sifu must have deliberately confused us so that we would not remain fixated on examples and isolated techniques but grasp the essence and the principles of the intricate footwork. Sifu’s method worked like a charm because by playing around with the steps in my hotel room later that night, I was suddenly able to move about in my stances without thinking. When it came to the Shaolin course, instead of slavishly imitating Sifu, I simply went with the flow, and lo and behold, the effect was very different.

The concept of big movement to small movement was also transmitted at both courses. Those who are familiar with the Taijiquan classics would of course be familiar with the phrase “first seek the open and extended, then seek the compact”. Phrases like this are packed with wisdom but make no sense to a person who has no experience in this area. Sifu brought this and other Taijiquan classic principles to life when he showed how the body dynamics when moving in a stance can be minimised until it was almost invisible. Yet, it was absolutely critical that one does not skip over the big movements.

Incidentally, it was around this time when the term “intensive course” made sense to me. Intensive course does not just mean that a lot is being taught in a short time, as we commonly understand it. What it really means is that we have to spread out what we are taught in the course over a long time. This hit home when Sifu said something like “presume that you have practised this for 3 weeks” when in fact we had only been practising that single movement for only 3 minutes. Now that I am practising at home, I realised how vital it is not to skip the foundations. If for example, I am rushing through my Lohan Asks the Way set or WT combat sequences, without checking whether I transferred my weight correctly, sunk down at the right time, or had my foot positioned accurately, the whole session is wasted, and I would have only gone through the motions. It was all too easy to forget what we had learnt in a few minutes and proceed directly to the forms and sequences.

So, I now make sure that my stance and footwork basics are duly incorporated when I practise (usually as part of the form or sequences to be more time and cost-efficient). Sifu would at every opportunity remind us to “go back one step”, to “make each movement a masterpiece, a work of art” and to “progress without retrogress”. These instructions have had a great impact on how I practise. I tend to spend very little time on the later sequences and forms but instead stick to Sequences 1 to 3 (for both WT and Shaolin). If the 3 minutes to 3 weeks ratio holds true, I will still be at these sequences for the next few months. And that is a good thing. When practising with my Shaolinquan partner the other day, we were both very happy to just do Sequences 1 and 2 for 2 hours, and even then, we practised only the first movement of Sequence 1 for most of that time. We both felt there was no point in moving on until we had some reasonable foundation in spacing and timing.

[joko]

Thanks, Wuji, for the wonderful accounts.

I fully agree about 'the big movement" and "the small movement". How we understand many many wisdoms expressed by Taijiquan past masters. Remember also Yang Chen Fu advice about 'chest and back feeling'? Sifu explained about the background of that advice which is missed by many. Another one is 'double yang'. Wow!

This hit home when Sifu said something like “presume that you have practised this for 3 weeks” when in fact we had only been practising that single movement for only 3 minutes. Now that I am practising at home, I realised how vital it is not to skip the foundations;

This is certainly invaluable advice.

Yes, probably in the past the total time spent the disciple was given instruction by the master was perhaps 5 days only in the span of say, 3 or 4 years of practicing.

One question, you mentioned in your first post that you would practice both Shaolinquan and WT, but would focus to one.
Have you decided which one will you focus?

Thanks again, and keep on writing.

Warm regards,
Joko

[Zhang Wuji]

One question, you mentioned in your first post that you would practice both Shaolinquan and WT, but would focus to one.
Have you decided which one will you focus?

Ah, this is one secret I would like to keep for now. Shall we just say that such a drastic choice may not even be necessary....?

Before I go on to my next topic on internal force, I would like to report from my personal experience the importance of the Wahnam Bow Arrow stance. I was practising my combat sequences with my training partner last week, and I noticed that not keeping the feet/heels in line creates a very unstable base. This is totally illogical to most people who are used to a Bow Arrow stance with the feet apart. Even when I asked my Taijiquan instructor and showed him the stance with the feet in line, he was puzzled and said, “but you have no stability”. Interestingly, when he performed fajing demonstrations, his own feet were in line in a small Bow Arrow stance, and he was apparently unaware of this unconscious feet movements. The other day, when I met the grandmaster of my Taijiquan school, he was also correcting the students to change to a smaller stance with feet in line for combat, although in the practice form, there was still some width.

Anyway, I noticed a huge difference between keeping the feet in line and apart. I had my family members try this on me and found that in a Wahnam Bow Arrow stance, I had complete stability (depending on the strength of the person pulling) from 45 degrees to each side. In a feet-apart stance, the open door was vulnerable from even the slightest angle. I am only analysing this from physical mechanics and even then, it was quite clear why our Bow Arrow stance is the way it is. And that is not even considering the benefits from the qi (chi) perspective and safety in combat (ie groin protection).

[joko]

Dear Wuji,

Interestingly, when he performed fajing demonstrations, his own feet were in line in a small Bow Arrow stance, and he was apparently unaware of this unconscious feet movements.

Interesting! This proves very true when performing 'Single Whip' in WahNam TJQ. Not only the feet, the back arm is also in line with the front arm. (and in line with the feet, too)

Shall we just say that such a drastic choice may not even be necessary....?

Besides practicing Taijiquan, sometimes I practice also some patterns of Shaolin Kung Fu.
Back in 2004, while enjoying Sifu's book "The Complete Book of Zen", I decided to try the zen practice mentioned in Chapter 17 in the book. There was a Shaolin Set composed by Sifu for that particular practice, called "Dragons in Zen". So I learned the set, guided by Sifu's pictures and explanation in the book. I practiced the set until I could perform it flowingly, before attempting to do the Zen practice.

I realized later that in fact we did together with our classmate very similar to the Zen practice mentioned in the book; it was done at the final stage of our Intensive TJQ Course, with Sifu's direct supervision and guidance. Do you remember it? Sifu mentioned it as our 'Grand Final Session'. Instead of 'Dragons in Zen', we performed WahNam TJQ set followed by standing meditation.

Please allow me to put another question:

As you are the only WahNam student I know of who attended both Shaolinquan and Taijiquan Intensive Courses at about the same time, what was your personal opinion about the expression 'Shaolin Kung Fu begins from hard to soft, while Taijiquan progresses from soft to hard'.

Did you feel it when you attended both Courses?

Thanks,
Joko

[Zhang Wuji]

Hi Joko

Can i leave your question for later? I personally feel that saying is provisional, and at times, I do not agree with it at all. My own experience is that I can sometimes not draw the line between the two arts, especially since we practice Shaolin as an internal art.

I have not been writing for a few weeks because something is happening in my practice which is almost certainly the result of my two consecutive intensive courses with Sifu. I will write more when my experience is confirmed, but I will just say that my One-Finger Zen appears to be doing wonders for my Taijiquan 108 set, and conversely, my Wahnam Taijiquan training has given my Shaolinquan a certain flowing quality.

Today I begin on the next part of my instalment: Internal Force. Internal force training in both WT and Shaolin are based on the same principles - stance training. But there are many aspects and variations of internal force training. During the WT course, we were anticipating Sifu teaching us Lifting Water which is listed in the course contents as one of the force training methods. By the fifth day, we had not learnt it, so we figured there were one of two reasons. Either Sifu had transmitted it to us without our knowing or he had substituted it with something else. It turned out that both reasons were correct. We did not learn the form of Lifting Water, but I think what Sifu did was to transmit to us the essence of that particular force training method, that is, powerful energy flow.

We figured that Cloud Hands which we learnt on the first day is Sifu's new, improved training method. It has been said often that Sifu never rests on his laurels but continually upgrades his methods, and this is yet another example, although we did not realise it then. While Lifting Water is static, Cloud Hands involves the whole body. Not only that, this exercise progresses sequentially from a static stance to a powerful flow that moves the body into the form set. Cloud Hands does all that Lifting Water can do and more. What is perhaps not so noticeable and which I only realised after practising it for some time is that Cloud Hands is more reflective of the wu wei quality of Taijiquan. Sifu said at the course that our Cloud Hands may be different each time we practice it. And it is true. No one Cloud Hands practice of mine is ever the same, and paradoxically, it is exactly the same. I get my force training, and my energy flow each time but there seems to be an endless variety to it.

Aside from the basic Horse Riding stance in Shaolin, we have the One-Finger Shooting Zen. As Sifu told us, this is a treasure of our art. When I first learnt it at the course, I did not experience any spectacular sensations, but that is normal for me. I seldom experience the sort of satori my classmates do. At my first course, I had blockages about this sort of thing, but now I am happy that I am progressing my own way. Anyway, since the course, I have been practising this treasure without thinking about the results or the potential benefits, and suddenly, they crept up on me in a flash. Sifu has said that One- Finger Zen develops flowing force. When we compare 1-Finger Zen with Cloud Hands, it may be hard to see how. But now I have irrefutable proof that it not only increases my level of force but also the flow. During my Taijiquan set, my arms are trembling like an old man with Parkinsons, something which I have never felt before, but only saw happening in my senior instructors and Taijiquan grandmaster. I had never expected to even taste this feeling before 10 years of training ( I could fake the shaking hands but what's the point?). Thanks to Sifu's heart to heart transmission, I saved years of time and effort. The important lesson for me is that though Sifu had already transmitted the essence of flowing force, it took my daily training sessions to bring it out. Nothing can substitute one's own regular training. Sticking to one's training is, in my view, one of the best ways, to repay Sifu's kindness and generosity in teaching us this art. We all know this but I will say this again - we can never repay Sifu enough.

Let me go on to combat application training. I will be travelling for a couple of weeks and may not be able to write later. From the course outline, most will know that WT includes Pushing Hands and Striking Hands. These are conspicuously absent from Shaolinquan and I had always wondered why. These are my views why.

Pushing and Striking Hands are the bridge between patterns and the start of combat training. One of the key characteristics of Taijiquan is the ability to sense, follow and redirect the opponent's force and these methods develop these skills to a high level before we land or block a punch.

But why is this training method not used in Shaolin? My guess is that with Sifu upgrading his methods all the time, we may well see it in a future Shaolin course.....But the reason why it is not done now, I think, is because our current Shaolinquan methods are simple, direct and effective.We train our spacing and timing in the combat sequence itself, rather than "waste" time training the skills using a bridging method. Another reason is that Shaolin tends to meet the incoming force rather than follow it, at least at the basic level. This is relative of course, since in our Shaolin combat sequences, we deflect rather than use hard blocks, but as a matter of degree, the difference between how WT and Shaolin deal with incoming force and energy is quite obvious.

For example, in Shaolin, we move out of harm's way and then brush the attacking limb to one side. In WT, we also move out of the way, but contact is maintained throughout, usually using the Immortal Waves Sleeves pattern. There is much more "sticking" and "following" in WT. It also appears to me that Pushing and Striking Hands is excellent training for the close range fighting and consecutive attacks in the WT combat sequences. Take Combat Sequence 3 White Snake Shoots Venom - three consecutive attacks to the throat with both sides not moving their feet. It would not be possible to deal with these attacks without the earlier grounding in Pushing Hands, when we learnt to sense the attack before we can see it.

I will write more about the Combat Sequences next time round. Meanwhile, enjoy your training.

[joko]

Hi Wuji,

Thanks for writing your post. I always enjoy reading it, and every time I learn something new, or confirm what I think I have learnt from our art.

Just a quick response: Perhaps what you have written, as quoted below, is part of the reply of my former question (Shaolinquan begins from hard to soft, while WT progresses from soft to hard).

Pushing and Striking Hands are the bridge between patterns and the start of combat training. One of the key characteristics of Taijiquan is the ability to sense, follow and redirect the opponent's force and these methods develop these skills to a high level before we land or block a punch.

But why is this training method not used in Shaolin? My guess is that with Sifu upgrading his methods all the time, we may well see it in a future Shaolin course.....But the reason why it is not done now, I think, is because our current Shaolinquan methods are simple, direct and effective.We train our spacing and timing in the combat sequence itself, rather than "waste" time training the skills using a bridging method. Another reason is that Shaolin tends to meet the incoming force rather than follow it, at least at the basic level. This is relative of course, since in our Shaolin combat sequences, we deflect rather than use hard blocks, but as a matter of degree, the difference between how WT and Shaolin deal with incoming force and energy is quite obvious.

Your observation about Sifu not teaching Lifting Water is an example of my getting confirmation from your post. I had similar thought, as well as about Cloud Hands. Especially when I remember Sifu corrected my performance of Cloud Hands on the first day of the course. Now Cloud Hands has become one of my favorite practices. Meanwhile, when I do try performing Lifting Water at home, I noticed I can do it much better than I did before. So you are right, Sifu has transmitted the skill of Lifting Water, when we do the other forms of practice.

Anyway, I have faith that Sifu teaches us what he considers best for us.

Please allow me another question: Could you imagine why in Shaolinquan the forearm is referred as 'bridge'? Is the name 'Golden Bridge' derived from this?

Keep on posting, I am sure not only I and other readers will improve from your posts, you will improve your skill yourself. (Not only improvement in wrting, but other skills as well).

It proves the truth of another Sifu's advice back in April 2005 when I attended the Chikung Corse: Joining the Forum Discussion is part of our training.

Best regards,
Joko

[Zhang Wuji]

Continuing with my posts, as promised...

Those who have no idea of what the Combat Sequences in Shaolin and WT look like may be a little bewildered, but do check out the picture series on Sifu's website. Neither the videos nor the pictures convey the dynamism and flow of the sequences but no harm looking at them.

My impression of the more obvious differences are that:

a) there are fewer sequences in WT than Shaolin
b) The demarcation between the sequences in WT is less obvious than in Shaolin
c) The footwork in WT is more complicated
d) In seeming contradiction to (c), there are times when the footwork is simpler
e) As mentioned before, there is constant contact in TW

(a) is not as facetious as it may seem. The reason why WT has only 12 as compared to 16 sequences is because Sifu has taken the trouble to refine the sequences and distill them into just 12. It is quite clear even to the casual observer that Seq 1 (Immortal) is much more complex than Black TIger. And while White Snake (Seq 3) seems simple enough with three repeated White Snakes, the body movements are not. Sifu mentioned during the WT course that the pressing attack in the later sequences in Shaolin have now been introduced in WT Seq 5 (White Crane).

(b) Whereas in Shaolin, there is quite a clear progression from sequence to sequence, it is not so obvious in WT. In Shaolin, Seq 1-4 deal with the basic hand patterns, 5-8, use of the right leg, 9-12, the kicks and 13-16, fells and grips. in WT, from Seq 2, there is already a change of leg positions from right to left. Kicks are also in abundance from Seq 5 onwards. This made WT more confusing for me in the beginning but then I realised Sifu's genius in arranging these sequences. The WT sequences overlap and merge in a way that reminded me of the Taiji symbol.

(c) From Seq 6 onwards, the WT sequences begin show more intricate footwork. The exponents will rotate around the compass (or bagua) and will not face their original directions at the end of the sequence. In contrast, the Shaolin sequences move up and down in a straight line, in accordance with what the Shaolin classics describe as "attack and defence in a line". Again, I cannot help drawing the connection between the background philosophies of Taosim and Zen. WT and Taijiquan favour flow and circular movement and Shaolin, the simple direct and effective straight line.

(d) Yet, very often, WT does not move, or should I say, exhibits extreme economy of movement. In Seq 1 and 3, for example, all attacks can be neutralised while remaining in the same Bow stance. Shaolin sequences seem to stress a need to take one step back, or shift from a Bow into a False-leg stance when dealing with oncoming strikes. I have not as yet worked out why this is the case, but certainly it feels to me that the respective responses in the sequences feel most natural as they are. For example, I felt awkward when I experimented with trying to deflect a strike from my imaginary opponent after my Fierce Tiger Speeds Thru Valley using an Immortal Waves Sleeves. It was just so much better to pull back into a Single Tiger (Seq 5, Shaolin).[Oops, I think that was a case of trying to be smarter than my Master, by experimenting with new techniques But that was for research purposes, for this article ). This led me to conclude that the sequences are arranged in the most appropriate way for trainng the correct movement (why are I not surprised? ).

(e) I mentioned this in an earlier post, but it bears repeating. I have noticed this again and again when practising with my Shaolin partner. In a typical sequence, we break contact intermittently, and have this engage - disengage pattern, whereas in WT, skin contact is maintained throughout the sequence (save for Seq 4, 5, 6, 8). I am not sure of the significance of this but when it does come to me, if ever, I will be sure to post it.

In the meantime, any additions, corrections or objections from any of my Shaolin Wahnam brethren and guests. Joko will of course be posting soon, bless him.

[Charles David]

Joko will of course be posting soon, bless him.

I certainly will.


Still,