Answers To Common Inquiries
Do I have to be military or law enforcement to train feudal Baguazhang/ Shaolin/ Tai Chi Chuan?
Absolutely not, all levels of practitioners interested in factual martial art research, refined biomechanics, and traditional martial application are welcome. We are by appointment only and have a research-based approach to martial studies. Our organization’s emphasis is on historical accuracy, yet applied in a way practical for contemporary life. The practitioners here range anywhere from physicians, PhDs, engineers, to retired Marine corps, Airforce, and film people.
What should I expect from feudal kungfu training? How does the medieval approach to internal martial arts differ from the industry standard?
One should expect precise historical knowledge of ancient cultures, integrated with sophisticated biomechanics and practical martial strategy. There is no mystery to the original intent, what time period, which technique, what context. It is understood most modern internal martial art training carries elements of mind-body, philosophy, formwork, and one-on-one empty hand application as seen in kung-fu cinemas or MMA. This is the industry standard in today’s kungfu culture, whether or not we choose it. In contemporary times, it is a challenge to wear armor and practice cavalry charges on horseback. Our goal here is not necessarily to travel back in time to mimic generations of which we are not. Cerebrally, however, one must understand the mindset of ancient cultures, with detailed insight into the era of which the martial structures evolved- for which purpose. In biomechanical/ martial practice, one may choose whichever approach is preferred, in a way that makes sense for the individual. Defined military science and research is emphasized to preserve feudal kungfu artifact, which is near extinction in mainstream kungfu instruction. In short, everything you enjoyed about kungfu instruction before will still be available. However, there will be no delusions on the context or exact origins of the martial technique. There is extreme depth on historical biomechanics and body skill as used by feudal masters, with original psychology and strategy for self-defense.
I’m not really into weapons training and prefer empty-hand formwork. I prefer fitness and meditation, and some occasional sporting duels with friends. What then?
This is actually common in today’s kungfu culture due to civil weapons ban in China. Many lineage grandmasters from asia have feudal amnesia, in regards to the original weapons intent/ strategy of the unarmed practice as currently instructed. Chinese Kungfu has strong weapons foundation in feudal times- this is a primary reason the postures look so exotic. However, unarmed techniques are used in conjunction with the weapon, or independent when the weapon is unavailable. We strive for historical accuracy, one should know which posture is armed, which unarmed, what weapon, context, etc. Then one can practice the weapons routine segments, unarmed, but do so while preserving the proper angles and structures as originally intended. Almost all kungfu people train feudal weapons posture in unarmed context nowadays. In our perspective, knowledge is primary- the choice is secondary. The setbacks of kungfu schools today is an unawareness of original weapons context which the system thrived. Most instructors are influenced by the Peking Opera interpretation of martial history, stemming from folk tradition before the internet. The trend of Baguazhang or Taijiquan today, ancient armed techniques are instructed as unarmed- not knowing which was which, due to lack of military science. Many lineages have been inspired to construct numerous and impractical Peking Opera weapons routines based on literary imaginative novels, neglecting the original weapons work contained in the now perceived empty-hand routine. Obvious problems will result from improper historical knowledge, such as a swift grounding and pounding by an MMA practitioner, or sticking and adhering to an armed bad guy.
Why are there so much military/ police documentation and intense historical images on this website or your videos?
The feudal definition of “Real” Chinese Kungfu is close combat to serve the emperor, often risking life or death. Even Jet Li reveals this fact in numerous interviews. It would be of concern if there were no military or combative documentation on this website if the quest is for authentic, high-level Kungfu. Military school for special forces was called Imperial Wushu Examination back in the day, that’s not the wushu now. China has a population of over 1.4 billion people- internal kungfu lineages branch from only a few founding fathers. Given the accurate definition of “real” kungfu in medieval China, the founders of Baguazhang, Shaolin, or Taijiquan better be some ultra tactical bad-asses. The misunderstanding of real Chinese martial arts nowadays, is a mix of the Peking Opera tradition, Peking Opera-inspired cinema, and of China banning combative context from civilians- including original weapons… so now we are left with Peking Opera Weapons and Peking Opera-inspired weapons routines. And yes, many schools will present you with a certificate of Peking Opera-fu mastery. At times, it’s nice to be reminded of the chivalrous and valiant warriors who dedicated their efforts to high-stress scenarios, so regular people can chill out at home and meditate while playing video games.
What makes this organization different from any other kungfu school? Every lineage declares they are the purest and represent the one true system of Internal Martial Art founders, yet they do not present kungfu in this way?
This organization is different because we really do not talk about Internal Martial Arts in a mainstream way. Feudal Tai Chi Chuan, Xingyi, or Baguazhang are technically centuries apart in development, yet now they are instructed similarly and thrown into one basket labeled “internal”. That is an indicator something is not historically accurate- military science and research provide the answers when lineage grandmasters cannot. As a feudal martial art researcher, it is understood one cannot possibly represent an ancient art in the purest form- without understanding the exact historical context, date, and technology of the era in which it was used. The truth is, many believe they are the purest, and some are indeed authentic. Some descend generation after generation, with complete trust of their teachers. However, it takes just one generation to forever alter the original system. Most kungfu schools now are using the wrong weapons, modernized application, kungfu pugilistic/ duelistic strategy- inaccurately presenting the methods of elite military officials in a Kungfu vs MMA context. Feudal research is to preserve historical artifact, and there are other lineages worthy of preservation around the world- though most prefer to continue the 2nd Generation interpretation of internal kungfu history, otherwise, their websites and videos should look more like the ones here, raw, intense, medieval. Military science and raw historical data can prove the lineage is exactly what it says it is. Modern kungfu can run, but it cannot hide from its factual history.
The He Jinbao/ Xie Peiqi Baguazhang systems are already presented on the public domain. The material sound philosophical and I- Ching oriented, doesn’t look like the medieval presentation here? What is different about the IRFS training vs there? Also, the material looks massive and intimidating for distance learning, I don’t have a very good memory.
We do not present Yin Style Baguazhang in a classical philosophy manner. Yin Fu’s system is labeled as “Shaolin” methods in post-Qing Dynasty law enforcement and military circles in China. Civilian groups instructed Yin Style Baguazhang in the classical “internal” way, however much of the foundational training consists of elite military drilling for Qing Special Forces- the old masters have forgotten the original weapons and context. We are here to remind them, whether or not they want to be reminded. If one is searching for Yin Fu’s Imperial Guard Commander system, realize it contains technique for mounted and foot officers, battalions, eunuch bodyguards, counterintelligence, law enforcement. The material as presented on He Jinbao/ Xie public domain videos do not clarify what system, the technique is for what terrain, which weapon. The material leaves out, whether a strike category is for mounted cavalry, or for foot soldiers, and everything is displayed in one-on-one dueling manner. Historical military arts are nuanced with different factors, not just dantian rotation and Qi development. For example, Dragon Leading in the Dragon system is presented with applications for civilians, against an unarmed, single opponent. Through historical research into the ancient treatise, it is obvious the technique is originally armed, not unarmed- as the applications shown currently are impractical for melee combat. Another example, Bear Leaning, history reveals they are primarily bayonet disarms used in conjunction with one’s own bayonet, or unarmed against armed opponents, in Qing era. Dragon Chopping, that is military saber in origin for officers. One should know the Chinese prefer not to duel with swords like the Three Musketeers- it becomes obvious with the proper historical context. There are interesting historical relics throughout, including polearm strategy for foot officers, which some label as Cheng Style Baguazhang. Some just like to practice empty-hand routines and work on biomechanics, possibly some scientific martial physics. Generally, they find the history insightful, and chisel away in a standard Kungfu way… and for memory setbacks, I wouldn’t feel too bad about that, as all kungfu today, have amnesia with the Peking Opera uprising. As for the documented animal systems, we generally recommend the Dragon as the core if one cannot decide. There are eight strike categories and seven major footwork patterns. One should initially train into memory the seven footwork patterns- while choosing one strike category of interest. This is the most important step, as the arms adapt with ease after the footwork foundation is intact- feudal insight reinforce the rest.
How about Tai Chi training? Do I have to wear armor and spar like the HEMA people? How is the Chen Tai Chi program here different from other Chen schools?
It is worth noting, a multitude of scholars in China believe General Qi Jiguang to be the Grand Founding Father of Chen Tai Chi Chuan. His philosophy generally states, the practical is not pretty and the pretty is not practical…unarmed fighting is unsuitable for war. So there goes the majority of mainstream Tai Chi instruction today. Granted the reason Tai Chi is popular nowadays, is because there is no armor and battlefield, but instead, gratuitous silk reeling sensitive, and scholarly push-hands, with supplemental Peking Opera swords with tassel training. Ming Dynasty military arts or Tai Chi before it was called Tai Chi, is similar to medieval knights such as King Arthur movies. The system shifted in strategy during the non-armor dynasties, however, currently, there are many inaccuracies. Again, we are research-driven to provide the context of the ancient era- the practitioner chooses which method of training, whether of solo framework developing historical dantian body methods or in a more Ming era fighting sense. Ming strategy is still used by armed police in China, with shield and baton etc. Most civilians would find that training impractical, so usually they appreciate the history but work on empty hand routine/ biomechanics, and train unarmored empty-hand applications- often desired. Modern Tai Chi schools favor the post-Peking Opera interpretation of internal kungfu history. IRFS understands this is what people expect from Tai Chi. However, Chen Tai Chi has a strong foundation in Shaolin military weapons, which are inherent in the First and Second Routines. Much of Chen Tai Chi weapons routines as instructed are a new creation using weapons which did not exist in Ming era. There are oddities, such as impractical looking postures in Cannonfist, which many have forgotten are Shaolin staff transitions. The schools now often rotate the hands in a different angle so that the staff is improperly aligned, and there are some pointless discussions as to which empty-hand application they were in origin, as those are direct from Ming Shaolin armed treatise. Often schools neglect to inform students, that during the Ming era, Shui Chiao is trained for non-armor and push hands is supplemented for armor and polearms control. For armored military units, the hands will often be holding a shield or sword, and the purpose of close distance grappling is primarily for taking the opponent down to disrupt their Qi with the weapon in hand. One does not want to drop the sword while knocking over the opponent. In this context, push hands is beneficial, as it can control without grabbing etc. In modern times without armor and fighting unarmed, Shui Chiao provides additional options. Feudal research can solve such setbacks, and restore a more precise empty-hand framework, for those who do not like to train with polearms, or sword with shield.