Taijiquan

**Omar** · Posted On: 2/18/2007 10:55pm

Never met any but I've hardly met any Sun players period. My impression from the outside is "why bother". Why not just learn Xingyi since that's what Sun Lutang was really good at and his Taiji is kind of Xingyi mechanics with Taiji moves.

The only "fighter" I know of using Sun Style is probably Tim Cartmell.

I am not a fan of the Chen style. I have my prejudices and basically it boils down to the fact that I haven't seen anything in Chen that I don't get with Baji. LOT's of people have noted over the years that Baji is basically Chen style's second form "er-lu". Yang Luchan's most essential innovation was to completely remove any external expressions of various jin that he could and basically make things more a matter of intent and by doing so, both hide the intent of the moves better and speed up the changes. Wu did the same thing following in Yang Luchan's footsteps even to the point of going back to the Chen village to get the "original material" to work with. So I can see Yang and Wu as being logical extensions or further evolutions of the ideas that make Taijiquan so unique.

I see Sun as an unessecary or at least not completely successful synthesis and most (not all) Chen as a step backwards.

The "problem" is just that there is this whole Yang Chengfu line which is definately a step backwards although, I have to admit that the removal of such a large percentage of the technical arsenal has, ironically, produced more fighters than you see in most lines. What has tended to happen is that deprived of a really good set of techniques, a lot of YCF people chant the mantra "principles....principles....principles..." and then rely on simple (aka "high percentage") moves and don't even know what they are missing. They end up focusing on just simple relaxed movement and fight more intuitively. You can go a long way with that. Taijiquan is both technique AND principles. You can kind of get by on either one but I think being forced to only rely on one has made people...well....specialize, and sometimes with quite positive effects.

**Afrin** · Posted On: 2/19/2007 2:15am

Thank you for your thoughtful reply Omar

**glad2bhere** · Posted On: 2/22/2007 12:24pm

This is all good. There is still the matter, though, of just how much what passes for YANG TCC differs from its CHEN TCC precedent. For instance, we know that YANG trimmed down much of what he may have picked-up from the CHEN family. However, did he keep the same terminology or nomenclature? Was Pats-High-(The)-Horse identified and executed in the same way for both traditions? Without examining this aspect are we not in danger of painting all TCC with too broad a brush? Thoughts?

Best Wishes,

Bruce

**It is Fake** · Posted On: 2/22/2007 12:32pm

Originally Posted by Omar

Never met any but I've hardly met any Sun players period. My impression from the outside is "why bother". Why not just learn Xingyi since that's what Sun Lutang was really good at and his Taiji is kind of Xingyi mechanics with Taiji moves.

Interesting I thought I only had that impression.

I am not a fan of the Chen style. I have my prejudices and basically it boils down to the fact that I haven't seen anything in Chen that I don't get with Baji. LOT's of people have noted over the years that Baji is basically Chen style's second form "er-lu". Yang Luchan's most essential innovation was to completely remove any external expressions of various jin that he could and basically make things more a matter of intent and by doing so, both hide the intent of the moves better and speed up the changes. Wu did the same thing following in Yang Luchan's footsteps even to the point of going back to the Chen village to get the "original material" to work with. So I can see Yang and Wu as being logical extensions or further evolutions of the ideas that make Taijiquan so unique.

Then what do you say to the books that state Yang is a watered down version of Chen? That Yang was a revolutionary that took many of the stronger(high percentage) tech out, to spite the emperor.

**Guizzy** · Posted On: 2/22/2007 1:16pm

I went to a (health) taiji class for a semester, at college. Barely had the time to do one form, and I can't remember how it's stringed and what it's called.

While this was health taiji, I can't help but notice how many of the movements I learned in my taiji form, I can actually use with great effect in my kung fu classes. Especially since we do an exercise that is very similar in nature to taiji push hands (we call it push body; our push hands is something else more related to Wing Chun chi sao).

If even limited exposure to health taiji could be of use...

**It is Fake** · Posted On: 2/22/2007 1:20pm

Originally Posted by Guizzy

If even limited exposure to health taiji could be of use...

No. Not at all.

If you want to discuss this, I'll start another thread with you as the topic starter.

**Guizzy** · Posted On: 2/22/2007 1:55pm

I don't think that will be necessary, as I think it might only be a misunderstanding.

When I say health taiji, it was technically a Chen taiji form, only the teacher had no real interest in teaching martial applications.

I just happened to find applications for the form on my own in a kung fu context.

**Omar** · Posted On: 2/22/2007 3:41pm

Originally Posted by It is Fake??

Interesting I thought I only had that impression.

Then what do you say to the books that state Yang is a watered down version of Chen? That Yang was a revolutionary that took many of the stronger(high percentage) tech out, to spite the emperor.

I say that the authors are idiots writing stuff that is pure speculation that is mostly historical impossibility.

I further say that the author has a monumentally superficial understanding of the Yang style.

Yang style was watered down by Yang Chengfu when he created an alternate form for public transmission at the Nanjing Acadamy and then watered down again in 1950 or so when the CCP created the Beijing 24. All you need to do to disprove that theory is get your hands on someone with legit lineage not descending from YCF and it becomes pretty obvious what a crock that story is. A little just really rudimentary understanding of Chinese history and culture and you'd see what a ridiculous idea it is to think that YLC could have been any kind of a revolutionary and end up teaching in the palace.

**blacktiger** · Posted On: 2/22/2007 10:20pm

"Yang style was watered down by Yang Chengfu when he created an alternate form for public transmission at the Nanjing Acadamy and then watered down again in 1950 or so when the CCP created the Beijing 24. All you need to do to disprove that theory is get your hands on someone with legit lineage not descending from YCF and it becomes pretty obvious what a crock that story is. A little just really rudimentary understanding of Chinese history and culture and you'd see what a ridiculous idea it is to think that YLC could have been any kind of a revolutionary and end up teaching in the palace."

So, what would you say to someone like William C.C. Chen? His only teacher was Cheng Man Cheng who was a Yang Chen Fu student.

As to "watered down" arts, I dont buy it. I dont believe that "CMA" is the only science in the world that is going backwords. I think there arent as many people who practice and look at it as a science but i dont think is going backwords.

**Omar** · Posted On: 2/22/2007 10:43pm

Originally Posted by blacktiger

So, what would you say to someone like William C.C. Chen? His only teacher was Cheng Man Cheng who was a Yang Chen Fu student.

And some of the best fighters I know are working with nothing more than the Beijing 24 which is, IMO, a piece of ****. But that's not what defines Taijiquan or determines a persons level of gongfu. If you've got the 8 big jin and the 5 steps then you can build from there. Ultimately, the specific techniques become almost completely irrelevant. So YCF did a good job in that while stripping out the majority of the combat applications, he preserved the seeds needed to build good Taiji.

The watering down of the form is not really questionable. All you have to do is look at a side by side comparison with the YCF form and one of the older Yang forms. Most of the leg work has been removed, sweeps are taken out along with various joint locks and striking aspects. Things are simplified right down the line and there is a clear historical record of his motives. At the time, his family form was top secret but then he was invited to teach publically at the national acadamy.

As to "watered down" arts, I dont buy it. I dont believe that "CMA" is the only science in the world that is going backwords. I think there arent as many people who practice and look at it as a science but i dont think is going backwords.

That's your perogative. I have gotten it directly from enough people who are in the lineage close enough to know. You also extrapolated a red herring out of what I said. I never said that anything is going "backwards". I only referred to one single...two actually, instances of fundamental changes being made to the form that could be considered "backwards" but even then only if you make the same error most people do when talking about "regular" evolution, namely that it has directionality. I don't know enough about what William Chen has done with what he learned from Cheng Maning to make any serious comment on it.

p.s. Was thinking about it some more and realized what a red herring the whole William Chen thing is as even Chen Manqing didn't teach the Yang Chengfu form. He to created his own thing. Wether he improved or detracted, you'd have to decide for yourself but William Chen's stuff can not be said to be based on the YCF form if he was a student of Cheng Manqing.