Yang family

[wayne hansen]

I know not every posture is there
What I meant was the orientation and order of the movements follows the 108
Just like the 37 does
If there are not 108 moves that follows reason
I was saying that in reply to the other form that was presented with the guy in white
He was all over the place and looked like he was just making it up as he goes
The Tung form has even changed the starting direction

[Trick]

The for some decades now representative of the Tung/Dong style of TJQ in Sweden, sure he as I remember don’t extremely hunch forward as the Dongs, but he has(or at least had. I haven’t been to Sweden for a long time)this weird constant flickering with his fingers while doing the form, his students picked up that too.
His long time students also didn’t seem to understand that the sword has cutting edges and sharp point.
And the school seem quite commercial.

What am I saying by this ? Well, whatever people criticize YCF or even ZMQ, the Dongs seem not have done any better, maybe even worse?

Yes it seem that the six directional harmony is lacking, which makes it not possible to achieve the spherical force, being centered without leakage to the sides.

I have no idea who this guy from your past is

But, If I understand you correctly...

You do like anything he teaches
And, the Dongs are ...
Even worse than YCF or ZMQ!

Message Received
Thanks for sharing

Yes I haven’t got good vibes from the Tung organization, it’s mainly based on what I’ve seen from that representative school in my hometown in Sweden(they’re listed on the Tung family official webpage, not hard to get an idea of their existence)?I wouldn’t mention this if the Tung style of TJQ had its own thread, I wouldn’t participate in it.
However this thread about the Yang family TJQ and maybe more about the Yang family per se.
Tung family RSF representative Ito jumped in with that not so uncommon hate rhetoric of his directed toward YCF and YCF’s disciple ZMQ.
I admit it triggered me to write what I wrote but anyway I would like to believe that Ito gone rouge and what he say and claim about the Yang family and some of their disciples are not the stance taken by the Tung family .

[Trick]

My question is how come nowadays you have all these thousands of people around the world who practice Taiji for an hour a day, for a handful of years, self proclaiming themselves as master Taiji fighters. Then you have the handful of Taiji masters of old, who practiced Taiji for 8 hours a day, for 10-30 years, but somehow they’re not considered competent Taiji fighters?

It doesn’t add up.

.

In todays rapid society an hour is at least comparable with 16 h of the old world…and also 1 hour training + 10 h intellectual taiji musings + a couple of h of video watching = supreme mastery

[origami_itto]

Yes I haven’t got good vibes from the Tung organization, it’s mainly based on what I’ve seen from that representative school in my hometown in Sweden(they’re listed on the Tung family official webpage, not hard to get an idea of their existence)?I wouldn’t mention this if the Tung style of TJQ had its own thread, I wouldn’t participate in it.
However this thread about the Yang family TJQ and maybe more about the Yang family per se.
Tung family RSF representative Ito jumped in with that not so uncommon hate rhetoric of his directed toward YCF and YCF’s disciple ZMQ.
I admit it triggered me to write what I wrote but anyway I would like to believe that Ito gone rouge and what he say and claim about the Yang family and some of their disciples are not the stance taken by the Tung family .

Hey man if you don't vibe, you don't vibe. Get in where you fit in.

I am in NO WAY a "representative of the Tung family" and I'd appreciate it if you not try to misrepresent my participation. Some people take claims like that very seriously and might ask someone to answer for spreading them.

I'm authorized to teach Alex Dong's Fundamental Qigong and Simplified Form. There's quite a bit more to get under my belt before I can consider myself representing anything.

As far as Yang Cheng Fu and Cheng Man Ching and dishonesty goes, there's no "hate rhetoric".

If you hate somebody, you ignore their flaws and let them fester. When you love them, you let them know when they're fucking up. I love Yang style Tai Chi Chuan, but the publication of these blatant falsehoods in Yang Cheng Fu's name, attributed to Cheng Man Ching gives me pause.

What other lies are in the body of information that came from this branch of instruction?

We know their description of "double weighting" leaves much to be desired and tends to confuse the shit out of students. I've also had somebody approach me convinced that stick, adhere, join, follow were just other names for ward off, rollback, press, push because of the description of the push hands exercises in their books.

I honestly believe that Yang Cheng Fu was maybe just a bit too trusting with the words he let other people put in his mouth. There's a lot of confusion running around in his name.
He only knew CMC for a year before they wrote this book together.

It is not hateful to speak the truth.

Last thing I'll say here,

The "TEN IMPORTANT POINTS" that are so precious, they are the DEFINIG FEATURE of Yang Tai Chi. If you don't follow YANG CHENG FU'S TEN POINTS you are NOT DOING TAI CHI.

But don't we remember how in Yang Cheng Fu's first book, there were 20? 10 for the body and 10 for practice, and how the 10 they took in Cheng Man Ching's book are drawn from both lists?

I don't hate Yang Cheng Fu, but there are some serious Kung Fu Hustle vibes coming off the public lineage right now. So strange that he died a year after this was published of mysterious causes....


身法
RULES FOR THE BODY

提起精神
[1] Raise the spirit.
虛靈頂勁
[2] Forcelessly press up your headtop.
含胸拔背
[3] Contain the chest and pull up the back.
鬆肩墜肘
[4] Loosen the shoulders and drop the elbows.
氣沉丹田
[5] Energy sinks to the elixir field.
手與肩平
[6] The hands are at shoulder level.
胯與膝平
[7] The hips are at knee level.
尻道上提
[8] Tuck in the anus.
尾閭中正
[9] The tailbone is centered.
內外相合
[10] Inside and outside merge together.

練法
RULES FOR PRACTICE

不强用力
[1] Do not forcefully apply power.
以心行氣
[2] Use the mind to move energy.
步如貓行
[3] Step like a cat.
上下相隨
[4] The upper body and lower coordinate with each other.
呼吸自然
[5] The breathing is natural.
一線串成
[6] The whole thing is a single thread throughout.
變換在腰
[7] Changes are in the waist.
氣行四肢
[8] Energy travels to the four limbs.
分淸虛實
[9] Clearly distinguish empty and full.
圓轉如意
[10] Turn with roundness and facility.

[charles]

Honestly, YCF and CMC did more to fuck up people's understanding of authentic Taijiquan than to help. Pretty much every bit of information to come out of them needs further clarification to be accurate. Take the whole double weighting thing...

I'm surprised the crusaders for TRUTH aren't more curious about the lies they published, though. Just a little hand waving "oh he didn't really say that"

I'm not in any way a Taiji historian and don't have all that much interest in infinitesimal details of its history. I started out learning Yang style Taijiquan and read the standard "Yang style" classic texts, but I haven't obsessed over the writings or even read them in some years. I haven't found the vast majority of what I've read about Taijiquan to be terribly insightful on how to physically practice the art. That's particularly true of CMC's writings. Part of that is because I've found that writings are too easily misinterpreted: Taijiquan is an experiential art rather than an academic one. In short, my experience has been that it isn't possible to learn the art by reading about it, regardless of who did the writing. The writings aren't really a how-to manual. As the expression goes, the map is not the territory.

That said, I agree: virtually everything I've ever read regarding Taijiquan required further clarification. In addition, "accuracy" and "authenticity" are something of a moving target since so many claim to be the one "true" art with the one "true, authentic" set of skills. Given that many who claim that they have the "true" skills have very different skill sets from one another, I've found determining "accuracy" and "authenticity" to be difficult. It's more along the lines of choosing which set of "true" skills you like and adopting those as "authentic".

What, specifically, have you found that YCF wrote - or was published in his name - that wasn't "authentic" or was misleading? You suggest that what was written about "double-weighting" was somehow wrong or misleading. What about it is wrong or misleading or incomplete? What I recall reading was spot-on but has lead to many misinterpretations.

Then there is the issue of solo practice done one way and application done a different way. That is, the solo practice being taught and practiced in a way that is ineffective in two-person work or fighting and to be effective needs to be altered.

[wayne hansen]

Too many people think the classics are a recipe book
They instead are a checklist of things achieved
First the teacher
Second training
Third the understanding
I like the saying
The Devil can quote the Bible to his own ends
This has been proved in a stunning manner just recently

[ParadoxTeapot]

The Baguazhang and Xingyi people had already just switched to saying Fa Li instead of Fajin in the 1980s and now most of the old Chen guys have also switched. So I also try to use Fali instead of Fajin, to avoid confusion.

In a normal fast punch, in every style of martial art or boxing, the bones of the hand and arm are moving but all the loose flesh of the arm, shoulder and back muscles are lagging behind but eventually are dragged along and follow the movement of the bones. In high speed camera footage we can now see that our loose flesh moves like waves of water move in a pond of water. So when the bones of the hand and arm want to stop, the wave of flesh continues its movement along that trajectory and the weight and momentum of the flesh continues to move the whole arm past that point and can then start to drag the bones.

In a fast punch using Fa Li, the practitioner first uses a quick movement of the lumbar and sacrum to jolt their own abdomen to create a wave of flesh moving upward, and then the bones of the hand and arm strike outward, following and moving along with that wave of flesh, so that both flesh, muscle and bone are moving at the same time in a single harmonious movement. And if the strike stops, it all stops at the same time. There’s nothing lagging behind to continue the forward momentum. And more importantly for the daily training aspect of a martial art, there’s not that lagging behind of the flesh that can cause that slight pain when the weight and momentum wants to pull you forearm bones away from your elbow joint. With a Fa Li you can punch full speed and with full power, into the air, without feeling that dislocation of the elbow joint. Or have that slight off balancing effect from of your own momentum not stopping at the same time. Everything after the movement of your lumbar and abdomen (Dantian) starts moving at the same time, and can stop moving at the same time. Which if you factor your Yi (intention) into this harmony, it also has profound effects over the lifetime of your practice because your Yi is not scattered by having the Intention to stop, but not actually stopping.

What's the difference between Fa Li and Fa Jin? Why did they switch the terms in the 1980's?

[origami_itto]

Honestly, YCF and CMC did more to fuck up people's understanding of authentic Taijiquan than to help. Pretty much every bit of information to come out of them needs further clarification to be accurate. Take the whole double weighting thing...

I'm surprised the crusaders for TRUTH aren't more curious about the lies they published, though. Just a little hand waving "oh he didn't really say that"

I'm not in any way a Taiji historian and don't have all that much interest in infinitesimal details of its history. I started out learning Yang style Taijiquan and read the standard "Yang style" classic texts, but I haven't obsessed over the writings or even read them in some years. I haven't found the vast majority of what I've read about Taijiquan to be terribly insightful on how to physically practice the art. That's particularly true of CMC's writings. Part of that is because I've found that writings are too easily misinterpreted: Taijiquan is an experiential art rather than an academic one. In short, my experience has been that it isn't possible to learn the art by reading about it, regardless of who did the writing. The writings aren't really a how-to manual. As the expression goes, the map is not the territory.

Writing is communication, full stop. So is talking. So is touching. Some things are easier to communicate in one medium than another, some things are easier for some people to express and understand in various media.

We run into problems when we start projecting our own limitations and gifts onto others expecting they'll receive similar results from similar experiences and exposure, but that isn't always the case. I do find more often than not that accusations we throw at others are more often than not confessions of our own guilt and insecurities than a reflection of the truth of the person we throw them at.

Particularly in matters of intellect, research shows that an IQ difference of 2 standard deviations is as great an impediment to communication as two speakers of different native languages communicating in a third. I'm constantly misunderstood, you get used to it, but you can't stop trying to get through to people no matter how many dialtone stares you get in response.

"If you rely solely on books, best not to have books. If you rely solely on teachers, best not to have teachers." - T. T. Liang.

If the only way you get anything out of this is for your teacher to show you directly and tell you explicitly then I am so sorry for your condition. The teachers I respect show me tools and principles and encourage me to experiment with them, and that is true across all disciplines, from gongfu to literature to music to lovemaking.... oohh yeah.

Make it your own, only a rebel can really get anything.

The "classics" are many-faceted. If you find nothing useful in them, then you are right, and should not bother delving deeper.

Personally, I find the things that past masters have chosen to put down in writing to be useful for a number of reasons, theoretical and practical. But you do have to learn discernment when delving into the study. Just like the things that we choose to share here in this forum.

You need a map for them, they aren't a map any more than this form is a map. They're a collection of thoughts, theories, techniques, and experiences. What you get from them is determined by what you put into them, like all of gongfu.

I think the key thing to remember is that... what is the quote...
"it is the mark of an educated person to search for the same kind of clarity in each topic to the extent that the nature of the matter accepts it."
-Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it"
-Not Aristotle, though he gets the credit

So instruction, along with reading, along with practice, along with testing outside our comfort zones, alltogether, becomes the crucible in which our gongfu is purified.

What, specifically, have you found that YCF wrote - or was published in his name - that wasn't "authentic" or was misleading? You suggest that what was written about "double-weighting" was somehow wrong or misleading. What about it is wrong or misleading or incomplete? What I recall reading was spot-on but has lead to many misinterpretations.

That's a pretty big can of worms to open and would invite more of the same old insults from the same old monkeys. We can't even get them to admit to the documented falsehood, much less start discussing more abstract concepts objectively, and that's the problem. (More on this in a second)

So instead let's just examine the fruit.

What is the reputation of Yang Taijiquan and what is the demonstrated skill level of 95% of its exponents? Everybody does it, but nobody "gets it".

What is the reason for the disconnect?

In a single concept, lack of objective testing of skills. That allows whatever nonsense the teacher can make sound convincing enough to flourish and teaches the students THAT skill. There is a lack of investment in loss and instead an investment in appearance, where any indication that the teacher is not possessed of omnipotent superhuman skill is deemed too threatening to be allowed to occur.

So those misunderstandings are never corrected by coming into contact with reality. Sifu is a champion of 1000 imaginary battles. Dancing alone and imagining themselves a sword master. A naked emperor spinning for their court.

So without that investment in loss, where does the operating fund come from? The riches of the art themselves, slowly depleted of value. A mountain of gold reduced to a hollow shell.

Like, "double weighting", they say "weight evenly divided between the feet is double weighted", but that isn't true. You can be free with your weight divided. You can be stuck on one leg. It doesn't need clarification, it needs to be completely wiped and replaced as a concept. The beginning premise points in the wrong direction. Much of the other information CMC in particular presents as established fact winds up being his own invention with no clear line between the two.

What else is there? How important is it? Who knows? But it IS something to think about while my legs rest and my scripts run.

Then there is the issue of solo practice done one way and application done a different way. That is, the solo practice being taught and practiced in a way that is ineffective in two-person work or fighting and to be effective needs to be altered.

Solo work should prepare us for partner work to polish. The art takes four hands to learn.

[Bob]

Rare Niu Chunming Yang Style Tai Chi, Yang Chengpu Tai Chi Ten Essentials难得一见的牛春明杨式太极拳，杨澄浦太极十要

https://youtu.be/jCX981EEL54?si=09ctA1RK-nefvJGi

Tai Chi is a valuable asset worthing exploring and possessing, regardless of age or gender!
Master Chang, indulging in studying and practicing Tai Chi Kungfu more than 35 years, especially in Great Master Yang Lu-Chan 's forms and Wang Songyue's theories. As an intelligent Taichi cultivator, he can explain the spirit of Tai Chi in Physics、 Taoism Philosophy, and in anatomy very well, due to his bachelor's degree in civil construction engineering. At the same time, he has achieved unbelievable Kungfu skills. Want to learn real Tai c\Chi Kung from him? Subscribe this channel, improve your Tai chi vison and help your Kung fu evidently!
老师八十年代末就读于山东大学，因为体弱多病，本着锻炼身体，提高体质以及对神秘太极拳的憧憬，开始选修太极拳课程。至今从事杨露禅、王宗岳太极理论与实践研究35年。长期的刻苦习练经验，浏览阅读了大量的太极拳文献及视频资料，接触过全国无数太极拳的爱好者，历经千辛万苦才对太极拳有了一点初步的认识。剖析太极功夫现状，探讨太极功夫真相，分享练拳心得及技巧。太极拳是无论男女老幼都值得探究拥有的宝贵财富！关注禅宗太极频道，教你怎样学好太极拳，练出太极真功夫！



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xhxO9PQMhwk

I am so lucky in life to meet a real master, Xiuzhan: an honest farmer from Badajiao, who has passed down the original Tai Chi style inherited from Yang Luchan to the present, and his merits are immeasurable! If Tai Chi is still real, then this set of original Wang Maozhai’s 83-style Tai Chi should be the only one.

[Trick]

Honestly, YCF and CMC did more to fuck up people's understanding of authentic Taijiquan than to help. Pretty much every bit of information to come out of them needs further clarification to be accurate. Take the whole double weighting thing...

I'm surprised the crusaders for TRUTH aren't more curious about the lies they published, though. Just a little hand waving "oh he didn't really say that"

I'm not in any way a Taiji historian and don't have all that much interest in infinitesimal details of its history. I started out learning Yang style Taijiquan and read the standard "Yang style" classic texts, but I haven't obsessed over the writings or even read them in some years. I haven't found the vast majority of what I've read about Taijiquan to be terribly insightful on how to physically practice the art. That's particularly true of CMC's writings. Part of that is because I've found that writings are too easily misinterpreted: Taijiquan is an experiential art rather than an academic one. In short, my experience has been that it isn't possible to learn the art by reading about it, regardless of who did the writing. The writings aren't really a how-to manual. As the expression goes, the map is not the territory.

Writing is communication, full stop. So is talking. So is touching. Some things are easier to communicate in one medium than another, some things are easier for some people to express and understand in various media.

We run into problems when we start projecting our own limitations and gifts onto others expecting they'll receive similar results from similar experiences and exposure, but that isn't always the case. I do find more often than not that accusations we throw at others are more often than not confessions of our own guilt and insecurities than a reflection of the truth of the person we throw them at.

Particularly in matters of intellect, research shows that an IQ difference of 2 standard deviations is as great an impediment to communication as two speakers of different native languages communicating in a third. I'm constantly misunderstood, you get used to it, but you can't stop trying to get through to people no matter how many dialtone stares you get in response.

"If you rely solely on books, best not to have books. If you rely solely on teachers, best not to have teachers." - T. T. Liang.

If the only way you get anything out of this is for your teacher to show you directly and tell you explicitly then I am so sorry for your condition. The teachers I respect show me tools and principles and encourage me to experiment with them, and that is true across all disciplines, from gongfu to literature to music to lovemaking.... oohh yeah.

Make it your own, only a rebel can really get anything.

The "classics" are many-faceted. If you find nothing useful in them, then you are right, and should not bother delving deeper.

Personally, I find the things that past masters have chosen to put down in writing to be useful for a number of reasons, theoretical and practical. But you do have to learn discernment when delving into the study. Just like the things that we choose to share here in this forum.

You need a map for them, they aren't a map any more than this form is a map. They're a collection of thoughts, theories, techniques, and experiences. What you get from them is determined by what you put into them, like all of gongfu.

I think the key thing to remember is that... what is the quote...
"it is the mark of an educated person to search for the same kind of clarity in each topic to the extent that the nature of the matter accepts it."
-Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it"
-Not Aristotle, though he gets the credit

So instruction, along with reading, along with practice, along with testing outside our comfort zones, alltogether, becomes the crucible in which our gongfu is purified.

What, specifically, have you found that YCF wrote - or was published in his name - that wasn't "authentic" or was misleading? You suggest that what was written about "double-weighting" was somehow wrong or misleading. What about it is wrong or misleading or incomplete? What I recall reading was spot-on but has lead to many misinterpretations.

That's a pretty big can of worms to open and would invite more of the same old insults from the same old monkeys. We can't even get them to admit to the documented falsehood, much less start discussing more abstract concepts objectively, and that's the problem. (More on this in a second)

So instead let's just examine the fruit.

What is the reputation of Yang Taijiquan and what is the demonstrated skill level of 95% of its exponents? Everybody does it, but nobody "gets it".

What is the reason for the disconnect?

In a single concept, lack of objective testing of skills. That allows whatever nonsense the teacher can make sound convincing enough to flourish and teaches the students THAT skill. There is a lack of investment in loss and instead an investment in appearance, where any indication that the teacher is not possessed of omnipotent superhuman skill is deemed too threatening to be allowed to occur.

So those misunderstandings are never corrected by coming into contact with reality. Sifu is a champion of 1000 imaginary battles. Dancing alone and imagining themselves a sword master. A naked emperor spinning for their court.

So without that investment in loss, where does the operating fund come from? The riches of the art themselves, slowly depleted of value. A mountain of gold reduced to a hollow shell.

Like, "double weighting", they say "weight evenly divided between the feet is double weighted", but that isn't true. You can be free with your weight divided. You can be stuck on one leg. It doesn't need clarification, it needs to be completely wiped and replaced as a concept. The beginning premise points in the wrong direction. Much of the other information CMC in particular presents as established fact winds up being his own invention with no clear line between the two.

What else is there? How important is it? Who knows? But it IS something to think about while my legs rest and my scripts run.

Then there is the issue of solo practice done one way and application done a different way. That is, the solo practice being taught and practiced in a way that is ineffective in two-person work or fighting and to be effective needs to be altered.

Solo work should prepare us for partner work to polish. The art takes four hands to learn.

Man you do write a lot to explain your point but yet you seem pointing in obscurity .
YCF’s and ZMQ’s writings seem super clear in comparison

“Never explain — your friends do not need it, and your enemies will not believe you anyway.” –Elbert Hubbard

[origami_itto]

Bless your heart.

[charles]

Writing is communication, full stop. So is talking. So is touching... 2 standard deviations... is as great an impediment to communication... I'm constantly misunderstood... dialtone stares you get in response.

Not really what I asked about, but if you want to discuss these things, sure...

I have learned that some things cannot be expressed well, particularly in words. "Hate", "love", the color "blue", for example. They are experiential - that is, no amount of word will allow someone to know these things without directly experiencing them. No verbal description, for example, will allow a blind person to experience the color "blue". My experience is that that is largely true with Taijiquan and its skills. An academic understanding of the skills isn't the same as experiencing them first hand.

The teachers I respect show me tools and principles and encourage me to experiment with them, and that is true across all disciplines, from gongfu to literature to music...

The point being you create experience with those things. If I provide you the "tool" that a major triad is composed of a major third and a perfect fifth, you can memorize that and repeat it back to me. However, if you can't recognize a major triad - or a major third or a perfect fifth - when you hear (experience) one, you have academic knowledge of the thing but no actual "skill" with it.

So instruction, along with reading, along with practice, along with testing outside our comfort zones, alltogether, becomes the crucible in which our gongfu is purified.

Sure, we gain skill through instruction and various forms of practice (implementation).

What, specifically, have you found that YCF wrote - or was published in his name - that wasn't "authentic" or was misleading? You suggest that what was written about "double-weighting" was somehow wrong or misleading. What about it is wrong or misleading or incomplete? What I recall reading was spot-on but has lead to many misinterpretations.

That's a pretty big can of worms to open and would invite more of the same old insults from the same old monkeys. We can't even get them to admit to the documented falsehood, much less start discussing more abstract concepts objectively, and that's the problem. (More on this in a second)

I asked what I thought was a fairly specific question regarding something you stated. It wasn't a "challenge" of what you stated. It wasn't an insult and I'm not the same old monkeys. I'd hoped for a direct answer that addressed my question objectively. I asked for exactly what you stated, above, "we can't event get" - discussing more abstract concepts objectively. I wonder why that is.

So instead let's just examine the fruit... Everybody does it, but nobody "gets it".

Okay, but I didn't ask about why nobody gets it. I asked about specifics of your statement that YCF's writings - or those attributed to him - are purposeful lies.

What is the reason for the disconnect?

A different topic, but sure, we can talk about why so few Taijiquan practitioners "get it".

In a single concept, lack of objective testing of skills...Sifu is a champion of 1000 imaginary battles.

Sure, lack of objective testing is a factor, as is "faith" in a teacher who has few demonstrable skills.

However, the VAST majority of present day Taijiquan practitioners are primarily interested in practicing for health and well-being. That a practice is "healthy" is a heavily subjective claim. It is often difficult to prove that a particular Taiji practice is or is not good for health and/or well-being. So having objective testing of skills is relatively easy in martial arts practice, but no so easy in more subjective claims.

Then there is the issue that just because one can effectively fight, that doesn't make it "Taijiquan". Lots of teachers have fighting skills that aren't "Taijquan", even if they teach them as such.

In current times, the term "Taijiquan" covers a wide variety of practices for a wide variety of purposes. If a student - any student - simply assumes that going to any of the thousands of teachers teaching "Taijiquan" is going to receive traditional training that directly leads to the martial effectiveness the art historically had, that student is almost certainly going to be disappointed and, after sufficient time, effort and money invested is going to feel mislead and lied-to. That is very often true regardless of the style or the lineage claimed by an individual teacher.

Like, "double weighting", they say "weight evenly divided between the feet is double weighted", but that isn't true. You can be free with your weight divided. You can be stuck on one leg. It doesn't need clarification, it needs to be completely wiped and replaced as a concept. The beginning premise points in the wrong direction.

You started your reply with a statement about communication. If you feel that the jargon of "double weighting" (or "double heavy") is the wrong concept, what would YOU replace it with? I agree that the term isn't a good one and have my way of approaching the subject. I'm interested in yours, since you have brought it up a number of times as a "grievance" against Taijiquan terminology/translations.

Then there is the issue of solo practice done one way and application done a different way. That is, the solo practice being taught and practiced in a way that is ineffective in two-person work or fighting and to be effective needs to be altered.

Solo work should prepare us for partner work to polish. The art takes four hands to learn.

There is a difference between "should" and "does".

My experience has been that a huge amount of what is seen and taught as solo practice doesn't. Based on your writing, that has also been your experience as well, that what you've been repeatedly taught, by a variety of sources, doesn't. And you're mad as hell at the perpetuated falsehood and the wasted effort with little practical skill to show for it. That comes across pretty clearly in much of what you write in this forum. Re-read italicized paragraph above.

[Appledog]

The YCF and CMC stuff is designed to tell you what you need to do without actually telling you how to do it.

For example, for each of the 10 points (or for most such principles) there are exercises which inform you how to do it and train those principles.

I believe this was done to protect the Yang family's income, to draw people to officially learning from a lineaged Yang style teacher. Instead it blew up in their faces and nobody was qualified to determine who the people were who were authorized to teach and who were making things up or taking things from other, similar styles. Thus you have a promulgation of styles and a rejection of the actual teaching methods as 'foreign' because they were never taught to anyone in the community.

You have this weird situation today where half of what is taught as secret knowledge is verified false information (like tracing a tai chi pattern) or taken from other martial arts (i.e. real secret teachings, just, not tai chi!) and only the old guard knows which half is real anymore.

[wayne hansen]

Thank you Charles my thoughts exactly

[everything]

even experiencing someone else having "it" cannot be academic. it's hard to tell if even on an enthusiast forum, what people can "do" (as ww says) or even what people have felt. people do a lot of writing.

taijiquan (health exercise for seniors) being "healthy" is not only subjective. it's studied in various objective ways such as for balance of blood pressure. some effects are probably self-reported so "objective/subjective" (objectively reported data from subjective inputs).