Chen Fake and Wu Tunan

[jonathan.bluestein]

Someone mentioned to me the following story (said it was discussed on the old Empty Flower forum):

Bla bla bla......Wu Tunan meets Chen Fake (year = ?) and tells him "he doesn't do real Taiji".

And I'm thinking - wow, could this really have happened? what did Wu Tunan mean??

Chen Fake had a huge reputation for being a badass. I read how Hung Junsheng was once a student of a certain teacher (Master Wu / Wu style?? can't recall), and both him and his master switched to studying with Chen Fake after the latter went to humiliate that teacher in front of his students, easily controlling his every move.

Watching direct grand-students of Chen Fake like Chen Yu or Chen Zhonghua, one cannot ignore their spactacular Taiji and skill. Wu Tunan, on the other hand, was also well known and respected.

So this whole situation is rather baffling to me. Hope someone here has the detailes about what actually happened and why this was said...

[cdobe]

www.itcca.it/peterlim/historg2.htm

Wu Tu Nan's Interview With Chen Xin And His Meeting With Chen Fa Ke

Wu Tu Nan visited the Chen Villiage in 1917. There were few educated people in the villiage at the time and he was directed to meet Chen Xin, this was before Chen Xin's book was published. Chen Xin was very frank in his interview with Wu Tu Nan and gave him an account of how Taijiquan came to the Chen Villiage (see chapter 6 on Yang style historical development for details). He said that both Taijiquan and the indigenous Chen family Pao Chui was practiced in the villiage but that Taijiquan came down from Jiang Fa. He also introduced Wu to Du Yu Wan who practiced Taijiquan and who said his art came down from Jiang Fa who was of the Wudang lineage, Du's subsequent book on Taijiquan in 1935 confirms this view and the authenticity and accuracy of Wu Tu Nan's interview material.

Chen Xin had told Wu that he was writing a book on Taijiquan. Wu then asked Chen Xin whether he practiced Taijiquan. Chen Xin replied that his father had let his older brother learn martial arts but had made him get an education instead so he did not know any martial arts. Wu then asked how he was going to write a book on martial arts if he did not practice martial arts. Chen replied that Taijiquan is based on the Book of Changes and that he felt that as long as an art conformed to the Book of Changes it was Taijiquan. So he intended to use the boxing postures of Pao Chui and relate them to the Book of Changes and that his purpose of the book was to show how the Book of Changes was related even to martial arts, it was not his intention of writing a martial arts manual.

With this background information, Wu Tu Nan had asked Chen Fa Ke during a meeting around 1950 whether his art was Taijiquan, given that the definition of Taijiquan was that is was based on the 13 postures. Chen Fa Ke had replied that his art was not based on the 13 postures and so was not Taijiquan. The meeting was cordial and it was not confrontational.

When Chen Fake arrived in Beijing, Wu Jianquan had already relocated to Shanghai, his father Quanyou had died in 1901. These kind of kungfu-movie-fantasies and completely unsubstantiated speculations, is what disgusts me most about MAists.

[Andy_S]

There is a long thread on this issue across the street.

Never heard of Du Yu Wan (cited above). Has anyone seen or read his book?

[jonathan.bluestein]

OK, so tell me if I got that right:

Chen Taiji is actually indeed what we call Taijiquan today, but Wu Tunan did not consider it "Taijiquan" for he was reffering to an historical and more ancient style called "Taiji" which was based on "13 postures".

Aren't all modern Taiji styles of the five families said to be based on 13 postures (5+8)? Wouldn't that mean that according to Wu Tunan's research, they all arranged for their art to correlate with these 13 only recently?...

Regarding the Wudang claims - do you think it matters nowadays? I'd say that even if some of the art did originate from Wudang, since all modern styles had the Chen Village influence and later separate developments, it'd mean they got very far from the original thing over the last 150 years or so...

The Shaolin connection, on the other hand, is known and pretty obvious.

Chen style short stick? Never seen that one, could be interesting.

Xing Yi influence? I don't think so. Lots of the stuff in Xing Yi's classics and principles existed long before modern Xing Yi (Li Luoneng's Xing Yi), and all IMA share similar principles.

I think lots of stuff in that research is flawed anyhow - they should compare body method, not postures. External postures and techniques are shared by many martial art who're not related. Unless most of the stuff is similar, you can't make big claims - yet they made such claims with some styles when they only found a few similar movements/postures.

Great website and translation overall. Interesting stuff. Thanks for the link.

[charles]

Regarding the Wudang claims - do you think it matters nowadays?

Not to me, not in the slightest. It is what it is, is aint what it aint, to paraphrase Popeye.

Chen style short stick? Never seen that one, could be interesting.

I assume you are referring to the following from Lim's site:

Training with the Short Stick (Pang)

One of the methods of training of Chen Taijiquan is to make use of a short stick or club held in both hands and using twisting motions to train in it. A similar exercise can be found in Kan Feng Chi's training methods where the same thing is done.

The practice of the short, 16" stick, usually Romanized as bang, is a practice within Chen TJQ that is attributed to CFK. There are other arts that also use a short stick with some similar types of exercises: John Wang is familiar with at least one practice and has posted scans from books that show the practice. The Chen practice is a series of individual exercises: it isn't a form. Most of what is available on Youtube that is labeled "bang" is actually not - it is ruler (chih). Feng Zhiqiang has a set of bang exercises - not to be confused with his ruler (chih) exercises - that uses a straight stick; Chen Qingzhou has a different set that uses a bent stick. Occasionally, one hears reference to the practice as "qin na stick", since the practice involves grip strengthening, seizing training and conditioning for qin na. It's applied silk reeling. (I wrote an article on the basics of the practice that was published about a decade ago in Internal Martial Arts, now defunct.)

Great website and translation overall.

Lim's presentation of things is controversial, mostly regarding how accurate his presentation is or is not. I leave that to others to quibble about.

[C.J.W.]

Well, most people agree that Yang style founder learned the art from Chen's, and later developed Yang style which shares many postural and sequential characteristics with Chen style. So if Chen style isn't Taiji, then I suppose Yang style can't be considered Taiji either. Where does that leave us?

[Doc Stier]

Well, most people agree that Yang style founder learned the art from Chen's, and later developed Yang style which shares many postural and sequential characteristics with Chen style. So if Chen style isn't Taiji, then I suppose Yang style can't be considered Taiji either. Where does that leave us?

It leaves us exactly where we still are, regardless of whether such claims are true or false!

[yeniseri]

It comes down to how the individual's reputation stands on its own as opposed to the 'hype' of superiority of lack thereof!
I sumise that Wu Tunan wanted to test Chen but Chen did not take the bait so Wu Tunan was left 'hanging' as it were but few people understand that level of discourse. Some of my old teachers exhibuited that type of "disengagement" and I sort of picked it up on the way so I understand it to the extent of letting those who feel they are it, ride wahtever it is to their contentment without my addition or substraction. The story is at best, a trap (my own reference) and exposure.

[Wuyizidi]

Someone mentioned to me the following story (said it was discussed on the old Empty Flower forum):

Bla bla bla......Wu Tunan meets Chen Fake (year = ?) and tells him "he doesn't do real Taiji".

And I'm thinking - wow, could this really have happened? what did Wu Tunan mean??

Chen Fake had a huge reputation for being a badass. I read how Hung Junsheng was once a student of a certain teacher (Master Wu / Wu style?? can't recall), and both him and his master switched to studying with Chen Fake after the latter went to humiliate that teacher in front of his students, easily controlling his every move.

Watching direct grand-students of Chen Fake like Chen Yu or Chen Zhonghua, one cannot ignore their spactacular Taiji and skill. Wu Tunan, on the other hand, was also well known and respected.

So this whole situation is rather baffling to me. Hope someone here has the detailes about what actually happened and why this was said...

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=8490&p=143617&hilit=wu+tunan#p143617

[jonathan.bluestein]

Thanks. That thread answered all my questions.

[Wuyizidi]

It really was a very trivial incident. The only reason we're even talking about it today is because Wu Tunan put it prominently in the preface of his book. He exaggerated it to made himself look like this ancient authority on Taiji, an ever vigilant and fearless guardian of true faith for the last 100 years.

[ShortFormMike]

are any of wu tn's students anywhere the level of ma yl's or even decent? all I've ever seen was crap. can't find any video of wu doing any push hands either. kinda hints about what he was really about. that and him lying about his age. not good martial virtue.

[jonathan.bluestein]

are any of wu tn's students anywhere the level of ma yl's or even decent? all I've ever seen was crap. can't find any video of wu doing any push hands either. kinda hints about what he was really about. that and him lying about his age. not good martial virtue.

That's his gongfu grandson:


That's some seems to be very good Taiji. So yeah, though he wasn't too polite or accurate in some of his writings, he probably did have very good gongfu.

Some people don't have any Wu De but still develop great skill.

[ShortFormMike]

Jonathan,
I'm bet you're just pulling my leg. but if not, what really can form tell us about their skill. many students have 90% of the form-fu of their teacher but only 20% of the gongfu.

what comes to mind is the bagua journal article that quotes gao yisheng as telling a student their forms were _better_ than his but their fighting skill wasn't.

[johnwang]

what really can form tell us about their skill.

I was wondering the samething myself. I do believe "Performance skill" is not the same as "combat skill".

CMA skill is:

- 時間 good timing,
- 机会 recognize opportunity,
- 角度 correct angle,
- 力的使用 use force, and
- 平横 good balance,

None of those can be seen in 'solo" performance. It's beyond my imagination just to look at a solo form performance and be able to tell that person has Kung Fu or not. You may be able to tell whether that person has performance abilty or not, but that's not Kung Fu.

I have seen so many people who can perform well and been beaten up badly in tournament. I'll never judge anybody just by his "performance" for the rest of my life.