Wu 吴 vs. Wu / Hao 武 / 郝

[bailewen]

This is not the first time for me to raise this subject but with so much recent Wu talk around here (吴) it has reminded me, once again, how foggy I am on the differences between Wu Jinquan （吴鉴泉）style and Wu Yuxiang (武禹襄) / "Wu / Hao". Hey, at least this time around I can keep the names straight. A couple years ago I couldn't even tell, in an English conversation. which was which. Shifu teaches Wu / Hao style to some select students. AFAIK, the Shanghai guys here like CaliG must be learning the other one? And which one is Wang Peisheng associated with? He's "northern" Wu but I don't know which one is which.

More importantly, can anyone elucidate some of the technical differences between the two Wu's?

Just hoping for a little refresher course on this, for me, very confusing subject.

[Muad'dib]

Wu JQ = from Quan you. (considered a derivative or alternately a truer form of yang style) Northern Wu = wang pei sheng, also from Quan you. Hong Kong Wu, Eddie wu from Quan You's family there. Shanghai wu, from Ma Yueh Liang and Wu Yingua (quan yu's daughter) when Quan you moved back from HK to SH. All are famous for the "lean forward" position/oxplow.

Wu/hao - combination of chen and yang, looks like neither. High stances (relatively), extremely small circles and refined dantien movements.

Sleep now I must.

[Wuyizidi]

Tom,

If we actually do a movement by movement comparison between the regular form and fast form, then we will see that the movement themselves are mostly identical. The major difference being the movement is more compact in the fast form, and there are more fajin. In Northern Wu group, we don't consider this as a separate form, but just another way of practicing the same form.

This is very common in forms practice in general: doing the same form different ways. For example, for gongfu training, you do the form in lower stance, for skill, medium stance, for fighting, high stance. For skill practice, make the movement bigger, for fighting, more compact. So there are actually no real meaningful differences between a lot of these big, small, slow, fast forms. You are supposed to do all of that with the one main form you practice anyway. And if you have done that, doing that special 'fast form' does not give you anything extra. It's not like if you don't do that, then you're not doing taiji.

The second major source of difference for large vs small are the instructor themselves. Everyone says they look exactly like their teacher, but they don't. Just look at all the students in our own schools. People naturally adapt the movement to their body. Take one simple example: in the yoga we do handstand at the wall where we raise up the legs one at a time. One student who has very strong legs will use strong kicks to bring the legs up; whereas another student, who is much more flexible and can do splits, will simply stretch up. The result is same, but because our bodies are different, people will naturally emphasize/use certain aspects more in their own practice. Most of the time they are just making use of some natural advantage. So naturally Yang Chen Fu will do the form differently than Wu Jianquan.

The third source of difference is level of mastery. In CMA, there's this basic skill where, if the opponent's punch is straight and center, you raise your right hand up, slightly off center to the left (palm is facing left), and when the back of your forearm makes contact with his forearm, you rotate and pull down on it (your palm end up facing the ground). The key point is, you are not relying on arm strength, once you make the connection, you want to pull down with your entire body weight. To get that feeling, you first have to make the movement very big - you actually squat all the way down. Right now I practice it using cable pull down machines at the gym. But once you get that feeling, once you can actually pull with your center, you can make the physical movement smaller. When my teacher do it, you only see his arm and hand moving. He's exerting a very powerful downward force, but the movement is very small. Whereas at my currently level, I actually have to bend my knees to get similar effect.

This leads to the last source of difference: age. Having already mastered those skills, they don't need to do the physical movements according to the ideal standard to practice the skill. So that's why sometimes old masters' form look so ... casual. Also, as we age, our movements naturally change according to our changing physical condition.

Today we don't have the same competitive environment for traditional skills as say modern boxing. So comparisons of who is the better fighter is not so easy to settle. So a lot of times it turns into "more forms = better". So we really need to look at those forms and say "what is extra here. What key ingredients does it offer?"

Wuyizidi

[CaliG]

Hi Omar,

We got into a debate years ago about the Wu style.

I didn't realize you meant the Wu/Hao.

My bad, I owe you a pijou

Btw, here's a clip I took of the adopted son of the founder doing the Wu Hao in Shanghai.

[Wuyizidi]

Tom,

I hesitate to bring this up because it might start an epic war, but what I'm saying below are mostly not opinions, just factual backgrounds on who said what, when... (especially the section on politics):

The infatuation with "fast" form has two major causes: first, a lot of people don't understand the purpose of doing the form slow. They apply the training model of external martial art, which is more intuitive, easy to understand, to internal practice. I.e.: you train how you fight, and real fighting is fast, so why spend all this time doing slow motion training? So unless you do a fast form, you cannot fight using Taiji.

The second reason is political (on many fronts). One of the most common myth in Taiji Quan today is that originally Taiji Quan form has a lot of difficult movements (jumps, high kicks), that when Yang Luchan taught the nobles, those guys are so weak he eliminated those moves, and made them more smooth, even, easier to practice.

Actually no martial art masters before 1949 ever said this. This is something a group of martial art scholars, most notably Tang Hao and Gu Liuxin, started to explain the origin of Taiji, and the differences between Chen Style and all other styles.

First Tang Hao. He belong to that first generation of modern scholars who despised all the inaccuracies, the superstitions, and outmoded ways of thinking in traditional martial art. One thing everyone knows, is that most martial art styles exaggerate/lie about origin of their style. So when he set out to find origin of Taiji, he wanted to be modern, scientific, rigorous. His intentions are good, but unfortunately he failed by his own standards. His argument basically boils down to this: Zhang Sanfeng is your typical unreliable, hokey legend, therefore, Chen Village (the only reliable, documented source Taiji Quan transmission in the last 300 years), must be the true origin of Taiji Quan.

Anyone who has taken an Intro to Critical Thinking can see the flaw here: even you prove it's not invented by Zhang Sanfeng, you still have to prove Chen Village. This is what is known in logic as "false choice". Even in his time his fellow martial art scholars pointed that out. The official written records of Chen Village, up to Chen Changxing, only mentions that generations of masters practiced martial art. There were no specific mention of the word "Tai Ji Quan". This is especially true of Chen Wangting. In his often quoted poem, he mentions he created "fist skills" in his leisure. He makes no specific mention of Taiji Quan.

Tang Hao was very much influenced by the new, egalitarian attitude of the time. Before that China is a very top down kind of society. Power are concentrated at the top. 90% of people are illiterate. Culture largely comes from the small intellectual elite. The new attitude of the time, much influenced by Western ideas about democracy and communism, is that real source of change and creativity are the people. So Taiji Quan being invented by the common folks, peasants of Chen Village versus some legendary Daoist (so elitist) had enormous appeal.

That same appeal must had a huge effect on Gu Liuxin. Gu was a lawyer by training. He was a famous patriot before 1949, known for his work against the Japanese occupiers. After 1949, he was hugely influential in China's official sports establishment. He championed Chen Fake's sons, and the Yang Chenfu lineage. Many people believe he played a huge role in those branches' popularity after 1949. Gu Luxin, then, was the most vocal champion for the whole "Yang Luchan dumbed down Taiji for the weak Manchurians" theory.

He did this to explain a very delicate political situation. Today Chen Taiji is almost as popular as Yang style in China. But up until the 1980, relatively few people practiced Chen Style, even in Beijing. The major reason is that it looked so different from all other Taiji that came down from Yang Luchan. Everyone had the same teacher - Chen Changxing. So who changed? There can be only two explanations right - everyone else (Yang Luchan) changed, or Chen Village. Here the unwritten assumption is change = bad.

For Gu, a high-ranking communist party member, the pro-Chen theories (Chen is original, never changed, therefore best) are the only politically viable ones. To explain the difference between Chen and everyone else, the implausible explanation was that Yang Chengfu dumbed down Taiji for Manchurians. Anyone who says that is not applying what they know to be true about Chinese history.

The Manchurians, not Hans, were by far the more physical, marital culture at that time. They were nomadic people for whom archery and horsemanship were second nature. They are mostly the ones who synthesized Manchurian, Mongolian, and Han wrestling skills into Shuai Jiao as we know it today. Do you think you need to eliminate physically difficult movement for them? Remember, one of the biggest source of entertainment for these nobles were sports - shuai jiao, hunting, etc. Anyone who has ridden a horse for 8 hours knows how physical that is. Secondly, you think you can pass off something that is far less effective to these guys? That's like saying you can pass off mediocre shuai jiao to Genghis Kahn. Even if he himself is not that good, he's seen the best, on a daily basis. Especially something as counter-intuitive as Taiji "no, don't struggle, relax...". You cannot get away with not showing them how this works. The Manchurians were just crazy about martial arts. For example, Duke Lan invited Ma Gui to live in his house as "most honored guest" for a very long time in hope that Ma Gui would teach him his famous broadsword skills. Even if Yang Luchan wants to, deceiving a prince is a capital crime for him, and everyone he knows.

Given the political correct nature of these theories, these have been the official/government version since 1949. Today we can easily refute this whole theory by citing a popular saying at that time, about Yang Luchan's three best students. They are Ling Shan, Wan Chun, Quan You. Those name do not sound Han because they are not, they were all Manchurian soldiers Yang Luchan trained inside the king's palace. Then there's the famous story of Banhou complaining to his father about giving away the treasures to people outside the family.

Do I think it's possible that Yang Luchan hid some things from Manchurians? It's possible, but for all the reasons cited above, couldn't be something essential. Just look at how Quan You turned out. I'm working on a book on Taiji Classics right now, and just finished Yang family transmission section. I didn't see anything fundamental/crucial there that wasn't already mentioned by everyone else. But I am very curious. To people who do practice the secret transmission lineage: what type of things you do (don't have to get into details) that is missing from all other styles - what type of skills and abilities? What type of training methods...?

In martial art, like everything else, important secrets are often very small things. But those very small things are of absolute no use to us if we have not achieved a certain level yet. It's like saying to someone who cannot do pull ups, "when you're on a high bar, and you swing three time around to do this release move, it's helpful to tense your abs at this moment..." So this kind of thing it's very easy to hide from students. Unless you tell them they can go through whole life without even knowing it's missing.

Wuyizidi.

[cdobe]

I'ld like to add to Tom's post that not all Wu (吴) Taiji comes down via the Wu or Ma families. There was a famous disciple of Wu Jianquan named Cheng Wing Kwong (the uncle of Dan Doherty's teacher), who taught a very complete curriculum (including neigong and qigong). Cheng had a large following in Hongkong and set up branches in Malaysia and Singapur. That's my version of Hongkong Wu Taiji.

[Muad'dib]

I'd like to say a brief note about the adopted son of the founder of Hao style.

1. Hao sao liu was not the founder, his father was the "founder" of the Wu variant that became known as Hao.
2. Hao sau liu was unlucky when it came to passing on the style, sort of. He had very few disciples regardless His first chosen successor died, as I understand it, while performing push hands. Something heart related as I recall. The person considered his likely second sucessor, Yao Pei Jing, was tortured during the Cultural Revolution, and the Communist govt slit her throat and left her for dead. It turns out she did not die, but it was not widely known at the time. The third successor, Liu Jiuxiun (?SP), AKA Jackson Liu, is still alive also and left china. He know teaches in sunnyvale, CA.

When the chinese govt realized that tai chi was big money, suddenly, after his death, Hao sao liu "adopted" the person in the video, and he was named successor, despite two other living people with better skills and/or claims. ( I recall there was a similar incident in chen style, when Chen Xiaowang moved to Australia, and suddenly someone else in the chen family became the standard bearer, if only because they were still in china. But I don't know the truth behind that. I do know the truth behind the Hao style.)

[bailewen]

Hi Omar,

We got into a debate years ago about the Wu style.

I didn't realize you meant the Wu/Hao.

I don't remember the debate but I most likely didn't "mean" Wu / Hao. More like I didn't know which one I meant. I had to do some internet research to find out even which one Shifu taught. In Xi'an, I have never heard the term "Wu / Hao". People just call them both "Wu" because in Chinese, they are not pronounced exactly the same. wu / 吴 is second tone and wu / 武 is third tone. Even if there is a dialect issue and the speaker / listener doesn't speak excellent Mandarin we would distinguish by referring to either "kou tian wu" (口天吴) or "wushu de wu" (武术的武) so I could never tell what people were talking about when speaking English.

Even now, most of the information on EF seems to be about how to distinguish between different branches of the "kou tian wu" or Wu Jianquan style.

Not much representation here on EF for the Wu / Hao style？

I'll have to watch the clip later. I am dependent on a satellite internet connection which does not allow us to watch videos online or we rapidly use up our bandwidth restrictions and get knocked down to dial-up for the next 24 hours. Very very annoying.

===================================================================================
Wuyizidi,

You comments on a couple of myths of the history are things I have argued for some time. I have always understood that the evolution towards a smaller and narrower frame with less acrobatic type movments is a natural progression of refinement, not a watering down at all. That argument has always made me laugh....at least ever since being exposed to high quality Yang style taiji. The second one, the argument(s) about various fast forms . . I find them all to be curiosities. The whole concept is just completely contrary to the way I understand Taijiquan and to the way the training progression has been presented to me. The entire path is towards ever slower "performances".

[neijiachuanren]

Omar - yes, Wu 武 is relatively rare in the West. Some people use Woo transliteration for the Wu Jian Quan style. Of course Cantonese use Ng

As for styles, I know Sifu Wang is allergic to it, but it's all about the internal. So fast forms, slow forms, it matters not. How well does it train yielding and Qi are the important factors.

// richard

[cdobe]

Omar - yes, Wu 武 is relatively rare in the West. Some people use Woo transliteration for the Wu Jian Quan style. Of course Cantonese use Ng

As for styles, I know Sifu Wang is allergic to it, but it's all about the internal. So fast forms, slow forms, it matters not. How well does it train yielding and Qi are the important factors.

// richard

It doesn't make sense to transliterate 吴 into Woo. The Wu/Hao 武 style is sometimes written as Woo, because the third tone is like a long vowel or even a little bit like two vowels.

[Ian]

Hi guys,

Are there any wu tjq guys in hk worth checking out? People who can completely kick ass?

[neijiachuanren]

It doesn't make sense to transliterate 吴 into Woo. The Wu/Hao 武 style is sometimes written as Woo, because the third tone is like a long vowel or even a little bit like two vowels.

I may have mixed it up. I am a native Cantonese speaker (with a Hakka accent ) so I can be wrong there. Look at plumpub.com and see

[edededed]

Are there differences in the use of spirals in the various Wu (Jianquan) styles? For lack of a better description, Wu style does often look a bit "robotic" compared to Yang (subtle spirals) or Chen (overt spirals), although this is just my (uneducated) impression.

I am also interested in whatever people are willing to talk about Yang so-called "secret transmissions" - not sure what material is well-known and what is considered secret (maybe taiji changquan and some neigong exercises?), though.

[cdobe]

Are there differences in the use of spirals in the various Wu (Jianquan) styles? For lack of a better description, Wu style does often look a bit "robotic" compared to Yang (subtle spirals) or Chen (overt spirals), although this is just my (uneducated) impression.

There are some common traps in Wu style IMO. Some of them seem to be similar to other styles (like being to flowery) others, like the overemphasis on the "square" aspects seem to be limited to this particular style or at least certain branches of it. In my lineage the square form is considered to be a beginner's form and you move on once you can do it. Other branches put a much heavier emphasis on this kind of form. The problem is that you intentionally restrict your movement and later on when your movement should become more lively ("One part moves, all parts move") you keep your deeply ingrained habit of moving in the square form way.
AFAICS, Wu (吴) style uses more spirals than Yang style.

[edededed]

Sorry - which Wu branch were you again? (I forget! )