Andy_S wrote:It strikes me as a bit odd that after Yang LC left Chen Village, the Yang, Wu, Hao and Sun masters all came up with with their own systems of Taiji within 40-50 years of each other, and nobody questioned them, but now the best part of a century has passed and no more family styles of Taiji have appeared that are recognized as legitimate... Dong style is generally recognized as a substyle of Yang, while Hong and Feng styles are generally recognized as substyles of Chen.
Why the lack of innovation in recent Taiji?
Is this implicit recognition of the supposition that the pre-modern, golden days of Taiji are now long past, and nobody alive today will ever be able to replicate the skill levels of the old maestros?
If so - given that so many more people are praciticing the art, we have better information, better sport science, better nutrition, etc - why is this?
I have an answer to this.
The Yang, Wu, Hao and Sun masters did
not come up with their own systems of Taiji. Back in the day, the way I heard it anyways, there was no such thing as "XYZ" styles. There was just "Taijiquan" and each person had their specific lineage. It as a
given that each teacher taught it differently and had their own "style" (in the most colloquial sense of the word). The concept of distinct "styles" (as in "Yang Style" or "Wy Style") only came into existence shortly after the establishment of Communist China and the creation of national standardized competitions. With everyone performing radically different versions of Taijiquan, there was no way to judge them competitively. So the national sports authority looked around and created broad categories: Chen, Yang, Wu, Wu (Hao), and Sun. Standard routines were established and the various branches were delineated.
Back before I came to China I used to be a pretty decent swing dancer in San Francisco. We used to watch people lindy and discuss their "style". There was (late 90's) a distinct and recognizable San Francisco style lindy and also a Los Angeles style Lindy. It wasn't codified but we all knew it when we saw it. That's how Taiji used to be. My dad is more of a Tango guy and he says the same thing about the Tango scene. He dances mostly in Montreal but has also been to Buenos Aires and has commented on the Argentine style vs. the American style vs. the Montreal Style.
The fact is, outside of the competition circuit, there has been no lack of innovation whatsoever. Anyone who says they train a very specific "style" with faithfulness to the original "style" is training a dead style. I have watched my own teacher make radical modifications of both his Taiji form
and his Baji and I have spoken with various of his more senior students who have all confirmed that his form from 10-20 years ago was even more different from his form today. Heck, I watch him improvise at various points just from week to week.
My point is, LOTS of innovation going on but most people feel no need to give it a new label, including the founders of the Wu, Wu, Sun and Yang styles. Lots of people just doing their thing. When asked in public, what style do I train, I just say "Yang"...just like I have seen my teacher do. No need to call it "Baguataijiquan" or "Old Frame yada yada yada....".
My question is not about why people today are not innovating. It's about why people feel the need to add a new name to every little new change. A model T is a "car" and so is a Ferrari. We divide then into "Cars" and "Trucks" but a Honda Civic and a Ford Mustang are still both just "cars". More to the point, even if you want to split up sports cars and hatch backs, a 2012 Mustang is
radically different form a '66 but we don't have to create separate categories for them. Their both ford mustangs, just from different periods.
