Andy_S wrote: Was early Yang style more like (today's) Chen style, more like (today's) Yang style or something different again?
Andy_S wrote:Interesting stuff, you have been around! What is your personal take on things? Was early Yang style more like (today's) Chen style, more like (today's) Yang style or something different again? And I'd be curious to know about the different ways of practicing the frames, if you could extrapolate.
What I am getting at, is what training methods are now lost, or less practiced? If I recall correctly, Tian Zhaolin had some very interesting training methods - low stance training and vigorous stretching exercises - that are not widely seen in modern Taiji, particularly modern Yang-style Taiji.
nicklinjm wrote:YM, I know that you have done a lot of first hand research into this stuff and respect your opinions. When you mention the lines that are closer to YLC's original practice, are you referring to the lines still being carried on in Yongnian (e.g. coming from YBH down through Li Wancheng and Li Zhulin)? Or another group entirely?
And could you give an example as to the kind of gongfa that have been lost in modern-day Yang style?
Andy_S wrote:Bao:
I don't believe Chen Fake changed things much: His form ("xinjia") is pretty much standard Chen with an exo-skeleton on it, to make the internal work more apparent and visible. I'd be very curious to see what Chen style you have seen that looks like Hao style. I have been looking at this stuff for years and pretty well EVERY form of Chen style - not just Fake's own xinjia and Hong JS's "practical Taiji, which both come from Fake, but also laojia, which comes from Zhaopei, not Fake, well as all xiaojia ("small frame") and even the sub-sets of Hulei and Zhaobao look very similar to me in terms of stance, shenfa, tempo - the only differences are the techniques, and then, they do not vary to any great degree. Clearly, Fake could not have influenced all these different styles and sub-styles we have today. To me, this suggests that the Chen forms we have today are still pretty firmly rooted in tradition. (Hell, I'd go so far as to say that even a complete layman, someone with no knowledge of Taiji at all, could look at the various Chen styles noted above, and clearly differentiate them from the other major styles of Taiji.)
OTOH, there is a huge variance in Yang forms together with all the related lineage "your-shit-is-fake" controversy, which you don't hear much of in Chen style. This all makes one wonder whether some Yang people (who likely insist otherwise) are doing their material very, very wrong.
I would be fascinated to see a "Chen style" form that looks like Hao style if you have any video or pictorial reference.
GrahamB wrote:Andy_S wrote: Was early Yang style more like (today's) Chen style, more like (today's) Yang style or something different again?
It's interesting that nobody ever asks, was early Chen more like today's Yang style? Given the way the two evolved (Yang to even smoother and less stylised, Chen to even more twisty and more stylised), I think that's just as likely likely.
Yuen-Ming wrote:Daniel, you put all your faith in one person simply because he can beat the shit out of you which means you still have a lot to learn from him. Once you get to a level where you can compare with his skills than maybe you have more reasons to look elsewhere too.
Bao wrote:GrahamB wrote:Andy_S wrote: Was early Yang style more like (today's) Chen style, more like (today's) Yang style or something different again?
It's interesting that nobody ever asks, was early Chen more like today's Yang style? Given the way the two evolved (Yang to even smoother and less stylised, Chen to even more twisty and more stylised), I think that's just as likely likely.
I think you are perfectly correct. They would be more similar but also have more variations in regards to frame, practicing with different speeds/ heights etc. Because style thinking was not as strict back then, I also believe that Tai chi and tai chi practice was something more complex than today. My opinion only.
daniel pfister wrote:Again, not a good policy, IMO. Just because someone can kick my ass, doesn't mean they're capable of teaching me to kick other people's asses, or that the system they've trained in is worth studying.
Andy_S wrote:
There are older pics (I believe the oldest pics) of Chen Taiji from the 1920s, but they are of xiaojia ("small frame") not dajia ("big frame"). For whatever reason, xiaojia and its close relative Zhaobao tend, to this day, to have longer, lower and slightly less rounded stances than the more common dajia. Are these the pics you are thinking of?
Return to Xingyiquan - Baguazhang - Taijiquan
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 101 guests