I don't know the lad selling the videos, he seems to be a karate guy by his bio, with a plethora of CMA bits and pieces added in? And I have no idea what he teaches as this set, not having seen the video. Could it be part of other systems outside of TCC? Who knows? People take bits and pieces of other systems and incorporate all the time.
But as the questions are about the 24 Nei Gung also called 100 Day Gung, we know what Docherty practices is what CTH practised and it works, and it all relates to common movements found in the TCC form and nei-jia alignments and power generation methods. I have already explained why it is not publicised widely, even the Bai Shi cermony oaths state not to “sell the art outside temples” a reference to days when arts were peddled outside of temples to the public passer by, think the scene in “Crouching Tiger hidden Dragon” when they arrive first in Beijing to calls of “learn your Yang Spear here!” , so in other words an oath is taken by the deciple not to bastardise the art by teaching it half-arsed to half-arsed people who will inevitably degrade the art. There is a lot in the oaths about maintaining quality and fighting ability and practising sincerely to be able to preserve the art and pass it on!!! ....
All I can say about the linked book is that the sets and names are similar for sure, but also tellingly different, could it be another related set that has been changed down the years in another style? Possibly – maybe there was a common ancestral practitioner? Could it be a half learned version of the 100 day Gung passed down as an adjunct part to another system rather then the core it forms in many TCC styles? (Wu, Tung, Li, possibly more, they are just the one's I know of) possibly? this wouldn't be something new either?
If it was the same I would straight out say it was, and I cant do that looking at the name differences and the posture displayed in the cover, it just conveys an image of high, non-strenuous postures which have no place in 100 Day Gung. So I can't imagine how such an approach cold possibly equate to similar results. I'm sure there is as much similarity in Shaolin Red Fist and Chen Tai chi forms but can one seriously suggest the internal methods are “the same”?
From Keen:
Set 1:
The Big Hug
Monk holding the bowl
Buffalo goes to the sea
Rest position
Movement excercises
Rabbit on parade
Crane
Cat chases the mouse
The whip
Twist and palm out
Set 2:
The Bird flies
Leading the sheep
Snake turns over
Elephant swings its trunk
Tiger claw
Horse Stomps its feet
Dragon Wraps around the pole
Rhino Looks at the moon
Set 3:
the hand
Tiger Stretches its back
The old man crawls out of the hole
Rowing the boat
Action of the axe
The eagle hunts for food
Monkey climbs the tree
Now The 100 Day gung:
Yin:
Golden tortoise
Embracing the one
Lifting a golden plate
Jade rabbit facing the moon
Red-capped crane stretching its feet
Civet cat catching Rats
Flick the whip on the left and right
White ape pushes out its paws
Swallow piercing the clouds
Leading the goat smoothly
Giant python turns its body
Elephant shaking its head
Yang:
Tiger Paw
Golden dragon coiled around a pillar
White horse pounds its hooves
Plant the fence left and right
Wu Gang chopping laurels
Rhinoceros faces the moon
Reclining tiger stretches its waist
Monarch of the mountain coming out of a cave
Boatman rowing the boat
Hungry eagle looking for food
Macaque leaping through the trees
Old man burning cinnabar
On a thread about Docherty Style TCC, where a forum member asks for information I think it at best lazy to state they are the same when by saying :
The HK Wu folks call the static ones yin and the moving one yang.
You prove that you have no idea about the set!
I don't want to get at anyone on this, like I know ALOT of disinformation has been sung about this set, and seems to become established fact. And perhaps people ape what they have heard through Chinese whispers? You know say something enough times and it becomes truth and all.. and also that there are also a lot of what Dan would call “pygmy detractors” who lap it up when people claim its not TCC or something CTH made up bla bla bla...
Fact is Wudang / Practical Tai Chi Chuan in the area of combat sports, where martial ability can be fairly compared and tested is way way more successful than any other TCC style. This has been the case now since 1957 when CTH got that ball rolling.
A lot of people then and now don't like this, basically begrudgers.
They cant beat us in established proven martial art ability so they try to beat us through rumour. And it is inevitable that even good people can fall victim to believing spiteful rumour.
Both Dan and CTH have written about the importance of the 100 Day Gung set, I concur of course and because some people don't have it in their style they insist it must be made up or borrowed from somewhere else. Some even suggesting CTH's father taught him the set although he passed away when CTH was 10, already having had his legs amputated due to diabetes ffs! His Uncle a top Wu Style desciple under Wu Jian-Quan had 16 of the excercises. Our “truth” is that he invited Qi Min-Xuan son of Qi Ke-San (a documented discipline of Jian-Quan and so TCC brother to CTH's uncle) to teach his sons and nephew. Min-Xuan had lost his entire family in the Japanese invasion so perhaps this employment opportunity marks Cheng Wing-Kwong's generous nature in helping out a TCC brother who has been through hell and back?
Whatever the truth in those turbulent times Min-Xuan had learned all 24 of the exorcises and also the spear form which Wing-Kwong had not. (Min-Xuan had learned from his father but also a Buddist monk Ching Yi who had learned from Wang Lan-ting who had escaped to a Buddist monastery after killing 6 Manchus.)
Now lots try and say today this all made up, despite the fact silence dominated these groups on the issue during CTH's lifetime. I guess its as ballsy as eunuchs get – defaming the honour of the most martially accomplished TCC master of the late twentieth century after his death? Unfortunately some of his relatives have joined the disgruntled but it must be remembered that after his success in 1957 his aunt, angered at the young masters success and being in competition with her husband in the TCC business sent him a black wreath! Likewise, ironically on this thread where many suggest a cultist secrecy about the nei gung set, much of the animosity towards CTH began when he refused to follow the six-year rule (the student visits the ,aster for 3 years then the master the student for a further 3 before they may bai shi and therefore learn inside the door methods such as the 100 Day Gung set!) This only increased with his and his students success, the HK journalists naming what he did as “practical” tai chi chuan, thus differentiating it from what one must assume to be not so “practical” probably didn't help matters either. Remember many very famous masters of the famous families taught in HK at that time!
So using Occam's razor, one has to ask who benefits from lying? We are already head and shoulders above other TCC styles in martial achievement, we have nothing to prove to anyone. The Chens seem to be back in the game these days, that's a really positive development, and respect has to be handed out to the likes of William Chen too and no doubt a few dark horses too, like many in PTCC they probably don't spend much time publicising their achievements.
Personally and I can probably speak for my brothers in PTCC and perhaps those I mentioned above who also focus on martial achievement, we don't give a fcuk what men in silk pyjamas think about us, we don't respect a “master” because of his name or lineage but only for his martial achievement. To us this indicates true transmission.
So getting back to the question, the book referenced doesn't seem to be the same, bar on a kind of superficial level. So don't go there to learn the 24 Nei Gung of “Docherty's TCC”, that's just a bad suggestion! My advice remains find someone who actually knows what they are talking about to learn from when it comes to the Nei gung of Docherty's / CTH's system.
I guess when one thinks about it, an unscrupulous individual who has learned the system could DVD sell it and make a packet, there seems to be a vast amount of people fascinated about its mystique? The fact that noone has should suggest the integrity of the people involved and the fact that such people understand the value of this training when done properly and what that entails, dont want to fuck it up. You don't get handed a Picasso and take out your crayon!