southern taijiquan lineage

[amor]

The southern school of taijiquan which descended from Zhan San Feng, Wang chungyueh and then split of from his 2 disciples, Jiang Fa and Chen Chout'ung (thats Chen Wangting to most of us) into the Northern and Southern School respectively.
The southern taichi linage seems to have been carried on by the following not so well known individuals Chang Sungchi, Wang Chen-nan and Kan Fengchih.

I dont know much about these individuals and specially how the southern variant of taichi varied from the northern style and a search doesn't show up much either, anyone know any more info about them and perhaps what the main differences between the northern and southern styles are.

Also Chen Wangting the Initial instigator of the southern linage his style apparently died out after the last linage holder which ended with Kan Fengchih just before 1800. So if Chen Wangting created the chen style (the southern taijiquan that is supposed to have died out ?) we currently know then what is this modern Chen style that people practice, which actually came down via Jiang Fa infact and not Cheng Wangting) and a whole host of other chen stylists before Chen Chan-hsing made way for the Yang, Wu etc. styles.
What's the real story going on here?

[chenyaolong]

It's quite different to what I've read before.

[kenneth fish]

These stories of lineage have floated around for years (there was a teacher of the Southern School of Taiji in Hong Kong who was quite good and quite famous). Probably both are apocryphal.

[charles]

What's the real story going on here?

No still living person was there, hence no one knows for sure. Lots of theories, not a lot of hard evidence. Don't waste your time on this unless you have nothing better to do. None of it will change what people of today teach or practice.

[yeniseri]

The southern school of taijiquan which descended from Zhan San Feng, Wang chungyueh and then split of from his 2 disciples, Jiang Fa and Chen Chout'ung (thats Chen Wangting to most of us) into the Northern and Southern School respectively.
The southern taichi linage seems to have been carried on by the following not so well known individuals Chang Sungchi, Wang Chen-nan and Kan Fengchih.

I dont know much about these individuals and specially how the southern variant of taichi varied from the northern style and a search doesn't show up much either, anyone know any more info about them and perhaps what the main differences between the northern and southern styles are.

Also Chen Wangting the Initial instigator of the southern linage his style apparently died out after the last linage holder which ended with Kan Fengchih just before 1800. So if Chen Wangting created the chen style (the southern taijiquan that is supposed to have died out ?) we currently know then what is this modern Chen style that people practice, which actually came down via Jiang Fa infact and not Cheng Wangting) and a whole host of other chen stylists before Chen Chan-hsing made way for the Yang, Wu etc. styles.
What's the real story going on here?

My questions are as follows:
1. Why believe something that has no basis in any reality since all taijiquan, actually Chen village family style, has its orignins in Chenjiagou
My thoughts are that Southern taijiquan lineage is wishful thinking! If even we work backward, then we should at least be able to come up with an identifiable personality. If anything, why not look at Li family and try to decipher some historicity on present inheritors (none at present, to my knowledge) and see where that goes on own trail.

2. Chen Chang-hsing never made way for Yang or Wu. Yang or Wu preferred their own way so in that regard they only "kowtowed" to their own and not to anyone outside the family, That is why grace and humility are foundations of formality and good breeding (standing, dignity, etc).

3. Chang Sungchi, Wang Chen-nan and Kan Fengchi: It is interesting that these names ONLY show up in this specific niche (southern tai chi )without external affiliation or hagiographic context.
As an example and pertaining to Li style (not the Chen family LI), we know he was affiliated with Yang Luchan through his best student who went on to influence other styles. There are dates to corroborate the affiliation whereas for the 3 aforementioned southern style adeps, their associates are slim to nonexistent meaning their affiliation are dubious since no outside contacts are mentioned. Just sayin"!

[amor]

My questions are as follows:
1. Why believe something that has no basis in any reality since all taijiquan, actually Chen village family style, has its orignins in Chenjiagou
My thoughts are that Southern taijiquan lineage is wishful thinking! If even we work backward, then we should at least be able to come up with an identifiable personality. If anything, why not look at Li family and try to decipher some historicity on present inheritors (none at present, to my knowledge) and see where that goes on own trail.

2. Chen Chang-hsing never made way for Yang or Wu. Yang or Wu preferred their own way so in that regard they only "kowtowed" to their own and not to anyone outside the family, That is why grace and humility are foundations of formality and good breeding (standing, dignity, etc).

3. Chang Sungchi, Wang Chen-nan and Kan Fengchi: It is interesting that these names ONLY show up in this specific niche (southern tai chi )without external affiliation or hagiographic context.
As an example and pertaining to Li style (not the Chen family LI), we know he was affiliated with Yang Luchan through his best student who went on to influence other styles. There are dates to corroborate the affiliation whereas for the 3 aforementioned southern style adeps, their associates are slim to nonexistent meaning their affiliation are dubious since no outside contacts are mentioned. Just sayin"!

No problem yeniseri, I know you like to have a say on everything that crops up on here and elsewhere but thanks all the same for your little snippet.
Your probably right about there being no basis as the amount of info on these chaps is sketchy at best anyhow I thought it worth mentioning in case somebody has access to other sources that might tell more.
But I find the Li style interesting too now that you mention it (Li who was taught by Wuyu Hsing eh?) that brought about the Wu(Hao) style and much more internal focussed than the mainstream styles.
But then again more and more internal refinement can come about in any style although training regimes will dictate how quickly and effectively can about imo.

[GrahamB]

Totally legit dude.

[Bao]

What's the real story going on here?

No still living person was there, hence no one knows for sure. Lots of theories, not a lot of hard evidence. Don't waste your time on this unless you have nothing better to do. None of it will change what people of today teach or practice.

History should always be questioned and searched. Nothing wrong with that.
... Or you believe that the official Chen history can not be disputed and thus we must accept it for what it is? I think that would be a real pitty.

And why spend time on a discussion board anyway? What will be changed?

My questions are as follows:
1. Why believe something that has no basis in any reality since all taijiquan, actually Chen village family style, has its orignins in Chenjiagou

Chen style was created in Chenjiagou, no question about that. But that doesn't mean that Taijiquan was created there.

1. There are indications of pre Chenjiagou IMA which (probably) is even more similar to Yang Style than Chen style.
2. The name Tai achieve was invented by a student of Yang Luchan to describe the personal art of this master.
3. Yang Luchan had a very good CMA background before entering Chen village and we know that there are Shaolin arts that are very similar to tai chi chuan.
What Yang Luchan created and was called tai chi was not only based on Chen Family fist. Chen family fist was only one of his influences, Chen jiagou was "one stop on the road".

So far no one has convinced me that Chen style is or even resembles the first "taijiquan", or why Chen style should be called Taijiquan.

The question i would want to ask is why the Chen family was so insecure so they changed the expression of their art and it name to be more similar and confused with the art of Yang Luchan?

... I know I will get killed for this... No trolling intended, I just don't understand why almost the whole the tai chi community see the official Chen history as sacred. And I don't understand why it can't be discussed.

[yeniseri]

So far no one has convinced me that Chen style is or even resembles the first "taijiquan", or why Chen style should be called Taijiquan.
The question i would want to ask is why the Chen family was so insecure so they changed the expression of their art and it name to be more similar and confused with the art of Yang Luchan?
... I know I will get killed for this... No trolling intended, I just don't understand why almost the whole the tai chi community see the official Chen history as sacred.

I would respond by saying that all taijiquan today come from Chen village. No other "taijiquan" has any objective historical background on which to state their case.
Taijiquan did appear to have 'minor changes" (take nearby Zhaobao and Chenjiagou, who share the same roots but if claim different "origins") but again why kowtow to someone who you know will not acknowledge your skill when you can create your own rice bowl and collect your tribute

Chen taijiquan history was never sacred but I see no other line other than Chen that has provided a trail of evidence!

I like Wudang but they are transparent. It is OK to have Wudang taijiquan in the spirit of freedom of expression but when one comes out with Wudang Chen style, Wudang Yang style, Wudang Zhaobao style, etc that is truly representative of getting your own rice conglomerate. They be jammin' to the bank but ah luv'em!

[Bao]

No other "taijiquan" has any objective historical background on which to state their case.

It has some truth in it. No other style has a whole village and the government to back up their historical version.

But I don't totally agree. We have old literary evidence of something called 37 postures and a few other names on presumably tai chi similar arts. We also have Tai Chi similar training in shaolin and arts, postures, sequences and slow form practice. Tai Chi is not so unique in it's appearance if you look at TCMA as one might think. So there's definitely connections and evidence that parts of what is called Tai Chi Chuan and much of how its practiced is older than Chen style. The name Tai Chi Chuan was invented to describe the art of Yang Luchan, not Chen Fist. Now, we know that Yang Luchan had more MA background than Chen style. How much Luchan took from other styles when he created his own forms and variations, and how much was from Chen style, we don't know. And BTW, how much of "Chen Family Fist" was actually created in Chenjiagou? The truth is that no one single person created Tai Chi. The art is a synthesis of different parts and traditions brought together by many different people. Where and when the art starts or has enough distinctive properties and qualities to be called Tai Chi....

... Ah, skip that. Heck... whatever... I have nothing against Chen style. I don't understand it, but everything called tai chi is just Tai Chi, so fine with me. ...But I am a bit annoyed that the very superficial and simplified Chen Family version of history is what everyone takes for granted. There's no critical thinking amongst tai chi people... One chinese historian I met described Chen Style like "Something else infused with Tai Chi". A rather tough statement, but you can turn around reality quite a bit and the version which gets most "likes" will prevail...
... I hope that the "Southern Tai Chi Lineage" will get some more likes as well. Of course there have been more tai chi around than Chen style. Everything points at that. Heck, I'll vote yes for a west, east, or northeast style or give a "like" to whatever.... Just try to not make Tai Chi history so boring...

[nicklinjm]

To the people saying that the 'Southern taijiquan' does not exist any more, please do a bit more historical research. There are several branches of this 'Southern Taijiquan' still existing in China, its practitioners tend to call themselves Songxi Neijiaquan (after Zhang Songxi). I guess people haven't been able to find it because the names are spelt wrong, correct pinyin for the lineage is: Zhang Songxi, Wang Zhengnan and then Gan Fengchi.

[D_Glenn]

Zimenquan is another branch of Wang Zhengnan's and is another Southern Internal school. Dong Haichuan spent a lot of time learning from teachers in the south in and around Jiangxi. He even borrowed the same brush-off saying from Zimenquan- that he learned from two monks, one Daoist and one a Buddhist.

.

[charles]

History should always be questioned and searched. Nothing wrong with that.

Sure, if that interests you.

I don't, for example, need to know the history of metallurgy to use a metal chisel in my woodworking. If I'm sufficiently interested in the history, I can certainly pursue it, but it doesn't have a direct effect on the quality of my woodworking.

... Or you believe that the official Chen history can not be disputed and thus we must accept it for what it is? I think that would be a real pitty.

Nowhere have I offered an opinion on "official Chen history" or of any Taijiquan-related history. The study of the history is interesting, but has little effect on what I practice or how I practice it, or what I've been taught. If it turns out that Chen Taijiquan is actually a Shaolin practice, it doesn't change what I practice of how I practice it. And, given the "sketchy" evidence for any of the history in any of the "creation theories", there isn't sufficient concrete, compelling evidence to get into too much debate over any one of them - it is more akin to believing in your chosen religion.

And why spend time on a discussion board anyway? What will be changed?

Who said that the purpose of spending time on a discussion board had anything to do with changing anything? I'm not here to change anyone's opinion on anything.

... I know I will get killed for this... No trolling intended, I just don't understand why almost the whole the tai chi community see the official Chen history as sacred. And I don't understand why it can't be discussed.

I don't see the official Chen history as sacred. I see it as largely irrelevant. It is what it is, regardless of "the story". Many people believe the Old Testament is sacred, and gives THE story of creation. Maybe is does, I don't know. Regardless, it doesn't change how things are now. Ditto with how Taijiquan was created. Believe what ever "story" works for you. Just as there is little objective evidence upon which to base one's religious beliefs, there is little objective evidence upon which to base one's beliefs regarding the creation of Taijiquan. Without objective facts/evidence, a "discussion" is just two or more people expressing their beliefs, with no compelling reason for one side to change their beliefs to the other's. It's just sharing of differing beliefs. After those contrary beliefs have been shared over and over and over again, it gets old. It's just a re-hash of a stalemate with nothing new offered and with the same outcome, over and over again. If you want to do that, go for it.

[yeniseri]

The literati/historical hagiograophic tradition! One source.
http://www.literati-tradition.com/zhang ... _camp.html


Some claim to have an insight into CMA but here is a telling point of view for those who see inside the door and are aware of this truth!

The conclusion or question may be: Did Yang, Wu (Hao), Wu, Sun, and Zhaobao avow the Zhang Sanfeng—Wang Zongyue—Jiang Fa non-interrupted lineage as a mask for their own identities, or to disguise teachings received from Chan Changxin and Chan Qingping in order to gain the public acceptance and create respectable lineages of their own?

[Yuen-Ming]

Most of the people involved with the 'southern lineage' are historical figures that can be found in the literature of the time, including Zhang Songxi, Wang Zhengnan, Gan Fengchi and many others. They are reported as martial artists but, in those early literature (some of which dates as far back as themselves), there is usually no precise indication of the 'style' they practiced.
These lines derivated from these masters, some of which are still extant, departed from the original common founders for many, many generations and therefore it is almost impossible to judge today their eventual connection only by watching a video or two, thou a more deep research through people and historical sources would shed clearer light on the subject.
I practiced one of these southern lines in my teen and for quite a few years and later I was drawn to Li style for the specific reason that I discovered a couplet from their manual (one derived from their 'southern' connection) that was verbatim in my line, which I later found separated from their line over 5 generations ago***.
It takes time to understand the past and, while I have now moved to another line, I still find new evidences every now and then that help me to clarify history.

Best

YM

*** While the couplet was the exact same actual practice had changed quite a bit in 5-6 generations and it was almost unrecognizable at a superficial glance, but some of the basic tenets were unchanged