Yang form of YCF ... what was YLC form

[GrahamB]

What if YLC didn't have a set form? I think it's quite possible that the smokey figure of Yang LuChan (assume he did exist, there are no actual records) was a kind of freewheeling shaman/taoist type guy skilled in war magic and spirit possession/theatrical dance as much as martial arts, who never did the same form twice. Hence why there are so many variations in his lineage (Wu/Hou/Sun/Li/Yang/Wu/24 step, etc)

I believe Yang Ban Hou is the first officially documented person teaching in Beijing. But teaching what? Nobody uses the name "Taijiquan" until, I think, 1912? `interestingly around the same time Zhan Sanfeng get added to the origin story...

I talk about this in my upcoming podcast interviewing a Wudang taoist about Zhan Sanfeng... coming soon!

[Kong Bao Long]

Personally. I'm very skeptical of a YCF style...

you mean YLC style? There is lots of video and writing about YCF form. There seems to be incredibly small evidence, if any, of YLC form.

observer

more than good enough. nobody knows the answer. just idle speculation mostly for fun.

Suppose Jon Jones is the UFC GOAT. But Suppose there were no videos or writing about him, except to say "man was the GOAT, he could do anything."

Then suppose his grandson taught a bunch of people "Jones Style" 80-90 years later. What would people then say about the original Jon Jones style? How lost would it be? Gracie Jiu Jitsu descended from Kano's Judo, and we (the larger MA community) seem to know a ton about those arts and what happened. It seems taijiquan was named for YLC, is very well known (in totally misunderstood ways, even by self-proclaimed experts), yet nobody knows anything about the GOAT for which it was named. Kinda hilarious and sad.

Agreed.

I personally think many don't know what they are looking at when they see Hao, Wu and Chen Fu's styles. Somewhere the majority went wrong, We know with Wu style it was before the 1950s, the Macao fight demonstrates this... I'm talking about the majority only here, there are and was the acceptation. But... the acceptation, grasps the concept of the use of pugilism in order use Tao shou skills.. (like a MMA fighter who knows his grappling skills only strengthen his striking or vice a versa ) If a Quan "the from" is a catalog or methodology of a style... with the above in reference, I view Hao, Wu, and Chen fu's styles to be centered in the gray area right in the middle of pugilism and stand up wrestling, hence very practical, hence very high level, hence very streamlined and centered on high percentage methods.

Nothing to sneer at, totally within the realm of what YLC was.
One solid technique is better than a thousand you can't do.. (pretty obvious )

Maybe this spins off to a different vector (not my intention) but what I see, what I think... is...

I started practicing Hubei Xingyiquan when I was 18 (1984) when Xingyiquan, Taijiquan, Baguazhange were pretty rare in the West. I remember being told these were high level arts that you didn't take them up without previous martial experience. At that time I thought that notion was BS... I now believe this to be true, these arts (neijia in general... ) should only be studied after one has gained "functional prowess" in an another art. You have linage holders now teaching Taijiquan with Toushou as the main focus for martial prowess. (the result... well there a ton of videos showing what the results are) Like children raising children, the blind leading the blind... When I read people thinking short frame styles are better than long frame styles, or claiming that they practice the true YLC form, and snickering/sneering at the YCF, Hao or Wu style (then I see the style they claim to practice is herky jerky and void of anything martially practical) Children raising children... nothing worse than someone teaching something they really don't know, to people who really don't know... to the observer who does know .. the expected outcome usually holds true.

[everything]

as everyone says here (and it's not clear if everyone means the same thing ... well, it seems very clear we do not), you have to feel "it" from a teacher to even understand there is an "it" and even though it may seem unbelievable, there it is. but i'd agree it's better if you have "external martial arts" already from some super young age (just like any sports or arts). then you may need to "unlearn" if you have any hope to get "it". but if that fails, hey, you are expert in EMA. maybe you get to 1/100th of Jones' level, and hey that's already impressive. if you get some exposure to "it", you may be in wonder. if someone were half as good at Jones plus had "it", that is surely why those books got written. but there are many red herrings if you go searching for "The Way".

[wayne hansen]

If your teacher can’t teach you the internal arts without an external apprenticeship you have the wrong teacher

[Kong Bao Long]

If your teacher can’t teach you the internal arts without an external apprenticeship you have the wrong teacher

That's a rare teacher... (hang on to him/her)

My instructor was old school... you first learned the weijia, more importantly you sparred with other styles. That practice stuck, I'm 57 and I just got done with a lengthy sparring jaunt with some Karate-ka (the calibration started back when Covid kicked off) They helped me keep my hand and eye coordination, I taught them some Quanfa. I think there is a lot of value in doing that. My Sifu was big on ... subjecting other arts to your art... it will only make your art better. (but first you have to understand what they are doing, by studying the weijia)

[origami_itto]

I believe Yang Ban Hou is the first officially documented person teaching in Beijing. But teaching what? Nobody uses the name "Taijiquan" until, I think, 1912? `interestingly around the same time Zhan Sanfeng get added to the origin story...

Do you have a source to cite for this claim? Off the top of my head there are the writings of Wu Ch'eng-ch'ing (born 1800) that make use of the term. Not sure EXACTLY when they were written but pretty sure it wasn't when he was over 112.
Looking further....
Demystifying China

[everything]

Well that’s why I wonder about YLC.

But maybe it’s more practical to wonder about Ban Hou.

We don’t wonder about Fedor’s teachers or his students.

We wonder about “the guy”.

Somebody could name it taijiquan or Fedor Quan but who cares. There is sambo and judo and all that, but it’s not as interesting as Fedor Quan.

[yeniseri]

What if YLC didn't have a set form? I think it's quite possible that the smokey figure of Yang LuChan (assume he did exist, there are no actual records) was a kind of freewheeling shaman/taoist type guy skilled in war magic and spirit possession/theatrical dance as much as martial arts, who never did the same form twice. Hence why there are so many variations in his lineage (Wu/Hou/Sun/Li/Yang/Wu/24 step, etc)

I believe Yang Ban Hou is the first officially documented person teaching in Beijing. But teaching what? Nobody uses the name "Taijiquan" until, I think, 1912? `

1. YLC did have a set form. You have seen the side by side variation and flavourss of what is called tai chi today.
2. YLC was a real personage. The Chenjiagou list him as being a former student of Chen family.
3. The magical stuff was just tomfoolery and side marketing havibg no basis in reality.
4. If anything, it is Chen style that has the many variations per the understanding, utility, etc of the individual family names and more.
5. Per when the name taijiquan came about, it was stated that when Wu family intervened for Yang, Wu familyu being the more literate and of a higher social status and examination takers of the QIng apparatus
and having knowledge of what was called the Classics, they were able to synthesize Taijiquan around 1895 and add a descriptive to the form from Chen village.

[GrahamB]

1. I can't follow the logic there. The massive variation in forms descended from him means he must have had a set form? If so, why aren't they all the same?
2. I don't believe there are any reliable accounts of him being alive that were actually written while he was alive. A lot was written about him after the fact.
3. What we would call "magic" today was very much a reality in the Ching dynasty China (see the Boxer Rebellion).
4. I can't understand what you are saying
5. There is no evidence of any use of the name "Tai Chi Chuan/Taijiquan" before 1912. Interestingly this is the end of the Ching Dynasty, and also the first time Zhang Sanfeng appears as the founder. Douglas Wile has postulated that people may not have been allowed to use the name before then because of the dynasty. I discuss these subjects with a guy who spent 6 years on Wudang mountain in my most recent podcast - episode 25 with Simon Cox: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/graham47

[GrahamB]

I believe Yang Ban Hou is the first officially documented person teaching in Beijing. But teaching what? Nobody uses the name "Taijiquan" until, I think, 1912? `interestingly around the same time Zhan Sanfeng get added to the origin story...

Do you have a source to cite for this claim? Off the top of my head there are the writings of Wu Ch'eng-ch'ing (born 1800) that make use of the term. Not sure EXACTLY when they were written but pretty sure it wasn't when he was over 112.
Looking further....
Demystifying China

If you can find me a "taijiquan" before 1912 I'm all ears!... but I talked to an academic historian in my most recent podcast (linked above - it's worth listening to) and he couldn't find anything before 1912.

[origami_itto]

I believe Yang Ban Hou is the first officially documented person teaching in Beijing. But teaching what? Nobody uses the name "Taijiquan" until, I think, 1912? `interestingly around the same time Zhan Sanfeng get added to the origin story...

Do you have a source to cite for this claim? Off the top of my head there are the writings of Wu Ch'eng-ch'ing (born 1800) that make use of the term. Not sure EXACTLY when they were written but pretty sure it wasn't when he was over 112.
Looking further....
Demystifying China

If you can find me a "taijiquan" before 1912 I'm all ears!... but I talked to an academic historian in my most recent podcast (linked above - it's worth listening to) and he couldn't find anything before 1912.

I literally linked to one source and pasted a screenshot of the text. Here's another https://www.amazon.com/Lost-Tai-chi-Cla ... 0791426548

The first recorded use of the term is in the salt shop classic "Taijiquan Treatise" attributed to Wang Zhongyue and presented by Wu Yu Hsiang who died circa 1880. So this was known and in circulation around 1850 at the latest when Wu Chieng Chien wrote about it.

Your academic historian needs to brush up on his Wu and Yang family history.

And yes the provenance of the work and the existence of Wang Zhongyue is suspect, but that is immaterial for this point, which is that Taijiquan was in use as a name in the Wu/yang flavors as early as 1850, based on material NOT originating from Chen Village. So the Chen's taking the name on around 1912 is just another argument in favor of retrofitting the narrative to glom on to the popularity of Yang.

[GrahamB]

OK, Mr Frosty... historians tend to deal in source documents, not books about the subject. That's what I'm talking about. Nothing wrong with Wile of course, but taking phrases out of his work without context will just lead to confusion.

The text you posted says:

"Wu apparently names this routine Taijiquan after reading a short handwritten manual said to have been obtained by his brother in a salt store."

"but we really only have the word of Wu's nephew and student Li yuyu for any of this"

So, these are hearsay.

Yes, according to the popular origin story given to us by the Wu and Lis, the name was in use in 1850...but was it really? There is no evidence of this at all.

Find me the name "Taijiquan" published before 1912 is what I'm saying. That would be a rigorous record. I don't believe there is one, but if you find one, great. And not in the title - in the text.

You can look at Li's handwritten document on Brennan translation, apart from the title, the words "Taijiquan" do not appear in the text. The title could easily have been added at a later date. Same for Yang Ban Hou's 1875 text in Taijiquan - there is no mention of the name Taijiquan in the text - you can read it on Brennan.

The Tai Chi classic refers to the art once, and it calls it "long boxing".

[GrahamB]

The Ban Hou manual (again handwritten) is interesting in that it uses "Taiji" in the chapter headings quite a lot, but not "Taijiquan" and also never in the text itself.

In fact, like the Tai Chi Classic, it refers to the art as long boxing as well as "the Thirteen Dynamics solo set"

"The Thirteen Dynamics solo set flows on and on ceaselessly,
and hence is called Long Boxing. [“It is like a long river flowing into the wide ocean…”]"

But the document doesn't surface until 1940s, when it was sold for money, so there's that to take into consideration as well (the story is explained at the start of the translation).

[origami_itto]

OK, Mr Frosty... historians tend to deal in source documents, not books about the subject. That's what I'm talking about. Nothing wrong with Wile of course, but taking phrases out of his work without context will just lead to confusion.

The text you posted says:

"Wu apparently names this routine Taijiquan after reading a short handwritten manual said to have been obtained by his brother in a salt store."

"but we really only have the word of Wu's nephew and student Li yuyu for any of this"

So, these are hearsay.

Yes, according to the popular origin story given to us by the Wu and Lis, the name was in use in 1850...but was it really? There is no evidence of this at all.

Find me the name "Taijiquan" published before 1912 is what I'm saying. That would be a rigorous record. I don't believe there is one, but if you find one, great. And not in the title - in the text.

You can look at Li's handwritten document on Brennan translation, apart from the title, the words "Taijiquan" do not appear in the text. The title could easily have been added at a later date. Same for Yang Ban Hou's 1875 text in Taijiquan - there is no mention of the name Taijiquan in the text - you can read it on Brennan.

The Tai Chi classic refers to the art once, and it calls it "long boxing".

Well as we all know, nothing happens in Taijiquan without being published in a book for public consumption.

But again, these private family writings existed in 1850, whether they made up the word or not, they were calling it that 60 years before your published material made it official.

To be clear here the part that is uncertain is whether they were found in a salt shop and that Wang Zhengyue wrote them, not when they were shown to exist.

Wu Cheng Ching wrote the words Taijiquan in his Notes to the original "Treatise" and and the post script in his own writings. Again, he was born in 1800 and died in 1884. That puts the term being used at the latest 20 years prior to your claim, but I doubt he wrote that on his deathbed.

So, continue muddying the waters to make them appear deeper.

[GrahamB]

Yes, you've clearly got all this figured out. Please carry on.