Trip wrote:Trick wrote:The for some decades now representative of the Tung/Dong style of TJQ in Sweden, sure he as I remember don’t extremely hunch forward as the Dongs, but he has(or at least had. I haven’t been to Sweden for a long time)this weird constant flickering with his fingers while doing the form, his students picked up that too.
His long time students also didn’t seem to understand that the sword has cutting edges and sharp point.
And the school seem quite commercial.What am I saying by this ? Well, whatever people criticize YCF or even ZMQ, the Dongs seem not have done any better, maybe even worse?
Yes it seem that the six directional harmony is lacking, which makes it not possible to achieve the spherical force, being centered without leakage to the sides.
I have no idea who this guy from your past is
But, If I understand you correctly...
You do like anything he teaches
And, the Dongs are ...
Even worse than YCF or ZMQ!
Message Received
Thanks for sharing
D_Glenn wrote:My question is how come nowadays you have all these thousands of people around the world who practice Taiji for an hour a day, for a handful of years, self proclaiming themselves as master Taiji fighters. Then you have the handful of Taiji masters of old, who practiced Taiji for 8 hours a day, for 10-30 years, but somehow they’re not considered competent Taiji fighters?
It doesn’t add up.
.
Trick wrote:Yes I haven’t got good vibes from the Tung organization, it’s mainly based on what I’ve seen from that representative school in my hometown in Sweden(they’re listed on the Tung family official webpage, not hard to get an idea of their existence)?I wouldn’t mention this if the Tung style of TJQ had its own thread, I wouldn’t participate in it.
However this thread about the Yang family TJQ and maybe more about the Yang family per se.
Tung family RSF representative Ito jumped in with that not so uncommon hate rhetoric of his directed toward YCF and YCF’s disciple ZMQ.
I admit it triggered me to write what I wrote but anyway I would like to believe that Ito gone rouge and what he say and claim about the Yang family and some of their disciples are not the stance taken by the Tung family .
origami_itto wrote:Honestly, YCF and CMC did more to fuck up people's understanding of authentic Taijiquan than to help. Pretty much every bit of information to come out of them needs further clarification to be accurate. Take the whole double weighting thing...
I'm surprised the crusaders for TRUTH aren't more curious about the lies they published, though. Just a little hand waving "oh he didn't really say that"
D_Glenn wrote:The Baguazhang and Xingyi people had already just switched to saying Fa Li instead of Fajin in the 1980s and now most of the old Chen guys have also switched. So I also try to use Fali instead of Fajin, to avoid confusion.
In a normal fast punch, in every style of martial art or boxing, the bones of the hand and arm are moving but all the loose flesh of the arm, shoulder and back muscles are lagging behind but eventually are dragged along and follow the movement of the bones. In high speed camera footage we can now see that our loose flesh moves like waves of water move in a pond of water. So when the bones of the hand and arm want to stop, the wave of flesh continues its movement along that trajectory and the weight and momentum of the flesh continues to move the whole arm past that point and can then start to drag the bones.
In a fast punch using Fa Li, the practitioner first uses a quick movement of the lumbar and sacrum to jolt their own abdomen to create a wave of flesh moving upward, and then the bones of the hand and arm strike outward, following and moving along with that wave of flesh, so that both flesh, muscle and bone are moving at the same time in a single harmonious movement. And if the strike stops, it all stops at the same time. There’s nothing lagging behind to continue the forward momentum. And more importantly for the daily training aspect of a martial art, there’s not that lagging behind of the flesh that can cause that slight pain when the weight and momentum wants to pull you forearm bones away from your elbow joint. With a Fa Li you can punch full speed and with full power, into the air, without feeling that dislocation of the elbow joint. Or have that slight off balancing effect from of your own momentum not stopping at the same time. Everything after the movement of your lumbar and abdomen (Dantian) starts moving at the same time, and can stop moving at the same time. Which if you factor your Yi (intention) into this harmony, it also has profound effects over the lifetime of your practice because your Yi is not scattered by having the Intention to stop, but not actually stopping.
charles wrote:origami_itto wrote:Honestly, YCF and CMC did more to fuck up people's understanding of authentic Taijiquan than to help. Pretty much every bit of information to come out of them needs further clarification to be accurate. Take the whole double weighting thing...
I'm surprised the crusaders for TRUTH aren't more curious about the lies they published, though. Just a little hand waving "oh he didn't really say that"
I'm not in any way a Taiji historian and don't have all that much interest in infinitesimal details of its history. I started out learning Yang style Taijiquan and read the standard "Yang style" classic texts, but I haven't obsessed over the writings or even read them in some years. I haven't found the vast majority of what I've read about Taijiquan to be terribly insightful on how to physically practice the art. That's particularly true of CMC's writings. Part of that is because I've found that writings are too easily misinterpreted: Taijiquan is an experiential art rather than an academic one. In short, my experience has been that it isn't possible to learn the art by reading about it, regardless of who did the writing. The writings aren't really a how-to manual. As the expression goes, the map is not the territory.
What, specifically, have you found that YCF wrote - or was published in his name - that wasn't "authentic" or was misleading? You suggest that what was written about "double-weighting" was somehow wrong or misleading. What about it is wrong or misleading or incomplete? What I recall reading was spot-on but has lead to many misinterpretations.
Then there is the issue of solo practice done one way and application done a different way. That is, the solo practice being taught and practiced in a way that is ineffective in two-person work or fighting and to be effective needs to be altered.
Man you do write a lot to explain your point but yet you seem pointing in obscurity .origami_itto wrote:charles wrote:origami_itto wrote:Honestly, YCF and CMC did more to fuck up people's understanding of authentic Taijiquan than to help. Pretty much every bit of information to come out of them needs further clarification to be accurate. Take the whole double weighting thing...
I'm surprised the crusaders for TRUTH aren't more curious about the lies they published, though. Just a little hand waving "oh he didn't really say that"
I'm not in any way a Taiji historian and don't have all that much interest in infinitesimal details of its history. I started out learning Yang style Taijiquan and read the standard "Yang style" classic texts, but I haven't obsessed over the writings or even read them in some years. I haven't found the vast majority of what I've read about Taijiquan to be terribly insightful on how to physically practice the art. That's particularly true of CMC's writings. Part of that is because I've found that writings are too easily misinterpreted: Taijiquan is an experiential art rather than an academic one. In short, my experience has been that it isn't possible to learn the art by reading about it, regardless of who did the writing. The writings aren't really a how-to manual. As the expression goes, the map is not the territory.
Writing is communication, full stop. So is talking. So is touching. Some things are easier to communicate in one medium than another, some things are easier for some people to express and understand in various media.
We run into problems when we start projecting our own limitations and gifts onto others expecting they'll receive similar results from similar experiences and exposure, but that isn't always the case. I do find more often than not that accusations we throw at others are more often than not confessions of our own guilt and insecurities than a reflection of the truth of the person we throw them at.
Particularly in matters of intellect, research shows that an IQ difference of 2 standard deviations is as great an impediment to communication as two speakers of different native languages communicating in a third. I'm constantly misunderstood, you get used to it, but you can't stop trying to get through to people no matter how many dialtone stares you get in response.
"If you rely solely on books, best not to have books. If you rely solely on teachers, best not to have teachers." - T. T. Liang.
If the only way you get anything out of this is for your teacher to show you directly and tell you explicitly then I am so sorry for your condition. The teachers I respect show me tools and principles and encourage me to experiment with them, and that is true across all disciplines, from gongfu to literature to music to lovemaking.... oohh yeah.
Make it your own, only a rebel can really get anything.
The "classics" are many-faceted. If you find nothing useful in them, then you are right, and should not bother delving deeper.
Personally, I find the things that past masters have chosen to put down in writing to be useful for a number of reasons, theoretical and practical. But you do have to learn discernment when delving into the study. Just like the things that we choose to share here in this forum.
You need a map for them, they aren't a map any more than this form is a map. They're a collection of thoughts, theories, techniques, and experiences. What you get from them is determined by what you put into them, like all of gongfu.
I think the key thing to remember is that... what is the quote...
"it is the mark of an educated person to search for the same kind of clarity in each topic to the extent that the nature of the matter accepts it."
-Aristotle
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it"
-Not Aristotle, though he gets the credit
So instruction, along with reading, along with practice, along with testing outside our comfort zones, alltogether, becomes the crucible in which our gongfu is purified.What, specifically, have you found that YCF wrote - or was published in his name - that wasn't "authentic" or was misleading? You suggest that what was written about "double-weighting" was somehow wrong or misleading. What about it is wrong or misleading or incomplete? What I recall reading was spot-on but has lead to many misinterpretations.
That's a pretty big can of worms to open and would invite more of the same old insults from the same old monkeys. We can't even get them to admit to the documented falsehood, much less start discussing more abstract concepts objectively, and that's the problem. (More on this in a second)
So instead let's just examine the fruit.
What is the reputation of Yang Taijiquan and what is the demonstrated skill level of 95% of its exponents? Everybody does it, but nobody "gets it".
What is the reason for the disconnect?
In a single concept, lack of objective testing of skills. That allows whatever nonsense the teacher can make sound convincing enough to flourish and teaches the students THAT skill. There is a lack of investment in loss and instead an investment in appearance, where any indication that the teacher is not possessed of omnipotent superhuman skill is deemed too threatening to be allowed to occur.
So those misunderstandings are never corrected by coming into contact with reality. Sifu is a champion of 1000 imaginary battles. Dancing alone and imagining themselves a sword master. A naked emperor spinning for their court.
So without that investment in loss, where does the operating fund come from? The riches of the art themselves, slowly depleted of value. A mountain of gold reduced to a hollow shell.
Like, "double weighting", they say "weight evenly divided between the feet is double weighted", but that isn't true. You can be free with your weight divided. You can be stuck on one leg. It doesn't need clarification, it needs to be completely wiped and replaced as a concept. The beginning premise points in the wrong direction. Much of the other information CMC in particular presents as established fact winds up being his own invention with no clear line between the two.
What else is there? How important is it? Who knows? But it IS something to think about while my legs rest and my scripts run.Then there is the issue of solo practice done one way and application done a different way. That is, the solo practice being taught and practiced in a way that is ineffective in two-person work or fighting and to be effective needs to be altered.
Solo work should prepare us for partner work to polish. The art takes four hands to learn.
“Never explain — your friends do not need it, and your enemies will not believe you anyway.” –Elbert Hubbard
origami_itto wrote:Writing is communication, full stop. So is talking. So is touching... 2 standard deviations... is as great an impediment to communication... I'm constantly misunderstood... dialtone stares you get in response.
The teachers I respect show me tools and principles and encourage me to experiment with them, and that is true across all disciplines, from gongfu to literature to music...
So instruction, along with reading, along with practice, along with testing outside our comfort zones, alltogether, becomes the crucible in which our gongfu is purified.
What, specifically, have you found that YCF wrote - or was published in his name - that wasn't "authentic" or was misleading? You suggest that what was written about "double-weighting" was somehow wrong or misleading. What about it is wrong or misleading or incomplete? What I recall reading was spot-on but has lead to many misinterpretations.
That's a pretty big can of worms to open and would invite more of the same old insults from the same old monkeys. We can't even get them to admit to the documented falsehood, much less start discussing more abstract concepts objectively, and that's the problem. (More on this in a second)
So instead let's just examine the fruit... Everybody does it, but nobody "gets it".
What is the reason for the disconnect?
In a single concept, lack of objective testing of skills...Sifu is a champion of 1000 imaginary battles.
Like, "double weighting", they say "weight evenly divided between the feet is double weighted", but that isn't true. You can be free with your weight divided. You can be stuck on one leg. It doesn't need clarification, it needs to be completely wiped and replaced as a concept. The beginning premise points in the wrong direction.
Then there is the issue of solo practice done one way and application done a different way. That is, the solo practice being taught and practiced in a way that is ineffective in two-person work or fighting and to be effective needs to be altered.
Solo work should prepare us for partner work to polish. The art takes four hands to learn.
Return to Xingyiquan - Baguazhang - Taijiquan
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests