Original Yang 2nd Tai Chi form

[origami_itto]

If you want to put effort into something, you might be better served by putting effort into checking your ego and not belittling everyone else on the forum, while claiming to be great, yourself. Even if you wouldn't benefit from it, the general tone and quality of the forum would.

... bruh.

[yeniseri]

Assessing a historical validation of an original Yang form is not only tricky but based on those stating an untruth backed up by historical fact,
which become absurd based on word of mouth! It seems that I used alot of words while explaining nothing but here are some threads to
assess the veracity of those claiming such forms exist.

1. Li style has its origins from Yang family but it seems that the forms are the creation of Li Family who apparently were martial artists of some repute
but they picked up enough Yang style (from Wang Lanting) to separate them into new version under Li family name. (LI Ruidong was stated to be a student of Wang Lanting, one of Yang Luchan's best student)



2. Vincent Chu profiled a teacher who taught 3 version of Yang forms but they were just one form played in different "Frames". Tai CHi magazine did a few stories on this about 10years ago, I believe
3. Then we have Li Zheng who stated he learned numerous forms from a Yang family memver during the end of the QIng era. This style has a few 'forms and is called Funei Taijiquan and Imperial Taijiquan,
of which there are stated to be many that call themselves that though they are all separate and forms rarely match meaning the sequence(s) are 'night and day".
Here is anexample of Funei Taijiquan/ aka Imperial Taijiquan per the heading of the video.

[Kong Bao Long]

IMO the closest your going to get to Original Yang Lu Chan style is this... the Hao Style.



Unlike so much out there, it's well documented that Wu Yuxiang trained for approximately ten years with the founder of Yang-style tai chi, and then for over a month with a Chen-style master. I don't do Taijiquan, but if I did... given the less than lack luster results achieved by established training methods, I would be training totally different. Way too numerous videos dating all they back to the Macau Fight i.e. 1950s (Wu taiji vs White crane) of a lack basic fighting skills. Tou shou, Rou Shou, Chi Sau are to specific of skill sets to be "The Methodology" to be relied upon in a fight.

They are too easily checked, in the age of the video, the results of going down those established roads have been well documented.

So if all the softness and "Matador vs the Bull" strategy doesn't work... and if the above is the original Yang Lu Chan Taijiquan form (why wouldn't be? it has the most solid credible evidence of all) and if Yang Lu Chan was indeed the Mike Tyson of Beijing during the 1830's-40s

Just what the hell are we looking at? lol

I personally think, (just my opinion... reader, don't take offense) given how ineffective established methodologies are, that what we are looking at (at the time of it's origin) was much more harder, much more external... and this slowness was to internalize the movements only. From my view, concepts like "attaching and adhering" have been lost by the Scholar who had no experience in other martial arts, who in the following generations passed the art along. Western Boxing, Sanda, San Shou, Kick Boxing, Chang Quan etc the concepts of "adhering and attaching" usually are referring to angles and positioning, rather than limbs, body mass and actual sensitivity of a persons center. Just throwing this out there... I don't practice Taijiquan Maybe, approaching this art in that premise could prove more plentiful when it comes to prowess. One internally feels when when they have the initiative, metaphysically one attaches to the angle to control the opponent's offense etc etc... these are not advanced concepts to people with prowess, who spar, who have immersed themselves in competition against other martial arts. Maybe what Taijiquan has been all along is some form of Iron Palm long fist with highly developed clinching methods used as a close in defense.

Just me 2 cents

[Bao]

IMO the closest your going to get to Original Yang Lu Chan style is this... the Hao Style.

I agree. It's also closest to Chen small frame which is the oldest Chen version. So it makes sense.

However, the "Hao" form in the clip is the standardized, public version of Hao. There are other "old wu" versions that probably preserve the old flavor better. Or at least give a better idea of how Tai Chi was trained earlier, as "Old Wu" schools mostly have a much larger curriculum and many more training "modes" and methods. Hao has a more condensed and straightforward training method.

I like Hao style a lot as it makes some basic principles about structure and balance very clear, more so than what you can find in most other stuff or styles and schools that call what they do "Tai Chi". IMO, Hao seems like the most pure and orthodox Tai Chi style. Sun Lutang, though only studying with Hao Weizhen for a brief period, learned the old principles and concepts. But as in many other styles and schools, it's hard to find a teacher who can unravel and explain them. In this respect, Hao style certainly does the best job, IMHO.

Old frame Wu style, Coiling frame:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ELEPd-GyyhI

[origami_itto]

I don't do Taijiquan, but

but you will speak on the subject as if you are an authority.

Words reveal the truth and depth of our own understanding, nothing more.

[yeniseri]

Kung Bao has an excellent point as he is looking at criteria objectively as opposed to many of us (the collective-generally noted ) who have
invested interest in the style we may be promoting so any thing other than their point of view, is considered heresy.
When I first learned (was introducd) to taijiquan, what was called Yang style (there was no old or Family style connotation attached to it, as I recall) was done
in a manner similar to Wu/Hao so on that basis, the changes after that were the modern structure we do today, myself included.

When I was younger I did not understand anything because I was just doing and following with no explanation or comprehension. Later on, I realized that there was something in the now stated "Old Yang"
or WuHao that is lacking in modern taijiquan taolu and individual posture practice.

[GrahamB]

You don't need to be an expert at doing something to be able to talk about its history, but I'd listen to you more if you were a student of history - I don't know why this simple concept escapes 'marital artists', but hey.

Personally, I like the theory that whatever Wu Yuxiang practiced is closest to whatever Yang Lu Chan practiced. He was in the Royal Court, so had zero martial arts experience before Yang (a good Confucian gentleman would have nothing to do whatsoever with a low level peasant practice like 'martial arts') so that means whatever he practiced was not influenced by other martial practices (which is not true for a lot of LuChan's other students - and another source of variations). However, the story is that he learned some Chen style small frame after training with Yang, so... if that is true (again, its questionable, and I'd wonder which way the exchange went there, personally) then that would have influenced the style he passed on.

The question is what exactly Wu Yuxiang practiced. Now branding and money has entered the picture, you have to factor that into who you can believe about anything.

[origami_itto]

Kung Bao has an excellent point as he is looking at criteria objectively as opposed to many of us (the collective-generally noted ) who have
invested interest in the style we may be promoting so any thing other than their point of view, is considered heresy.
When I first learned (was introducd) to taijiquan, what was called Yang style (there was no old or Family style connotation attached to it, as I recall) was done
in a manner similar to Wu/Hao so on that basis, the changes after that were the modern structure we do today, myself included.

When I was younger I did not understand anything because I was just doing and following with no explanation or comprehension. Later on, I realized that there was something in the now stated "Old Yang"
or WuHao that is lacking in modern taijiquan taolu and individual posture practice.

There is something to be said for an outside perspective, but there's a lot to be said for actually having some experience with what we're speaking authoritatively on.

given how ineffective established methodologies are

This is not a given.

I would counter with given how pointless modern measurement criteria are Taijjiquan as practiced today by the handful of True Believers{tm} in the world is the most effective use of your time.

As concerning the form, who cares? I like what the Dong family is doing today so I'm studying that today. All I have is the results of my own practice no matter what movements I may use to cultivate it or what names I call it by. The simplest movement can be instructive, contribute to conditioning, and be martially effective in the hands of someone who has the skill. The most powerful movement is pointless performed by someone who doesn't understand it.

The forms, the exercises, even the principles are just fingers.

[BruceP]

I don't do Taijiquan, but if I did... given the less than lack luster results achieved by established training methods, I would be training totally different.
They are too easily checked, in the age of the video, the results of going down those established roads have been well documented.

So if all the softness and "Matador vs the Bull" strategy doesn't work... and if the above is the original Yang Lu Chan Taijiquan form (why wouldn't be? it has the most solid credible evidence of all) and if Yang Lu Chan was indeed the Mike Tyson of Beijing during the 1830's-40s

Just what the hell are we looking at? lol

I personally think, (just my opinion... reader, don't take offense) given how ineffective established methodologies are, that what we are looking at (at the time of it's origin) was much more harder, much more external... and this slowness was to internalize the movements only. From my view, concepts like "attaching and adhering" have been lost by the Scholar who had no experience in other martial arts, who in the following generations passed the art along. Western Boxing, Sanda, San Shou, Kick Boxing, Chang Quan etc the concepts of "adhering and attaching" usually are referring to angles and positioning, rather than limbs, body mass and actual sensitivity of a persons center. Just throwing this out there... I don't practice Taijiquan Maybe, approaching this art in that premise could prove more plentiful when it comes to prowess. One internally feels when when they have the initiative, metaphysically one attaches to the angle to control the opponent's offense etc etc... these are not advanced concepts to people with prowess, who spar, who have immersed themselves in competition against other martial arts. Maybe what Taijiquan has been all along is some form of Iron Palm long fist with highly developed clinching methods used as a close in defense

I don't know how much time you spent lurking (if any) before your join date, but what you posted regards practical tai chi fighting method has been run through the mill a few times since RSF's first days.

Yeah, ineffective, established methodologies...

This might be for another, different discussion, but since you brought it up,...and apologies for the hijack, windwalker

In this thread, you have three so-called tjq 'teachers' replying to your comments... words, opinions and arguments on the Who, When, Where and What, but never the How - nothing (aside from choreography) pertaining to practical method that can be taken from text and applied to practicable, repeatable training. Case in point; up until a couple of weeks ago, all three of those 'teachers' (and others) rejected the most basic of basics of tjq's internal work. They along with others were dismissive of the methodology of actively internalizing tjq's foundational principles. Leading up to that was their thinking that people don't have 'enough'(?) qi, yi and jin to understand those foundational principles, or that beginners would just be confused or misguided by the work of internalizing the principles and methods. When asked about those things, I was told that they were "standard practice...general movement principles..are meaningless these days". They have the message of that particular basic, but not the code.

Then, when a methodology actually is made clear, they play catch-up-keep-up as their former notions are crushed under the truth of things and they 'adjust' their seeming understanding accordingly because 'well, yeah that's just how tai chi works'.

'Just practice the right thing, the right way, with the right intensity and all will come clear', I heard. Ask one of them to outline the changes of Six Harmonies in the Cloud Hands sequence - I dare you!

They think cultivating qi is the goal of qigong and tjq. How can one cultivate what is already at its maximum as it is at any given time? Ask them that and see what kind of answer -if any -you get. What is the goal, then? What purpose does qigong serve if not to 'cultivate' qi? Of what use is qi if not for a purpose?

What the hell are we looking at?...indeed

[GrahamB]

The goal of Tai Chi is quite clear it seems - you need to turn into a resentful individual, then post about it on forums, while mentally keeping score in a game that nobody else is playing.

[origami_itto]

The goal of Tai Chi is quite clear it seems - you need to turn into a resentful individual, then post about it on forums, while mentally keeping score in a game that nobody else is playing.

Seriously. Why people get so ridiculous I will never understand.

Bruce you have a rich inner life and very interesting ideas about training. It's always such a treat to get a peek into what makes you tick. Thank you.

[GrahamB]

I’ve got no problem with people sharing their ideas but the constantly aggrieved attitude is wearing thin. Be nice if people could just live and let live.

[origami_itto]

I’ve got no problem with people sharing their ideas but the constantly aggrieved attitude is wearing thin. Be nice if people could just live and let live.

Internet forums are built on projection.

We have to be the change we want to see. I won't be a dick to you whenever I can possibly keep myself from doing it because let's be honest I am a bit of a dick sometimes.

So then you just don't be a dick to me and then we can gang up on these other dicks and not be a dick to them together.

Eventually they will cave. They will fall, one by one, till finally we will all stand towering above the one remaining dick on rum soaked fist, most likely everything, if we're being honest here.

[GrahamB]

I don’t even know what we’re talking about anymore, but both Sigman and Harden would take some beating if we’re talking about the all time greats of discussion forums.

[origami_itto]

I'm just saying people could be nicer