Bhassler wrote:At some point, you just have to say "they're doing something different" rather than "they're doing what I'm doing, but wrong".
Agreed.
Bhassler wrote:At some point, you just have to say "they're doing something different" rather than "they're doing what I'm doing, but wrong".
Bhassler wrote:At some point, you just have to say "they're doing something different" rather than "they're doing what I'm doing, but wrong".
Bhassler wrote:cloudz wrote:Bhassler wrote:I think there is enough divergence between the various lineages that they can be considered totally separate arts. Compare Chen Zhonghua with Chen Yu - both could be considered grand-students of Chen Fake, but they have totally different foundational methods to their practices. Comparing Chen style to Yang style, etc. the differences can be even bigger. One could argue common origins and some similarities, but the same is true for Wing Chun, White Crane, and Karate, yet no one considers those all to be the same art.
Just food for thought, as I didn't want to derail another thread.
This is one of those similarities vs. differences double sided measuring sticks or semantic merry go rounds. Pick your thrill.
Are they more similar or more different, how much, which should we push to the fore?
Sometimes we call arts styles and styles arts; shoot to kill, the bastards that do such things to us!!
Not sure why you're so fired up about this-- it's an opinion, not moral theology. I think that arguing nuances of definition about peng or ji, or body mechanics, or whatever, is pointless if one person is doing Beijing Chen style and the other person is doing Ching Man Cheng Yang style. They're just totally different arts, with different training methods and goals. The same can be said of the whole "4oz" idea-- what that means and how it's applied is vastly different among schools. At some point, you just have to say "they're doing something different" rather than "they're doing what I'm doing, but wrong".
If you (general you) really think there is something that uniquely defines all of taijiquan, then articulate it. What is present in all styles of taiji that is also absent from all other, non-taiji martial arts? I don't think you'll find anything.
everything wrote:We users are using natural gesture and voice UI, but the Internet still uses UI like:
sudo apt-get install
pip install Flask-Login
git push heroku master
Not sure where this analogy is going. Back to non-existent "taijiquan".
charles wrote:Bhassler wrote:At some point, you just have to say "they're doing something different" rather than "they're doing what I'm doing, but wrong".
Agreed.
The real name is 'Football'cloudz wrote:everything wrote:We users are using natural gesture and voice UI, but the Internet still uses UI like:
sudo apt-get install
pip install Flask-Login
git push heroku master
Not sure where this analogy is going. Back to non-existent "taijiquan".
you play soccer don't you; I play TCC.
Now imagine someone came to you and said soccer doesn't exist.
It's crazy talk for sure.
When we are told who's doesn't exist and who's does, that will be the kicker won't it.
“In the largely peaceful conditions that accompanied consolidation of Tokugawa authority, the warrior class had little opportunity to employ its skills in actual warfare. With pitched battles between contending armies a thing of the past, swordsmanship became an end in itself, transformed, so the oft-heard argument goes, from a practical technique (jutsu orgei) for the battlefield to a “Way” (dō or michi), a path to perfection that was at once an art, a spiritual discipline, and even a form of moral cultivation.”
LaoDan wrote:I think that a similar change happened with Chinese arts, especially on the emphasis on revitalizing the people (the sick/weak of Asia...) and society (bullied by Western powers as well as the Japanese...) that is often found in the TJQ manuals of the Republican Period.
The progression to an emphasis on spirituality, cultivation, and other “non-practical” aspects of the art should not be unexpected for martial arts during extended periods in relatively peaceful societies. I suspect that this is what fuels some of the “No such thing as ‘Taijiquan’” discussion. Those that value the “practical” aspects of TJQ will not like those who change the emphasis to a “Way”.
Ban Hou would practice hard, undeterred by winter's cold or summer's heat. Yang Ban Hou had a hard and fierce disposition. He was skilled at sparring, and especially adept in using the staff (made of bai la wood, over three meters long, and used in the same way as the spear).
Yang Jian, called Jian Hou, was nicknamed Jian Hu and called "3rd Son" until his later years when he was referred to as just "old man". Born in 1842, he started studying Tai Chi Chuan with his father at a young age. Under the strict requirements of his father he would practice hard all day. Frequently feeling that he could not endure it any longer, he tried several times to run away. It was clear that working hard daily at practicing gongfu under his father's watchful eye caused his skill to greatly improve.
Yang Zhao Xiong, his imposing manner was quite threatening. Shao Hou taught students to strike quickly after coming into contact with the opponent, wearing expressions from the full spectrum of emotions when he taught them"
http://www.yangfamilytaichi.com/yang/hi ... g-shao-hou
http://legacy.ymaa.com/articles/history ... -taijiquan
Master Ng's death was an effort by the Chinese mafia to stop an uprising of their soldiers and gave the excuse that Master Ng could not control his students, i.e., the trained gang soldiers. Originally the soldiers were given an assignment but were unable to complete it but still demanded payment of $2,000 from the mafia for an unsuccessful job performed. If the Chinese mafia did not pay, the soldiers threaten to expose their gambling houses and prostitution houses.
As a result of the threat, the mafia hired a 15 year old kid and was assigned to shoot Master Ng who took four slugs (22-cal.), one in each knee and two in the chest. This sent a loud message to the soldiers-back off or your going to be next.
http://www.kungfumagazine.com/forum/sho ... nd-Kung-Fu
cloudz wrote:charles wrote:Bhassler wrote:At some point, you just have to say "they're doing something different" rather than "they're doing what I'm doing, but wrong".
Agreed.
yea doing something different, agreed. stylistically.
You have been quite stri=ongly suggesting over quite some time that it's the sam thing. The Chen style is based on circles, on silk reeling. They might be organized different etc. but essentially it's the same art.
You had a Yang style teacher. Again saying several times on RSF that Yang and Chen was essentially the same thing based on your exeperience.
Now imagine someone came to you and said soccer doesn't exist. It's crazy talk for sure.
windwalker wrote:If something was called Chen style or cotton fist before being noted or called taiji was it taiji before it was called taiji or after.
Return to Xingyiquan - Baguazhang - Taijiquan
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 107 guests