Royal Dragon wrote:Did the style founders even consider what they do a style? Or were they just concerned with the nuts and bolts of things? Maybe the "Style" just developed on it's own, unintentionally, and it is the STUDENTS who later tried to preserve the methods of their teachers that also solidified it into a style by also capturing their masters flavor and style of execution?
GrahamB wrote:I like what Tim Cartmell said - something like 'style founders cross train, style tranmitters don't'
Royal Dragon wrote:Did the style founders even consider what they do a style? Or were they just concerned with the nuts and bolts of things? Maybe the "Style" just developed on it's own, unintentionally, and it is the STUDENTS who later tried to preserve the methods of thier teachers that also solidified it into a style by also capturing thier masters flavor and style of execution?
C.J.Wang wrote:I wonder how many martial artists today dare to call themselves "style transmitters."
Ron Panunto wrote:C.J.Wang wrote:I wonder how many martial artists today dare to call themselves "style transmitters."
Well I would think that those practitioners with heavy ties to authentic lineages are "style transmitters," like Chen Xiaowong, Chen Zhenglie, Yang Zhendou, Yang Jun, etc. So maybe the question is who are more proficient martial artists? Transmitters or cross trainers?
Interloper wrote:TJ,
I agree with the concept of emphasis -- say, throws and grappling vs. punching/kicking, etc. But, I'd take it a step further and say that once you have the core internal body skills, "style" becomes the outward, artistic expression of it -- as varied as the creative individuals who practice it.
Return to Xingyiquan - Baguazhang - Taijiquan
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 72 guests