Wu 吴 vs. Wu / Hao 武 / 郝

[neijiachuanren]

吳 is Wu Jian Quan.

[edededed]

No, I mean Shanghai (Ma Yueliang), Hong Kong Wu, Northern (Beijing), etc.

[Muad'dib]

In my personal experience, I was taught WJQ with a lot of the big flowery movements, but as my skill developed, it moved more and more to the point where people thought it to be robotic,overly square and/or lacking in what was classically considered dantien/power generating movements.

As for Hao style, I was never taught the flowery movements, because there really aren't any, except the one moron on youtube who plays it like Chen style, thereby removing 90% of what makes Hao style good and unique. (no slam on Chen, its just that simply because Hao is derived from Chen does not mean you can or should revert it to chen methodology.) Hao was damn hard for me to learn, and it was not until I did WJQ, and got some small skill with it that I realized what I needed to do to make my hao better.

[neijiachuanren]

No, I mean Shanghai (Ma Yueliang), Hong Kong Wu, Northern (Beijing), etc.

Sorry Until he speaks up again, I think he's the non Wu family HK Wu, e.g. Cheng Ting Hung branch. The Wu family and the Cheng taught tons of people in HK....

[AllanF]

Tom,

If we actually do a movement by movement comparison between the regular form and fast form, then we will see that the movement themselves are mostly identical. The major difference being the movement is more compact in the fast form, and there are more fajin. In Northern Wu group, we don't consider this as a separate form, but just another way of practicing the same form.

This is very common in forms practice in general: doing the same form different ways. For example, for gongfu training, you do the form in lower stance, for skill, medium stance, for fighting, high stance. For skill practice, make the movement bigger, for fighting, more compact. So there are actually no real meaningful differences between a lot of these big, small, slow, fast forms. You are supposed to do all of that with the one main form you practice anyway. And if you have done that, doing that special 'fast form' does not give you anything extra. It's not like if you don't do that, then you're not doing taiji.

The second major source of difference for large vs small are the instructor themselves. Everyone says they look exactly like their teacher, but they don't. Just look at all the students in our own schools. People naturally adapt the movement to their body. Take one simple example: in the yoga we do handstand at the wall where we raise up the legs one at a time. One student who has very strong legs will use strong kicks to bring the legs up; whereas another student, who is much more flexible and can do splits, will simply stretch up. The result is same, but because our bodies are different, people will naturally emphasize/use certain aspects more in their own practice. Most of the time they are just making use of some natural advantage. So naturally Yang Chen Fu will do the form differently than Wu Jianquan.

The third source of difference is level of mastery. In CMA, there's this basic skill where, if the opponent's punch is straight and center, you raise your right hand up, slightly off center to the left (palm is facing left), and when the back of your forearm makes contact with his forearm, you rotate and pull down on it (your palm end up facing the ground). The key point is, you are not relying on arm strength, once you make the connection, you want to pull down with your entire body weight. To get that feeling, you first have to make the movement very big - you actually squat all the way down. Right now I practice it using cable pull down machines at the gym. But once you get that feeling, once you can actually pull with your center, you can make the physical movement smaller. When my teacher do it, you only see his arm and hand moving. He's exerting a very powerful downward force, but the movement is very small. Whereas at my currently level, I actually have to bend my knees to get similar effect.

This leads to the last source of difference: age. Having already mastered those skills, they don't need to do the physical movements according to the ideal standard to practice the skill. So that's why sometimes old masters' form look so ... casual. Also, as we age, our movements naturally change according to our changing physical condition.

Today we don't have the same competitive environment for traditional skills as say modern boxing. So comparisons of who is the better fighter is not so easy to settle. So a lot of times it turns into "more forms = better". So we really need to look at those forms and say "what is extra here. What key ingredients does it offer?"

Wuyizidi

Excellent post and something i have often contemplated myself.

As for secret yang styles...for us there is no secret only that there is 2 opennings and 2 closings (one internal, one external) in every movement. It is not a secret and is taught from the outset, of course it is one things to be taught it and quite another to be able to do it.

We only have 1 form and it is practiced very slowly (35-40mins) first then after you have the required level of relaxation you can do it fast (less than 10mins). My teacher says there is no point in doing the form fast if you do not understand and demonstrate relaxation first as when you di it fast it will loose all the 'taiji'.

Wu (wushu de wu) taiji is very popular in Shenyang and there are 3 variations of it here, 2 with following step and one with a more fixed step though they do occasionally do a follow step in there movements. There is one practioner here who is very very good and at the age of 97 is a testiment to taiji. He only started taiji at the age of 60, prior to that he was a longfist guy. He has a really interesting history.

[cdobe]

No, I mean Shanghai (Ma Yueliang), Hong Kong Wu, Northern (Beijing), etc.

No, I mean Shanghai (Ma Yueliang), Hong Kong Wu, Northern (Beijing), etc.

Sorry Until he speaks up again, I think he's the non Wu family HK Wu, e.g. Cheng Ting Hung branch. The Wu family and the Cheng taught tons of people in HK....

Well, a short click at my profile reveals the two versions of Wu style that I practice.

I have nothing to do with Cheng Tin Hung, who seperated from the Wu style and founded his own "Wudang Taiji". My 100% monk-free lineage goes back to Wu Jianquan's disciple Cheng Wing Kwong.
I also practice the Shanghai Wu style that Ma Jiangbao teaches in Europe.

CD

[GrahamB]

This is very common in forms practice in general: doing the same form different ways. For example, for gongfu training, you do the form in lower stance, for skill, medium stance, for fighting, high stance. For skill practice, make the movement bigger, for fighting, more compact. So there are actually no real meaningful differences between a lot of these big, small, slow, fast forms. You are supposed to do all of that with the one main form you practice anyway. And if you have done that, doing that special 'fast form' does not give you anything extra. It's not like if you don't do that, then you're not doing taiji.

Wuyizidi

Hi W,

Yep - that's exactly what we do with our Yang style. We do the form high, low, fast and slow, and combinations thereof. And like you say, we don't have different names for the resulting forms - it's all just different ways of doing the same form.

Of course, you can even do the form on the other side, and I even saw a group once who did their form backwards! i.e. in reverse. Man, talk about knowing it inside and out!

G

[velalavela]

Tom,

I hesitate to bring this up because it might start an epic war, but what I'm saying below are mostly not opinions, just factual backgrounds on who said what, when... (especially the section on politics):
The infatuation with "fast" form has two major causes: first, a lot of people don't understand the purpose of doing the form slow. They apply the training model of external martial art, which is more intuitive, easy to understand, to internal practice. I.e.: you train how you fight, and real fighting is fast, so why spend all this time doing slow motion training? So unless you do a fast form, you cannot fight using Taiji.

Hi Wuyizidi,

pretty interesting post so thanks. But I think you miss out a very significant time in the development of Tai Chi.

The books by Fu Zhong Wen 'Mastering Yang Style Tai Chi'. Ma Yueh Liang and Wu Ying Hua's Wu Style Books, Also Wu Tunans book and even Chen Pan Ling's tai Chi textbook all reference Tai Chi having been practiced 'fast' and with fa jin.

In 1914 Xi Yui-seng established the Athletic Research Institute in Beijing and Invited Yang Shao-hou, Yang Ch'eng-fu , Wu Chien-ch'uan and Sun Lu Tang among others to teach. From then on T'ai Chi was taught to the public changing the ancient closed door policy where T'ai Chi was only taught privately to very close and well known people within a limited circle known as the tutor disciple relationship.

In the case of Wu Style:
Wu Chien-ch'uan revised and enriched the art of T'ai Chi Chuan handed down from his father Wu Ch'uan-yu. His development of the slow set led to the creation of the style of T'ai Chi today known as Wu Style Tai Chi Chuan..

He omitted some of the repetitions, Fa-jing, stamping and jumping movements to make the form smoother, more structured with continuous steady movements. This form promoted the health aspects of Tai Chi and was more suitable for general practitioners though it still contained all the martial applications and training.

In the case of yang Style:
Yang Chen Fu of Yang style Tai Chi Chuan also modified his own Yang style in a similar way at the same time. His brother, Yang Shou-hao's form had a high frame with lively steps alternating between fast and slow movements with hard and crisp Fa-jing.

I know the forward to Fu Zhong Wen' Mastering Yang Style Taijiquan book is written by Gu Luxin and you think his research suspect but it is a valuable reference to the changes made by Yang Chen Fu more than Yang Lu Chan.

"When Chengfu first performed his Art in Shanghai the movements of separating feet and kick with the heel still retained the training method of rapid kicks. Later he changed to slow gradual kicks with the placement of fajin in the kicks being concealed within. Other boxing powers and methods were also transformed to a continuous pace with no breaking of the cadence and fro a hurried to an even pace.

His brother yang Shao hoa's form had a high frame with lively steps, small movements, alternating between fast and slow, hard crisp fajin......

(My Yang Style Tai Chi teacher aged 84 now, studied Yang Style in Shanghai in the 1930's and 40's. He still performs those kicks with Fa Jin in his Tai Chi form.)

Also wether or not a bunch of peasants from the Chen village invented Tai Chi or some esoteric wandering taoists (Jiang Fa and Wang Zhong Yue etc... how do we explain the very different way the forms are practiced.

Chen Style with obvious changes in pace, fajin and rapid kicks, steps and strikes. It can't all be down to it being mixed with Chen Pao Chui.

For people interested check out the following links. I'd be keen to see people's responses and thoughts.

http://www.itcca.it/peterlim/ycflbox.htm

http://www.itcca.it/peterlim/tcspeed.htm

http://www.itcca.it/peterlim/yshsmfr.htm

Inside Kung Fu interview but no issue number or date?
http://www.patrickkellytaiji.com/TEACHE ... wsIKF.html



The second reason is political (on many fronts). One of the most common myth in Taiji Quan today is that originally Taiji Quan form has a lot of difficult movements (jumps, high kicks), that when Yang Luchan taught the nobles, those guys are so weak he eliminated those moves, and made them more smooth, even, easier to practice.

Actually no martial art masters before 1949 ever said this. This is something a group of martial art scholars, most notably Tang Hao and Gu Liuxin, started to explain the origin of Taiji, and the differences between Chen Style and all other styles.

First Tang Hao. He belong to that first generation of modern scholars who despised all the inaccuracies, the superstitions, and outmoded ways of thinking in traditional martial art. One thing everyone knows, is that most martial art styles exaggerate/lie about origin of their style. So when he set out to find origin of Taiji, he wanted to be modern, scientific, rigorous. His intentions are good, but unfortunately he failed by his own standards. His argument basically boils down to this: Zhang Sanfeng is your typical unreliable, hokey legend, therefore, Chen Village (the only reliable, documented source Taiji Quan transmission in the last 300 years), must be the true origin of Taiji Quan.

Anyone who has taken an Intro to Critical Thinking can see the flaw here: even you prove it's not invented by Zhang Sanfeng, you still have to prove Chen Village. This is what is known in logic as "false choice". Even in his time his fellow martial art scholars pointed that out. The official written records of Chen Village, up to Chen Changxing, only mentions that generations of masters practiced martial art. There were no specific mention of the word "Tai Ji Quan". This is especially true of Chen Wangting. In his often quoted poem, he mentions he created "fist skills" in his leisure. He makes no specific mention of Taiji Quan.

Tang Hao was very much influenced by the new, egalitarian attitude of the time. Before that China is a very top down kind of society. Power are concentrated at the top. 90% of people are illiterate. Culture largely comes from the small intellectual elite. The new attitude of the time, much influenced by Western ideas about democracy and communism, is that real source of change and creativity are the people. So Taiji Quan being invented by the common folks, peasants of Chen Village versus some legendary Daoist (so elitist) had enormous appeal.

That same appeal must had a huge effect on Gu Liuxin. Gu was a lawyer by training. He was a famous patriot before 1949, known for his work against the Japanese occupiers. After 1949, he was hugely influential in China's official sports establishment. He championed Chen Fake's sons, and the Yang Chenfu lineage. Many people believe he played a huge role in those branches' popularity after 1949. Gu Luxin, then, was the most vocal champion for the whole "Yang Luchan dumbed down Taiji for the weak Manchurians" theory.

He did this to explain a very delicate political situation. Today Chen Taiji is almost as popular as Yang style in China. But up until the 1980, relatively few people practiced Chen Style, even in Beijing. The major reason is that it looked so different from all other Taiji that came down from Yang Luchan. Everyone had the same teacher - Chen Changxing. So who changed? There can be only two explanations right - everyone else (Yang Luchan) changed, or Chen Village. Here the unwritten assumption is change = bad.

For Gu, a high-ranking communist party member, the pro-Chen theories (Chen is original, never changed, therefore best) are the only politically viable ones. To explain the difference between Chen and everyone else, the implausible explanation was that Yang Chengfu dumbed down Taiji for Manchurians. Anyone who says that is not applying what they know to be true about Chinese history.

The Manchurians, not Hans, were by far the more physical, marital culture at that time. They were nomadic people for whom archery and horsemanship were second nature. They are mostly the ones who synthesized Manchurian, Mongolian, and Han wrestling skills into Shuai Jiao as we know it today. Do you think you need to eliminate physically difficult movement for them? Remember, one of the biggest source of entertainment for these nobles were sports - shuai jiao, hunting, etc. Anyone who has ridden a horse for 8 hours knows how physical that is. Secondly, you think you can pass off something that is far less effective to these guys? That's like saying you can pass off mediocre shuai jiao to Genghis Kahn. Even if he himself is not that good, he's seen the best, on a daily basis. Especially something as counter-intuitive as Taiji "no, don't struggle, relax...". You cannot get away with not showing them how this works. The Manchurians were just crazy about martial arts. For example, Duke Lan invited Ma Gui to live in his house as "most honored guest" for a very long time in hope that Ma Gui would teach him his famous broadsword skills. Even if Yang Luchan wants to, deceiving a prince is a capital crime for him, and everyone he knows.

Given the political correct nature of these theories, these have been the official/government version since 1949. Today we can easily refute this whole theory by citing a popular saying at that time, about Yang Luchan's three best students. They are Ling Shan, Wan Chun, Quan You. Those name do not sound Han because they are not, they were all Manchurian soldiers Yang Luchan trained inside the king's palace. Then there's the famous story of Banhou complaining to his father about giving away the treasures to people outside the family.

Do I think it's possible that Yang Luchan hid some things from Manchurians? It's possible, but for all the reasons cited above, couldn't be something essential. Just look at how Quan You turned out. I'm working on a book on Taiji Classics right now, and just finished Yang family transmission section. I didn't see anything fundamental/crucial there that wasn't already mentioned by everyone else. But I am very curious. To people who do practice the secret transmission lineage: what type of things you do (don't have to get into details) that is missing from all other styles - what type of skills and abilities? What type of training methods...?

In martial art, like everything else, important secrets are often very small things. But those very small things are of absolute no use to us if we have not achieved a certain level yet. It's like saying to someone who cannot do pull ups, "when you're on a high bar, and you swing three time around to do this release move, it's helpful to tense your abs at this moment..." So this kind of thing it's very easy to hide from students. Unless you tell them they can go through whole life without even knowing it's missing.

Wuyizidi.

[Andy_S]

David/Wuyizidi:

Thanks for the historical precis and argument.

However, my understanding was that YLC did not dumb down his martial art for the Manchurian guardsmen. As you note: how could he? He had to prove its effectiveness in order to teach it to men who were, essentially, the last of the Chinese warrior class.

Instead, Yang's MA was dumbed down for the literati/upper classes who were at that time taking a (previously non-existant) interest in physical culture, most especially, physical culture with a Chinese slant to it. Such gents were willing to pay for instruction, were interested in adding a theoretical/philosophical framework onto the art, and had no real reason to brawl. So for them, much of the martial core was removed, and the art we have today came into being. Many say that this transformation took place under Yang CF, though I suspect its genesis was earlier...? I also understand - correct me if I am wrong - that the expression Taijiquan was not used even by Yang LC, who called what he was doing "meiquan/cotton boxing (or soft boxing)" but was created by a Beijing poet to brand what he did.

This would explain why, although there is no question but that Yang LC learned his MA in Chen Village, there is no pre-20th century written record of "Taijiquan" being practiced there, just "Chen Clan MA." But for the Yangs, teaching members of the upper classes in the Forbidden City and/or the Manchu City, it certainly would not do to state that the master had learned his art from a bunch of rural oiks in the sticks.

Not being a Chinese speaker/reader myself, I would appreciate your comments/corrections/opinions on any of the above.

[Bao]

I am very interested in wu/Hao as I practice Sun style. I actually believe that the more you hold this style closer to wu/hao, the better taiji. . . . Taiji should be taiji. It can have influence of other styles, but still, taijiquan should first and foremost be taijiquan.

As for Hao style, I was never taught the flowery movements, because there really aren't any, except the one moron on youtube who plays it like Chen style

LOL, I think I know who you mean. But I think it is common for many stylists of various styles to add "chen-flavor". Often it just looks strange, like a bad Chen copy from someone who does not understand Chen style. And it takes away something from the original form, maybe you could call what is lost "the original integrity", or you could say that there is a lack of integrity from the player. On the tube, there is a Sun-practitioner who tries to add Chen-flavor, and there are many wushu-performers with different competition forms who do this. And why not take a look at Yang Jwing-Ming, who change his appearance from year to year according to what is popular. First it was a wide yang-longfist-white crane mix, and now it is a yang-white-crane-with added chen trembling mix. And he always speak as he has all the knowledge and more than anybody else. If nothing else, you could call that lack of integriy.

, thereby removing 90% of what makes Hao style good and unique. (no slam on Chen, its just that simply because Hao is derived from Chen does not mean you can or should revert it to chen methodology.)

I looked at some lineage charts and found something interesting that I haven't noticed before, namely that (Wu/Hao founder) Wu Yuxiang's Chen teacher was not the same as Yang Lu Chan's teacher. He had, of course, YLC and maybe he got something from his teacher, Chen Changxing. But WYx's main Chen teacher was Chen Qingping. Now, remember that the one who popularized Chen widely, Chen Fake, follows the lineage of Chen Changxing. Maybe this is the reason, as someone said, that wu/hao really does not look like any of Yang or Chen style. The heritage of Chen that you can find in Wu/Hao was not modernized by Chen Fake. This is an intriguing thought, that you can find something older from Chen style in Wu/Hao, that you seldom find in modern Chen.

Another thought, or question, is about dong style, which also had wu/hao influence from Li Xiangyuan. What influence from Wu/Hao can you find in Dong style?


And last, I just thought I would share this. I know many watched it allready, but this is my very favorite form clip of every Taiji-form clip that I have found on the allmighty youtube. This is the best of the best. Why? Because I believe that it summarize just everything that can be said about good taijiquan, regardless style.

[Seán]

Bao,

I agree, the guy in the vid you posted is one of my absolute favorites! Great stuff! To me his stances look wider and deeper than most of the wu/hao players that I've seen (I'm not saying by any means that this is wrong, I actually prefer it this way), and the form is pretty much identical in sequence to the standard yang style long form. And as for the use of the half-stepping, that can also be found in "older" versions of the yang form: Yang Zhen He from Yongnian teaches a Yang Ban Hou version of the Yang long form that makes use of half-stepping, and Wang Ji Zhen in Shanghai teaches a version he learned from Chu Guiting (who learned his taiji from Yang Cheng Fu) that also makes use of the half-stepping.

I'm not trying to draw any conclusions from all this. Just saying that to me there really are a lot of similarities to be seen between yang and wu/hao styles.

[Bao]

Thanks Seán for the input. I had no idea that there are Yang version that close to hao style.And yes, he has quite a wide stance and also, he make use of leaning. But what really struck me is that he make use of "kai/he" principle like nobody else I have seen. Almost like he performed the movements with a ruler. Everyone who wants to understand kai/he concept should take a look at this vid.

BTW, welcome to the forum. A good first post!

[Ron Panunto]

Wu/Hao comes from xiaojia (small frame Chen) whereas Yang comes from dajia (large frame Chen) - that's why they look so different.

[Bao]

Wu/Hao comes from xiaojia (small frame Chen) whereas Yang comes from dajia (large frame Chen) - that's why they look so different.

Dont you think that answer is a bit over-simplified? I mean WYX also had YLC as teacher and YLC had other influence as well.

Then - what principles are the main focus in Xiaojia and what principles are the main focus in Dajia?

Mostly, I see no different in the expression and jin comparing the small and large Chen frames. But this must be the best Chen vid I have found yet. Good, connected, and somewhat compact jin, not the common seen "broken jin" at all



BTW: Do someone have info on WYX's Chen teacher Chen Qingping?

[bailewen]

um...."also" had Yang Luchan as a teacher?

I thought Yang Luchan was his teacherand that he only went back to Chen village after having been a disciple of Yang Luchan's for some years. AFAIK, Hao style is a Yang derivative, not Chen. He went back to Chen village to study with his "Shiye" and also to learn from the source just as I have gone to China to get closer. He went to Chen village as a disciple of Yang Luchan.

Old frame Yang and Hao style are barely different at all. The frame is different but the jinfa is virtually the same. More significantly, the changes made between Yang and Chen are the same as from Hao and Yang. Most jin, in Yang style, is less apparent than in Chen. The silk reeling is less visable and the applications are more hidden. In Hao style, the same thing can be said in reference to Yang. In other words, there is a fairly continuous progression, in terms of jin fa, shen fa and applications, in the evolution of the style from Cheng to Yang to Hao. Wu Yu-xiang took the same refinements that his teacher made to Chen and took them a step further.

Just my opinion of course.