Yang Shou-Chung, Chu King-Hung and Erle plus Snake Style

[Yuen-Ming]

八五十三勢長拳解
自己用功，一勢一式，用成之後，合之為長，滔滔不斷，周而復始，所以名長拳也，萬不得有一定之架子，恐日久入於滑拳也，又恐入於硬拳也，決不可失其綿軟，周身往復精神意氣之本，用久自然貫通，無往不至，何堅不推也！

YM

[kenneth fish]

+1

[Michael Babin]

Fortunately, for those of us who can't read Chinese, Google translate provides this exquisite translation of what Yuen-ming wrote a couple of posts previous to this one. It appears to have been worded in an arcane manner [probably by a Snake stylist] so that only the truly deserving are enlightened.

"Hard, a potential type, used as, or as long torrential constantly, again and again, so the name Changquan also, and may not have some of the shelves, the fear of falling into into the slip punches also fear into hard punches also never missing the soft, whole body back and forth the spirit and emotional, with a long natural penetrating power, no matter to what Kennedy did not push also!"

We're so lucky to live in a technological age.

[extrajoseph]

This is the most crucial apssage:
所以名長拳也，萬不得有一定之架子
Therefore it is call "long-fist", since it has not fixed frame.

[Bao]

This is the most crucial apssage:
所以名長拳也，萬不得有一定之架子
Therefore it is call "long-fist", since it has not fixed frame.

Why should it be "long" if it has no frame? That's not logical.

The name of Tai chi is actually not "long fist" In the tai chi classics, the name is explained: "Changquan moves unceasingly like the Chang jiang". Changjiang =Long River. Long River, this is what the Yangsikiang river is called in China. Jiangzi is just the beginning of the river from the sea of the east. People that insists that it is called "Long boxing" have mostly been Yang stylists: "We do it correctly. It was called Long Fist so the Large frame is the original Tai chi." But with the name "Long fist", "River boxing" was actually meant. The movements should be like the movement of the river. Sometimes the waves are shorter, sometimes longer. Well yes, water does not have a frame, so the passage is logical if you understand what "Long boxing" actually meant.

[bailewen]

Yeah. Also, extrajoseph, you parsed it wrong.

滔滔不斷，周而復始，所以名長拳也，萬不得有一定之架子，恐日久入於滑拳也，

You can't start the phrase with 所以名長拳也. In Chinese grammar, 所以 can only come after 因为. The 因为 can be implied rather than explicit but the point is you first state the cause and only after can the cause has been introduced can you introduce the effect (using the word 所以)

So using "since" to link 所以名長拳也 with 萬不得有一定之架子 is a grammatical error. 所以 already means "therefore":

Because: 滔滔不斷，周而復始
Therefore: 名長拳也
Next sentence: 萬不得有一定之架子 . . . .

So the passage reads more like:

滔滔不斷，周而復始，所以名長拳也
Continuous and without end (滔滔不斷), it cyclees back to it's beggining; therefore we call it "changquan"(所以名長拳也). The frame is not fixed (萬不得有一定之架子).

Side note to Bao,
He didn't say it has no frame. He said it has no fixed frame...which I think is a fair interpretation of the passage especially considering the phrase 有一定之.

[Yuen-Ming]

Michael, sorry for posting chinese only but as I imagined there would have been discussion and various points raised and I did not want to start with mine

The early curriculum of the Yang family is described in various (undisclosed) manuals and it is not too difficult to try and understand what the learning progression was, they had MANY forms all with different characteristics and also various WAYS to practice those forms.

All this material, however, was strictly tailored around fixed principles and rules so if one tries (as I am reading here) to do things "different ways" maybe "doing Chen style, Sun style and Yang style" this is IMHO totally wrong. This is because any "style" is of course based on major fixed/common principles BUT it has evolved some PECULIAR characteristics (minor principles, if you want) which make it unique and often incompatible with the other styles.

The manuals are clear about one point, in any case, that all 'frames' and 'forms' are needed to make principles "smooth" but that the final stage is freedom from fixed frames. This is the meaning of that quotation above

Best

YM

[daniel pfister]

All this material, however, was strictly tailored around fixed principles and rules so if one tries (as I am reading here) to do things "different ways" maybe "doing Chen style, Sun style and Yang style" this is IMHO totally wrong. This is because any "style" is of course based on major fixed/common principles BUT it has evolved some PECULIAR characteristics (minor principles, if you want) which make it unique and often incompatible with the other styles.

If you can recognize and appreciate the differences between the styles, why is it wrong to practice more than one?

[Yuen-Ming]

If you can recognize and appreciate the differences between the styles, why is it wrong to practice more than one?

Because every practice was invented to develop your body in a certain specific way to make it into a very specific weapon.
If you want to develop mass you will lift weight in a certain way, if you want different results your practice with weights will be very different. Most people don't realise this in Taijiquan, while it is common knowledge in all activities at a certain level, just because there are no "objective tests" that would show that clearly.

If of course we only practice for fun, than that is a different story

YM

[Andy_S]

YM:

Very interesting comments above.

I am curious to know (re the Yang forms) how many different forms there actually were...? As you know, Chen Style (at least, the Chen style as we know it today) has two forms: yi lu and er lu. So if the first and second generation Yangs had many more forms, did they invent them, or mix it with the Hong Quan they already knew, or what? Or are you suggesting that Chen style has "lost" some forms since the last 19th century? (If so, it seems odd that ALL the Chen variants - Da Jia, Xiao Jia, Zhaobao Jia, Hulei Jia, etc - have lost so many forms and each lineage only have the yi lu and er lu remaining...)

I am also interested in the different ways to practice: I can think of fast, slow, low stance ("under the table"), high stance, mirror image forms, backward forms. Any others...?

FYI, I am discussing empty hand forms, not weapons forms. Is weapons forms what you meant when you referenced "many different forms?" If so, fine - even in today's Chen style there is sword, scimitar, double sword, double scimitar, double mace, stick, spear, flail, halberd and probably some I have not come across (albeit several of these forms are of modern provenance, but based on the earlier techniques.) Oddly, while there is a very clear correspondence between most orthodox Yang and Chen techniques, order of techniques and even tempo of techniques in the empty hand forms, the weapons forms seem very different (as per my limited of Yang and other Taiji weapons forms). I find it very odd that back in the 19th century, when weapons would have been much more important than boxing forms, it appears that Chen CX did not teach Yang LC the weapons arts.

The big questions are, I suppose, these. Clearly Yang style is different (not saying better, not saying worse) than Chen style.
Whence the difference?
Yang learn other Taiji other than from Chen village?
Or did he and his sons add Hong Quan and other stuff into the mix?
And was what the early Yangs did similar to (modern) Chen style or (modern) Yang style? Or was it something different again?
And according to your research and in your opinion, are there any peeps in China today doing the "original" Yang LC style, and if so...are they any better than the other, better known Taiji families of today?

Finally: If the early curriculum of Yang LC is available in contemporary manuals, why have these not been disclosed? There is a tremendous amount of interest and considerable controversy about the "real" Yang Luchan Taiji, and if these manuals are legitimate, they could, presumably, answer these questions and quash the controversy once and for all. Given that Taiji is now "out" in the public and is no longer a military secret, I find it most odd that these manuals are still kept behind closed doors. Particularly as, if they were disclosed and the disclosers were practicing and teaching the material in the manuals, they would be well placed to catch a large pool of interested students eager to learn the "real deal" as practiced by the most storied empty hand fighter in recent Chinese history...

[daniel pfister]

If you can recognize and appreciate the differences between the styles, why is it wrong to practice more than one?

Because every practice was invented to develop your body in a certain specific way to make it into a very specific weapon.
If you want to develop mass you will lift weight in a certain way, if you want different results your practice with weights will be very different. Most people don't realise this in Taijiquan, while it is common knowledge in all activities at a certain level, just because there are no "objective tests" that would show that clearly.
YM

Sure, there are body-builders that practice only for mass, and there are power lifters that practice only for power, yet the vast majority of people don't go to either extreme. but utilize elements of both. You're implying that it is "totally wrong" to practice anything except from one particular style. This would also mean you'd only study from one particular teacher as styles do evolve and change depending on the practitioner as you noted. To me, the notion that we can't learn from other styles is "totally wrong". Why put all your faith in one person? Are we not all fallible human beings?

[Yuen-Ming]

Sure, there are body-builders that practice only for mass, and there are power lifters that practice only for power, yet the vast majority of people don't go to either extreme. but utilize elements of both. You're implying that it is "totally wrong" to practice anything except from one particular style. This would also mean you'd only study from one particular teacher as styles do evolve and change depending on the practitioner as you noted. To me, the notion that we can't learn from other styles is "totally wrong". Why put all your faith in one person? Are we not all fallible human beings?

Daniel, you put all your faith in one person simply because he can beat the shit out of you which means you still have a lot to learn from him. Once you get to a level where you can compare with his skills than maybe you have more reasons to look elsewhere too.

YM

[Fubo]

Ok, thanks for trying to explain. I have watched Boyd's vids and he says that the snake style shenfa made difference for him. But I see nothing special in there. BTW, what I have understood, the vid on IP should show the Tiger form.

Sure thing. I'm not sure which vid on IP you're referencing, but here is a vid on another long time student of Mr. Ip's doing the tiger form that he taught. There's a link to part 2 on youtube.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g7nCi9quP2w

[Yuen-Ming]

Andy, I wrote an article a couple of years ago that touched the subject of the early Yang curriculum based on one of those manuals I am talking about, but there are more. Manuals are private and will mostly remain so simply because anything that becomes public these days takes soon a commercial slant and is destined to go down the drain in quality and practice.
For this reason the few traditional groups still existent prefer to remain unknown.

Yang Luchan, if we believe the words reported in writing by disciple Wang Lanting or son Banhou in their manuals for instance, was taught many different weapons from Chen Changxin and various frames. He then went on to create new ones and so did his sons and disciples, down to the second generation up until Shaohou. So the curriculum, depending on the line of transmission, can include up to a dozen empty-hands forms, many weapon forms, many two-person sets etc etc

YM

[Bao]

The big questions are, I suppose, these. Clearly Yang style is different (not saying better, not saying worse) than Chen style. Whence the difference?

Don't you think that much of the more "clear" differencies was established in a more modern environment? Why would only Yang style teachers be responsible for the clear differencies in modern times? From what I have understood, the modern "look" or frame comes from Chen Fake. I have seen Chen small frame that looks almost identical to wu/hao tai chi, a very different look from Fake's forms. But why must a style must have a certain look or an established frame? Don't you think that Chen stylists also establish more differencies and separate it even more clearly from Yang style? Maybe just because of marketing reasons and because they wanted to make clear that Chen is different from Yang?

Yang Lu Chan had probably his own variation of the small frame. The most different from Chen style would have been his large frame, or the "Imperial set", designed to sell as a non-strenuous exercise to the court to people who believed that sweating was for peasants. The official Yang style would have been more different from Chen than how it was practiced behind cloesed doors, where they practiced with speed and practiced fighting.

Yang learn other Taiji other than from Chen village?
Or did he and his sons add Hong Quan and other stuff into the mix?

Probably both. But "mixing" stuff into something might not be the best way to describe the procedure. Personalization and utilizing own experience and adjusting something to match one own's preconditions might be better. Everything was about practicality. I don't believe that they didn't even think about respecting traditions.