Thoughts about Chen - Yang TJQ and so on

[charles]

1. Okay, SO, the YANG CHENG FU long form very closely follows the standard Chen Lao Jia long form.
But should it?
What if, what if, the Chen didn't have anything really put together at the time that Yang family's TJQ was getting popular and they followed the Yang long form and retrofitted it?
Because, in some parts of the older versions of Chen Fake's Lao Jia, he has a few extra postures that are clearly found in the Tai Tzu Chang Quan form, but the standard Chen Lao Jia form just glosses past them, when he in fact makes a point of showing them clearly.

What if, what if, ancient aliens invented Taijiquan and taught it to Zhang Sanfeng? One can "explore" any what-if one choses, but that doesn't make it plausible or factual - or necessarily worth investigating.

Is there ANY evidence to plausibly suggest that "Chen didn't have anything really put together at the time the Yang family's TJQ was getting popular"? There is evidence that the Chen's did. In your conjecture, are you refuting that evidence?

The Chen family states that CFK added back into his version of Lao Jia several postures from the original 5 (or 7) shorter forms. Since it was his addition, why would other variants of the family's form include those? How/why is that evidence that "Chen didn't have anything really put together..."?

2. Also, after reviewing so, so many "Original" Yang, Imperial Yang, Palace Yang, and like 10 other ones claiming to have an older Yang Long form that was close to what Yang Lu Chan taught, NONE OF THEM at all use this Shaolin frame that Chen Fake/Yang Chen Fu TJQ does.
WOULDN'T they being "older" be MORE like Chen style, hence following the Chen postures closer? But NO, none of them do at all. What does this mean?

And, what about the ones that do? For example, Earl Montague's "original YLC" form has the same sequence as Chen and YCF forms? You conveniently ignore the ones that don't support your thesis?

3. AND, the interesting thing about the Wu/Hao TJQ style is that it is even more like Shaolin than the Yang and Chen styles. Both the founders of Yang and this Wu style were friends and they both learned Shaolin Hong Quan first. That is a fact. I can see some parts of Hong Quan in the Wu/Hao Style added in that are not in the Chen/Yang (although there is plenty in there already) and besides that, the Wu/Hao TJQ style not only moves with the body mechanics of but also incorporates postures from Shaolin Rou Quan. I can clearly see it.
Also, 95% of the Wu/Hao long form follows the same frame as the Chen/Yang long form, they are all just variations of the same stuff.

I can't follow the point you are trying to make. Wu/Hao is "even more like Shaolin than the Yang and Chen styles", but "95% of the Wu/Hao" is the same as Chen/Yang? What point are you trying to make?

I have nothing against exploring the history and ancestry, but "random" conjecture and conspiracy theory stuff isn't very productive.

Feng Zhiqiang included in his version of the Chen-based saber form, two moves from Classical Chinese opera. He included them because he liked them. If you did not have first-hand knowledge of why he included those moves, should we conjecture that the inclusion of these moves indicates that his form has roots that are the same as or are derived from Chinese opera? Perhaps, in a 100 years, after everyone who actually knew Feng has gone, people will conjecture just that, that the origins of Feng's form is Chinese opera.

[robert]

So, in short, you're saying that Sal's 35 years of research is to "re-invent" what Chen Ziming already knew and published in 1932?

Well, if you drop the Shaolin mythology. Historically Shaolin was known for the staff.

In Qi's manual long fist is attributed to Taizu. Qi mentions what he drew from.

Among the past and present fist specialists, the Song Great Founder had the Long Fist system with 32 positions. Moreover there are six pace and fist techniques, the Monkey Fist, and the Feinting Fist. The famous positions each have their own names, but in reality they are quite similar and scarcely differ from one another.

Looking at Master Wen in the present day, we have the 72 moving fist methods, the 36 combining and locking techniques, the 24 counter-spy techniques, the 8 flash flips, and the 12 short strikes. These are the best of the lot. As for Lu Hong's 8 blows, while they are firm, they do not measure up to Min Zhang's short strike. The leg techniques of Shangdong's Li Bantian, Eagle Claw Wang's grappling methods, Thousand Stumble Zhang's stumbling techniques, Zhang Bojing's strikes, the Shaolin monastery stick fighting art, together with the Green Field cudgel methods, all stand as equals. Mr. Yang's spear arts together with the open hand, fist, and quarterstaff skills, are all famous to the present day.

Qi was born 1528 so at that time long fist was not associated with Shaolin. And the mention of Shaolin here - the Shaolin monastery stick fighting art.

[salcanzonieri]

Yes!

From Chen Ziming's book.Published in 1932 (near the end)

So, in short, you're saying that Sal's 35 years of research is to "re-invent" what Chen Ziming already knew and published in 1932?

ha, yes, well, I did the hand (and feet, ha) proof by physically doing all the comparisons of the postures and their movements.

(the 35 years of research wasn't only on this, but all the "internal" Chinese martial art, actually)

[salcanzonieri]

So, in short, you're saying that Sal's 35 years of research is to "re-invent" what Chen Ziming already knew and published in 1932?

Well, if you drop the Shaolin mythology. Historically Shaolin was known for the staff.

In Qi's manual long fist is attributed to Taizu. Qi mentions what he drew from.

Among the past and present fist specialists, the Song Great Founder had the Long Fist system with 32 positions. Moreover there are six pace and fist techniques, the Monkey Fist, and the Feinting Fist. The famous positions each have their own names, but in reality they are quite similar and scarcely differ from one another.

Looking at Master Wen in the present day, we have the 72 moving fist methods, the 36 combining and locking techniques, the 24 counter-spy techniques, the 8 flash flips, and the 12 short strikes. These are the best of the lot. As for Lu Hong's 8 blows, while they are firm, they do not measure up to Min Zhang's short strike. The leg techniques of Shangdong's Li Bantian, Eagle Claw Wang's grappling methods, Thousand Stumble Zhang's stumbling techniques, Zhang Bojing's strikes, the Shaolin monastery stick fighting art, together with the Green Field cudgel methods, all stand as equals. Mr. Yang's spear arts together with the open hand, fist, and quarterstaff skills, are all famous to the present day.

Qi was born 1528 so at that time long fist was not associated with Shaolin. And the mention of Shaolin here - the Shaolin monastery stick fighting art.

All the Shaolin empty hand sets can be done with the staff as well, and vice versa, that's a Shaolin speciality.
I extensively studied Sung Tai Tzu (Zhou Kwong Yin) and everything that can be found about him. The monk who wrote the Shaolin Encyclopedia said that Shaolin had records of Zhou Kwong Yin that he had given to their library. When he was in Shanxi, he came across a Shaolin monk doing an exhibition of the Rou Quan (Flexible Boxing, the internal martial art that is also a Qigong that is most like Taiji) and he was in awe of it and he followed the monk to Shaolin. There he proposed an exchange: they showed him Rou Quan (3 short sets) and he taught then what is now known as Da Hong Quan (which is different from the Xiao Hong Quan that Yang Lu Chan did). So, the Rou Quan was an influence on Tai Tzu Chang Quan, which if you know both cane be seen.
That came from two differerent ends, a Shaolin source and a Zhou Kwong Yin source dovetailed.

[salcanzonieri]

Anyway, everything is going off track.
What I am more talking about is the actual sequence of postures and movements that creates what is now the Chen Lai Jia and the Yang Long Form.
What did Yang Cheng Fu actually really do? Create Grasp the bird's tail as we know it now?
As far as the form, it's the same form as all the other Chen and Yang and Wu/Hao and Wu styles.

[GrahamB]

You know that saying "it takes a village to raise a child"?

I often think it's the same thing with a Tai Chi style. It takes a village of practitioners to keep the style uniform. Once somebody moves away from the village and off to another area (i.e. Yang Luchan moves to Beijing) the style starts to .... alter... quite naturally. There is nobody else there to keep them in check. (This is the time before video and the Internet).

Add in 3 generations of practitioners, environmental, cultural and political factors... is it really any surprise that YLC form looks different to Chen? Still notably the same sequence, but lots of detail gone.



Was the detail deemed unnecessary? Or was it just a personal preference to make things easier to teach?

Who knows.

[Bao]

Still notably the same sequence, but lots of detail gone.
....
Was the detail deemed unnecessary? Or was it just a personal preference to make things easier to teach?
Who knows.

You presume that the difference or lack of detail has to do with loss from Chen to Yang due to development from one style to another. The mistake you do is to not take into account that the expression of the modern Chen boxing was changed and standardized long after Yang Luchan had established his own art. Details you see of very visually explicit body mechanics, an external expression, is something that has been added recently. Two different styles that have developed very differently.

OTOH is the Chen demonstration in the clip on every account far better Tai Chi than the Yang demo. Yang Yun’s back is somewhat stiff, he lacks centered, whole body movement and there is no trace of any developed chousi quality. And he completely lacks spirit. It’s just a mediocre Tai Chi performance similar to 99,98% of so called Yang teachers out there.

[cloudz]

2. Also, after reviewing so, so many "Original" Yang, Imperial Yang, Palace Yang, and like 10 other ones claiming to have an older Yang Long form that was close to what Yang Lu Chan taught, NONE OF THEM at all use this Shaolin frame that Chen Fake/Yang Chen Fu TJQ does.
WOULDN'T they being "older" be MORE like Chen style, hence following the Chen postures closer? But NO, none of them do at all. What does this mean?

And, what about the ones that do? For example, Earl Montague's "original YLC" form has the same sequence as Chen and YCF forms? You conveniently ignore the ones that don't support your thesis?

I have watched and observed a relatively high number of Yang forms over the past 17 odd years; regards the pre YCF large frame version I don't beleive the choreography or what we might term framework is a departure whatsoever. In fact both his and Wu Chen Chuans standardizations follow the same framework and there are a high number of forms from various (purported) sources other than YCF including Imperial etc. that follow the same foundational sequence. Let us not forget for example Northern Wu.

Quan You was a military man, so his style could certainly be included as a Yang style from the Imperial court and the Northern Wu branch would have by passed both YCF and WCC standardizations. Regardless forms purported to be from YSH and YJH also match up with the YCF sequence/ framework. Certainly there are variations and differences. But not in the way you seem to be reporting, that hasn't been my experience anyway.

But I take the point; there are some that don't follow that sequence for sure, they seem to me to be more from Yongnian the yangs home town. The Guang Ping 64 comes immediately to mind as does the Yang Michuan tradition (from YJH). . But generally to your point Sal, I would just say that some do and some don't, if pressed I would have to say more do follow the generic sequence than don't.

I think the problem you come up with with the Yangs is that they had multiple forms, (at least one Imperial style I came accross lists a very LARGE amount!) they were creative and we have a few strands over a few generational timespans.

As for Erles form, it's basically a hybrid of the Chen Pan Ling form, a synthesis of Yang (Shao Hou), Wu Chien Chuan and a Chen style - quite possibly small frame not sure about that detail. Which has undergone further changes and or embellishments, depending how one see's it..

[shawnsegler]

S- kicks up feet and cracks beer- "Old School!".

[salcanzonieri]

ok, the stylistic differences is whatever, that's not what I am talking about really.
It's that fact that from Chen to Yang to Wu/Hao to Wu to ? to ? to ? the form (the sequence of postures and their movements) is all the same.
It's always the long form and in essence they are, using language as an analogy, all romance languages, each "style" style of TJQ is in comparison to each other and congruent to each other like French is to Italian to Portuguese to Spanish (and so on). And they all came from Latin (Shaolin base).

Looking that way, the form ITSELF is not very different in standard Chen Lao Jia TJQ from standard YCF Yang TJQ.

So, again, what really did Yang Cheng Fu have to change? Not the form itself.
And did Chen style make their style more "tai ji" ish?

[salcanzonieri]

How it is done is not the issue, that's just stylistic differences (languages)
But rather What is done is the issue.

[salcanzonieri]

And, yes, Yang Jian Hou and Yang Ban Hou versions of the long forms from what I can see are the same as YCF, Chen, Wu/Hao/Wu, etc.

Which makes me question Quangping TJQ. and some of the other mystery styles.

[origami_itto]

ok, the stylistic differences is whatever, that's not what I am talking about really.
It's that fact that from Chen to Yang to Wu/Hao to Wu to ? to ? to ? the form (the sequence of postures and their movements) is all the same.
It's always the long form and in essence they are, using language as an analogy, all romance languages, each "style" style of TJQ is in comparison to each other and congruent to each other like French is to Italian to Portuguese to Spanish (and so on). And they all came from Latin (Shaolin base).

Looking that way, the form ITSELF is not very different in standard Chen Lao Jia TJQ from standard YCF Yang TJQ.

So, again, what really did Yang Cheng Fu have to change? Not the form itself.
And did Chen style make their style more "tai ji" ish?

As I learned it, the Yangs practiced variants of the long form according to their temperment and inclination. Large, Medium, Small, High, Medium, Low. Yang Chien Hou was particularly balanced and standardized a Medium/Medium form that retained some of the fast and more vigorous movements. His son, Yang Cheng Fu learned this form while Shao Hou learned more from his uncle Ban Hou. YCF simply took out the leaping kicks and more vigorous movements that can be found elsewhere in the complete syllabus (Sabre form, for example) to enable a greater number and variety of students to enter the door of Taijiquan and more importantly give him money and spread the family's fame. As mentioned before this is the info my former teacher got directly from T.T. Liang, who learned from direct students of Cheng Fu, Shao-Hou, Chien Hou, and Ban Hou, so he's rather uniquely qualified to speak on the subject.

[charles]

So, again, what really did Yang Cheng Fu have to change? Not the form itself.

Who says he did? What is the basis for your questioning/suggesting that he did? Oragami reiterates what is commonly believed: YCF eliminated the hard physical actions to make it less physically demanding and performed the postures very large, but the internal actions very small.

And did Chen style make their style more "tai ji" ish?

Who knows, regardless of whatever "more "tai ji" ish" means. If that means did Chen practitioners make their forms more like YCF's style/flavour? There isn't any strong evidence to suggest they did. There is personal preference, just as YCF's, that appears in many peoples' forms, regardless of family style, to do actions, larger, smaller, faster, slower, with more overt winding, with less overt winding... Within each family style - Chen, Yang, Wu... - there is considerable variation in how individual practitioners perform that style.

[Steve James]

Well, I haven't paid attention for 20 years, but iirc Wu/Hao and Sun styles use Lazy Tying Coat while Wu (Jianquan) and Yang style use Grasp Bird's Tail. I've never done Wu/Hao, but Sun style doesn't use Buddha's Warrior Attendant.That refers to the long forms. Whenever a long form is shortened/condensed/altered, it always has what is or are the key movements that distinguish it from other styles.

Whatever we call Yang TCC today developed from something that was called "13 postures" or Shi San Shi. Theoretically, those 13 things exist in all tcc styles, and generally in all styles. But, they're not always explicit parts of a particular style's form. Then, there's the question of chanssu and chanssujin which seem to be the signatures of the style's body movement.

So, why would someone remove the most essential elements of an art? Why wouldn't he simply copy? People argue that YCF took the ___ whatever movements out of his form. Perhaps, but there is absolutely no evidence that it made his tcc less effective than any other style. Shucks, a CMC guy has won the Chen VIllage phs competition. But, my point is that tcc "styles" have little to brag about, not that one style is better than another because it leaves something out.