Training both Chen style and Yang style

[everything]

a "bend low" ("Ben Lo") kind of zhan zhuang. that is pretty much what he said to do. I could play soccer or tennis for hours, but trying to hold those stances reminds me of this (happened recently): https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=3428121420740882

nobody seemed to believe him at the time. decades later, it starts to make some sense, d'oh. it's the hard gongfu part that matters most.

[windwalker]

Sequential stops along the same road to Rome

would not agree, as Rome for some may not be the same Rome for others

Without getting into a long drawn out discussion of a speculative nature and not wishing to argue with Sal - I think that Yang taijiquan is a developmental phase of the overall Taijiquan system (which wasn't what Yang Luchan called it nor the Chen practitioners - Taijiquan as a name was adopted by Yang Luchang) that Yang Luchan chose to teach publicly - speculatively believe that the slowness and breath work for taijiquan evolved out the old long form of taizuquan

BTW Windwalker - Many years back, decades, I had a friend who did seminar work with Ben Lo (he also was in the line 37 posture line) and we compared notes. To our surprise much of Ben Lo's methodology and a similar methodology our training in xaio baji jia - i.e. holding postures throughout the form.

interesting how could it be a development phase of "taijiquan" when it was not called "taijiquan " to start with....

Met Ben, through the teacher I learned the 37step from

Professor Ken Wen Chi, “亓冠文”

Learned the 37 step, even used to teach it before meeting my last teacher as part of my own evolution before meeting him.
Ben, was pretty good, always made me laugh people thinking his method along with his teachers, teachings was some how easy to do...

Because something seems to be the same does not mean it is the same...done for the same reasons

Holding postures, kind of a common practice

The difference might be the why, and how

汪永泉授楊式太極拳語錄及拳照
Wang Yongquan Writings on Yang Style Tai Chi Chuan

可以專門練"棚架子"、"捋架子"、"擠架子"...。即一套架子，每個姿勢、動作只練一種勁兒。每 個姿勢都是"樁"。可以單獨練一個姿勢，也可以把幾個姿勢組合起來練習。養生架和技擊架是 同一拳架，只是練法要求不同。[詳見本篇"(十七)養生與技去 ­­ 兩種不同的練法"]
You can practice only the “Peng posture”, “Lu posture”, “T’sai posture” etc. That is, in each form set, each posture and movement can be used to develop your Jin.
Each posture can be used for “pole” practice (i.e. “standing pole” or Zhan Zhuang).

My teacher in Beijing when he corrected alignments "posture" it was really not possible to hold it for longer then a few minuets
Having said this, he was not a fan of holding the postures for long periods of time,,,feeling in moving it should be the same as holding the postures...

different Idea...

[Bob]

"interesting how could it be a development phase of "taijiquan" when it was not called "taijiquan " to start with...."

Because what they practiced wasn't labeled "Taijiquan" until the 1860s or so

Taizu quan as I know of it in our line (as Chen's predecessor it was not my original idea but rather a direct practitioner of Liu Yunqiao who did Chen's long before he met Liu Yunqiao - his Ph.D. in Chinese History also adds a bit of validity but even he admits it may not be able to proven 100%)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S3nWtZSfAx4



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N5eoDPBwug0

簡易楊式太極拳 Yang Style Tajiquan 32 Posture Form



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bA0Sk9XA-Nc

簡易陳式太極拳 Chen Style Tajiquan 32 Posture Form



Followed by 1st and 2nd long form Chen forms - other than Taizuquan that is how I learned taijiquan over a 20 year period but also did some Wu Style and Yang Chengfu line along the ways

Interestingly the long Yang's form I learned from Liu Yunqiao's line was said to have both elements of Yang and Wu Style taijiquan

[Bob]

Henning, Stanley, "The Origin of the Name Taijiquan", Taijiquan Journal 2, No. 1, (2001) pp 6 - 7.

https://www.scribd.com/document/1624059 ... enning-Bio

https://www.scribd.com/document/3835694 ... Identified

Today’s widespread Song Taizu 32 Form Changquan [Long Boxing named after the firstSong Emperor]; 24 Qitanma [throws and grapples]; 8 Shanfan [rapid turning moves; 12 Duan[close hitting]; and Soft Zhang’s Duanda [close hitting]; all have their strong points and arewell known. Yngchuan [place in Anhui Province] Wang Boyan [author] has recorded themovements of each style and composed essential formulae for them in the same manner asShaolin Staff and Yang Family Spear.”The styles listed in this concise entry are among those mentioned in General Qi Jiguang’s
New Book of Effective Discipline
(1561). General Qi used techniques from these styles todevelop his own 32 form set to train his troops in Yiwu, Zhejiang. This 32 form set appears tobe the foundation for Chen style Taijiquan. In other words, if this manual were ever toresurface it could provide us with valuable insight into the most prominent Ming styles as wellas well as the origins of Taijiquan. The significance of this information further piqued mycuriosity. Who was this Wang Boyan from Yingchuan, Anhui – who was so knowledgeable inthe techniques of boxing?Early in 1995, I was pursuing Professor Ma Mingda’s introduction to the People’s PhysicalCulture Press edition of Qi Jiguang’s
New Book of Effective Discipline,
wherein I noticed thata prominent official and compatriot of Qi’s, Wang Daokun (

), played a major role ingetting Qi’s training manual published. [2] Noting that Wang Daokun’s surname (

) was thesame as the unknown Wang Boyan’s, I decided to check out Wang Daokun’s biography. Myeffort was made easier by his importance as a “Jinshi” or holder of the highest degree in theChinese bureaucratic examination system.I was excited to find that Wang Daokun was also from Anhui (Shexian) and that his literarystyle name, Boyu (

) was strikingly close to Wang Boyan’s given name, Boyan (

).Furthermore, Wang Daokun was indeed responsible for training citizen soldiers of Yiwu,Zhejiang (

) to participate in General Qi Jiguang’s anti-pirate operations. [3]Based on the striking coincidences associated with the names and places of origin of WangDaokun and Wang Boyan, plus Wang Daokun’s close association with Qi Jiguang’s trooptraining program and publication of Qi’s
New Book of Effective Discipline
with its chapter onboxing, I concluded that the actual aouthor of
Essential Manual on Boxing
must in fact benone other than Wang Daokun.During a visit to Chengdu in February 1996, I was able to compare notes on this subject withone of China’s top physical education historians, Professor Kuang Wennan of the Sichuan

[Bhassler]

I kind of feel like anyone who thinks that "all roads lead to Rome" has never been anywhere...

lol, you can only end up in one place in the end right ?

come on, sorry but that's bollox.

everyone who gives us these forms ended up in their own Rome dude.
it's all there, and if anyone thinks that fixed form is the only way that form can be or should be... Nah.

if anything it's the opposite - trying, I mean taking different roads is what informs you they all lead to 'rome'

example Chen Pan Ling.. he never been anywhere?
::)

Just because you're in a great city doesn't mean that city is Rome. It might even be a city that you like better than Rome, but that still doesn't make it Rome.

Lots of people do some of this and some of that, and conclude that they're all the same, never realizing that they are the ones who are the same, and not necessarily the arts that they take their bits and pieces from. Not too many people would say that Capoeira and ballroom dancing lead to the same place. How do you determine the point of inflection where different practices lead to different outcomes? When is "different" different enough to not be the same? It largely depends on how you define what a thing "is." I mean, everything DOES lead to the same place once we're all dead...

To be less abstract about it, I look at specific technical aspects of how things are done, with an eye towards what qualities are generated. There are things in, for example, the Chen Zhaokui lineage that are in direct opposition to what is taught in Chen Zhonghua's Practical Method. Those conflicts are related to fundamental ways of moving-- they don't resolve themselves at higher levels, because everything else is built on top of them. Each of those practices might lead to something great, depending on what you're looking for, but they will never be the same from a pure movement perspective. Those movement elements might be unimportant if you're looking at taiji as a meditative or lifestyle practice; then again, if something is so common that it can ignore the fundamental components of a system, I might argue that it's not the thing that should be used to define said systems as unique entities.

[windwalker]

@ Bob,

wow.

Leave it to the historians to sort it out.

Practices can be quite different producing different results
Tend to look at results of practice.....find the history interesting as "history".

There are practices that will tend to develop different things, while being under the umbrella of what is called
Taiji are quite different won't get you there.. Depending on what one is looking for.


Chen and Yang style or derivatives.....for example...

As with all things based on my experience what I found in my own path....

[windwalker]

Just because you're in a great city doesn't mean that city is Rome. It might even be a city that you like better than Rome, but that still doesn't make it Rome.

Lots of people do some of this and some of that, and conclude that they're all the same, never realizing that they are the ones who are the same, and not necessarily the arts that they take their bits and pieces from. Not too many people would say that Capoeira and ballroom dancing lead to the same place. How do you determine the point of inflection where different practices lead to different outcomes? When is "different" different enough to not be the same? It largely depends on how you define what a thing "is." I mean, everything DOES lead to the same place once we're all dead...

To be less abstract about it, I look at specific technical aspects of how things are done, with an eye towards what qualities are generated. There are things in, for example, the Chen Zhaokui lineage that are in direct opposition to what is taught in Chen Zhonghua's Practical Method.

Those conflicts are related to fundamental ways of moving--
they don't resolve themselves at higher levels, because everything else is built on top of them.

very correct they become more pronounced at the higher levels


Each of those practices might lead to something great, depending on what you're looking for, but they will never be the same from a pure movement perspective.

Those movement elements might be unimportant if you're looking at taiji as a meditative or lifestyle practice; then again, if something is so common that it can ignore the fundamental components of a system, I might argue that it's not the thing that should be used to define said systems as unique entities.

agree

more to the point of why it was included
some like history

WHAT IS IN A NAME:

At one of the first government sponsored traditional martial art competitions in Beijing, in 1952, Chen Fake was invited to attend, as one of the judges.

The famed Wu Tunan (also known as the Northern Star of Taijiquan) was in charge. A discussion came up, with regards to categorization of styles,leading to a great deal of controversy as to where Chen Style Taijiquan belonged. Some suggested that it belonged to the External Division.

At the time, the slow and gentle nature of Yang style Taijiquan was considered the standard of Taijiquan. What Chen Fake practiced certainly did not fall fall into this category.

Others countered that it is, after all, called Chen Style Taijiquan, so it should be included as part of the Internal Division.

Master Wu Tunan did not concur. He felt that Chen Style should be treated as an external style, similar to Shaolin. Someone turned to Chen Fake, Master Chen, you are the standard bearer of the Chen Family, is it external or internal?

Chen Fake answered, If the revered master Wu thinks it is external, then it is external! We did not have this distinction at home.

(Later on, in a remarkable reversal of logic, this statement was actually quoted by some as proof that Chen Style Taijiquan is not the original source of Taijiquan, since family member Chen Fake did not even acknowledge it as an internal style.)

Hong Junsheng, a disciple of Chen Fake, was understandably upset about this treatment of Chen Style. He began his Taiji studies with Wu style, and later switched to Chen Style. For him, Chen and Wu were both authentic Taijiquan styles, and both were internal.

He begged his teacher for an explanation. Master Chen’s answer had nothing to do with either Chen or Wu styles: My ancestors invented it. My great grandfather practiced it [translator’s note: This refers to Chen Changxing, who taught Yang Luchan, the creator of Yang Style]. My father practiced it. I practice it now.

We do not call it Taiji. We do not have a name for it.

You can call it anything you want, I will still practice it the same way I was taught. I don’t care what they put in the name!

https://practicalmethod.com/2012/02/fro ... in-a-name/


One may not care about the name, but can not deny they are very different and as some might argue

Will not lead one to Rome, if its not the Rome one is looking for.

[Bob]

With regard to Chen Fake's response to Wu Tunan's assertion you would have to also know the political context under which the exchange took place - Not from me but other Chinese I personally know and from their Uncle's on the mainland Wu Tunan held a high position in the communist party at that time and Chen Fake's response was in deference to Wu Tunan's position and the potential consequences that might result in disagreeing with him - but take it for what it is worth and you are correct about different experiences and different outcomes.

The clip of the Taizuquan is a small sample - the form is 108 movements and was taught to Liu Yunqiao when he was 8 or 10 years old - it was taught to him by the family bodyguard who later taught him mizong yi before Liu started with Li Shuwen - the Taizuquan was taught to Liu for health reasons.

[cloudz]

I kind of feel like anyone who thinks that "all roads lead to Rome" has never been anywhere...

lol, you can only end up in one place in the end right ?

come on, sorry but that's bollox.

everyone who gives us these forms ended up in their own Rome dude.
it's all there, and if anyone thinks that fixed form is the only way that form can be or should be... Nah.

if anything it's the opposite - trying, I mean taking different roads is what informs you they all lead to 'rome'

example Chen Pan Ling.. he never been anywhere?

Just because you're in a great city doesn't mean that city is Rome. It might even be a city that you like better than Rome, but that still doesn't make it Rome.

Lots of people do some of this and some of that, and conclude that they're all the same, never realizing that they are the ones who are the same, and not necessarily the arts that they take their bits and pieces from. Not too many people would say that Capoeira and ballroom dancing lead to the same place. How do you determine the point of inflection where different practices lead to different outcomes? When is "different" different enough to not be the same? It largely depends on how you define what a thing "is." I mean, everything DOES lead to the same place once we're all dead...

To be less abstract about it, I look at specific technical aspects of how things are done, with an eye towards what qualities are generated. There are things in, for example, the Chen Zhaokui lineage that are in direct opposition to what is taught in Chen Zhonghua's Practical Method. Those conflicts are related to fundamental ways of moving-- they don't resolve themselves at higher levels, because everything else is built on top of them. Each of those practices might lead to something great, depending on what you're looking for, but they will never be the same from a pure movement perspective. Those movement elements might be unimportant if you're looking at taiji as a meditative or lifestyle practice; then again, if something is so common that it can ignore the fundamental components of a system, I might argue that it's not the thing that should be used to define said systems as unique entities.

I think you're really missing the wood for the trees.

More or less.. what we know is that the styles we are talking about developed from one root. Chen style; maybe we can then say Chen large frame and small frame.

I don't have the time too go to far on this right now - but focusing on the kind of details you are I find just odd. Of course you can't resolve everything we have today.
But we can look back, look at the essentials, look across to find all the commonality and what doesn't clash. What's left is MORE than enough!

and no it's not simply meditative for me; did you watch the form I posted recently. That's an example of different branches off TCC being fused, including some Chen.. By all means let me know what you think.. what is missing that is sooo important ! (am I barred from Rome lol)

I started with Chen Pan Ling - are you aware of his teachers and what he synthesised ?
Maybe that was a lucky break getting a fusion of three major styles, and I continued in that vein, done lot's of research.. I believe anyway.
Learnt and practiced Sun Style for a while (also gave me insight into Wu Hao). Did Wu style and Yang style separately (they were part of CPL synthesis anyway).
Looked at more variations than I can recall.

I did a fairly decent dive into Chen Zhonghua's Practical method system; and yea that was different for sure the way they move differently in and around the hips..

These things can be resolved in my opinion. You may not think so, but I'm not sure I really need to convince you. Or talk talk my hind legs off doing it either.
Like i said from the beginning if you focus on those body mechanic type details; that's really the wood for the trees. Knowing a couple body mechanic ways is not a big deal in my opinion.

Everyone changes and evolves and si must tai chi in some respects, but as YCF said to change too much it will no longer be tai chi. As long as you can hold the essentials and what makes tai ji what it is.. you can merge and combine from various sources to arrive at something else - on the surface. But underneath it's tai chi, always will be.

Man, i don't really know what else to say right now.
cheers.

[windwalker]

@ Bob,

History

It is interesting

My teachers practice reflected the teachers of his time that influenced his work..


Wang Yongquan, 1904-1987
Yang Yuting, named Ruilin (1887-1982)
Wu Tunan (1884-1989)
Wang Peisheng (1919–2004)

While practicing with him and our group I was once asked if I had studied Chen style before...

Never cared for Chen style , never practiced it..
Guess some ideas got ingrained into my practiced something I had to identify and change.

My idea of movement not correct...for this practice

pulling silk, vs silk reeling



The OP remarked about "feeling" power
quite different then seeking "emptiness" in practices based on this idea...

[Steve James]

Well, let's address the metaphor Where is Rome for a martial artist? Is it a level of skill? How many people get there? I mean, if master X is there, who else has gotten there? How long have they stayed there?

The problem is that Rome won't be the same place or destination for everyone. Um, unless we mean Roma, Italia, in which case who here has been there?

What people seem to be arguing is not the place, but the path to it. No one can say someone is on the wrong path is if they know where that person wants to go. Their particular Rome, like Rome in reality, can be reached via any path if that's where they wanted to go. The world is round, after all.

[cloudz]

Let's also note, this started off as a topic of combining a Chen derivative and a Yang one..

And I have to add one more smart ass comment Bhass
I'm not even sure you're looking too much at the trees, but the branches even.
Maybe I won't go so far as the leaves !

[Mrwawa]

Thank you for all the thoughtful replies. It's really made me think about what I think is the relationship between the different styles, as well as the relationship between tjq and other internal arts.

My goals as of now are to focus on neigong activities, and not the martial side. (Someone had asked this previously).

As for purity versus mixing styles, I'm still not sure where I stand, and it seems like everyone is going to do what they are going to do anyway. I do know that many of the past tjq masters that I respect mixed and matched quite a bit. Not saying I want to do that, just saying that if we go back, there is no "pure" tjq form and it probably started off as a hybrid.

Thanks again.

[marvin8]

Well, let's address the metaphor Where is Rome for a martial artist? Is it a level of skill? How many people get there? I mean, if master X is there, who else has gotten there? How long have they stayed there?

The problem is that Rome won't be the same place or destination for everyone. Um, unless we mean Roma, Italia, in which case who here has been there?

Per the dictionary, it's in a fight:

The term martial arts refers to all of the various systems of training for combat that have been arranged or systematized. Generally, these different systems or styles are all designed for one purpose: physically defeating opponents and defending against threats.

What people seem to be arguing is not the place, but the path to it. No one can say someone is on the wrong path is if they know where that person wants to go. Their particular Rome, like Rome in reality, can be reached via any path if that's where they wanted to go. The world is round, after all.

However, one can say someone may be on the wrong path to the common purpose of martial arts, if they cannot defend themselves against opponents and threats.

[johnwang]

However, one can say someone may be on the wrong path to the common purpose of martial arts, if they cannot defend themselves against opponents and threats.

If one has 2 options:

1. Health only.
2. Combat + health.

The option 2 is better than the option 1.