So this releasing crap just keeps going, huh?

[origami_itto]

One think from PK I found helpful from this is he said contraction is not "bad" like some modern taiji people seem to think, it's just another muscle state no different from release. The problem comes if there is activation (or contraction) and the body does not move (usually because of an unconscious opposing contraction/activation somewhere else doing the exact opposite thing) --this is what we call "double contraction" (which we prefer over the term "double weighted" because it has nothing to do with the weight distribution, you can be in a double contracted state with all weight on one foot, or in a fluid not double contracted state even when moving through weight in both feet)

In myself I noticed the "vibration" as a quick unconscious moment of said double contraction before changing it, with the solution being to make sure every relevant part of the body continues to move smoothly in response to the activation (so nothing ever gets stuck even for a moment, the vibration sometimes being not fine enough motor control to manage that smoothly enough on whatever level)

@origami_itto: one of my students asked about my hand vibrating a few months ago, I thanked him for calling my attention to it, and explained that I was incorrectly contracting something subconsciously that I should not be.

Yep, as I'm working on releasing further I'm losing the vibrating in some parts of the movement.

You're so generous with your knowledge, you must do PK rather proud.

[Trip]

It looks obviously robotic because he is making a conscious effort to deliberately do certain things completely incorrectly (not how he actually trained or taught the moves at all).

Not just him. I'd go so far as to say the same thing about ZMQ, YCF and every pretty much every serious Chinese martial art practitioner of his generation and before: [b]any picture/video any of them put out for the public was not fully correct/at least somewhat misleading[/b].

Any Picture?
I don't believe you.

Can you point out in the following public pictures of Yang Chengfu
that Yang put out in his publicly available books
that is deliberately, not fully correct/at least somewhat misleading.

The Pictures of Yang Chengfu are from his books
METHODS OF APPLYING TAIJI BOXING & Essence & Applications




The pictures of Cheng Manching are from Cheng's publicly available book
Cheng Tzu's Thirteen Treatises on T'ai Chi Ch'uan

[origami_itto]

It looks obviously robotic because he is making a conscious effort to deliberately do certain things completely incorrectly (not how he actually trained or taught the moves at all).

Not just him. I'd go so far as to say the same thing about ZMQ, YCF and every pretty much every serious Chinese martial art practitioner of his generation and before: [b]any picture/video any of them put out for the public was not fully correct/at least somewhat misleading[/b].

Any Picture?
I don't believe you.

Can you point out in the following public pictures of Yang Chengfu
that Yang put out in his publicly available books
that is deliberately, not fully correct/at least somewhat misleading.

The Pictures of Yang Chengfu are from his books
METHODS OF APPLYING TAIJI BOXING & Essence & Applications




The pictures of Cheng Manching are from Cheng's publicly available book
Cheng Tzu's Thirteen Treatises on T'ai Chi Ch'uan

There is some merit to the claim. At the very least we know that YCF/ZMQ lied in YCF's book about YCF meeting Yang Lu Chan.

Also the picture of Ward Off left is wrong and there is some debate over the correct weighting in the beginning of single whip.

I don't think it matters much. You're never going to get anything from old school books and videos.

Regarding the original point, I'm sure I'm doing it wrong, but I'm doing my best and getting some benefit. If I ever meet someone who can show me how to do it more correctly, I'll gladly listen to what they have to tell me.

[wayne hansen]

Where is the photo of ward off left

[Appledog]

I think part of the confusion with taiji is everyone seems to mean very different things when using the same simple words like "release" and "relax" etc..

"Releasing extraneous tension, energy, intention, expectation" sounds the same as "relax" to me. Now I agree it can be confusing when people translate "sung" as "relax" since those are two different things, but for common words like release/relax we prefer to use the most obvious literal meaning of the word (i.e. to let go)

Sometimes, in a zeal to appropriate concepts into a foreign way of thinking, for the benefit of all, concepts are too far removed from their original context. here, the thinking is wrong. There is no concept of releasing in tai chi. The idea would be if you are talking about boiling and steaming eggs as the same thing. It's not the same thing although it can be very similar, and the process itself can produce similar results (which is why the analogies get cross-extended). The real problem here is that people tend to over extend the analogy into some territory which was never covered by the original analogy.

In this particular case, "song" is not the exclusive territory of tai chi either, but can be borrowed from taoist analogy as well. Song is a process by analogy given by particular requirements of exercise, of which "releasing" and "relaxing" are NOT part of the original analogy. One might say instead that it is quite a reach. The reason why people use the word releasing or relaxing instead is because in order to accomplish song properly in the first place releasing and relaxing are things you have to do anyways in order to accomplish the main goal. Its kind of like making pasta. One may say you must salt the water, but that is a minor concern. If one focuses on salting the water one may forget that the real goal is to boil the pasta.

There are specific and exact exercises which train this. The ba duan jin approximates some of it and is considered by many as a fundamental requirement because of how closely it approaches song. Enough to say "this is like this, that is like that..." and be done with it. Exercises which are fundamentally different so as to be considered a different set (domain) are not have anything to do with song, no matter who teaches them or how many of them are when they are mentioned. The brocade of eight, the treasures of three, the loosenings five of points, etc. the only thing that matters is whether or not the exercise directly translates into song.

I have no idea why this concept has become so twisted. People, through either ignorance or willful antagonism, are teaching song as if it was a different concept, and using exercises for that concept and not for song.

[wayne hansen]

Most 8 brocade are from Shaolin sources and break Tai Chi requirements

[origami_itto]

Where is the photo of ward off left

It's from the usual set from the books. I think Douglas Wile explains it as a fault of the photographer snapping it too late.

[wayne hansen]

I meant where in the article was the photo of ward off left
Just because CMC does a more subtle version of WOL than that done in the YCF method it does not make it wrong
Your teachers should have explained why it differs from both a chi and self defence point of view
CMC 108 contains the original version
The main thing wrong with a lot of CMC and YCF. students is they have seen films and photos of both and base their training of them
With no photos people would only have direct transmission to learn from
Photos were taken on one day in one place without knowing what is in the subjects mind
We’re they taken for the most advanced student or the least
We’re thé taken as a finger pointing at the moon or the moon itself

[origami_itto]

I meant where in the article was the photo of ward off left
Just because CMC does a more subtle version of WOL than that done in the YCF method it does not make it wrong
Your teachers should have explained why it differs from both a chi and self defence point of view
CMC 108 contains the original version
The main thing wrong with a lot of CMC and YCF. students is they have seen films and photos of both and base their training of them
With no photos people would only have direct transmission to learn from
Photos were taken on one day in one place without knowing what is in the subjects mind
We’re they taken for the most advanced student or the least
We’re thé taken as a finger pointing at the moon or the moon itself

And that's kind of my point. My teacher told me explicitly to not try to figure out form based on old photos. I've never been shown ward off left like that. Experimented with it based on that picture, seems to round things off a bit. Might be more appropriate in a small frame context. I don't train it like that because it's not what my teachers have taught me.

It's hard enough getting a useful set of pictures together for a specific purpose, much less have them be relevant for every student and every context. Even if you're copying the external form, you may have no clue of the underlying principles. Even if you're watching your teacher do it five feet away while they're explaining it in plain language... you may have no clue of the underlying principles.

So the whole claim here of 'withholding secrets intentionally" I don't really buy. Maybe back when this was a matter of life and death (if that was ever the case... maybe more a matter of feast or famine financially is more apt?) but now it seems like all the folks that really have the skills are really trying to cultivate students that can hang with them. They're giving it away hoping somebody will get it.

The secrets keep themselves because nobody does the work to understand them.

What's most likely is that the instructional material they left behind represents a moment in time, and their practice may have evolved after that point. The other archival footage are demonstrations which okay, sure, you're not going to give away everything.

[Trip]

It looks obviously robotic because he is making a conscious effort to deliberately do certain things completely incorrectly (not how he actually trained or taught the moves at all).

Not just him. I'd go so far as to say the same thing about ZMQ, YCF and every pretty much every serious Chinese martial art practitioner of his generation and before: [b]any picture/video any of them put out for the public was not fully correct/at least somewhat misleading[/b].

Any Picture?
I don't believe you.

Can you point out in the following public pictures of Yang Chengfu
that Yang put out in his publicly available books
that is deliberately, not fully correct/at least somewhat misleading.

The Pictures of Yang Chengfu are from his books
METHODS OF APPLYING TAIJI BOXING & Essence & Applications

There is some merit to the claim.

It seems like you missed my point.
You can see in the quote above that Charlie claimed that any picture or video that Yang Chengfu has out publicly is deliberately misleading.
To say any picture is deliberately misleading is a big claim.
Usually, big claims require big proof.

So, curious me, I picked a couple of Yang's Taiji pictures and he has not
or cannot point out what is deliberately misleading in those photos.
No proof; no merit as of yet.

And, you seem to be missing the bigger picture.
To be deliberately do certain things completely incorrectly/somewhat misleading is a dictionary definition of the word lie, as in liar.
If he wants to say that his teacher's teacher
shows the public misleading Taiji demonstrations,
well...that would say quite a lot about his Taiji line.

And, raises questions about all public videos by Haung.
Like this this one for instance:



That video is public.
Is Charlie's teacher's teacher deliberately misleading us?

[origami_itto]

It seems like you missed my point.
You can see in the quote above that Charlie claimed that any picture or video that Yang Chengfu has out publicly is deliberately misleading.
To say any picture is deliberately misleading is a big claim.
Usually, big claims require big proof.

So, curious me, I picked a couple of Yang's Taiji pictures and he has not
or cannot point out what is deliberately misleading in those photos.
No proof; no merit as of yet.

And, you seem to be missing the bigger picture.
To be deliberately do certain things completely incorrectly/somewhat misleading is a dictionary definition of the word lie, as in liar.
If he wants to say that his teacher's teacher
shows the public misleading Taiji demonstrations,
well...that would say quite a lot about his Taiji line.

And, raises questions about all public videos by Haung.
Like this this one for instance:



That video is public.
Is Charlie's teacher's teacher deliberately misleading us?

To repeat myself. I don't think anybody is deliberately misleading. I think teachers are prone to hide the work in demos, but instructional material is generally earnest. However, errors creep in.

Regarding the ward off left photo I dug out my copy of the book. Louis Swaim translation of The Essence and Applications of Taijiquan.

He cites another source regarding the posture:

According to the fighting methods handed down in the Yang family, it is necessary that the eyes focus in the direction towards which the left hand wards off. Why, then, does the photo show the eyes looking toward the right side? It would seem now that at the time the photo was taken, the photographer made an error.

I love that Huang video. Good stuff.

[Trip]

To repeat myself. I don't think anybody is deliberately misleading. I think teachers are prone to hide the work in demos, but instructional material is generally earnest. However, errors creep in.

But, Charlie did, hence my reply post to Charlie, which you quoted.
And, then my reply to you.

And, to be clear, My initial post on this subject, of deliberately misleading,
is about Charlie Cambridge's claim about his teacher's teacher & Yang Chengfu and others.
It was always about Charlies claim.
It was not about you.

...

This part of the post is a reply to you.

Also the picture of Ward Off left is wrong ...

Regarding the ward off left photo I dug out my copy of the book. Louis Swaim translation of The Essence and Applications of Taijiquan.

He cites another source regarding the posture:

According to the fighting methods handed down in the Yang family, it is necessary that the eyes focus in the direction towards which the left hand wards off. Why, then, does the photo show the eyes looking toward the right side? It would seem now that at the time the photo was taken, the photographer made an error.

Here is Dong Yingjie & Chen Weiming performing Wardoff Left.
They are two top Disciples of Yang Chengfu.
Disciples that he listed in his 1931 book METHODS OF APPLYING TAIJI BOXING
He wrote books with both of them starting in the 1930's (?)

Tung


Weiming




Here's Fu too.
Fu

[origami_itto]

That looks to me like it starts to the left and turns to the right, but not as much as I've been shown to do.
Could just be a matter of where we cut off from one posture to another. More questions to ask.

[charlie_cambridge]

I don't think any of the old teachers claimed that their photos/vids where a perfect representation of the correct form. In fact my understanding was many quite explicitly said the opposite, that you need direct transmission to learn (i.e. the photo/video alone were far from sufficient) and I believe that was broadly understood, so not sure what they would be "lying" about. It's a modern assumption that the photos and videos were accurate study materials when in fact the old teachers never made any such claim.

Re: the issuing demos: that's the one place I would look if you were going to look at videos (rather than form vids or still photos): the teacher is doing the correct thing at the moment of issuing (assuming it's not completely staged but if you've trained with a good teacher hopefully you'll know enough about how to do it yourself to tell the difference), so for the moment when Huang (or ZMQ or MYL etc) issues people on video they have no choice but to move correctly or it won't work. In those instances though they (e.g. Huang in the video you posted below) have to do the correct thing, but make the movement so small and fast that it's almost invisible if you don't know what to look for. So people who don't know what to look for think it's either fake or qi magic. If you have a taiji teacher who a) knows and b) is teaching you openly, they should be able to tell you exactly what to look for (i.e. exactly what you should be training in your own practice, obviously you can't train it if you don't even know what to look for). This is regardless of lineage, a good teacher should have a real lineage of course, but regardless of exact lineage (as long as it exists and is legitimate) they should know the same fundamental things since it is kind of the essence of taiji.

It seems like you missed my point.
You can see in the quote above that Charlie claimed that any picture or video that Yang Chengfu has out publicly is deliberately misleading.
To say any picture is deliberately misleading is a big claim.
Usually, big claims require big proof.

So, curious me, I picked a couple of Yang's Taiji pictures and he has not
or cannot point out what is deliberately misleading in those photos.
No proof; no merit as of yet.

And, you seem to be missing the bigger picture.
To be deliberately do certain things completely incorrectly/somewhat misleading is a dictionary definition of the word lie, as in liar.
If he wants to say that his teacher's teacher
shows the public misleading Taiji demonstrations,
well...that would say quite a lot about his Taiji line.

And, raises questions about all public videos by Haung.
Like this this one for instance:



That video is public.
Is Charlie's teacher's teacher deliberately misleading us?

To repeat myself. I don't think anybody is deliberately misleading. I think teachers are prone to hide the work in demos, but instructional material is generally earnest. However, errors creep in.

Regarding the ward off left photo I dug out my copy of the book. Louis Swaim translation of The Essence and Applications of Taijiquan.

He cites another source regarding the posture:

According to the fighting methods handed down in the Yang family, it is necessary that the eyes focus in the direction towards which the left hand wards off. Why, then, does the photo show the eyes looking toward the right side? It would seem now that at the time the photo was taken, the photographer made an error.

I love that Huang video. Good stuff.

[charlie_cambridge]

Hi Origami-Itto,

I don't quite understand what is meant by "photographer error" in your quote below, the practitioner not the photographer controls where their own eye look, no? Is this an example where the error was noticed and the commentator assumed the instruction material was earnest so rather than the simplest explanation that the practitioner did it wrong on camera, came up with an alternate explanation like "photographer error?" (what error, since the photographer only captures what the practitioner is actually doing?)

To repeat myself. I don't think anybody is deliberately misleading. I think teachers are prone to hide the work in demos, but instructional material is generally earnest. However, errors creep in.

Regarding the ward off left photo I dug out my copy of the book. Louis Swaim translation of The Essence and Applications of Taijiquan.

He cites another source regarding the posture:

According to the fighting methods handed down in the Yang family, it is necessary that the eyes focus in the direction towards which the left hand wards off. Why, then, does the photo show the eyes looking toward the right side? It would seem now that at the time the photo was taken, the photographer made an error.

I love that Huang video. Good stuff.