the rum soaked fist: internal martial arts forum

Thanks, of PK's dozens of students who teach, I'm one of the least experienced by far. Probably some of the older ones are maybe less online, and general preference for in person teaching over online of course. I'm only teaching because there are no other PK students in my area (and after doing the rounds and visiting everyone I could find etc, I decided I'd much rather continue my current approach than join anything else locally available).

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

charlie_cambridge wrote: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?)

I took that to mean that the photographer snapped the picture at the wrong time. They wouldn't know till much later. The text accompanying the picture suggests the eyes left till the end of that posture then turning right on the next so I'd think in this case if true the picture was late

pictures are probably oriented toward beginners and/or trying to reach a very wide audience. at first it seems that some kind of outwardly visible "posture" helps you "line things up" so things on the inside happen so function has to follow form and a ton of incredibly confusing instructions that people over-parse. later it seems like things on the inside kind of adjust the outside so "form follows function", at least that what it feels like ime. sometimes you can stand there in "embrace tree" or any other posture or non-posture, and some stuff happens, or less or more. on the outside, it would look the same. i hope people here study "internal", but it's clear many say they want to, but lose their shit unless there is an if A, do move B kind of guide to parse. anything else is "fake". others clearly try to disparage taijiquan nonstop, so it's hard to tell.

Ah thanks for clarifying. Yes I agree with giving people benefit of the doubt for not being perfect. And to be clear I don't think the old teachers would deliberately put out anything that was unhealthy or harmful, but it's clear things are changed because the intention is not for people to learn the martial skills from the photos, as the true transmission was strictly controlled to people they trusted (obviously not everyone who could purchase a copy of a book or movie being disseminated by someone else out of their control).

For the Huang Xing Xian videos specifically, it's clear many of the form things (including 1st loosening) he shows would never develop correct taiji elastic power in the upper body (which Huang was famous for). If practicing purely for health that's not a big deal, PK would say for most of the health and other benefits of taiji you could probably get most of them without ever learning to issue power, but for martial art obviously it's a bit more necessary.

origami_itto wrote:

charlie_cambridge wrote: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?)

I took that to mean that the photographer snapped the picture at the wrong time. They wouldn't know till much later. The text accompanying the picture suggests the eyes left till the end of that posture then turning right on the next so I'd think in this case if true the picture was late

charlie_cambridge wrote: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.

I'll say once again for clarity.

You Charlie, said that your teacher's teacher deliberately did [Taijiquan] wrong on film.

These are your words Charlie
These are your statements.

charlie_cambridge wrote:...yes I am saying Huang deliberately did it wrong in the film on youtube.
...Huang deliberately showed incorrect things in public.
...he is making a conscious effort to deliberately do certain things completely incorrectly.

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: any picture/video any of them put out for the public was not fully correct/at least somewhat misleading.

The key word from your post is
Huang Deliberately did it wrong
Deliberately showed incorrect things in public.

Here are 2 dictionary definitions of the word lie

lie in American English
(lai) (verb lied, lying)
noun
1. a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood
3. an inaccurate or false statement

https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/di ... nglish/lie

lie
noun (2)
1 a : an assertion of something known or believed by the speaker or writer to be untrue with intent to deceive
b : an untrue or inaccurate statement that may or may not be believed true by the speaker or writer

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/lie

charlie_cambridge wrote:And to be clear I don't think the old teachers would deliberately put out anything that was unhealthy or harmful, but it's clear things are changed because the intention is not for people to learn the martial skills from the photos, as the true transmission was strictly controlled to people they trusted (obviously not everyone who could purchase a copy of a book or movie being disseminated by someone else out of their control).

Here's a quote from Cheng Man-ching's
Cheng Tzu’s Thirteen Treatises on T’ai Chi Ch’uan

In this scholarly yet practical book, Professor Cheng shows precisely how the postures and moves of t’ai chi work, with examples from anatomy and physics, both internally as energetic principles and externally on opponents.

Also, Man-ching rewrote a book for Yang Chengfu called Essence & Applications of Taijiquan.
In that book, Cheng relays a story that he a friend went together to Master Yang Chengfu and said:

How would it be to write the methods down in a book so as to ensure the transmission to later generations?” Master Yang agreed that this was a good idea.

Accordingly, here are the ingenious methods of the form and its functions, with complete explanation of its key points through Master Yang’s photos and sequence narratives, including detailed analysis.

Yang Chengfu's Preface from the same book:

Today, at the request of my students, I am following through by compiling the complete methodology of form and function into a complete volume, including the fundamental training method
...and I’ve added the most recent photographs.

I am committing this to print in order to make it available to the public.
I would not dare use my art for self-promotion. I only wish to convey the will of my forebears to rouse the people to help the world.

Yang Shouzhong’s Preface

While he was staying in Guangdong, my father authored this book at the request of his comrades
to clearly set forth the essence and applications of Taijiquan.

Okay the funniest part about this whole thing is the idea that beginner level forms and instruction contain some inner door secret you could pick up on film when done correctly and that's what makes it "real"

The secret is doing those beginner exercises till your body changes sufficiently to actually perform the art. Things are held back not to protect the teacher, but to help the student not worry about what they can't understand yet.

You start filling a beginner's head with stuff they can't perceive or perform and at best you lose them to a better teacher, but at worst you've got them chasing the far and abandoning the near. Got em trimming branches with no roots.

The Yang family 40 chapters says the only part reserved for oral only transmission was the dim mak system. I can't speak to HSS or CMC.

Yang Cheng Fu and Cheng Man Ching lied in the preface of the book because they knew they could get away with it because nobody knew any better what the facts were. So I wouldn't take anything any of them say as gospel. The books are mainly useful for perspective and you need to run everything by a competent teacher.

If you rely solely on books, best to not read books.
If you rely solely on your teacher, best to not have a teacher.

We tend to put our forebears on a pedastal, but they are men with feet of clay who had to fill their rice bowls. Do your own research and investigation with your own body.

Meh, I'd say that you should never expect the whole truth of such systems to be written down anywhere.

Maybe saying that the only thing that's passed down orally is dim mak is deception again? Why trust that particular statement while being wary of others?

Some authors make attempts to make arts that relate persons to each other universally graspable and understandable via non-in-person mediums only (emphasis on only. Such efforts can be a blessing in evolving our arts, understanding and didactics collectively).

Finding persons you click with is important either way, whether learning something specific or not

Quigga wrote:Maybe saying that the only thing that's passed down orally is dim mak is deception again? Why trust that particular statement while being wary of others?

I didn't say you COULD trust that.

What's with all this extra stuff you're bring up?
the "inner door secret' stuff?
and I'm putting people on a pedestal

I don't get it.
You're bring up stuff that is not in my post.

Putting people on a pedestal seems to be your thing.
You're the one always talking about how great Huang is
and Adam is, admiring PK.
Okay Fine, Great. You like them.
I've never once got on you about it.

Nothing like that has been in my post

I'm replying to only what Charlie is saying about specific things about specific teachers,
that they didn't say this and they wouldn't post that cause they don't want people to have it.
And, they deliberately put out incorrect pictures and videos, that are deliberately incorrect.
And, nobody gets to say to him...Huh?

I didn't add opinion
I'm posting clearly what those specific teachers did say.

You seem to being ignoring what he's saying about others without Charlie showing a shred of proof.
Odd.

Next he'll say "Chengfu's 10 Important Points are deliberately misleading."
And, if somebody asks dares ask him to clarify,
"Well what in the 10 Important Points are deliberately misleading?"

You'll jump to his defense.
"It's funny how people put the 10 Important point on a pedestal."

Who are you talking to Trip?

Trip wrote:What's with all this extra stuff you're bring up?
the "inner door secret' stuff?
and I'm putting people on a pedestal

I don't get it.
You're bring up stuff that is not in my post.

Putting people on a pedestal seems to be your thing.
You're the one always talking about how great Huang is
and Adam is, admiring PK.
Okay Fine, Great. You like them.
I've never once got on you about it.

Nothing like that has been in my post

I'm replying to only what Charlie is saying about specific things about specific teachers,
that they didn't say this and they wouldn't post that cause they don't want people to have it.
And, they deliberately put out incorrect pictures and videos, that are deliberately incorrect.
And, nobody gets to say to him...Huh?

I didn't add opinion
I'm posting clearly what those specific teachers did say.

You seem to being ignoring what he's saying about others without Charlie showing a shred of proof.
Odd.

Next he'll say "Chengfu's 10 Important Points are deliberately misleading."
And, if somebody asks dares ask him to clarify,
"Well what in the 10 Important Points are deliberately misleading?"

You'll jump to his defense.
"It's funny how people put the 10 Important point on a pedestal."

It's the mark of a developed mind to consider ideas without necessarily accepting them. Pull em in, mull em around a bit.

I'm not sure who you're talking to in this post, but it seems like one of us hit a nerve.

I'm not defending Charlie, just being polite. I'm not attacking you, just discussing how people are dishonest when money is involved. I've been studying Yang style for over 20 years, I have a great deal of respect for what YCF and CMC contributed to the dissemination of the art, without which I would have never known of it. I have a great deal of respect for their skill and method.

But they lied, man, just straight up told a falsehood in print in this same book that you are using as proof that they are transmitting the complete and accurate system.

Now, consider for a second this... We know that there is more to Taijiquan than the long form and basic push hands drills. So if he is saying that this book contains "the complete methodology of form and function into a complete volume, including the fundamental training method" that seems a bit of a stretch, particularly when later in the same text he says he's intending to publish more details in a second book that didn't get written.

It's sales patter. Have you ever opened a Koran and looked at the first page. It's usually something to the effect of "This translation was prepared by Muhammed Ibn Al Shalod. It is the most accurate and complete translation of the Koran ever attempted. No other translation of the Koran should ever be necesarry to own. In fact you should buy two of them to fully honor the greatness of this translation by Muhammed Ibn Al Shalod, you can keep one in the study and one by your bedside, and then get some for the car and kitchen too. You never want to be further than arm's reach away from a Koran translated by Muhammed Ibn Al Shalod."

Now the ten important points.... I'm gonna have to ask you to take a seat for this one.

In the book Dong Ying Jie wrote for him, there were 20 points. Two lists of ten that the ten we know today were drawn from both of them. The other ten were just tossed out. The ones that were lost were the ones that involved more physically strenuous training, such as "the thigh should be parallel to the floor".

So the "ten points" are just a package for the entry level basic health maintenance crowd that they were hawking the system to. The dilettantes and old folks with money that would take that money elsewhere if you told them to get in a horse stance.

It's sales and marketing, just like most of what people criticize about Adam Mizner. A hundred years from now he'll be the new Yang Cheng Fu and they'll be combing over his statements arguing over the bullshit that his contemporaries are currently rolling their eyes about.

Do I think they deliberately lied about things to hide secrets? I dunno, maybe, I don't trust em. I trust my hands and feet and eyes and heart. The rest is just trimming on the tree. It's my realm instead of WWII or Star Wars or Marvel or whatever. My area of ever increasing trivial knowledge.

origami_itto wrote:The Koran?
Adam?
Star Wars?
WWII?
Sales Patter?
Inaccurate Dates of who, what, when & Where?
Etc., etc....

My bad for getting into this conversation with you
But, I will not be hacking my way through all of that circular clutter!

Clear thinking becomes clear writing:
one can't exist without the other.
It is impossible for a muddy thinker to write good English.
They may get away with it for a paragraph or two, but soon the reader will be lost,
and there is no sin so grave,
for I will not easily be lured into that quagmire.

Trip wrote:

origami_itto wrote:The Koran?
Adam?
Star Wars?
WWII?
Sales Patter?
Inaccurate Dates of who, what, when & Where?
Etc., etc....

My bad for getting into this conversation with you
But, I will not be hacking my way through all of that circular clutter!

Clear thinking becomes clear writing:
one can't exist without the other.
It is impossible for a muddy thinker to write good English.
They may get away with it for a paragraph or two, but soon the reader will be lost,
and there is no sin so grave,
for I will not easily be lured into that quagmire.

Well you don't have to read anything you don't want to read. I thought we were having a conversation, but apparently this is some sort of contention for you?

the TLDR is don't get fooled by sales patter. That book you keep referencing is not the most honest recording of Taijiquan facts and methods.