Directly Informative Training vs. Side Practice

[Appledog]

This is with specific reference to something like Hunyuan Qigong or Feng's Silk Reeling Exercises. It has been mentioned in the past that at some point there is "not much left" to learn from the specific practice of these two because it is intended that they are absorbed by forms practice. I get that.

The question is, what do you do with non-informative practices?

For example, which posture is more useful; the fabled lo xi ao bu from Chen Xin's book (the one with the crane's beak behind the back) or standing in the actual yang (or chen) style version of brush knee? Many years ago Chen Quanzong, iirc, promoted this posture. He said it was even better than san ti shou. But this move doesn't appear in the form. You can even make an argument that most of Feng's hunyuan qigong movements appear somewhere in yilu. But this move, I don't see it. If you stand like Chen Quanzhong showed there is no way it can inform the application shown by Chen Zhonghua. I'm stumped.

Chen Fake demonstrated the form in two different ways, during forms practice and during application. If Hong Junsheng felt the need to change his form towards application does this suggest Chen Fake's normal forms practice does not inform the application practice? Does anyone else find this an impossible connundrum? Why can't we have nice things; A beautiful, circular, lively, round flowing form, which directly informs both health and martial arts? Do we really need 2 or 3 versions of the same form? Or worse, movements that don't really have anything parallel in the form?

[BruceP]

Why can't we have nice things; A beautiful, circular, lively, round flowing form, which directly informs both health and martial arts?

Appeals to authority is why we can't have nice things. oops...sorry, your post already bogged it

As for circular, lively and flowing,...maybe not so beautiful, but directly informative;

Nine Temple Qigong

As for footwork and stepping;

A-skip, jump rope, foot-tag and chi gurk

[wayne hansen]

I can’t speak with any authority about Chen
Let’s take Tien Gan as silk reeling and yang form rather than Chen
I see the Tien Gan as the petrol
The form as thé car
One powers the other but either is useless without the other

[yeniseri]

When my mind was blank (no information from books or insufficient information), I relied on my teacher for providing the basics, physical conditioning/jibengong and postural requirements (how to place foot, hands, direction of routine, etc)
After awhile it is only then that other stuff kicked in (after a few years my comparison was TKD) where as I know moer about other styles of taijiquan that other types of training was unnecessary
until I met Zhang Dungsheng Sifu/Master. Prior to that, my teacher was always open for students to train with other teachers. They were alot older( Lu Hingping, Prof Hou CHiKwang) and served as baseline from what I was missing.
As example, Istarted with Chen style and I learned silk reeling from a student of Chen Xiaowang but my teachers always said that chanssujin was still good for other styles of taijiquan!

My main teacher always had books around with some representaion of taijiquan style and qigong so I was always curious keeping in mind that some forms I learned, names were often left out and I did not realize
their names until I left my teacher. I remember that I hasd learned some of daoyin system of Prof Zhang Guangde without realizing it but when I happened to go to Montreal for a trip, I was shocked that I knew the system

SInce I did a few competitions, informatitive training was given by my teachers, explicitely, that compulsory forms could not be played like traditional routines though side practices remained the same since they contained the basic jibengong of practice,

[Graculus]

@Appledog I think that was probably Chen Qingzhou. That position wouldn’t be in any of the Chen Fake derived forms (eg Chen Zhonghua) as it comes from the small frame variation of Chen. I think it’s possible that Chen Zhaopi (Chen Qingzhou’s teacher) bumped into Chen Zeming (principle small frame representative of the time) somewhere on his travels and picked it up from him (back in the 1930s). Chen Qingzhou may have promoted it on purpose as he knew none of the other Chen teachers in Chen village or the Beijing school used it, or perhaps just to preserve something, however minor, of the small frame system. Whatever the reason, he maintained it was valuable. To be honest, I don’t think it would inform the usage in the small frame form either.

Sorry this doesn’t address your main question, but I thought I would throw it in there anyway.

Graculus
https://ichijoji.blogspot.com

[Bhassler]

Everything in my practice is directly informative. I don't worry about what other lines do, because it doesn't matter.

[robert]

For example, which posture is more useful; the fabled lo xi ao bu from Chen Xin's book (the one with the crane's beak behind the back) or standing in the actual yang (or chen) style version of brush knee? Many years ago Chen Quanzong, iirc, promoted this posture. He said it was even better than san ti shou. But this move doesn't appear in the form. You can even make an argument that most of Feng's hunyuan qigong movements appear somewhere in yilu. But this move, I don't see it. If you stand like Chen Quanzhong showed there is no way it can inform the application shown by Chen Zhonghua. I'm stumped.

As Graculus wrote that posture is from small frame. In dajia you have a similar posture halfway through shan tong bei.



https://drive.google.com/file/d/1GUQvgtyeNvuNYuFzkoGE3machKEssQ_P/view?usp=share_link

If you read what Chen Xin writes about lou-xi ao-bu I think this meets the criteria. Shan tong bei is an attack, but you can change it to a defensive posture and then it's like lou-xi ao-bu. People get hung up on labels, what's important is the function.

Taiji training is a progression. What is best depends on where a person is in that progression/process and on the person.

Chen Fake demonstrated the form in two different ways, during forms practice and during application. If Hong Junsheng felt the need to change his form towards application does this suggest Chen Fake's normal forms practice does not inform the application practice? Does anyone else find this an impossible connundrum? Why can't we have nice things; A beautiful, circular, lively, round flowing form, which directly informs both health and martial arts? Do we really need 2 or 3 versions of the same form? Or worse, movements that don't really have anything parallel in the form?

I don't see a problem. Are you reading Chinese that says this or a translation? In family style I've be taught that the form is a training device. It's designed to train jin. I've learned canonical applications for the form postures to understand how to use/train jin in the form. When training applications we have a training partner, it's not done solo, and each posture normally has many applications. The posture changes based on what the opponent is doing. It's a MA, not theater. This is an example of how I learn applications -



There's a basic idea based on the form, but it varies based on what the opponent is doing.

[everything]

Not just what the opponent is doing but other factors such as your relative sizes and more

[HotSoup]

There were people concerned with the same issue before

From the beginning, the teacher could pass on what they liked to as many students as they wished, but the Cheng routine (Heritage Frame) was passed on only to one or two disciples. Why? We know that Zhaobao Taijiquan has the concept of three-harmonized-in-one and the Heritage Frame best displays this concept. The Heritage Frame is characterized by high postures and very smooth and gentle movements.

What is three-harmonized-in-one? It is form, push hands, and combat applications, you do not have to change the movements yet you can still use them as is.

Coincidentally, Liu Rui’s form used the version of lo xi ao bu as in Chen Xin’s book, so I figure he solved all your problems decades ago

On a serious note, though, there’s no way to train some form of an “ideal” application in the form. Reality will always be different due to the factors the opponent is presenting. The ancient found an answer in using the moves perfect for training “jin”, and because of that a discrepancy became inevitable. It is what it is with all its benefits and downsides.

[twocircles13]

This is with specific reference to something like Hunyuan Qigong or Feng's Silk Reeling Exercises. It has been mentioned in the past that at some point there is "not much left" to learn from the specific practice of these two because it is intended that they are absorbed by forms practice. I get that.

The question is, what do you do with non-informative practices?

For example, which posture is more useful; the fabled lo xi ao bu from Chen Xin's book (the one with the crane's beak behind the back) or standing in the actual yang (or chen) style version of brush knee? Many years ago Chen Quanzong, iirc, promoted this posture. He said it was even better than san ti shou. But this move doesn't appear in the form. You can even make an argument that most of Feng's hunyuan qigong movements appear somewhere in yilu. But this move, I don't see it. If you stand like Chen Quanzhong showed there is no way it can inform the application shown by Chen Zhonghua. I'm stumped.

Chen Fake demonstrated the form in two different ways, during forms practice and during application. If Hong Junsheng felt the need to change his form towards application does this suggest Chen Fake's normal forms practice does not inform the application practice? Does anyone else find this an impossible connundrum? Why can't we have nice things; A beautiful, circular, lively, round flowing form, which directly informs both health and martial arts? Do we really need 2 or 3 versions of the same form? Or worse, movements that don't really have anything parallel in the form?

I sort of understand, but I'm also a little puzzled by your quandary.

Let's start with your expectation of
"A beautiful, circular, lively, round flowing form, which directly informs both health and martial arts? Do we really need 2 or 3 versions of the same form? "

If you are talking about having a single form that teaches the entire martial art and is also a cure all, Taijiquan is definitely the exceptions rather than the rule. A Praying Mantis teacher, an uncle in my Wutan lineage knows nearly 100 Praying Mantis forms, IIRC. It is common to have 5 to 10 forms in a given system of martial arts and more is not unusual. Chen family records indicated that there were five forms in the First Road and two on the Second Road and one of those forms might have been divided up into three parts. There are still two forms with very different training objectives. In Yang and Wu taijiquan, it is not uncommon to find a system that teaches multiple frames, high, middle, low, square, round, or similar. This is not necessarily just doing the form in different stances. Each of these frames has a different purpose in training, and the individual moves and some sequences may be quite different. So, a single form that does it all perfectly would be quite unusual.

If your concern is that there are variations in forms within Chen Taijiquan, let me start by saying that there is more in common between forms than differences. Further, if one understands the reasons for the differences, the forms are just variations on a theme. And, to a great extent this is true between the so-called styles of Taijiquan. The forms, especially the earlier ones, are astoundingly similar compared to forms from styles in different martial arts, which can be totally unrelated.

As to the differences in Chen forms, there is not just one application to each movement. If Teacher A emphasizes Usage A and shows that in his form and Teacher B emphasizes Usage B and shows that in her form. A generation of two later, the students performing each of those forms would look very different at that point, but the differences would be superficial, Usage A Vs B, both legitimate.

Further, imagine if you called one lineage "small frame" and the other "large frame" based on, say, whether or not the toes were forward or turned out, respectively, making the actions look bigger or smaller. In a generation or two, these become self-fulfilling prophecies. Everything in small frame looks smaller and all movements in large frame looks bigger, but again, the real differences are superficial.

There can be some fundamental differences if rules are changed or violated. For example, if the rule for the hands is that the wrist does not cross the centerline, because the arm loses energy and is easily trapped. If a teacher's variation in the form violates this rule, there are consequences that make this a fundamental difference.

So, what do you do about Loxi Aobu? Unless you've made an oath never to change the form that you are being taught, maybe even then, in your personal practice, repeat the movement, once with Chen Fake's version with the left-hand fingers pinched at the shoulder level, followed by Chen Ziming's version with the left-hand fingers pinched by the hip, and his teacher's, Chen Xin's, version with the left-hand fingers pinched behind the back aligned with the mingmen. And for that matter you could add a repetition performed the Yang style way with the left hand open, palm down. The left hand is pretty superficial. What is of prime importance, in my estimation, is to learn in how to energize the right hand. The rest is icing on the cake.

If you don't want repetitions, try the different ways and do the one that is of most benefit to you. Or, rotate them.

As to fundamental, supplementary, or complementary trainings, I use them to "sharpen the sword", or "saw", depending on the source of your metaphor. If you find that an ancillary practice can be included in your form and improves it, and it helps your form and push hands performance, only practice it in the form, make sure you are mindful of its contribution to your form. On the other hand, for me, the Chen Jibengong, while also incorporated into the form, helps me improve my form and push hands when I practice it outside of the form by letting me focus on essential elements without distraction. But, that is me, what helps you?

[twocircles13]

@Appledog I think that was probably Chen Qingzhou. That position wouldn’t be in any of the Chen Fake derived forms (eg Chen Zhonghua) as it comes from the small frame variation of Chen. I think it’s possible that Chen Zhaopi (Chen Qingzhou’s teacher) bumped into Chen Zeming (principle small frame representative of the time) somewhere on his travels and picked it up from him (back in the 1930s). Chen Qingzhou may have promoted it on purpose as he knew none of the other Chen teachers in Chen village or the Beijing school used it, or perhaps just to preserve something, however minor, of the small frame system. Whatever the reason, he maintained it was valuable. To be honest, I don’t think it would inform the usage in the small frame form either.

Sorry this doesn’t address your main question, but I thought I would throw it in there anyway.

Graculus
https://ichijoji.blogspot.com

I just wanted to add some information to your thinking. Chen Kesan, Chen Zhaopei’s (Zhaopi’s) son, records that his father studied with Chen Denke, Chen Yanxi, Chen Fake, and that he studied “theory” with Chen Xin. However, I’m not sure how you would just discuss taijiquan theory without some hands-on instruction.

Contemporary sources from this time are in agreement that there were not divisions in the family forms that we see today. Those did not start to appear until the 1950s and again in the 1980s.

[wayne hansen]

So does the guy with 100 forms do them daily

[twocircles13]

So does the guy with 100 forms do them daily

IIRC, it was Master Su Yu Cheng who passed away 2019 in his eightieth year. He also practiced Bajiquan and Chen Taijiquan from the Wutan Center.

https://www.plumpub.com/kaimen/2019/su-yu-changs-passing-april-29-2019/

I don’t know what his practice routine was. We were told to periodically review everything we had learned, but after the basics, students were encouraged to specialize. There are lots of videos of his performing Baji and a few showing Tanglang, but my teachers told me that Tanglang was his true love.

[johnwang]

So does the guy with 100 forms do them daily

For most of the people, to be a good copy machine can be good enough. To others, creation is the only thing that has meaning in life.

No matter how many times that you have trained the forms that you have learned, those forms are still not yours. Until one day that you start to create something new, you can then say that you train something that belong to you.

[Roll Back]

There were people concerned with the same issue before

From the beginning, the teacher could pass on what they liked to as many students as they wished, but the Cheng routine (Heritage Frame) was passed on only to one or two disciples. Why? We know that Zhaobao Taijiquan has the concept of three-harmonized-in-one and the Heritage Frame best displays this concept. The Heritage Frame is characterized by high postures and very smooth and gentle movements.

What is three-harmonized-in-one? It is form, push hands, and combat applications, you do not have to change the movements yet you can still use them as is.

Yes l agree

Coincidentally, Liu Rui’s form used the version of lo xi ao bu as in Chen Xin’s book, so I figure he solved all your problems decades ago

Chen version vs Zhaobao version mmm.Based on a Chen book.mmm

On a serious note, though, there’s no way to train some form of an “ideal” application in the form. Reality will always be different due to the factors the opponent is presenting. The ancient found an answer in using the moves perfect for training “jin”, and because of that a discrepancy became inevitable. It is what it is with all its benefits and downsides.

If you understood Liu Riu there was no application of of the form based on choreographed solo movements. The movements of the form teach an understanding the circles. Two person work expands on the solo form to teach you three things. Circle,rotate, timing/and or position. Yes, next is combat applications and I choose not to expand upon that. (I have no desire to share my understanding.)

I responded because I did not care how Liu Rui’s quote was used by someone that has no understanding of what what he saying.