the rum soaked fist: internal martial arts forum

Roll Back wrote: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.

By preferring to massage your ego you missed the point. To each their own, I guess.

I relooked at your post and I admit I may have missed your point. I am sorry. You did quote Liu Rui to prove a point and that is my main contention. You are not a student of his lineage and I feel you misrepresented him.

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.

Thanks Twocircles – I think the influence was probably via Chen Xin in that case, although that must have been fairly early on in Chen Zhaopei’s career. If anything, it shows there were cross-currents that we will probably never know for sure.

Graculus
https://ichijoji.blogspot.com

Graculus wrote:

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.

Thanks Twocircles – I think the influence was probably via Chen Xin in that case, although that must have been fairly early on in Chen Zhaopei’s career. If anything, it shows there were cross-currents that we will probably never know for sure.

Graculus
https://ichijoji.blogspot.com

Yes, Zhaopei left the village in about 1913 for Gansu and Hebei Provinces to teach Taijiquan and was gone for seven years returning about 1920. He taught locally until 1928 when he famously left for Beijing where he taught at 17 different venues for two years before he invited Chen Fa-ke to pick up his remaining classes, so he could accept a post in Nanjing.

Chen Xin died in 1928 and seems to have been sick for a while before his death. I find it likely the Zhaopei having been out in the world teaching would have been more interested in “theory” than a teenager, so the likely window they worked together was 1920-1927.

there were cross-currents

More like free flow. The evidence I have seen is that the people who were there say there were no real separations, especially before 1930. Differences in the forms were individual and superficial rather than philosophical and deep. Claims of divisions are mostly from people who weren’t actually there and have been overblown since the 1980s primarily for commercial purposes.

I don’t want to highjack this thread, but I’d be happy to share my perspective on the evidence sometime.

Why not share a video of yourself showing what you feel the differences are instead of writing about them ?

It would be interesting and different for a change

twocircles13 wrote:More like free flow. The evidence I have seen is that the people who were there say there were no real separations, especially before 1930. Differences in the forms were individual and superficial rather than philosophical and deep. Claims of divisions are mostly from people who weren’t actually there and have been overblown since the 1980s primarily for commercial purposes.

Chen Ziming was a student of Chen Xin and in his taiji manual that was published in 1932 writes -

Chen Village Taiji divides into “old frame” and “new frame”. The new frame comes from inspired adjustments to the old frame, but both methods above all emphasize softness. This book presents the new frame. In the future, if I find any spare time, I ought to make another book about the old frame in order for students to understand what parts are old or new, and their points of similarity and difference. Then they will know how Taiji evolved.

What used to be known as new frame is now called small frame. Most sources I've come across say that Chen Youben developed small frame. Chen Youben (1780 - 1858) was CX's grand uncle. Apparently, Chen Ziming never found the time to write up the differences between the two forms and I haven't studied small frame so I can't comment. To my limited knowledge the various lineages in Chen village use CX's book as a reference. FWIW.

I am reminded that for Feng Zhiqiang, Chen stylist was influenced by Hu Yaozhen, one of the Hunyuan origin neigong while still a practitioner of Chenshitaijiquan (Chen Fake)
therefore Hu Yaozhen's pattern of movement/theory/example/process and Tongbeiquan, said to be an ancestor influence of Chenjiaogou taijiquan. All these made Feng Zhiqiang's
method unique through his taijiquan expression. Feng's training was informative on all grounds (face to face) and side practice manifesting in his approach.

Hong Junsheng (equally known) studied with the same individual while still maximizing his own approach and keeping an essence in his approach to Chenshitaijiquan so in the end, it is the individual's
ability to showcase through his appl;ications, the length and breath of study, regardless of where the information came from. The true test was the expression of the art and the
ability for function and utility vs gymantic performance and what is called nandu' in current approach to tai chi play (competition).

Jarek's old site of taijiquan/CMA; RE: Feng ZhiQiang
http://www.chinafrominside.com/ma/taiji ... rview.html

At one time I brought a book commonly referred to as the taiji classics translated in English and Chinese feeling I could use them as talking points with my teacher...

He looked at it, and laughed
explaining that in some cases what was written, was not written by people who could do it, or written by others, not quite right. He mentioned that trying to follow it would tend to lead one in the wrong direction. His philosophy was to learn through the practice itself.

As in Chen style there are many yang style derivatives some quite famous Wu, Sun, Tung, ect. others not so much....
Each method developed by very public teachers going on to become styles themselves.
Others such as my teacher not...

In his group there were some who didn't practice any type of form, just basic development movements, and push hands...
The form he taught "solo exercise" was quite different from what some might consider the standard despite being named or referred to by the same name...ie 24 step, 88 ect. old 6 roads,,, due to his influence ..

After awhile he no longer referred to our practice as "yang" style feeling it was too different out of respect for the yang family, he just called it "taiji".

It was said he was influenced not only by his teacher "un-named" but also by 5 noted masters in Beijing at the time...
Some of them known in the west quite famous....His practice very hands on,,,not much on theory, his way of teaching...

At one time he mentioned "now I will train you as I was trained"

He asked me to attack him any way I wanted, got tossed out in the process
made for a long morning on cold winter Beijing day...

windwalker wrote:At one time I brought a book commonly referred to as the taiji classics translated in English and Chinese feeling I could use them as talking points with my teacher...

He looked at it, and laughed
explaining that in some cases what was written, was not written by people who could do it, or written by others, not quite right. He mentioned that trying to follow it would tend to lead one in the wrong direction. His philosophy was to learn through the practice itself.

<snip>

At one time he mentioned "now I will train you as I was trained"

He asked me to attack him any way I wanted, got tossed out in the process :)
made for a long morning on cold winter Beijing day... :P

This is kind of "the answer" to a lot of the threads going on here recently, as far as I'm concerned. Too many people try to put the theory ahead of the practice, when really the theory is just there to help you better articulate what you've already learned through practice. The fastest way to get good is not to tiptoe up to an imagined ideal, but to fail painfully until you get it right.

Bhassler wrote:The fastest way to get good is not to tiptoe up to an imagined ideal, but to fail painfully until you get it right.

Right on, man! A willingness to experientially allow yourself to make all the major mistakes thousands of times is the only way to eventually overcome them.

windwalker wrote:At one time I brought a book commonly referred to as the taiji classics translated in English and Chinese feeling I could use them as talking points with my teacher...

He looked at it, and laughed
explaining that in some cases what was written, was not written by people who could do it, or written by others, not quite right. He mentioned that trying to follow it would tend to lead one in the wrong direction. His philosophy was to learn through the practice itself.

As in Chen style there are many yang style derivatives some quite famous Wu, Sun, Tung, ect. others not so much....
Each method developed by very public teachers going on to become styles themselves.
Others such as my teacher not...

In his group there were some who didn't practice any type of form, just basic development movements, and push hands...
The form he taught "solo exercise" was quite different from what some might consider the standard despite being named or referred to by the same name...ie 24 step, 88 ect. old 6 roads,,, due to his influence ..

After awhile he no longer referred to our practice as "yang" style feeling it was too different out of respect for the yang family, he just called it "taiji".

It was said he was influenced not only by his teacher "un-named" but also by 5 noted masters in Beijing at the time...
Some of them known in the west quite famous....His practice very hands on,,,not much on theory, his way of teaching...

At one time he mentioned "now I will train you as I was trained"

He asked me to attack him any way I wanted, got tossed out in the process
made for a long morning on cold winter Beijing day...

So much in agreeance here.

Yes, do whatever you want is what sold me.

There are really only a few fundamental movements to get down, everything else is just elaboration, potentially good but also potentially a trap if you get too much into the sequence as the goal.

It's good, yes, but like music, you know, got some power chords for rock and punk, maybe get more into jazz and classical if it calls you but you can just hang out with the basics and play forever.

The other forms can then be expressions of that to get specific emphasis of some sort or merely to experience the movement. Can have different emphasis in the subtle energies. Lots of stuff to play with . Everything is informative.