Steve James wrote:The Beijing form just happened to be the first one John posted, and I think most agree that the way its done has some problems. Bruce mentioned intention, and that's what's seen in application.
Beijing 24ahitaijiquan is about fitness and nothing more! The exaggerated over pronouncements of body positioning and movement
have caused me some initial knee problems but I had some good teachers of the past who opened my mind for me to make and
test what they told me.
I even recalled a somewhat well known teacher document this in a Kungfu magazine article where the "sitting back", then turning foot
then stepping up to 'finish the posture' MAY not be so good but that is one problem of some of the Beijing forms. Knowing this, I changed
a few things on my own reflecting and incorporating these newfound 'adjustments' and how these were considered 'blasphemy' (
in some circles, and moreso in competition back in those days.
Turning the head back is another oxymoron but it has and will survive because of the instruction from Day 1. Again, I have adjusted the
head back placement to 1/4 it 'original' placement. All of what is called 'form' can never compensate for martial skill or knowledge as
I know of no such form that shows that. One has to be trained by someone who has that understanding and experience.
As I stated elsewhere, when I was exposed to the re-configured Beijing 24shitaijiquan in the frame of Dashr Zhang Dungsheng in decades past,
he opened a different insight that allowed me to pass through the crap of what is called traditional and see beyond where I was incapable my
stupidity.
