windwalker wrote:twocircles13 wrote:[
The point was that each style had its strengths, especially, there were some things that each style taught more effectively than the others. As you got to certain points in your development, you might need to step into a different style to learn what you needed. So, the training jumped from one style to another and back again.
Interesting,,,,out side of what was told to you, is this something you've personally done or went through
Asking IME found it to be completely opposite.... after spending some 5yrs or so, examining this
with taiji, and TWC...arriving at my own understanding of why its not possible..
my last taiji teacher was very explicit about not combining other things with taiji....
Even with those who study taiji, IME found it quite hard helping other long term taiji practitioners to modify their practices, helping them to achieve the direction they wanted to go most of the time not really possible...for them...Through their practices they've kind of shut the door that would allow deeper changes...
historically this was also noted
After the formalities were over, Zhang told Hu to practice only taijiquan, but Hu
was not really able to let go of his xingyi. He was already a great master, and
thus it was very difficult to "throw it out the window".
Zhang kept telling Hu that his jin (internal energy) was wrong - it was a xingyi type, not a taiji type of energy.
Hu said that there was nothing he could do because he had been practicing that
way for so long. Zhang decided to teach Hu the 81-Step form of taijiquan,
realizing that unless Hu was able to let go of his xingyi it would be quite difficult to
teach him Yangjia Michuan Taijiquan.
Other methods for examples Tibetan White Crane, and n-mantis something I'm familiar with don't integrate at all...
Your comment has taken the thread in an interesting and unintended direction. Let me clarify and dispel some erroneous assumptions.
Liu Yunqiao learned Baji, Pigua, Bagua, and Tanglang, so while he taught these separately, he knew the strengths, weaknesses, common elements and differences of each art. He set up a four-year+ program at the club level in the major colleges in Taiwan. In his curriculum, he arranged the arts in an order where they would build off one another and teach faster and more broadly than if focused on a single art for four years. At the end of the four years, students would know the foundations and principal forms of the arts and several weapons. They were encouraged during their fourth year to focus on one art and one weapon. Upon graduation, students were given the option to apply for discipleship with one of the senior teachers in the system, so their training could continue.
I studied essentially three of the four-year curriculum, so I have some experience in learning this way. I have retained the parts of the system that most interested me
Examining the system a little closer, Liu Yunqiao started with a birds-eye view of the curriculum, so he knew how it fit together. The program was also during early developmental years of the students. This is very different from taking a student who has trained in a single art for five years and trying to teach him one advanced aspect of a new art, although someone who knew both arts might have better chance of success.
Additionally, students practiced the different styles discretely and were encourage to not combine them. Integration that occurred was primarily in common ground between the styles as orchestrated by Liu Yuqiao.
To my initial point, these are all northern Chinese styles, and they have a lot in common. I have a friend, Steve Todd, who claims that because of the anatomy of the human body, the 80/20 rule applies and 80% of all martial arts in the world are the same. His curriculum teaches that 80%, and his student become awesome martial artists. That is an integrated and very different approach.
If 80% is an accurate number, then northern Chinese martial arts have more than 90% in common. This is different from comparing Tanglang and Tibetan White Crane, which probably fall in the 80/20 group. Of course, the uniqueness and identity of each art is in those differences.
Further, if you look at the history of the development of the styles we have today, they have a lot of common roots.
@Steve James said,
Personally, I don't think the founders of any of these martial arts were purists. They were innovators, and It was their students who invented a tradition.
That’s just it. There were no founders who pulled entirely new martial arts fully blown out of their ... uh... hats. They took what they knew and tweaked it. Perhaps they contributed some kind of minor innovation, or they may have just received credit for innovations that were developed over generations, a common Chinese cultural tradition.
And on a personal note, it looks me nearly a decade to find my current teacher. In that time, I studied Chen Zhaokui’s form from two different teachers and Chen Manqing’s Yang short form as well as some forays into other arts. I always felt like my Wutan training gave me a leg up. When I met Chen Zhonghua, it helped me see a lot of common ground and recognize that he was also teaching something unique.
