the rum soaked fist: internal martial arts forum

So what spawned the original post was that I was looking online to see if I could find the Yang 85 form that I had that was demoed before with expression of striking. i had heard and seen that fu zhongwen and Fu shgnyuan did multiple variations of the 85. I have not been able to find the version with the areas that show more striking. I am wondering if the version with the striking has more influnce from Fu Zhongwen's early teacher Yang zhoupeng who was the son of Yang Banhou.

When I was in the park last weekend someone came up to our class. Bear in mind we were practicing the Chen Weiming version form, a gentleman came to our open push hands and said he learned from a student of Fu zhongwen. However what he performed on his own looked more like 88 wushu yang taijiquan form and not like the form in the original post. When I told him of the pivoting on the lead leg that fu zhongwen does (for example from push to single whip there is no extra shifting to left leg, only a pivot on the right leg) , the gentleman got upset and defensive and didnt allow me to explain further. So it makes me wonder.

Madame Wang Jurong's (close friend of Fu zhongwen) student said online publicly once that Fu didnt like teaching in public cause many people would say they were his student, and also Fu zhongwen had a great distaste for demos where masters would throw their students around with compliant push hands.

As for yang zhenduo, I think his form is too slow. 85 form they do the cloud hands and repulse monkey, and part horse mane 5 times and are done in about 17-18 minutes. In the 103 yang zhenduo/Yang jun form, they do those 3 times and are done in over 25-30 minutes, which I think is too slow to properly move Jin/chin. IMO

Rhen wrote:When I told him of the pivoting on the lead leg that fu zhongwen does (for example from push to single whip there is no extra shifting to left leg, only a pivot on the right leg) , the gentleman got upset and defensive and didnt allow me to explain further. So it makes me wonder.

That's an interesting detail. The CMC always shifts and pivots in an empty leg. The Dong stuff pivots on the weighted leg in other places in the form. Playing around with it that completely changes the dynamic of the movement and which potential applications are possible.

What's interesting is that his book states explicitly to shift the weight to the left foot first, which matches Yang Cheng Fu's narrative in The Essence and Application of Taijiquan. Swaim makes a note of the discrepancy between Fu's text and the form Fu practiced.

So since his book was praised as an accurate presentation of the form as YLC taught it, and the shift pivot he described there matches YLC's narrative, do you think it's possible the weighted pivot there is just his own tweak to the movement?

No I do not think it is his own tweak. I think the extra shift way added for the public form and make it easier on peoples knees perhaps. People do not want to grind and do hard work anymore.... they want a easy way to do things.

You are right, the Mastering Yang Style book does say to shift left (had to go look), however, Louis puts a * and says that the traditional way is not to shift.
We can see that in the OP video. They do not do the shift left, but pivot on right leg before single whip and many other places in the 85 form.

I've never understood this obsession about small superficial details.

Unless one is interested in perserving a practice for historical reasons, over gaining functional usage
Most of the questions can only be answered through usage.

The problem with comparisons made on practice, not usage, it’s not known why the changes or differences if any were made or are used. In most cases they’re intern methods until one gains functional use, not requiring them.

Unless one is interested in perserving a practice for historical reasons, over gaining functional usage
Most of the questions can only be answered through usage.

The problem with comparisons made on practice, not usage, it’s not known why the changes or differences if any were made or are used. In most cases they’re intern methods until one gains functional use, not requiring them.

I think that's a key observation. Whatever was done was done for a reason and with a specific intention --that is related to usage. Well, some argue that the indoor forms are differ from the public ones, but only indoor students know why. So, afa Fu's footwork, the practitioner has to imagine or develop how to use it one their own. Or, you can just say it's wrong.

Afa the weighted pivots, when y'all do Fair Lady Works Shuttles, are the steps weighted or not?

Actually, I was thinking of which part of the foot was making contact with the ground. I think it helps suggest the intention of what's happening. Imo, thinking about it while doing it is the best approach.

Wu style turns on the weighted leg in places ,parting wild horse being one
I was taught to do it in yang brush knee
Yuk Kwong does it on the change into single whip
It is not if or when you do it but why
Think of sit back pivot advance step as a circle
No sit back is just a smaller circle
In combat you can then choose the size of the circle
It needs to be practiced in pushing and application

It is not if or when you do it but why

Agreed

Bao wrote:I've never understood this obsession about small superficial details.

The devil is in the details for sure!

While I agree with your statement mostly, Doc.,
I`m not sure about extending it on the form.

I'm only looking at the details cause the Fu's claim they are "Authentic" and that Fu says he never changed the form to what YCF was teach his inner students.
So in that case I'm looking at every shift, turn, footwork, hand, etc.

Rhen wrote: the Fu's claim they are "Authentic" and that Fu says he never changed the form to what YCF was teach his inner students.
So in that case I'm looking at every shift, turn, footwork, hand, etc.

What does it mean by changing or preserving the form?

I was taught that you should always try to explore different possibilities of the form, and that you should always try to do it differently. I was also taught that every movement will look different if you adjust them to different applications, as in using a movement for trapping/qinna will look different if you use it for throwing or for striking. I was also taught that you should adapt the form to your own body type as height and characteristics.

So by exploring, adjusting and adapting the form, details in the form will look different from time to time. But this is not that I have changed anything to the form. But instead, by exploring, adjusting and adapting, I am preserving the spirit of the art and the inherent meaning of the form.

Bao wrote:I've never understood this obsession about small superficial details.

the turning on the weighted leg puts deep use of lower abdomen and lower back muscles, in xin/xingyi advancing forward works in similar way,

Trick wrote:

Bao wrote:I've never understood this obsession about small superficial details.

the turning on the weighted leg puts deep use of lower abdomen and lower back muscles, in xin/xingyi advancing forward works in similar way,

Yes, I understand the mechanics. There is practical use as well. The problem is that people bicker about details without understanding the mechanics or the practical use. They are only concerned about that ot looks differently or want to convince that their version is correct without understanding why.

But yes, if you understand the deeper shit, then I do agree that the detail is not superficial.