(Taiwan) Chen YanXi lineage Er Lu Pao Chui

[salcanzonieri]

[salcanzonieri]

Compare to (one of the oldest clips) to Chen FaKe style Er Lu Pao Chui

[salcanzonieri]

modern version

[salcanzonieri]

I still think that you can see Baji Quan postures in the Chen YanXi version (which is older material than the other two videos).
Especially since Chen YanXi had to have encountered BaJi Quan practitioners and body guards, escorts, etc while working as same in Shandong / Shanghai.
Especially the whole sequence after the first single whip and at the 1:43-45 mark.

[Bhassler]

Is that through Du Yu Ze? If so, it would be more accurate to name Du Yu Ze as the point of demarcation of the lineage, since Du also learned Zhaobao after he studied with Yanxi (I read somewhere that his first exposure was to xiaojia, but don't know if that was a reliable source). There is no real evidence to support the notion that Chen Fake materially changed what he learned from Yanxi more than Du would have-- it would in fact seem more likely to be the opposite, since Du had other known teachers of taiji as compared to Fake learning from his father.

[yeniseri]

Somehow I get the feeling (intuition, vibration ) that the older frame of Chensitaijiquan is centered on xiaojia (Small frame) based on th external 'representation' as expressed by the practitioner.
I am aware of the history but it seems that this "new branding" post post 1965 created a Chenjiaogou standardization scheme that earmarked what we see today as prototype Chen village frame.
No doubt that ChenFamily CMA has been around for 500 years, but its many varioation of old and new has been experienced in many sizes and colours, despit ebeign at odds with each iteration of external form.

A good thing, nonetheless

[Urs Krebs]

Maybe this article i wrote about 2 years ago may help a little to understand the "Lao/Xin Jia" matter:

https://craneinthetigersshadow.wordpress.com/2020/10/07/the-holy-grail-or-the-discussion-about-frames-in-chen-style-taijiquan/

[Bob]

Maybe it might be fruitful to look into the relationship, if any, between Liu Yunqiao and Du Yuze

Many of Liu Yunqiao's disciples learned directly off of Du Yuze.

[Appledog]

Maybe this article i wrote about 2 years ago may help a little to understand the "Lao/Xin Jia" matter:

https://craneinthetigersshadow.wordpress.com/2020/10/07/the-holy-grail-or-the-discussion-about-frames-in-chen-style-taijiquan/

Nice article, which presents all the relevant information very well.

When I learn from my teachers they often teach a basic form and then add bells after the fact. It seems pretty obvious that the forms are intended to be the same order of moves more or less, and are essentially the same form but people do things very differently. Let us separate immediately what I call 'cheating' out of the form, I don't mean it in a negative way but very often people will perform the moves in a very quick or easy manner, we cannot always perform the 100% form even if we hold it in our mind. You will see a lot of people doing this and there is nothing wrong with it but for example do you lift your leg up before six sealing four closing? Some do and some don't. Another 'example' is do you lift your left leg up in the first move or just slide it out (krebs, I saw you lift it up in the video). We don't do that. It's not important. But the idea is there is a level of difficulty added in to the exact same moves.

So separating out this kind of bell which is added to the form, the forms are pretty much the same. Another great one is points of inflection for fa jing. I was initially taught to fajing as the first part of lan que wei, and directly after dan bian (at the [b]first[b] part of the circle not the end like shown in 1:03!). Now, my teacher changed how he teaches and tells me not to do that. Another change he made is the number of turns in six sealing four closing. Now we tend to go out directly more along the lines of 'lao jia'.

It is in fact a spectrum, the idea of 'frame' as far as I am concerned is the basic idea which informs the ideas people use to define their frame. Being partial to certain applications is another big one. For example in the entry to lan que wei you demonstrated both hands in front of the face turning into palms. Then circling around. I can show you a variatoin where you turn your body slightly to the right and the right hand shoots out in front versus just closing in a hold the ball style squeeze before peng. The girl does this at 0:31 in the video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_6Am-CKRGak. The point is that depending on your intent of application you can slightly change the form too, but it is the same move.

This is why I like Chen style so much, there is a type of freedom of expression within the form, which comes out of the silk reeling aspect of the form i feel, the circle, inflection points on the circle. Once you understand this everything looks like one form with different expressions. Ex. 0:41 in the above video, which is a somewhat unusual place to fajing. But sometimes pepper and bells like this are thrown in for flavor and excitement. Just my perspective.

[Bhassler]

It's a nice article, and I agree that at the end of the day the frame/style is whatever the people who practice it want it to be. But in truth, there are a lot of things known within a lineage that are only known within that lineage. Some of those things are technical, but other things are personal about relationships between certain individuals, who practiced, who was or was not able to get certain things or let go of other things from before, etc. Unless you're immersed in a lineage, there's a lot of color and context that changes how publicly available facts are understood that you aren't privy to. And even if you know all the dirt about your own lineage, you don't know about anyone else's. So this comparison of videos and correlating to timelines, etc., can be interesting and fun, but should never be taken as gospel.

One thing that is missed in the comparison of choreographies is the presence or absence of certain mechanics. That's a totally different view of what's related to what than just looking at the angle someone punches at in a certain move, etc. The notion that "it's all the same in the end" is flat out wrong. Some people think it is because they practice multiple styles and it feels the same to them, but that's because they're the same person doing all of it-- and frequently have been taught with a similar lack of detail or coherent method across the board. All of which leads me back to Urs' conclusion that each style/frame/lineage should be addressed on their own terms. Trying to stuff everything into one big can of "same" is a disservice to all.

[Urs Krebs]

I think there were several good points here. Indeed it has impact from whom you learned and where you learned. Taiwan was a small cosmos concerning Chen Style there were only a few teachers who made it there from the mainland in 1949. So, there were Du Yuze and Pan Zongyou and a 2 or 3 others. Some of the Wutan School (Bajiquan) like Adam Hsu learned also Chen Style from Du. But you can see the influence of Bajiquan there. It's nothing bad it's just evolution due to the influences you have. The same situation is with the village or with Beijing. The villagers had influence from Chen Zhaopi foremost and then from Chen Zhaokui and more or less from Feng Zhiqiang. That's why you have different interpretations even within the the four Tigers. Evolution has happened and will always happen. Appledog mentioned my opening in the vid. It's how i learned it from my master, but even i do certain things different from my master as i had influences also from other teachers. Usually the core principles remain the same but within the style several itnerpretations of these principles are possible.

[salcanzonieri]

The first video, the Du Yu Ze linage version and the second video, early Chen Fake version are very similar to each other.

The third video shows the Chen Zhaokui influenced version, and it is more elaborate in movements and adds a number of postures.

I think that this is significant.

[Bhassler]

What are you using to define similar? I'd say that at least through the first single whip they're pretty radically different in terms of mechanics and jin.

[salcanzonieri]

Similar as to postural movements. The third video is more elaborate by having more postural movements and much different mechanics.
The third video is more different from the other two, than the second one is from the first.

[Bhassler]

I think you'd be better served looking at videos of Chen Yu than CXW. And as for the similarities between the first and second video, we'll have to agree to disagree. Not only are they mechanically different, but the mechanics of one don't really lead to the mechanics of the other-- there are just too many places where the fundamental body methods are different.