the rum soaked fist: internal martial arts forum

Steve James wrote:Yes, but that's not what I meant. WCC "is" the founder of Wu tcc. Wu styles deviate from him, granted his modifications, not the other way around. I.e., he didn't simplify/modify an earlier Wu style; the style is named after him.

Imo, it'd be better to say it's his modification of a prior Yang style (which one? Don't ask me). My point is only which Wu came first. (Of course, not the other Wu/Hao style).

he modified his fathers tai chi - what else are we talking about - I'm not sure what you thought I meant or what you thought you were correcting.
if you look at northern Wu for example it's not the same as the Yangs tai chi whichever Yang you want to pick.

wayne hansen wrote:No one has upset me I am just answering questions as honestly as i can
No carrots being dangled just telling what I have been shown
One of my Wu teachers had a Yang Ban Hao form that he only showed at demos
Northern Wu is one I don’t understand
Yes less is more
I have a hsing I background so I value simplicity
I learnt Tungs 2 fast forms but don’t practice them now and have never passed them on
Ma,s fast form has never really impressed me as I don’t see anything in it that’s not in the standard form
When I mention the circular continuous form it is just for historical fact
I always hope someone will say yeah I practice that

yea for sure - i don't doubt you, that you're being sincere about this.

I was thinking actually - of course CTH cites that he had another teacher who's tcc came from Wang Lanting - one of the other disciples of YLC
So sure he may have learnt another form that was pretty different.

for the record, don't think 'you're a coward' btw... i just perceived something you did here in that way ( a teeny tiny thing, not that deep).. get carried away sometimes. Perhaps not the best choice of words.

I can seperate doing and being - the little things we sometimes do (especially in the heat of the moment), don't (often) reflect who we are, on the whole.

he modified his fathers tai chi - what else are we talking about - I'm not sure what you thought I meant or what you thought you were correcting.
if you look at northern Wu for example it's not the same as the Yangs tai chi whichever Yang you want to pick.

Yeah, he modified his father's tcc. I'm just not willing to say that the other branches practiced what WQY did. As Nick pointed out, some features of HK Wu don't exist in other Northern or Shanghai branches. So, who is doing what WQY did? Moreover, as you pointed out, WQY did Yang tcc. Did he modify it? And, naw, I don't think Northern Wu looks more like YLC's tcc that any Yang style.

All I'm saying is that unless some Wu branches are practicing what YLC taught WQY, they have modified it. However, I don't think it's a big deal, and I don't think modification makes one branch more legitimate or authentic than another because it came before or after.

Anyway, I guess it might be best to limit the discussion to the Wu standard form. That includes the order of positions, their names, and any positions (shi) that one has but another doesn't. The "square" (angular ?) form doesn't appear in all styles. But, what does? It's just form genealogy -in the same way that people compare Chen to Yang. (Huh, why did YLC modify it? But, the connections are still clear.)

Interesting discussion

Tend to look at what teachers or one can do as representative of the method they used to achieve them but not necessarily the historical method itself
Historically preservation of movement having merit in of itself, not so much of an interest for me in my own practice out side of what type of skill sets are
said to develop from the practices.

some thoughts from a noted teacher, on teaching

When one states that teachers have changed the way they do the form, it's sometimes due to faulty perception and limited understanding of the form.

This problem also occurs when teachers teach the form before they've mastered it themselves. Sometimes when a student observes others doing taiji and they notice postures seem different it's the student's fault.

Usually when a posture changed, it's because the student isn't doing the posture correctly; he isn't following the principles. Even now, when I ask students in my workshops
to do the postures, they can't do them; they can't maintain the taiji principles doing these postures.

If those students teach someday, their students will follow them in doing the postures incorrectly: Then the posture will
appear to be changed. The Professor's classmate, the famous taij master Chen Weiming, was asked by his students,

"Why does each teacher do the form differently?"

Chen
Answered,

"Students change the postures because they did not learn them correctly in the first place
*Also, in the old days teachers were very strict: a student wouldn't t dare ask a question it he didn't understand what the teacher taught him.'

https://drcaseycarter.net/wp-content/up ... rvator.pdf


This might seem strange at first reading,,,"not asking a question".

My teacher often would invite and encourage people to ask him questions...The answer was always by direct experience

As in good question "try it"

this tended to make the students a little reserved with their questions.

If one said they "understood" something

It was expected the understanding would be shown though usage

Which as commented on in some other threads on different teachers.

They might have the ability to do it, understand how to train it,

but not be able to explain it..

Some also change it because they come to a deeper understanding
It was recently stated that some people teach as they were taught in the 70’s
Just because you use a similar method dosent mean you can’t show deeper levels to those who earn the right to know
In the words of Bruce
Do not mistake the finger pointing to the moon for the moon itself

Cheng Tin Hung Square form:



Cheng Tin Hung Round form:

It would be interesting to know how much training he did with his father

Hmm, honestly, I don't think I've done a form exactly the same way twice. The same goes for signing my signature. Change isn't inevitable; it is inherent to nature.

Otoh, there is also intentional change. For ex., there's a movement in Wu (between Raise hands and White crane) where the practitioner bends from the waist/hip down. It isn't done in Yang style (or Chen) afaik. Why is that? Imo, the answer would be in the application. And, if someone doesn't understand the application, the movement won't make any sense.

Of course, applications have to change according to conditions and circumstances, and the form (imo) illustrates/demonstrates concepts of and for application. Ime, those are what people use when they fight/compete, not "form." So, a better question would be what concept/s it illustrates and "how" that position would be used against an opponent.

Someone very early labelled tcc 13 postures (shi san shi), but there sure are a lot now. Maybe forms are added or modified because opponents evolve or are different? Maybe it's because the core concepts are not determined by the shapes, but the shapes are useful to practice and illustrate the concepts.

5 elements (xyq) are probably better in any case. same with 4 main punches of boxing. less is more. KISS

Reminds me of the Fibonacci sequence 1,1,2,3,5,8,13,...

The move you mention is white stork and the usual application is a shoulder throw
A lot of the difference in Wu comes from him seeing the art through his background as a wrestler
There is still only 13 postures but 108 movements
Postures are principles of movement 108 are there variations
Until you can do the movements the same each time variation is just tardiness