the rum soaked fist: internal martial arts forum

It's not just similar - it's the same document (Yue Fei's 10 Thesis), with "Taijiquan" and "Chen Chanxing" inserted into it. No offense to the Chens, but it's obviously some sort of attenpt to claim legitimatcy for an older ancestor by rebranding an old document. This wasn't published until well into the commercial period of Taijiquan (1930 and 1935). Marketing has a lot to answer for.

I covered this in my review of Chen Chanxing's book.

https://thetaichinotebook.com/2020/08/1 ... mark-chen/

GrahamB wrote:It's not just similar - it's the same document (Yue Fei's 10 Thesis), with "Taijiquan" and "Chen Chanxing" inserted into it. No offense to the Chens, but it's obviously some sort of attenpt to claim legitimatcy for an older ancestor by rebranding an old document. This wasn't published until well into the commercial period of Taijiquan (1930 and 1935). Marketing has a lot to answer for.

When is Yue Fei's document published? The reference I gave is 1919.

1919 might be the earliest publication in book form. I don't know. It was in wide circulation before that though and usually attributed to Yue Fei of the Song Dynasty, which is of course not proveable.

From the 1919 edition it talks of the manual as pre-existing:

"In the summer of 1915, I returned south, and as I passed my hometown, people praised me as a prominent expert for making a study of the contents of Yue Fei’s boxing manual. Within it are nine chapters of essential principles and one chapter on fighting. Although the content of the writing is not without its flaws, the style of the writing is marvelous, powerful, and smooth, and as suits the work of Yue Fei, the theory is refined and thorough. It is certainly not the case that Yue Fei was unable to communicate. I say that equipped with this old Xingyi manual, you too will obtain such a level of clarity.
The Xingyi martial art has over time become much more prominent, and it is urgent for us to now make records of it and take them to Beijing so that connoisseurs and ordinary practitioners alike, as well as ordinary people, can admire Yue Fei. It we protect this material and do not let it slip away, we can help later students to the source.
– written respectfully by Zheng Lianpu"

GrahamB wrote:Marketing has a lot to answer for.

Certainly at least as much in the current array of narratives as in any of the historical ones.

GrahamB wrote:1919 might be the earliest publication in book form. I don't know. It was in wide circulation before that though and usually attributed to Yue Fei of the Song Dynasty, which is of course not proveable.

Historically, to my knowledge, xinyi was developed by Ji Longfeng AKA Ji Jike (1602 - 1680). It's rebranded as xingyi by Li Luoneng (1808 - 1890). If you prefer myths that's fine.

You seem pissed off. I don't know why.

GrahamB wrote:You seem pissed off. I don't know why.

Really? I'm not.

robert wrote:

GrahamB wrote:You seem pissed off. I don't know why.

Really? I'm not.

Obviously not. Anyone who is pissed off writes in all caps. Heven't you people ever internetted, before?

Bhassler wrote:Anyone who is pissed off writes in all caps. Heven't you people ever internetted, before?

Not even an exclamation mark! Ooops.

As an aside, the GuangPing Yang style I used to practice has a sequence in their form that's EXACTLY the same in one of the ZhaoBao forms.

FWIW.

S

So, if you haven't, you should read Prof. Wile's books on Taijiquan. His is probably some of the best real (i.e., researched and referenced) history on the topic. There is actually some good solid historical research on Taijiquan history, although of course not without its limitations.

https://www.amazon.com/Lost-Tai-chi-Cla ... 171&sr=8-1

https://www.amazon.com/TAi-Chis-Ancesto ... 171&sr=8-7

There's also this really interesting read by Prof. Wile from the Martial Arts Studies Journal:

https://orca.cf.ac.uk/103201/1/729-1835-1-SM.pdf

Again, the history is not completely settled. But we all should be aware of what serious historians are actually saying. It's better than us all being ultracrepidarians!

MiaoZhen wrote:. But we all should be aware of what serious historians are actually saying.

Yes of course. But still, if what they say doesn’t follow the common “Chen is the original Tai Chi” narrative, no one listens.

Yes of course. But still, if what they say doesn’t follow the common “Chen is the original Tai Chi” narrative, no one listens. [/quote]

We need to be reading all the professional historians and what they are writing, and be open to changing theories depending on actual evidence. So, I agree, with you. If there is serious evidence that opposes the Chen origination theory, we should listen to it. That last article I posted by Prof Wile is a good read in that it presents new documents which very may well upend both the Chen and Yang narratives.

Even though I have an academic background in East Asian history, personally I am a utilitarian. I don't actually care who was first, as long as it all works (depending on how each of us defines work). I also don't personally care about lineage (I am a lineage holder myself, but that only matters to me and my Shifu - it shouldn't matter to anyone else). As long as it works, lineage is also irrelevant. The historian in me finds it all interesting, but what people did 200 years ago doesn't change the time and effort I have to put in for my own practice! 師父領進門，修行在個人！

shawnsegler wrote:As an aside, the GuangPing Yang style I used to practice has a sequence in their form that's EXACTLY the same in one of the ZhaoBao forms.

FWIW.

S

That is sensible! Zhaobao village (next to Chenjiagou) follows the position of GuangPing (village), a place where the jumping point of this Yang style variant.
I am sure where you have seen the side by side comparison of Laojia Chen style to Yang style, where posture for posture,they mimic each other keeping in mind that utilty and function determines shape and external representation of posture!
Even when Yang changed the names of his art! (creation) from their Chen origin, some of the names were substituted to represent new vision and direction.

Even when Yang changed the names of his art! (creation) from their Chen origin, some of the names were substituted to represent new vision and direction.

Have no idea why everyone assumes that it was Yang who changed things, that it was he took away hard movements and did name changes... Just because everyone says one thing it doesn’t mean that it’s true.

The common Yang forms today might just as well be closest to the old “Chen style” that YLC learned.