Bao wrote:Second, his overall standpoint is that Chen Changxings Taiji must have look like the Chen style today, which is something no body can prove. We can come up with just as many arguments against this view as well.
HotSoup wrote: What's the oldest mutual link? Apparently, Yang Luchan, at whose time the modifications was most likely to occur and stay in all derivatives to this day.
Using Occam's razor the simplest explanation is, they inherited it themselves from the earlier generations.
the fairytale about Shaolin vs Wudang is as vulgar nowadays
Bao wrote:I am using the simplest possible solution, Occam is my friend.
WYX didn't inherent modern Chen style's most apparent traits.
Bao wrote: Who is talking about fairytales? Modern Chen has postures taken directly fron Song Taizu Changquan. Neither YLC or WYX have those movements. This is fact, not fiction.
Bao wrote:That both of them chhanged their tjq exactly the same way doesn't make sense, so I can't see Occam's razor in your logic.
Almost all techniques of all TJQ no matter style/lineage do exists in one form or another in other northern styles. It's no secret that TJQ is rooted in older Tongbei/Changquan styles
What exactly then makes some of them "Shaolin" but not the others?
2) You use it as a derogatory term that is supposed to lower the credibility of Chen style to the point when it's no longer TJQ ("it has Shaolin elements => it must be Shaolin")
Bao wrote:It's another influence that Y and WYX doesn't have. Period.
Bao wrote:The only thing I sincerely doubt is that the tjq in the time of ylc looked like modern Chen and that the body mechanics are the same as what we usually see from modern Chen.
All other tjq and many other arts have changed a lot over the generations. That Chen tjq should be the only art that didn't change is also something that doesn't make sense.
there are certain factors that increase probability of Chen style being closer to the common ancestor.
Bao wrote:There are also certain factors that increase probability of Yang or Wu (WYX) style being closer to the common ancestor.
I'm yet to hear the reasoning supporting those factors. Something that can be analyzed (technical material of currently existing styles and branches, their Quanpus, documents written by 3rd parties, etc.)
And what do we have for the historical research of the arts some of the RSF members invested their whole life into? Sluggish attempts to use as an argument the mystical beliefs created by illiterate people two centuries ago for attracting more students? Really?
Return to Xingyiquan - Baguazhang - Taijiquan
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 80 guests