oragami_itto wrote:GrahamB wrote:China has never had a free press. When considering the reason why things appear, or don't appear, in books you should have that in mind at all times.
Fair enough, I guess its a possibility that he was omitted to prevent the government from knowing he was a student.
Why?
Steve James wrote:Afa actual bloodlines, it's interesting that Ma Yuehliang was recognized as the head of the Wu Jianquan branch, but when the PRC published its official book the pictures used were of his wife (Wu Yinghua) because she was the blood relation of Wu Jianquan. Although, imo, she had the most beautiful form I'd seen. Anyway, that branch is Shanghai Wu.
Hong Kong Wu/Ng had completely different family leaders.
This is family history and you can quote me on it. Ma Jing Bao’s father, Ma Yeuh Liang, who was my grand-uncle, married Wu Chien Chuan’s daughter, Wu Yin Hua. Ma Yeuh Liang learned a hard style before he met his wife. He then studied for a number of years with my grandfather, Wu Chien Chuan, who then passed away. From this point Ma Yeuh Liang had nobody to upgrade with. Wu Yin Hua did exactly what her father did but, as was the tradition in China, men came first. So she walked behind her husband and followed what he did. So then, as time passed, Ma Yeuh Liang merged his semi-hard style and Wu style forms together, which is the system that is now practised by Ma Jing Bao and his students. Now everybody has his or her areas of expertise but this is not the same system as the Wu family system. We have brought the direct lineage from my great-grandfather, grandfather and father to myself.
Afa Yang Jun's form, I'm in no position to judge. I don't know how to take the idea that he learned from Sam Masich --not that I know him.
...but I have also heard that he focuses mostly on the form --though he also knows applications.
wayne hansen wrote:If you have good lineage there is no need to ask questions ,you feel it
The is what Eddie Wu Kwong in HK said:
Bao wrote:The idea of "lineage", or at least "pure lineage" is still a fantasy construction. If you see how everybody practiced together in the old days without any sense of any style or school boundaries, before the lineages were branded to "Chen, "yang", "Wu" etc. you will understand that everything is pretty mixed up. And this mix of different ideas have just continued to mix between the styles. Tai Chi is just Tai Chi. There is no pure style and no pure, or orthodox lineage. Tai Chi is still Tai Chi. Calling something "Yang" or "Chen" doesn't even make sense from a historical point of view. Every school and lineage is the same mix. The differences are all on the surface, and mostly just illusions. But there is skill and lack of skill.
So real "lineage" might just be "skill" passed onwards, from one hand to another.
Lineage refers to a particular line of teaching, including their specific jibengong, partner practices, detailed understandings of movements and applications, etc. In that sense, lineage refers to "how and what you practice" and is actually the *only* thing that matters.
Bhassler wrote: I would say it's almost exactly the opposite of that. ... Lineage refers to a particular line of teaching, including their specific jibengong, partner practices, detailed understandings of movements and applications, etc. In that sense, lineage refers to "how and what you practice" and is actually the *only* thing that matters.
If all the arts someone comes across are sufficiently lacking in methodical practice detail that they are subject to that level of individual interpretation, then it's probably safe to say that none of those arts have a "lineage" in any meaningful sense of the word.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests