# How important is lineage?



## Xue Sheng (Jan 13, 2006)

I am beginning to wonder how much lineage actually matters. 

Does it really matter if you can say your teacher is, or my teachers teacher is Wu Kwong Yu, Sun Lu-Tang, Yang Zhenduo, Chen Zengli, or Yang Cheng Fu? 

Is the Tai Chi that you learn from somebody in Hebei, Hunan, Guangdong or Yunnan province, whose name is Chan, whose teachers name was Wei whose teacher was Jiang that learned from Chen or Yang or Wu or Sun, less Tai Chi than what you would get from someone named Yang, Chen, Wu, or Sun?

Does matter if the Tai Chi that you are taught is very good, very sound has all the forms done correctly with the Qi Gong, Push Hands and applications, as well as the philosophy.

For that matter if that Tai Chi is taught by someone named Smith who learned from Harrison who learned from Jones who learned from someone named Yang or any of the other families, if it is complete, is it a lesser Tai Chi just because of lineage?

My Teacher learned from Tung Ying-Chieh who learned from Yang Cheng-Fu, but does that make it better than someone whose teacher is 3 generations from Yang Cheng Fu. 

Is someones Tai Chi better than mine just because they learned from Yang Zhenduo? And sense Tai Chi is Taoist, would my Tai Chi better than all other Tai Chi forms just because I could claim I learned from Taoists?


----------



## TheBattousai (Jan 15, 2006)

Linage is not that important (since it originates from one guy's idea), only for instructors and for those who study the variations to see what the difference is. As long as there are the thirteen postures and a seemingly sound instructor, that is what matters. Plus the most important thing is that you like the Tai Chi your practising and the instructor, so its really up to you on if your Tai Chi is good, like with all martial arts, the student determines the quality of the art.


----------



## East Winds (Jan 16, 2006)

OK, I'll dip my toe into the water and say, Yes, I think linage is important. It can tell you where your form is coming from. It can tell you how authentic 
the form your are learning is. However the type of lineage that says "My teachers uncle once knew a man whos son delivered papers to Yang Cheng-fu" is not much of a lineage. However if you can say that my teacher was made a lineage holder by one of the original Taiji family members, then at least you can be fairly sure that you are learning an authentic family form. Is that important? Depends on whether you think it is important to learn an authentic form, or a form that someone merely made up and called Tai Chi. Will  it make your Taiji any better. Probably not. The difficulty comes when teachers change or misinterpret what they were taught. Cheng Man-ching was a student of Yang Cheng-fu, but so changed Yang's form that it can no longer be called Yang style. Tung Ying-chieh (another of Yangs students) did the same. (Nothing wrong with either of these forms by the way). Fu Zhong Wen on the other hand still taught the form as Yang transmitted it (as did Chen Wei Ming). The two sons Yang Zhen Ji and Yang Zhen Duo do the same. Deviation from the teachings of any of these people will change the form and as Yang Cheng-fu himself said "That is it. The form cannot be improved upon. To add or remove anything will destroy the essence of the form". Just my personal view.

Regarda


----------



## Andrew Green (Jan 16, 2006)

East Winds said:
			
		

> It can tell you where your form is coming from. It can tell you how authentic the form your are learning is.



Which brings up another question, are those things important?

To some people, to others not.  As long as it does what I want it too, what difference does it make where it came from if I am interested in the practical values and not history?

Can you tell me what school your doctor went too? Who the Dean at the time was?  Do you care? or as long as he knows how to fix your arm do you not really care?


----------



## Makalakumu (Jan 16, 2006)

Lineage in Tai Chi can be both very important and unimportant.  It is important because often teachers who have impressive lineages tend to be more knowledgable then those who do not.  And it is unimportant for the reasons that *Andrew Green* stated above.

Tai Chi is unlike harder styles of MA in many ways including that it can be hard to see its effectiveness if one does not have a lot of training.  Knowing the lineage of one's teacher can help one determined initially whether or not something is authentic.  

The fact something is authentic will not always mean that it is effective.  Yet, I think that, in a general way, connecting authenticity and effectiveness as an initial assumption is okay.


----------



## East Winds (Jan 16, 2006)

Andrew,

I thought that that was what I was saying!! Does it matter? However would you go to a "first aider" if you required radical surgery? If you don't care that he studied at veterinary school rather than a  medical school, thats OK. You get what you pay for. I study with a lineaged teacher and am very happy. Thats all there is to it!

Regards


----------



## Andrew Green (Jan 16, 2006)

One major difference, first aid and MD's are regulated and standardized.  The same cannot be said for Martial Arts.

Being of a lineage does not guarantee any level of teaching ability or knowledge, and not having a lineage does not guarantee a person doesn't.

And no, I wouldn't care about where he studied as much as has he done it before? How many times? How many times has he done similar procedures? How often have they been successful? 

A good surgeon is a good surgeon no matter where he got his degree.

In martial arts, at least non-competitive ones, you can't look at those things.  Things are very subjective.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jan 16, 2006)

Andrew Green said:
			
		

> Being of a lineage does not guarantee any level of teaching ability or knowledge, and not having a lineage does not guarantee a person doesn't.


 
I would disagree with you here.  In TMA, lineage, more often then not, clues one in to the quality of the martial arts training.  This may not always be the case, but those are just the bad apples.  In Tai Chi, this is even more important.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jan 16, 2006)

East Winds said:
			
		

> OK, I'll dip my toe into the water and say, Yes, I think linage is important. It can tell you where your form is coming from. It can tell you how authentic
> the form your are learning is. However the type of lineage that says "My teachers uncle once knew a man whos son delivered papers to Yang Cheng-fu" is not much of a lineage. However if you can say that my teacher was made a lineage holder by one of the original Taiji family members, then at least you can be fairly sure that you are learning an authentic family form. Is that important? Depends on whether you think it is important to learn an authentic form, or a form that someone merely made up and called Tai Chi. Will it make your Taiji any better. Probably not. The difficulty comes when teachers change or misinterpret what they were taught. Cheng Man-ching was a student of Yang Cheng-fu, but so changed Yang's form that it can no longer be called Yang style. Tung Ying-chieh (another of Yangs students) did the same. (Nothing wrong with either of these forms by the way). Fu Zhong Wen on the other hand still taught the form as Yang transmitted it (as did Chen Wei Ming). The two sons Yang Zhen Ji and Yang Zhen Duo do the same. Deviation from the teachings of any of these people will change the form and as Yang Cheng-fu himself said "That is it. The form cannot be improved upon. To add or remove anything will destroy the essence of the form". Just my personal view.
> 
> Regarda


 
First, I am not trying to make a case against lineage nor am I saying it is a bad thing. However I do not believe that just because there is good lineage, or good claimed lineage, that there is necessarily good Tai chi. The student does get good bragging rights, but not necessarily good Tai Chi. 

And I do believe that if you learn from someone 3 or 4 generations removed from the root family it is very possible to get both very good and very bad tai chi, but no bragging rights.

But let me say this, if lineage is all that matters for good tai chi and if that also is to be considered the "Unchanged version" then by that logic the Yang style of Yang Chien-hou was better than Yang Cheng-fu, because Yang Cheng Fu changed it by removing much of the fajing. 

Also by that same logic Chen is better than Yang and Yang is better than Sun, since Chen came first and Sun came last. 

 Or that my teacher's tai chi is not as good as Sifu Chu in Boston because my teacher learned from Tung Ying Chieh and Sifu Chu learned from Yang Cheng Fu's oldest son. 

And it is saying that My Tai Chi would be better than my teachers if I went and learned from Yang Zhenduo. 

As for learning from someone who once delivered papers to Yang Cheng-fu, I would have to agree that person would not be a good choice for a Tai Chi teacher. 

However with that being said Yang Lu-Chan was not originally an inside student of Chen Chang-Hsing, he originally learned by watching from a distance, without the knowledge of Chen.

And there are many who do not believe that Chang Man-Ching learned from Yang Cheng fu. Some say he learned from Chang Yin-Ling who learned from Yang Chen Fu, but that is an entirely different discussion.


----------



## dmax999 (Jan 16, 2006)

First my question... would an MBA from Harvard be any better then one from University of Tennesse?  In some cases yes, but only if you care about the difference.

I learn from a CMC lineage.  Now East Winds may probably not think much of what I learned, he is a traditional Yang guy and doesn't care for the changes by CMC (Only picking on East Winds becasue I know he is a traditional Yang guy and it is important to him).  I however at this point think CMC made imporvements on Yang style so learning from his lineage is more important to me.  Us two think lineage is important to us, we just think different lineages are better and there is nothing wrong with that.

It is important if you know what the differences are and they are important to you.  Traditional Yang and CMC are two of the best examples of lineage.  Both are great, both are obviously differnt, and if you decide one is better then the other then lineage is very important.  If you don't know enough to be able to even spot the differences, who cares?

Whats really import though is who the 3 or 4 guys from the original you are interested in are.  If they are not up to snuff then the lineage doesn't matter at all.  Or else they may be better then the original (As in CMC in my view) then you actually want the "non-perfect" lineage.

The real hope is that you become good enough to stand on your own knowledge where lineage doesn't matter anymore.  How many people actually know Yip-Mans Wing Chun teacher (Im sure there are some here, but you get the point)?  He stood on his own merits without question.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jan 16, 2006)

dmax999 said:
			
		

> First my question... would an MBA from Harvard be any better then one from University of Tennesse? In some cases yes, but only if you care about the difference.
> 
> I learn from a CMC lineage. Now East Winds may probably not think much of what I learned, he is a traditional Yang guy and doesn't care for the changes by CMC (Only picking on East Winds becasue I know he is a traditional Yang guy and it is important to him). I however at this point think CMC made imporvements on Yang style so learning from his lineage is more important to me. Us two think lineage is important to us, we just think different lineages are better and there is nothing wrong with that.
> 
> ...


 
Great Post, I agree. 

Yip-Man, a great example. Yip Man's student was Bruce Lee, but Bruce started Jeet Kune Do, and stood on his own. 


If you talk to Chen Zengli, he says Chen style is better than all other Tai Chi styles. If you talk to my teacher he says that Yang Style (my teacer learned from Tung who learned from Yang), is better than Chen because Chen is to low.


----------



## East Winds (Jan 17, 2006)

I think we are all basically singing from the same song sheet here and I agree with all that dmax999 says. By the way I don't disparage CMC form, I think it is a very effective fighting form.  Here in the UK it is probably the most popular form taught, therefore I know and have worked with many of its leading teachers in the UK. (I've even had the privilege of pushing with William CC Chen). I just don't like people calling it Yang style! The CMC lineage is a perfect example  of a new lineage being created, resulting from a senior student changing his teachers form. And I agree, that if you are happy being taught by a teacher who made up his own the form, that is OK. The difference with CMC and Tung Ying Chieh was that theyhad the advantage of training with (and therefore retained much of the original essence) the originator of the form. So it is with the CMC lineage now. Incidentally I have also experienced Tung's Fast Form (from a lineaged teacher) and thoroughly enjoyed it.

Best wishes


----------



## arnisador (Jan 17, 2006)

Some people are interested in the art for history's sake. Many who study iaido would be much less interested in a "modern" sword art. Like those who recreate Civil War battles, they are in it for the historical accuracy because those times fascinate them. Then, the lineage is an historical connection that is important to them!

I have just started to study a combined trapping based system that melds together ideas from Wing Chun, Jun Fan Gung Fu, Jeet Kune Do, Silat, and Eskrima and Kali. It's interesting and effective. But we occasionally do traditional Wing Chun too. I get a kick out of that because it's a classical art. Both are good for me! I respect those preserving the art of naginata-jutsu even though it's now impractical. Like ballet, one does not want  to lose those arts. There, lineage is valuable.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jan 17, 2006)

Historically lineage is important and to some to have a teacher with a good lineage is very important. But does that lineage make the Tai Chi better? 

I like the idea that my teacher has a good lineage, and he is very skilled. But if he decided to teach to make money, he would have to teach less detail to gain more students. And there are teachers out there, with a good lineage, that do exactly that. 

With Chinese martial arts you also have a cultural lineage as well. More Americans tend to go to a kung fu/Tai Chi schools run by someone from China than run by someone from America. 

My first Tai Chi teacher, if you see him do Traditional Yang or Traditional Chen it looks exactly like what you see done by the Chen Family or the Yang family, but he didnt learn from them. He did learn Tai Chi and Kung Fu in China, but he learned it in a Chinese University and he did not learn the traditional forms. 

He had more Tai Chi and Kung Fu students than anyone else in the area, just because he was from China and new how to advertise. Meanwhile the Kung fu school just down the street (Wing Chun) had few students, the Sifu was American. It did not matter that his teacher was one of Yip Mans sons, he was not Chinese. His martial lineage was good, but his cultural lineage was not. I will also add you were a whole lot more likely to get hurt training at teh Wing Chun School than my former teacher's school.

My current Tai Chi teacher has fewer students than my former teacher, my current teacher is from China and is a student of Tung Ying-Chieh. But he does not advertise, does not make training tapes, and does not publicize his lineage. But his Tai Chi is far better than my former teacher. 

But I am still not convinced that a good lineage means good Tai Chi. I am not trying to make a case against lineage, I think it is good to know where your art came from. I just am not convinced that it is how a teacher should be judged.


----------



## East Winds (Jan 17, 2006)

Xue Sheng,
"I just am not convinced that it is how a teacher should be judged."
Is that not the whole point. A lineaged teacher HAS been judged and by his peers who consider him good enough to continue to transmit the lineage. Although I study with a lineaged teacher, I do not and could not claim lineage! I began studying Taiji with  a Chinese so called Master. It was only after a few years that I realised I had been duped! If your teacher is lineaged and more importantly can prove it, you can guarantee that what he is teaching is correct. However I also believe that lineage can only be conferred by a family member. Studying with a lineaged teacher on the other hand is no guarantee that your own Taiji is any good!!!!

Best wishes


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jan 17, 2006)

East Winds said:
			
		

> Xue Sheng,
> "I just am not convinced that it is how a teacher should be judged."
> Is that not the whole point. A lineaged teacher HAS been judged and by his peers who consider him good enough to continue to transmit the lineage. Although I study with a lineaged teacher, I do not and could not claim lineage! I began studying Taiji with a Chinese so called Master. It was only after a few years that I realised I had been duped! If your teacher is lineaged and more importantly can prove it, you can guarantee that what he is teaching is correct. However I also believe that lineage can only be conferred by a family member. Studying with a lineaged teacher on the other hand is no guarantee that your own Taiji is any good!!!!
> 
> Best wishes


 
I think I missed something here, judged how?

I have a tendency to get overly wordy so it may very likely be my fault.

I am basically saying, and I think it is close to what you have said, lineage is good, but it does not guarantee a good teacher.

I had somewhat of the same experience as you had, with my former teacher. He knew only form and no depth. He was, as the Chinese call, a flower fist. 

He has since claimed a lineage; I am told, to Chen style. However Chen Zhengli who followed that with, he never learned from my family told me this."

To make a case for lineage, I truly wish I could study with the Chen family in China, and if he were here more often than once a year, with Chen Zengli. I was very impressed with his knowledge, skill, attitude and personality. 

My teacher is also very good and I do not doubt his skill in any way. He has however changed his approach and focus of late. But that is another story.

I do not mean to say anything against lineage, I am just mot convinced that lineage alone makes a good Tai Chi Teacher. 

Now with that being said, it is time for me to go to Tai Chi.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jan 18, 2006)

East Winds

I see what I posted last night is not showing up, so I apologize for this extremely long reply.

*From last night:*
I think I missed something here, judged how?

I have a tendency to get overly wordy so it may very likely be my fault.

I am basically saying, and I think it is close to what you have said, lineage is good, but it does not guarantee a good teacher.

I had somewhat of the same experience as you had, with my former teacher. He knew only form and no depth. He was, as the Chinese call, a flower fist. 

He has since claimed a lineage; I am was told he claimed Chen style. However Chen Zhenglei, who told me this, followed that with, he never learned from my family."

To make a case for lineage, I truly wish I could study with the Chen family in China, and if he were here more often than once a year, with Chen Zengli. I was very impressed with his knowledge, skill, attitude and personality. 

My teacher is also very good and I do not doubt his skill in any way. He has however changed his approach and focus of late. But that is another story.

I do not mean to say anything against lineage, I am just not convinced that lineage alone makes a good Tai Chi Teacher. 

Now with that being said, it is time for me to go to Tai Chi.

*From Today:*
I was thinking about this lineage stuff last night and what you had said and what arnisador had said and I started to wonder, what other Martial arts are so obsessed about lineage? 

Most martial arts you may know your teachers teacher, but that is as far as it goes, if it goes that far.

I started training, back when dinosaurs roamed the earth,  Jujitsu. Although I knew my teacher was very good and had received his Black belt in Japan, I did not know the names of his teachers, I knew he also studied Karate, Judo and dabbled in Kung Fu when he was younger, but all I really new was he was a 3rd degree black belt in Jujitsu. My second teacher taught Tae kwon do,  I had know idea who his teacher was, all I knew was he was highly skilled and was born and trained in Korea. 

My next teacher was Tai Chi / Kung fu, from China, and he did not speak much of lineage, sense he did not have one, until much later he began to claim one that was not true. 

My current teacher has never spoken of his teacher without being asked and I never knew his teachers teacher was Yang Cheng-Fu, until one student came to class one day wearing a Yang Cheng-Fu t-shirt and my teacher made a comment that the guy on the shirt looks just like his teachers teacher.

I originally found out his teacher was Tung Ying-Chieh after another student told me and I asked my teacher about it. 

It was obvious that Chen Zhenglei was from the Chen family, but he did not speak of his teacher, other than his uncle, and he only mentioned it once. I found out who his uncle was when I read one of his books. 

So is it that the good teachers with a good lineage are not just standing on the shoulders of their teacher, but we, as students are making a big deal out of it so we can judge our Tai Chi against others, or as I mentioned before, to have bragging rights?


----------



## Andrew Green (Jan 18, 2006)

Here's a article on lineage http://www.24fightingchickens.com/2005/10/23/the-shotokan-family-treehouse/

Shotokan is used, but I think most of the points could be made filling in whatever style you like.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jan 18, 2006)

Andrew

That's a great article. 

It seems to answer my question about bragging rights. 

As Americans, are we more interested in "pedigree" as the article says, than quality?

It would appear so from the article.


----------



## Andrew Green (Jan 18, 2006)

Xue Sheng said:
			
		

> As Americans,



Who you calling American?


----------



## arnisador (Jan 18, 2006)

Andrew Green said:
			
		

> Who you calling American?



Tsk. Some people can't take a compliment!


----------



## Flying Crane (Jan 18, 2006)

Andrew Green said:
			
		

> Here's a article on lineage http://www.24fightingchickens.com/2005/10/23/the-shotokan-family-treehouse/
> 
> Shotokan is used, but I think most of the points could be made filling in whatever style you like.


 
That's a pretty good article.  I have often thought this way, but this is a pretty good expression of it.  Thanks for sharing it.


----------



## dmax999 (Jan 18, 2006)

Tai Chi is not the only art that claims "lineage", it is however one of the few that can make the claims that can be easily proven or disproven.  If I start doing the form CMC style and claim traditional Yang lineage I am instantly found out.  It is also EASY to trace teachers back to ones of historical importance, not taking much more then a short time looking or making calls will prove it one way or the other.  Tai Chi is just a very well documented system.

Other systems are far more "secretive".  It would take years in training in competing lineages to truly learn the differences between the two, that is if you even have the ability to do both.  In addition most teachers claim their teacher was from a foreign country where records and language suddenly make checking them out difficult to impossible.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jan 18, 2006)

Sorry, I should never assume. "Americans and non-Asian born non-Americans" or I could use the, polite, Chinese term, "westerners".

That article does make my point, most unfortunately.


----------



## East Winds (Jan 19, 2006)

Andrew,

Yes, that is a very good article indeed. I agree with the main thrust of what he says, but his assertion that "Not everything they did was the best way to do things, in my opinion". I think that reflects why we have such a low level of taiji in the west and such a plethora of low level teachers!

Xue Sheng

I know what you are saying about teachers not mentioning their lineage. Mine does not talk about it (or even write about it on his website) and only talks about the people who conferred the lineage when he is telling an anecdote! I think one of the main differences about lineage is whether a teacher "claims" a lineage or in fact whether he/she has had a lineage conferred. I talk about lineage to my students, only to confirm that what I am teaching, is what the Yang Family are teaching China today.

Yang Cheng-fu said "The greatest danger is in introducing one's personal innovations and passing on errors as true transmissions. The true transmission of principles and applications is easily lost, even to the point of obscuring the original intention of former Masters".

Very best wishes


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jan 19, 2006)

When I use to teach I did not talk about lineage either. I have been considering teaching again, but I do need to talk to my Sifu first. 

I guess what I have figured out from all the responses to my question is that lineage is important, however it can be abused, over used or fraudulently claimed. 

And that most good teachers do not rely on the fact that they have a lineage. They learned Tai Chi because they wanted to learn Tai Chi, not because they wanted to say they learned from some specific teacher. 

My teacher once told a story of a senior student of his teacher, when my teacher was just beginning. I will not go into the whole story, but he said that you could tell by watching him that he was doing Tai Chi because he loved Tai Chi, and there was nothing else.

However not having that lineage does not necessarily mean that the person is bad a Tai Chi or is inferior to someone that has a lineage. I have talked to people from China who have said that if you want to learn real Tai Chi in China you have to go to a teacher that isn't famous. That does not rule out someone from one of the Tai Chi families, it rules out the most famous members of the family. There is another reason for this statement. If you are Chinese in China and you want to learn Chen style, for example, you will not start out with Chen Zhenglei as your teacher, he teaches only advanced students, The same goes for all of the families left in China. 

Every Tai Chi Family has changed the root. Chen has old and new form, Yang family changed Chen, Yang Cheng Fu changed Yang, Wu and Wu/Hao also changed Yang and Sun changed Wu/Hao, Cheng Man-Ching changed Yang. But yet all are considered good Tai Chi.

My Teacher's Teacher studied Wu/Hao and then changed to Yang, but I see little difference between Yang Family Tai Chi and what I have learned. The only difference that I see is that there are 2 fast forms from Sifu Tung where traditional Yang has 1. 

Thank you to all for all the responses


----------



## Laoshi77 (Jan 19, 2006)

Hello, everyone.

Personally i can see the good and bad about this particular discussion.

It was said earlier that 'pedigree' is important to some people more so than other things, in that sense it is subjective. For instance i could say my Taijiquan teacher studied in China and her teacher was the inheritor of a private tradition; how would that relate to this discussion? If nobody had heard of the master, then is the fact less important? Personally, i know how respected he was, in China, but you might not have, in this sense it is a relative fact.

On the other hand, it should be said that practising Taijiquan with all the correct principles is the important thing.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jan 20, 2006)

Correct pedigree is very important to some and not as important to others. But what does that pedigree actually mean based on the origin and history of Tai Chi?

Before I type my self into oblivion here it is good to know that the current 5 families of Tai Chi are those families recognized by the government of the peoples Republic of China that does not mean that there are not other families.

There is a lot of stuff here and I have tried to provide the links where some of it comes from

Tai Chi Family Tree
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tai_chi#Family_tree

Yang Style Tai Chi
http://www.chebucto.ns.ca/Philosophy/Taichi/index.html

Depending on which origin of Tai Chi you believe, and I have found 3 or 4 different ones, it could make a difference in how you feel about lineage. If you believe that Chang San Feng is the originator of Tai Chi at the end of the Sung Dynasty (960-1279), and Chen Chang-hsiang learned Tai Chi between 1771  1853, and that the 5 Tai Chi families are the only proper lineage and the only good teachers come from them, then what happened for the 492 years between Chang and Chen?

Chang supposedly taught at the Shaolin temple, whatever happened to his students?

Another similar version 
http://www.8step.com/taichi/history.html
Chang Sen Feng returned to the Shaolin temple where his new internal art (often called Wu Tang Boxing) was taught to Chang Sun Chi. At this point, the art consisted of only three techniques, with many fighting applications, and was called Lao San Dao (Old Three Cuts). Chang Sun Chi in turn taught Wang Tsung Yueh, who changed the art by developing it into 13 postures. The modified forms were taught to Jiang Fa, who later journeyed to the nearby Chen village and taught Chen Wang Ting. 

If you believe the Chen family version that says they are the originators of Tai Chi and that is what makes Sun, Hao, Wu and Yang good lineages, what about all of the students that came form Chen, Yang and Wu that were not named Chen, Yang and Wu.

lineages show sometimes different things and there are other non-tai chi family people involved.

Chang San Feng - Wang Tsung Yueh - Chen Wang Ting

Chang San Feng - Chang Sung-chi - Wang Tsung Yueh - Chen Wang Ting & Chiang Fa  

Chiang Fa - Chen Chang-hsing

The Tai Chi family tree, after the Chen family, has all sorts of people in it that are not named Chen, Yang, Wu. Wu/Hao, Sun 

There is a "Li Jing Ting" that leads to the Hu Lei School of Tai Chi, Li was a student of Chen Ching-ping

There is also a "Li I-yu" (Si style) between "Wu Yu-Xiang" and "Hao Wei-Chen"

Chen Fa-Ke had a student named Feng Zhiqiang

Chen Zhao-pi taught students named Wang Xian, and Zhu Tain-cai

Yang Lu-chan's student Wu Quan-yu taught Wang Mao-zhai, Chi Ko-Ch'en and Chang Yun Ting, As a matter of fact Wu style lineage goes through several people that are not from the Wu family.

Yang Family Tai Chi lineage is loaded with non-yang family students as far back as Yang Lu-chan teaching Wang 

Lan-ting, Wu Yu-Xiang (Wu Style) and Li I-yu (Si style)

There are also stories about Yang Cheng-fu's brother Yang Shao-hao being better at Tai Chi than Yang Cheng-fu, but Shao-hao was a very abusive teacher and hard to learn from. 

Basically it comes down to that there are 5 families recognized by the Chinese government as Tai Chi families Chen, Yang, Wu, Wu/Hao, Sun. There are other families of Tai Chi, just not recognized by the PRC. 

There is one in Boston, however the family name escapes me. It is taught by Bo Sim Mark (Bo Sim Mak) [http://www.taichi-arts.com/index.shtml]. She was the inheritor of this family Tai Chi, and it was not her family. I would not dare compare the Tai Chi I do to her, nor do I think that because my teacher's lineage goes to Yang Cheng fu that I would have the slightest chance of matching her or defeating her at push hands or San Shou. I am fairly certain if I approached her with that attitude and challenged her I would be the recipient of a pretty good beating. 

Now my style is Yang and the direct lineage is supposedly;
Chan Chang-hsing - Yang Lu-chan - Yang Chien-hou - Yang Cheng-fu - Tung Ying Chih - Sifu Chu - me.

I think that a teacher that has a good lineage is probably good of the Tai Chi he or she practices, but that lineage does not guarantee a good Tai Chi Teacher (example: Yang Shao-hao)

However a Teacher that does not have a 5 familys lineage has a good chance of being equally as good or bad as a teacher from one of those lineages. 

Ultimately they all go back to Chen, Chang or both.


----------



## Gaoguy (Jan 21, 2006)

Sifu Mark is more a performance artist than martial artist. Lineage is only important if you don't have one.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jan 21, 2006)

Good point about lineage and I think I alluded to that. Those that are good and have lineage or pedigree, tend not to talk about it much.

However, I do remember reading an article about Bo Sim Mak many years ago that did say she was the inheritor of a family style of Tai Chi. However the article could be wrong, and I am old so it is possible that my memory is failing me.

Also I would like to know how you define performance artist. Was she trained in Chinese opera? That to me is a performance artist. I have a very good friend that came from the Guangzhou opera, and her performance kung fu is quite good, but as she has told me, the main difference is she was trained to miss. She also had a fellow actor that was going to come to America and teach Kung Fu, her response was he was crazy, he doesn't know Kung Fu.

Also what version of the origin of Tai Chi do you subscribe to?

Let me change the example then, also near Boston, he claims no lineage, and he is marketing himself very well and it is a business to him. 

Yang Jwing Ming, I have had the opportunity to do push hands with and Dr Yang, he is good and his Qin Na is very good. I do not necessarily like the Yang style form that he teaches, but he does know application. This could also be because his first martial art was not Tai Chi, but White Crane Kung fu.

Also as a side note, as to lineage meaning or not meaning good. I once had the chance to do push hands with someone who learned Yang Style Tai Chi in Taiwan, this was month after I did Push hands with Dr Yang. The only thing I know about this gentleman from Taiwan is he learned Tai Chi with Dr Yang in Taiwan. I never saw his form, but his push hands and applications were excellent. He was very good and fajing, I found that out the hard way, but I do not know a thing about his lineage other then his teacher was the same teacher as Dr Yang's. 

He may have had a good lineage, I am not aware of any of the Yang family or Yang family disciples going to Taiwan, but that does not mean he had no recent connection to Yang family. 

Note: Yang Jwing-Ming (YMAA) does not claim any relation to the Yang Tai Chi Family.

Lineage is good, but it is not the guarantee that you have a good teacher.

Not having lineage is just that, you have no recent claim to a family connection, but it does not mean you are a bad teacher or bad at the form. 

But still there is the matter that the reason we know of the 5 families is that those are the families the Chinese government approves (endorses, if you will), There are other Tai Chi families.

And I guess my original question is still unanswered after all,

How important is lineage?


----------



## Gaoguy (Jan 21, 2006)

Hmmm. Mr. Yang is indeed a White Crane guy so...I've heard he's a very nice guy. WC is a different body method. 
With Sifu Mark, I studied with her for a good while, it's performance. I taught her classes when she was in Wuhan many years ago. She really works the basics.


----------



## East Winds (Jan 22, 2006)

I have a rather old book by Master Bow-Sim Mark "Wushu Basic Training" in which it states 
"Later she studied Yeung style Tai Chi, Wu style Tai Chi and Combined Tai Chi Chuan from some of the most famous masters in China. After completing the standard set of courses offered by the National Wushu Institute, Master Mark became an Instructor herself. She later followed one of the most authoritative masters of Tai Chi Chuan in China, Master Wing-Fay Fu."

I think she is pretty good, but then I have only seen her perform on video.

Best wishes


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jan 22, 2006)

Thank You for the information. All I know about Sifu Mak is what I have read, and the article did say Fu style. 

I did very little training with Dr Yang, push hands and Qin na. But I did like the training. 

I also now know part of his lineage.

Dr Yang first Yang Style Tai Chi teacher was "Kao Tao" after that he trained with "Li Mao-ching", and "Wilson Chen"

"Li Mao-ching" learned from "Han Ching-Tan" and "Wilson Chen" learned Tai chi from "Zhang Xiang-San"

"Han Ching-Tan" learned from "Yang Cheng Fu". Han Ching-Tan was also a teacher of Long Fist

I have not yet found out who taught Kao Tao or Chen. 

But now there are some that say Dr Yang is not that good and he is just selling a product. But now he has a direct connection to Yang Cheng-Fu. Would this make a difference to those who say he is just a salesman?

I personally felt he was very good, the short time I studied with him.


----------



## Gaoguy (Jan 22, 2006)

Fu style was developed by Fu Chensong, the founder of Fu style bagua. It is based on the yang style form, with Fu bagua movements, although Fu's first style was Chen taiji.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jan 23, 2006)

All of the current 5 tai chi familys first style was originally something else, with the possible exception of Chen. 

Which comes back to lineage and/or pedigree.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jan 23, 2006)

Yang Cheng-fu's older brother Yang Shao Hou taught the traditional old frame Yang style, Yang Cheng Fu changed it to what we know today as traditional Yang Style.

Yang Shao Hou had fewer students and he was a much harder person to train with.

His students
Yang Shao Hou 
    ->  Chen Pan Ling 
    ->  Yang Zhen Sheng 
    ->  Hou Chi Kwang 
    ->  Tian Zhao Lin
    ->  Hsiung Yang Ho 
    ->  Wu Tu Nan 

Would leaning from one of these people be a better lineage or pedigree since it is closer to the root?


----------



## Gaoguy (Jan 24, 2006)

Chen Panling taught a synthetic form based on his study with Yang, Wu Jianquan, and his studies in Chen village. My teacher learned this from Hong Yixiang who learned it from Chen.


----------

