# Erle Montaigue and Tai Chi



## bigfootsquatch

I know Erle has been discussed some here, but I haven't found a definitive answer for his yang cheng fu and yang lu chan forms.

He claims his yang cheng fu form is the version that chen wei ming taught. Can anyone confirm this?

Do you think that his YLC form is a knock off of Chen Pan Ling's form, or is it his own creation, or the real thing?

Anything about Erle's credibility is welcome. 

Thanks!


----------



## Xue Sheng

I will have to get back to you on that. Possibly someone else will be able to answer your question before I do.

It is my understanding that Erle has skill but I have my doubts about a direct line to Luchan, but I could be wrong. 

The only thing I am 100% certain of is that Erle did not learn it form Luchan.


----------



## Xue Sheng

I found a link that is from Erle http://homepage.ntlworld.com/b.udall/taiji_history.htm and he put down his lineage but I think he may be missing a step in the Chengfu line. I am not aware that Shou Zhong ever taught any westerners and never taught outside of Nanjing, Kowloon and Hong Kong, but I could be wrong here. And if it is Shou Zhong he has the years of his birth and death wrong, it is 1911 - 1986 not 1909-1985. 

Also as far as I know Erle claims not to be able to read or speak Chinese and I do not think Shou Zhong spoke anything but Chinese. 

Other than that I got these, you be the judge

http://www.shenwu.com/discus/messages/23/1611.html?1068137553

Chang Yiu-Chun 
http://www.shenwu.com/discus/messages/23/1611.html?1068137553

http://www.taichiaustralia.com/Deadly and Deceptive Hands.htm

Note on his lineage on the web

Yang Kin-hou 1839-1917 (Guessing he means Yang Yu aka Yang Ban Hou actual birth - death 1837 - 1892)

Yang Sau-chung 1909-1985 (guessing here he means Yang Zhen Ming aka Shou Zhong actual birth - death 1911 - 1986)


----------



## bigfootsquatch

His "resume" sounds a little too good to be true. That's for sure, but what do you think of the actual forms he does. Is his Yang Cheng Fu form any good? What about his "yang lu chan" form? I can usually spot the phonies, but his is so different...that I'm not sure whether he really knows his stuff, or is just a complete fraud!


----------



## TaiChiTJ

Here is Master Erle Montaigue acknowledging that his form and Chen Pan Ling's form are essentially the same. 


http://www.taiji-qigong.co.uk/Articles/old_yang.htm


----------



## Xue Sheng

bigfootsquatch said:


> His "resume" sounds a little too good to be true. That's for sure, but what do you think of the actual forms he does. Is his Yang Cheng Fu form any good? What about his "yang lu chan" form? I can usually spot the phonies, but his is so different...that I'm not sure whether he really knows his stuff, or is just a complete fraud!


 
I do not believe I have ever seen Erle's Yang style either the alleged Luchan or alleged Chengfu. But I would be interested in seeing it, particularly the Luchan stuff. Is there a link to a video somewhere?


----------



## Xue Sheng

TaiChiTJ said:


> Here is Master Erle Montaigue acknowledging that his form and Chen Pan Ling's form are essentially the same.
> 
> 
> http://www.taiji-qigong.co.uk/Articles/old_yang.htm


 
Interesting

Chen Pan Ling
http://www.chenpanling.com/CPL.htm

Chen Pan Ling apparently learned Taiji fron "Li Tsun I" and "Liu Tsai-Chen"
http://www.chenpanling.com/systems.htm


----------



## Steel Tiger

I did a seminar with him in the early '90s about fa ching and dim mak in the internal Chinese arts.  He certainly seemed to have a wealth of knowledge, much of which I have since confirmed as legitimate.

I don't know much about his Taiji, but he did demonstrate his Bagua form for us and it was pretty much classical Bagua.  My teacher and I were both a little put out by his rather brusque dismissal of the animal-form baguas, one of which we practice.

Credibility?  I don't know.  Some swear by him, others consider him suspect.  His name tends to make one lean toward suspicion.  The Earl of Montaigue is a famous personage from British history.  I have a feeling that Earle may also have done some professional wrestling down here is Australia.


----------



## bigfootsquatch

Xue Sheng said:


> I do not believe I have ever seen Erle's Yang style either the alleged Luchan or alleged Chengfu. But I would be interested in seeing it, particularly the Luchan stuff. Is there a link to a video somewhere?


 
There are instructional videos on his site for the full Cheng Fu form, and the 1st section of Lu Chan. He also had ebooks for the full Luchan form. Now they are hardback only, but if you want the ebooks then contact me on 
AIM: brian24791
MSN:bigfootsquatch@hotmail.com
(the owner of the ebook has full permission to distribute them so dont worry about copyright)

or send me a PM

For the instructional videos:
http://www.taiji-qigong.co.uk/Books.html

As for actual demos, there isnt a demo of him doing the yang cheng fu form that I know of
other than a small clip here 



#  which is suppose to be his small frame version, not the version he teaches in the instructional above.

There is a video demo of him doing the 1st 3rd and last 3rd of his Yang Lu Chan form. 

1st 3rd- 



 
They are done at a "higher level" than the instructional video shows though.

The final 3rd I will have to send to you. It's no longer up.

Tell me what you think!
Thanks


----------



## Xue Sheng

This is what I found, but I have not had time to watch them.

Tai CHi: Old Yang Style: Part 1: Learn for Free: Montaigue




 
Part 2




 
Part 3
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-5a0Y0FAzQ&mode=related&search=

Part 4




 
I don't know about the validity but his Chinese pronunciations are horrible


----------



## bigfootsquatch

Yeah those the are the same videos found on his site for the 1st 3rd of his yang lu chan form. You should be able to find whe whole Yang Cheng Fu form of his on youtube also.


----------



## East Winds

How could you have any belief in a man who does a character assasination of Yang Cheng Fu  http://www.taiji-qigong.co.uk/Articles/demise.html and but continues to teach Cheng Fu's form for money!!!! :erg:

If Mr. Monatgue considers that Yang Cheng Fu destroyed Tai Chi it illustrates to me at least that he has no understanding whatever of Cheng Fu's form.

Very best wishes


----------



## oxy

East Winds said:


> How could you have any belief in a man who does a character assasination of Yang Cheng Fu  http://www.taiji-qigong.co.uk/Articles/demise.html and but continues to teach Cheng Fu's form for money!!!! :erg:



Well, I would start judging him by the quality of his Taiji's combat and whatever effectiveness.

Unlike what most people believe, most people are simply not good enough to judge a person by what they say. Basically, being a hypocrite does not exclude oneself from being able to excel at something (or at least be good at it).

Obviously, I don't know enough about the specifics of Taiji to judge how good Erle's is, but I still think it's wise to judge a person's knowledge of Taiji by... their knowledge of Taiji. And I'm sure everyone will agree with me that it's not possible to do that when a single statement, no matter how ill-founded, cannot display a person's whole understanding.

What's that called when a person is demonised by one little statement? I think it's called "politics".



> If Mr. Monatgue considers that Yang Cheng Fu destroyed Tai Chi it illustrates to me at least that he has no understanding whatever of Cheng Fu's form.



But he has high regards for Yang Luchan's forms. Surely a man has a right to prefer a predecessor's version of the art? Certainly, the arguments he puts up in favour of Luchan's forms can quickly devolve to "more older/pristine/original" is better (determined by the level of skill in the rebuttals to his points), but is anyone here ready to say that Chengfu's version and not Luchan's is the absolute best (of Yang Taiji at least)?


----------



## Xue Sheng

oxy said:


> Well, I would start judging him by the quality of his Taiji's combat and whatever effectiveness


 
Actually Erle did pretty much attack Chengfu based on what he learned from teachers he claims to have trained with that I am not entirely sure he trained with. And what he too had heard

Like I said it is my understanding Erle has skill but I am not sure I believe all of his claims and although in his article about Chengfu there are some point I agree with, I am not sure that Erle is not putting himself in a position of judging someone else based on what he has heard. 

By Erle's own admission he cannot read or speak Chinese so he may be pretty much basing it on what he heard. But then he could be comparing it to his alleged Luchan form which in reality, if it is from Luchan, is actually from a student of Shouhou and Shouhou was Luchan's grandson.

EDIT

My only question here now is WHY IS EVERYBODY SO DARN AFRAID OF SHOUHOU???

Even the Yang family only recently admitted that a lineage exists where prior they claimed it did not. 

I mean he was an incredibly tough teacher and only had a few students and allegedly killed one he was training because he did not hold back but I mean the guy is dead now how scary can he be.


----------



## Nebuchadnezzar

Xue Sheng said:


> ...The only thing I am 100% certain of is that Erle did not learn it form Luchan.


 
My eyes must be going, I could have sworn I saw him at class!  :ultracool


----------



## Xue Sheng

Nebuchadnezzar said:


> My eyes must be going, I could have sworn I saw him at class! :ultracool


 

:lfao: 


and I thought I was old.


----------



## East Winds

Oxy,

   Thanks for the reply. *Well, I would start judging him by the quality of his Taijis combat and whatever effectiveness* Yes, that would be nice. Where can I see such combat effectiveness out with his videos of working with compliant students?

*Unlike what most people believe, most people are simply not good enough to judge a person by what they say. Basically being a hypocrite does not exclude oneself from being able to excel at something (or at least be good at it)* Im sorry I have absolutely no idea what you are trying to say here. 

*Obviously, I dont know enough about the specifics of Taiji to judge how good Erle is..* But you obviously feel qualified to comment anyway. I usually find that if I dont know about a subject it is better not to say anything.

*Whats that called when a person is demonised by one little statement? I think its called Politics*. No it isnt.  Its called putting your head above the parapet and making statements on a public site to which others can make contrary statements. Its called democracy!!

   I doubt if anyone (even Mr. Montague) knows Lu Chans form. Certainly the current Yang family dont . It was he (Lu Chan) who began to hide the overt Fajing of the Chen form. Yang Cheng fu merely continued the process.. *Surely a man has a right to prefer a predecessors version of the art? *Certainly. But when the claims are made of a lineage which cannot be verified from a disciple who cannot be traced, then how does one know that the form is authentic? Do we just blindly believe and take Erles word for it. Is it not surprising that this Master that Erle found was the only one who knew the Lu Chan form and that no other Lu Chan disciple survived to continue to pass on the form? You dont think that this was extremely fortuitous? *But is anyone here ready to say that Cheng Fus version and not Lu Chans is the absolute best (of yang Taiji at least)? *Let me put it this way. The form of Yang Cheng-fu as transmitted by Yang Shou Zhong, Chen Wei Ming, Tung Ying Cheih, Yang Zhen Ji, and Yang Zhen Duo is infinitely better than the form that Erle Montaigue is claiming to be Lu Chans, at least on the videos I have seen of him.


Finally I think it it very stange to say the least, that if he has such a low opinion of the Yang Cheng fu form, why would he  (1) Continue to teach this form and issue videos of it, and (2) Why would he issue a whole series of videos called "T'ai Chi Intricacies : Yang Cheng-fu Form"? Let me quote from the video blurb "_*In this video, Erle Montaigue teaches the very highest level of T'ai Chi"  *_and this is the form formulated by a man who destoyed Tai Chi? 


I look forward to your constructive comments


Very Best wishes


----------



## dmax999

He just strikes me with too many of those "concidences" that make him the only legitimate teacher.  He learned from a line that can't be traced.  He is the only one teaching the "real stuff".  He teaches the highest level of material.  Etc.  All warning signs of a bad teacher (Not necessaraly a bad one, just warning signs)

I have observed that those who truly are the absolute best in their style don't constantly go around bragging about their lineage all that much.  They stand on their own merrit and don't have to rely on their teachers to give them credibility.

Examples (Style doen't really matter)-
Yip Man
William CC Chen
Leung Shum
The Gracies

He has yet to establish himself as a leader without having to rely on a questionable background and as East Winds points out changing stories.


----------



## oxy

East Winds said:


> Oxy,
> 
> Thanks for the reply. *&#8220;Well, I would start judging him by the quality of his Taiji&#8217;s combat and whatever effectiveness&#8221;* Yes, that would be nice. Where can I see such combat effectiveness out with his videos of working with compliant students?



That's not my problem. My point is that you cannot judge a person's ability from their words. Basically, with the way you chose to rebut my point, you are basically seeking permission to have a default opinion in the absence of evidence.

Imagine that in court. A person is convicted by default because there was no other evidence.

That's justice...

As Carl Sagan once said: "It is alright to say that we do not yet know"; or something like that.



> *&#8220;Obviously, I don&#8217;t know enough about the specifics of Taiji to judge how good Erle is&#8230;..&#8221;* But you obviously feel qualified to comment anyway. I usually find that if I don&#8217;t know about a subject it is better not to say anything.



You know, the more I discuss with you, the more I expect you to do certain things. Do you notice how you suddenly CUT OFF THE REST OF MY POINT? That's called quote mining. Do you realise that my comment about "the specifics of Taiji" does not in anyway invalidate the following from me:

*but I still think it's wise to judge a person's knowledge of Taiji by... their knowledge of Taiji. And I'm sure everyone will agree with me that it's not possible to do that when a single statement, no matter how ill-founded, cannot display a person's whole understanding.*

Does my inexperience at Taiji SUDDENLY invalidate the logically sound point that the only way to judge whether someone is good at something is to test if they are good at something and not if they say what you want to hear (or its converse)?

If I said this instead:

*Obviously, I don&#8217;t know enough about the specifics of Taiji to judge how good Erle is, but I think Erle's Taiji must have substance to it*

...or something along these lines, then your rebuttal would actually make sense. The fact that your rebuttal would NOT make any sense had you quoted me HONESTLY only goes to show you did take me out of context.

You are right that people should not say anything about something they do not know as well. That is why my main point was not about Taiji, but about you making strawman arguments and ad hominem arguments (again).

The honorable thing to do is to admit that you deliberately took my comments out of context, but I don't expect someone like you to...



> *&#8220;What&#8217;s that called when a person is demonised by one little statement? I think it&#8217;s called &#8220;Politics&#8221;*. No it isn&#8217;t.  It&#8217;s called putting your head above the parapet and making statements on a public site to which others can make contrary statements. It&#8217;s called democracy!!



Your effort to put spin on your oversight only serves to show that you are more of a politician than a logical person. Martial arts has no time to waste on politics. And when has martial arts been a democracy?



> I doubt if anyone (even Mr. Montague) knows Lu Chan&#8217;s form. Certainly the current Yang family don&#8217;t . It was he (Lu Chan) who began to &#8220;hide&#8221; the overt Fajing of the Chen form. Yang Cheng fu merely continued the process..



That's irrelevant as far as Erle's own ability is concerned. ie, unless you want to continue your desire to convict a person by default in the absence of evidence...



> *&#8220;Surely a man has a right to prefer a predecessor&#8217;s version of the art?&#8221; *Certainly. But when the claims are made of a lineage which cannot be verified from a disciple who cannot be traced, then how does one know that the form is authentic? Do we just blindly believe and take Erle&#8217;s word for it. Is it not surprising that this &#8220;Master&#8221; that Erle found was the only one who knew the Lu Chan form and that no other Lu Chan disciple survived to continue to pass on the form? You don&#8217;t think that this was extremely fortuitous? *&#8220;But is anyone here ready to say that Cheng Fu&#8217;s version and not Lu Chan&#8217;s is the absolute best (of yang Taiji at least)? *Let me put it this way. The form of Yang Cheng-fu as transmitted by Yang Shou Zhong, Chen Wei Ming, Tung Ying Cheih, Yang Zhen Ji, and Yang Zhen Duo is infinitely better than the form that Erle Montaigue is claiming to be Lu Chan&#8217;s, at least on the videos I have seen of him.



I'm not here to argue about the history of Taiji or the politics of the Yang style.

My whole post was, and continues to be, about your incorrect insinuation that Erle's attack on Yang Chengfu is in any way indicative of Erle's knowledge.

This is not a defence of Erle's behaviour in character assassination (as you call it). That behaviour is absolutely unneeded to make an argument, unless Yang Chengfu did it for money (which I am sure he did not (not sarcasm)).



> Finally I think it it very stange to say the least, that if he has such a low opinion of the Yang Cheng fu form, why would he  (1) Continue to teach this form and issue videos of it, and (2) Why would he issue a whole series of videos called "T'ai Chi Intricacies : Yang Cheng-fu Form"? Let me quote from the video blurb "_*In this video, Erle Montaigue teaches the very highest level of T'ai Chi"  *_and this is the form formulated by a man who destoyed Tai Chi?



I don't really care about that.

I said this before.

Being a hypocrite does not preclude someone from being wrong.

I was never defending Erle, nor was I defending his position. If what you say is true, I would be right after you in the line of people to call him a hypocrite. His logically inept arguments would get similar attention from me.

Once again, you misinterpret my comment about the unsound implications of Erle's credibility as a defence of Erle completely which you further misinterpret as an attack on Taiji itself.

If you want to call Erle an *******, fine. If you want to call him a hypocrite, fine. None of those qualities, no matter how many strawmen you use, does not preclude anyone from being good at something.

Once again, when I get into a discussion with you, I always end up being attacked (ad hominem, mostly). When will you stop putting dishonest argument tactics in place of arguments?


----------



## oxy

Xue Sheng said:


> Actually Erle did pretty much attack Chengfu based on what he learned from teachers he claims to have trained with that I am not entirely sure he trained with. And what he too had heard
> 
> Like I said it is my understanding Erle has skill but I am not sure I believe all of his claims and although in his article about Chengfu there are some point I agree with, I am not sure that Erle is not putting himself in a position of judging someone else based on what he has heard.



I agree. Like I said to EastWinds, Erle's own points does not really compute. I still must repeat, though, that someone's hypocrisy does not preclude them from being good. Conversely, someone being good does not preclude their comments from being completely wrong or illogical.



> By Erle's own admission he cannot read or speak Chinese so he may be pretty much basing it on what he heard. But then he could be comparing it to his alleged Luchan form which in reality, if it is from Luchan, is actually from a student of Shouhou and Shouhou was Luchan's grandson.



Isn't that always the way with those who perceive themselves to be associated with the One True Whatever. I believe that logical fallacy is called "No True Scotsman", coined by Anthony Flew.



> My only question here now is WHY IS EVERYBODY SO DARN AFRAID OF SHOUHOU???
> 
> Even the Yang family only recently admitted that a lineage exists where prior they claimed it did not.
> 
> I mean he was an incredibly tough teacher and only had a few students and allegedly killed one he was training because he did not hold back but I mean the guy is dead now how scary can he be.



I would be scared of anyone who could be not-there one second and there the next...


----------



## exile

oxy said:


> Isn't that always the way with those who perceive themselves to be associated with the One True Whatever. I believe that logical fallacy is called "No True Scotsman", coined by Anthony Flew.



Here's the Wiki linka nice discussion:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

I've been dealing with this one a _lot_ lately without having had a convenient way of referring to itit's nice to have an off-the-shelf dissection of the fallacy. Many thanks!


----------



## oxy

exile said:


> Here's the Wiki link&#8212;a nice discussion:
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman
> 
> I've been dealing with this one a _lot_ lately without having had a convenient way of referring to it&#8212;it's nice to have an off-the-shelf dissection of the fallacy. Many thanks!



Wikipedia has a huge category devoted to discussions of logical fallacies.

It's an amazing resource. Many show when an argument, which is normally fallacious, is not fallacious in a different circumstance. The No True Scotsman article is such an example.

People should take some time to read all of them. It didn't take long for me, and I hate reading and also a slow reader. It really helps with understanding peoples' points of view; way beyond being able to simply spot a fallacy: it actually helps a lot to see past peoples' wording to see what they were wanting to say in spite of what they said.


----------



## Jade Tigress

*ATTENTION ALL USERS

Please keep the conversation polite and respectful.

Pamela Piszczek
MT Super Moderator*


----------



## bigfootsquatch

Did anyone actually watch the videos I posted so they could give me an answer regarding Erle's tai chi?


----------



## Xue Sheng

bigfootsquatch said:


> Did anyone actually watch the videos I posted so they could give me an answer regarding Erle's tai chi?


 
Sorry got off topic a bit there.

I did not like this one





And I do not know what to tell you about the alleged Luchan form since as far as I am concerned I have not seen a Luchan form to compare it too.

And to be honest it is not a form from Luchan if it is the old Yang form, it is a form from a student of Shou Hou and it likely had at least some minor changes between Erle and Luchan.

But some of his fajing moves look more like shaking his hands than actual fajing, but that is easy to say from watching a video in person it is possible that Erle could demonstrate it and prove me wrong.

It was my understanding that the old form was higher and Erle's form is higher and the old form was faster and Erle's form is not faster. But then again I am right back to I have never seen a person do this form that could be proven a student of Shou Hou or his Uncle Banhou. 

To say Luchan is in my opinion not exactly correct. Then I can claim that my teacher's teacher's teacher's teacher's teacher is who I am learning Xingyi and Yang style from so in the case of Taiji of could say I am doing the taiji of Jainhou and if I continue Chen as I think I might I can say I leaned form however taught Chen Fake. And Xingyi would go back further. To me to me for him to say he does the Taiji of Luchan is a sales pitch, it may be the taiji of a student of Shou Hou. To be honest I WISH I could find someone that could teach me the style of Shou Hou. 

As for his Chengfu form, I feel it is to high and to stiff (and it appears that he locks his knee joint in places and that is wrong - but I emphasize "APPEARS" this is also sometimes hard to see in a video), but then I also think the clips I see of Yang Jun are to high and to stiff. My lineage came form Tung Ying Chieh which is a little different, lower and a bit more rounded.


----------



## East Winds

Oxy,

   Why do you continue to think that my comments in response to your posts are a personal attack on yourself? 

   If everyone on this board held the same opinion, there would be no point in having the "discussion" board at all. 

   Quite simply the whole thrust of my argument is, if Mr. Montaigue has such a low opinion of Cheng fu (and clearly he does if he blames him for the demise of present day taiji) then why does he continue to teach and make teaching videos of that form? Nowhere have I made any criticism of Erle Montaigues ability or knowledge of the internal arts. If you think I have then please illustrate that by direct quotes from my posts. 

   On the point of my apparently quote mining let me put you right on the etiquette of debate. You will notice that when I took that quote I used it thus *Obviously, I dont know enough about the specifics of Taiji to judge how good Erle is.. *You will notice that after the word *is* I inserted 5 little dots. Those indicate (at least to those who are used to the rules of debate) that this is not the full quote and is used here for the purposes of brevity and that in fact this is the only part of the quote that is being discussed and that the whole quote can be found in the original post. But of course if you did not know about this convention, you could assume it was quote mining

*If you want to call Erle an *******, fine. If you want to call him a hypocrite fine. *I trust you are not attributing these comments to me and if so, then please again give a direct quote from my posts to justify them.

   I thought we had already dealt with the _ad hominen _nonsense and I will ignore your suggestions that I am being dishonest. Otherwise I might have to ask you again to justify those accusations on this board.

   Very best wishes


----------



## Xue Sheng

bigfootsquatch said:


> I know Erle has been discussed some here, but I haven't found a definitive answer for his yang cheng fu and yang lu chan forms.
> 
> He claims his yang cheng fu form is the version that chen wei ming taught. Can anyone confirm this?
> 
> Do you think that his YLC form is a knock off of Chen Pan Ling's form, or is it his own creation, or the real thing?
> 
> Anything about Erle's credibility is welcome.
> 
> Thanks!


 
^^^The above is the original post ^^^



bigfootsquatch said:


> Did anyone actually watch the videos I posted so they could give me an answer regarding Erle's tai chi?


 
^^^And this is the original posters attempt to redirect it back to post. ^^^

Maybe not my place to point this out, but I felt it might be needed.

Thanks XS



And to answer bigfootsquatch's question. I posted a rather lengthy answer above.

I will say in short

I have heard that Erle has some skill at taiji but I do not know him nor have I ever meant him so I cannot say for sure either way. 

I however am not impressed with his Yang Chengfu Yang style but this is a matter of personal opinion based on the style I train.

As to his Yang Luchan form. I have never really seen a confirmed case of anyone doing the Yang Luchan form of Yang style Taiji and I doubt anyone today ever will.

However there are likely still people around doing the Yang style of Shou Hou. Luchan's Grandson and older brother of Chengfu. Shou Hou form would be closer to Luchan's that Chengfu's Yang.

Shou Hou learned mostly from his Uncle Banhou who was Luchan's son. 

Chengfu learned mostly from his father Jainhou (brother of Banhou) but Jainhou also changed the family form from small frame to medium frame.


----------



## oxy

East Winds said:


> Oxy,
> 
> Why do you continue to think that my comments in response to your posts are a personal attack on yourself?



Please tell me where I said "personal attack".

I used "attack". In the context of discussion, "attacking" someone need not be personal.

Your attempt to force the "personal" qualifier only furthers my claims about your intellectual dishonesty.



> Quite simply the whole thrust of my argument is, if Mr. Montaigue has such a low opinion of Cheng fu (and clearly he does if he blames him for the demise of present day taiji) then why does he continue to teach and make teaching videos of that form?



And I say that is IRRELEVANT as to Erle's ability. Explanation directly below your next quote.



> Nowhere have I made any criticism of Erle Montaigue&#8217;s ability or knowledge of the internal arts. If you think I have then please illustrate that by direct quotes from my posts.



You want it, you got it. Your own words:

*How could you have any belief in a man who does a character assasination of Yang Cheng Fu*

How else is one supposed to interpret "belief in a man" other than the ability/knowledge of Erle in Taiji? Keep in mind that the context of Erle's Taiji is implied by the fact that it is talking about Erle in a Taiji forum, in a Taiji thread about Erle.



> On the point of my apparently &#8220;quote mining&#8221; let me put you right on the etiquette of debate. You will notice that when I took that quote I used it thus &#8220;*Obviously, I don&#8217;t know enough about the specifics of Taiji to judge how good Erle is&#8230;..&#8221; *You will notice that after the word *&#8220;is*&#8221; I inserted 5 little dots. Those indicate (at least to those who are used to the rules of debate) that this is not the full quote and is used here for the purposes of brevity and that in fact this is the only part of the quote that is being discussed and that the whole quote can be found in the original post. But of course if you did not know about this convention, you could assume it was &#8220;quote mining&#8221;



The bit you ommitted CHANGED THE MEANING of what I was saying. If you did NOT omit what you did, your argument would have been nonsensical. Basically, if you quoted me within the correct context, your argument would be as follows: *Oxy does not have the qualification to say that a person's ability should not be judged by his words because Oxy admits his knowledge of Taiji is limited.*

Don't believe me? Here is what you did:



> *&#8220;Obviously, I don&#8217;t know enough about the specifics of Taiji to judge how good Erle is&#8230;..&#8221;* But you obviously feel qualified to comment anyway. I usually find that if I don&#8217;t know about a subject it is better not to say anything.



Oh gee, what did you mean by "qualified"? Oh gee, what did you mean when you said I should not talk about a "subject" I don't know well?

If you quoted me IN CONTEXT, this is what would have read:



> *&#8220;Obviously, I don&#8217;t know enough about the specifics of Taiji to judge how good Erle is but I still think it's wise to judge a person's knowledge of Taiji by... their knowledge of Taiji. And I'm sure everyone will agree with me that it's not possible to do that when a single statement, no matter how ill-founded, cannot display a person's whole understanding.&#8221;* But you obviously feel qualified to comment anyway. I usually find that if I don&#8217;t know about a subject it is better not to say anything.



See the bit I underlined and italicised? That was the context. You omitted it. That changed the context. THAT IS CALLED QUOTEMINING. Your reply, when it did not rely on you taking me out of context, would, as I have said before, have made the following argument: *Oxy does not have the qualification to say that a person's ability should not be judged by his words because Oxy admits his knowledge of Taiji is limited.*

See how nonsensical your argument becomes when you DO NOT take someone's words out of context?

Still not convinced? Here is an adjusted one, highlighting the context you omitted:



> *&#8220;Obviously, I don&#8217;t know enough about the specifics of Taiji...
> And I'm sure everyone will agree with me that it's not possible to do that when a single statement, no matter how ill-founded, cannot display a person's whole understanding.&#8221;* But you obviously feel qualified to comment anyway. I usually find that if I don&#8217;t know about a subject it is better not to say anything.



The bit you quoted and the bit you left out (ie, my original posting) was that my inexperience in Taiji had no bearing on the fact that my argument makes sense in general and universally. But you ignored the second, crucial half of the point and chose to focus on my inexperience with Taiji.

Your attempts to excuse your behaviour using a very weak defence further shows your dishonesty by not owning up.

If you want further confirmation, you should get a second opinion on whether your omission changed the meaning of my text, allowing you to make a strawman.



> *&#8220;If you want to call Erle an *******, fine. If you want to call him a hypocrite fine.&#8221; *I trust you are not attributing these comments to me and if so, then please again give a direct quote from my posts to justify them.



Do you not understand how to comprehend? I did NOT say you called Erle those things. I was using a literary device. The point was that you can say all you want about his hypocrisy in teaching Chengfu's form while deriding it. It does not automatically translate to "Erle's Taiji ability is not to be trusted".



> I thought we had already dealt with the _ad hominen _nonsense and I will ignore your suggestions that I am being dishonest. Otherwise I might have to ask you again to justify those accusations on this board.



No, we had not dealt with the "ad hominem nonsense" because you still do not understand what an ad hominem argument is. Hence your continual comitting of that fallacy.

An ad hominem argument, as I shall explain again, is:

Person A makes a claim X. Person A possesses an undesirable quality A-prime. Therefore, claim X is wrong.

You continue to make an argument of this pattern.

Erle claims his Taiji is quite good. Erle is a hypocrite for teaching and deriding Chengfu at the same time. Therefore, Erle's Taiji is not good.

AD HOMINEM ARGUMENT. And in this context is a logical fallacy because it is WRONG. Ad hominem is not about personal insults. It's about the logical fallacy.

And yes, I am charging you with dishonesty. Intellectual dishonesty. I've already proven that above by showing how you quotemined me. You took my quote OUT OF CONTEXT, a problem which you seem to have trouble understanding.


----------



## East Winds

Oxy,

   Oh, good for you!!!!!  Nothing like a quick dose of pseudo philosophical claptrap to muddy the waters.

   What you thought I think you meant, was not in fact what you meant I thought you said. Thats the trouble with post existentialist epistomalogical reasoning, it has no place in the real world.   Oh no, better not start a discussion on the ability of Kierkegaard, I might not know what Im talking about.:rofl:

   Very best wishes


----------



## oxy

East Winds said:


> Oxy,
> 
> Oh, good for you!!!!!  Nothing like a quick dose of pseudo philosophical claptrap to muddy the waters.
> 
> What you thought I think you meant, was not in fact what you meant I thought you said. That&#8217;s the trouble with post existentialist epistomalogical reasoning, it has no place in the real world.   Oh no, better not start a discussion on the ability of Kierkegaard, I might not know what I&#8217;m talking about.:rofl:
> 
> Very best wishes



The evidence is there.

You omitted a portion of my post.

In doing so, you omitted the context.

By omitting the context, you are misrepresenting my point.

By replying to a modified point, you are using a strawman.

When you modify a point to suit your reply, that is called quotemining.

Quote mining == intellectual dishonesty. Strawman == intellectual dishonesty.

Where's the philosophy in that? All I see is my desire to inject some logic and rational thinking into martial arts discussion. None of this politics and rhetorical "Taiji" to divert and distract from making a point that actually makes sense.

Furthermore:



> How could you have any belief in a man who does a character assasination of Yang Cheng Fu



This can ONLY be interpreted as saying that Erle's Taiji ability/knowledge is not sufficient because of his character assassination of Chengfu.

I have not been discussing philosophy at all.

Furthermore, your attempt to caricaturise my point as "philosophical claptrap" further exposes your continued practice of trying to garner popularity (by attacks such as the one I'm replying to) in lieu of actually making a sound argument. There's a Taiji guy here who can stick to making sound arguments, so why can't you?

I still have no idea what post existentialist, epistomalogical, etc is. I have no idea what Kierkegaard's philosophy was.

All I know is that your arguments are completely fallacious. All I know is that everything I read from you is good at appearing to have substance but without actual substance. You say the Right Things(tm), but that's all you do.

Do you know what "logical fallacy" falls under? LOGIC. You see, it's spelt different from PHILOSOPHY.

I wonder what you would say if I made the following comment:

*How can EastWind's students believe in him when he does not have an ounce of logical reasoning or a rational mind?*

I have no need/want for your rhetoric. Try logical/rational reasoning for once; not: "Erle Montaigue teaches and derides the Chengfu form at the same time. This implies...". That is wrong, plain and simple.

In summary:
-you quotemined
-you used strawmen
-you used ad hominem fallacies
-you attacked me

All because I did not:
-jump on the "let's bash Erle" bandwagon


----------



## Lisa

*SECOND AND FINAL WARNING:

ATTENTION ALL USERS:

PLEASE KEEP THE CONVERSATION POLITE AND RESPECTFUL.  PLEASE FEEL FREE TO USE THE IGNORE FEATURE WHICH CAN BE FOUND IN EACH MEMBERS PROFILE TO IGNORE THOSE WHOSE COMMENTS YOU DISAGREE WITH.

Lisa Deneka
MT Assist. Admin.*


----------



## East Winds

Oxy,

   What makes you think Im a member of the "let's bash Erle" bandwagon. Here is a surprise for you. I first had contact with Erle in 1998 whilst he was still living in Australia, (Murwoolimbah I think, in fact very close to where my wife comes from). I have bought several of his videos over the years and have some of his books, all of which I found very honest productions. I have also said several times on this board (and I quote) I think Erle is a lovely guy. I was more than disappointed to read his article on Yang Cheng fu and thought Erle was above such criticism particularly when he speaks so highly of him (Cheng fu) on his Yang Cheng fu videos. To me there is a basic contradiction thats need to be addressed. Either he should remove the article from his web site or if he thinks the Cheng fu form to be worthless, then he is being less than honest with his students.

*How can EastWind's students believe in him when he does not have an ounce of logical reasoning or a rational mind? *
   My students would probably smile and say something like Yeh, that sounds about right
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





   Very best wishes


----------



## oxy

East Winds said:


> Oxy,
> 
> What makes you think I&#8217;m a member of the &#8220;"let's bash Erle" bandwagon. Here is a surprise for you. I first had contact with Erle in 1998 whilst he was still living in Australia, (Murwoolimbah I think, in fact very close to where my wife comes from). I have bought several of his videos over the years and have some of his books, all of which I found very honest productions. I have also said several times on this board (and I quote) &#8220;I think Erle is a lovely guy&#8221;. I was more than disappointed to read his article on Yang Cheng fu and thought Erle was above such criticism particularly when he speaks so highly of him (Cheng fu) on his Yang Cheng fu videos. To me there is a basic contradiction that&#8217;s need to be addressed. Either he should remove the article from his web site or if he thinks the Cheng fu form to be worthless, then he is being less than honest with his students.



I'll accept that, but that wasn't your original argument.

Still doesn't address or excuse the fact that you took me out of context.

One has to wonder why you went the route of taking me out of context first, only to follow it by attacking me as spouting "philosophical claptrap", before actually getting to the ACTUAL point.

In summary:
-you quotemined
-you used strawmen
-you used ad hominem fallacies
-you attacked me
-you continue to try and defend these actions as if they are completely acceptable


----------



## bigfootsquatch

In Summary
-you both are acting like children
-neither of you are on topic
-the moderator has warned both of you to stop
-i don't want my thread locked
-i hope both of you have a nice day

By the way, thanks Xue for the pm and the post here. You have been a lot of help!


----------



## oxy

Well done.


----------



## charyuop

Yea please, don't have this topic locked. I am neither pro nor against Earle, but I am always been interested in "his" Tai Chi. I have never really liked it (but I am merely a beginner) because it doesn't give me that relaxation feeling that other practitioners give me. I have always thought (maybe wrong) that in Tai Chi in any moment you have to be able to block or strike and that in my humble opinion is due to the fact that you are relaxed during the whole form. I have always found his Tai Chi, as we say in Italy, woodenish.
I really like reading opinions on the subject from much more experienced people than me....so please keep this thread going.


----------



## kunino

Erle Montaigue is a man of deep knowledge and great facility in writing. He is also a dedicated controversialist who stirred up a hornet's nest some decades ago with the suggestion that Chang Man-ching was not good at tai chi chuan on the ground that there was no evidence of his having ever killed or crippled anybody. Sundry Cheng supporters at the time suggested that since he was a practising physician -- in western terms, he was probably an obstetrician and gynaecologist -- he had no interest in hurting people just to display martial arts skill. This was an argument Montaigue brushed aside as nonsensical. The Montaigue path has several such milestones. His claims can be extreme, and his critics he disregards. 

I do not offer judgment on his TCC lineage. it would be insolent to do so. I have studied with a number of Chinese masters, including two who did not speak English. I don't speak Chinese. Those masters nominated English-speaking students to take me in hand, in their classrooms when they were presebnt and leading classes. They took time to deal directly with me bnoth by touch and by speaking through the interpreter. There's nothing unusual about that.

It's anodd things about most forms of Asian martial arts that instruction speaks about philosophy, the willow and the grass bending before the wind, etc etc, and yet at many levels, there's the most uncharitable and usually indefensible nastiness addressed toward other teachers. I suspect commercial motives for most of this, and I don't like it much. 

In closing, I nominate as one of the most remarkable Chinese hard form teachers I ever saw in action used to teach in the band shell behind the Provincial Museum in Taipei 20 years ago. From a distance, he looked like a precociously skilled and extremely fit 18-year-old. Closer up, he looked like a profoundly skilled and extremely fit 36-year-old. When I got into a smile-and-gesture conversation with him while viewing one class, he handed me a business card saying he was a former airline pilot. A Chinese companion told me this man was 77 years old. I've mislaid the card: does anybody know his name? His monopoly of the band shell suggests some eminence.


----------



## Xue Sheng

kunino said:


> Erle Montaigue is a man of deep knowledge and great facility in writing. He is also a dedicated controversialist who stirred up a hornet's nest some decades ago with the suggestion that Chang Man-ching was not good at tai chi chuan on the ground that there was no evidence of his having ever killed or crippled anybody. Sundry Cheng supporters at the time suggested that since he was a practising physician -- in western terms, he was probably an obstetrician and gynaecologist -- he had no interest in hurting people just to display martial arts skill. This was an argument Montaigue brushed aside as nonsensical. The Montaigue path has several such milestones. His claims can be extreme, and his critics he disregards.
> 
> I do not offer judgment on his TCC lineage. it would be insolent to do so. I have studied with a number of Chinese masters, including two who did not speak English. I don't speak Chinese. Those masters nominated English-speaking students to take me in hand, in their classrooms when they were presebnt and leading classes. They took time to deal directly with me bnoth by touch and by speaking through the interpreter. There's nothing unusual about that.
> 
> It's anodd things about most forms of Asian martial arts that instruction speaks about philosophy, the willow and the grass bending before the wind, etc etc, and yet at many levels, there's the most uncharitable and usually indefensible nastiness addressed toward other teachers. I suspect commercial motives for most of this, and I don't like it much.
> 
> In closing, I nominate as one of the most remarkable Chinese hard form teachers I ever saw in action used to teach in the band shell behind the Provincial Museum in Taipei 20 years ago. From a distance, he looked like a precociously skilled and extremely fit 18-year-old. Closer up, he looked like a profoundly skilled and extremely fit 36-year-old. When I got into a smile-and-gesture conversation with him while viewing one class, he handed me a business card saying he was a former airline pilot. A Chinese companion told me this man was 77 years old. I've mislaid the card: does anybody know his name? His monopoly of the band shell suggests some eminence.


 
Oh please

My sifu was a student of Tung Ying Chieh and did push hands with Cheng Manching (I will say no more about it here) 

I have studied with a few Chinese sifu's that do not speak English and a few that do speak English and they tend towards the form names that are Chinese idioms. I have never had a major philosophical discussion with any of them. I have however had a few explain the idioms. I do speak some Chinese and my wife is fluent and has been a translator for a few one of them more than once

As to Erle all I can say is I do not believe many of his claims and I do not agree with many of his opinions and some of the forms he does that he claims are from a specific sifu is just plain untrue.


----------



## Laoshi77

I've read a few of Erle's books and found them to be refreshing and very insightful. I have seen several of his videos on Taijiquan fighting aspects, 'Fa Jing' and Qigong and again have found them to be insightful and easy to assimilate.

So it seems Erle has said a few things that the conservatives do not like, well this is life and Erle is allowed his opinion as much as the next man. However, in my opinion there is no doubting his skills. An example of his humbleness is in the introduction of one of his books where he dislikes the notion of the word 'master'. This speaks volumes.

I have spoken to Erle once via email and he was courteous and succinct, I personally do not have any problems with him at all.
I have practised Taijiquan and Qigong for over ten years and believe he is a very knowledgeable practitioner of martial arts.


----------



## Xue Sheng

Laoshi77 said:


> I've read a few of Erle's books and found them to be refreshing and very insightful. I have seen several of his videos on Taijiquan fighting aspects, 'Fa Jing' and Qigong and again have found them to be insightful and easy to assimilate.
> 
> So it seems Erle has said a few things that the conservatives do not like, well this is life and Erle is allowed his opinion as much as the next man. However, in my opinion there is no doubting his skills. An example of his humbleness is in the introduction of one of his books where he dislikes the notion of the word 'master'. This speaks volumes.
> 
> I have spoken to Erle once via email and he was courteous and succinct, I personally do not have any problems with him at all.
> I have practised Taijiquan and Qigong for over ten years and believe he is a very knowledgeable practitioner of martial arts.


 
Don't really know much about the man personally but I do know his alleged Tung Ying Chieh fast form is not the fast form from Tung Ying Chieh. Actually it is neither of the fast forms that come from Tung Ying Chieh. 

His claim that Yang Chengfu ruined Yang Taiji. OK if that is what he believe then fine. If that is what he wants to tell everyone the fine as well. But tell me this, if he believes Yang Chengfu ruined Yang Taiji then why does he still do the form and teach it?

Why not stick with his alleged taiji of Yang Luchan? Which by the way could not have come directly from Yang Luchan nor could have the guy that taught him learned if from Yang Luchan. It would have to come forom Yang Shouhou or possibly another student of Yang Banhou and I have not yet seen that mentioned by Erle. Not that he hasn&#8217;t said it somewhere it is just that I have never seen it.

He may in fact be a very nice person but as to not wanting to be called a master. My Sifu who is a student of Tung Ying Chieh and has been doing taiji for over 50 years does not allow anyone to call him a master either. You will find that sort of thing in a lot of the old CMA guys. Even in China you find websites that never ever refer to the teacher as anything more than Sifu on the Chinese , whats that tell you. If Erle does not want to be called master I can appreciate that, but it is not all that uncommon amongst &#8220;Traditionalist&#8221; in CMA.


----------



## Ninebird8

I have just watched 3 of Mr. Montaigue's tai chi form videos. A couple of observations from my 31 years of kung fu/Yang tai chi practice (so I am intellectually honest, my Yang teachers are Sifu Jeff Bolt and Dr. Yang Jwing Ming, my kung fu teachers are Leung Shum, Ricky Anderson, and Jeff Bolt). Their teachers are Ng Wei (Shum), Wang Fui Ying (Anderson), and Dr. Yang Jwing Ming (Bolt). There, now I have my history out of the way...LOL! From my observation ( I do not care about Mr. Montaigue's comments about Yang Lu chuan, I am only commenting on the videos and this is comment on the movements, as I do not know him at all so will not and cannot comment on him personally), his root is very high, by his kicks he is not very flexible, even in a snake creeps down or white crane spreads wings, and when I watched his Canon fist video, his fa jing was emanating from his waist only (characteristic of southern kung fu styles like southern white crane or southern preying mantis) and not generating from feet to hip/waist to shoulder to elbow expressed out through the hands as the result of the movement not the cause. I like some of the explosion at the end of his canon fist, but do not see the rooting power that I see in most Yang stylists, including my teachers.  However, it is a video representation, so I will concede that I do not see the whole movement as most video is only 2 dimensional. 

One thing I have learned in 31 years is no one knows everything! Even about their own style. As I said, I am only commenting on movements, and comparing them to other tai chi masters I have seen like William C.C. Chen, Steve Watson, Siu Fong Evans, Johnny Lee, Leung Shum, Master Kit, Willy Lin, etc. This is only my humble opinion. As I come to this thread late, who again are his Yang teachers? 

I have no desire, nor do I care about, his other comments....again, just commenting on his movements, and that is where I wish this thread would return to. I would find it much more useful, both as a student and teacher of the arts, to have the very experienced people on here comment on the overall branches of Yang, Chen, and Wu styles than specific problems with individuals. Talk about the movements, the applications, the passing on to maintain the skills, etc. That is what is valuable to me!!


----------



## furtom

I don't know why I'm jumping in here as I have no particular experience with Montaigue or his students. I just wanted to make the point that when I see his Website, I see a guy dedicated to the propagation of his art. He's giving away his knowledge.

This is not the behavior of an egocentric personality.

That does not mean his claims are correct or verifiable. But I would be inclined to give the man the benefit of the doubt until proven otherwise. At the very least, I think _he_ believes what he says, which is significant.

I think the only way to really judge any teacher is to meet him in person and grab onto him, feel the smoothness and the power of his technique, the ease of application, etc. Since I can't do that, at least I can appreciate the things he is doing on the Net for everyone's benefit.

If I ever can contribute in such a way to the community, I would feel myself lucky and successful.


----------



## pete

nor I Tom... but seems that there are dog lovers who must have pure-breads for pomp & ceremony, shows, and pedegree/lineage... and there are dog lovers who rescue strays from shelter to become loyal family pets or hunting dogs.  never the twain shall meet, and far be it from me to say who loves their animal more or less... but, seems there ought to be enough room in the world for both to enjoy life. 

pete


----------



## Xue Sheng

furtom said:


> I don't know why I'm jumping in here as I have no particular experience with Montaigue or his students. I just wanted to make the point that when I see his Website, I see a guy dedicated to the propagation of his art. He's giving away his knowledge.
> 
> This is not the behavior of an egocentric personality.
> 
> That does not mean his claims are correct or verifiable. But I would be inclined to give the man the benefit of the doubt until proven otherwise. At the very least, I think he believes what he says, which is significant.
> 
> I think the only way to really judge any teacher is to meet him in person and grab onto him, feel the smoothness and the power of his technique, the ease of application, etc. Since I can't do that, at least I can appreciate the things he is doing on the Net for everyone's benefit.
> 
> If I ever can contribute in such a way to the community, I would feel myself lucky and successful.


 
Is his Taiji from Yang Luchan? Well yes everyone's "traditional" Yang Style comes from Yang Luchan. It also comes from Chen Changxing but I do not think I would advertise my Yang Taiji as such.

Is his Taiji from Yang Luchan in a lineage that does not include Yang Chengfu? That is possible. But the claim of it being from Yang Luchan and not including Yang Banhou and/or Yang Shouhou is just not correct.

He gives a lot away for free and I am told he is a nice guy and that is just fine however if what he is giving away for free is not what it is advertised as then how is that helping taiji? I do not know where his Yang style comes from but he writes papers on the evils of Yang Chengfu and then teaches the form as it comes form Yang Chengfu. He has free videos out there he calls Tung Ying Chieh's fast form that it is not either of the fast forms form Tung Ying Chieh.

Is he lying? I do not know, but I tend towards I don't think so.

Could he believe everything he is saying? Could be, and this is more to what I believe

I know of a Yang Taiji Sifu, that is considered very good, from a good lineage, that also claims (and fully believes) he is teaching Tung Ying Chieh's fast form and he is further off than Erle. He was told by the guy that taught him that is was, he was also told by the guy that taught him that he learned it from Tung Hu Ling and there is no way, given the time that the guy claims to have learned it, that he learned it from Tung Hu Ling. He simply was not there at that time and furthermore it looks absolutely nothing like either of the fast forms from the Tung Family. 

Erle is Erle that is all and I have already dedicated to much time to discussions of him.


----------



## furtom

Xue Sheng said:


> Is his Taiji from Yang Luchan? Well yes everyone's "traditional" Yang Style comes from Yang Luchan. It also comes from Chen Changxing but I do not think I would advertise my Yang Taiji as such.
> ...



You are surely right. You obviously have much more detailed knowledge than I do and I wouldn't argue.

I'm just saying the guy seems genuine. That doesn't mean his form is genuine, it means he's a dedicated teacher and very probably a good martial artist. If I ever meet him or a student of his and discover it's crap, I'll be the first one to admit it.

What can I tell you? I read the stuff he posts/publishes and I like it.

Oh BTW, I like all the stuff you post, too, Xue Sheng.


----------



## Xue Sheng

furtom said:


> I'm just saying the guy seems genuine. That doesn't mean his form is genuine, it means he's a dedicated teacher and very probably a good martial artist.


 
I agree with this, I do believe he is dedicated to what he teaches. I am not sure if he is or is not a good martial artist but I would not be surprised if he were. 

And some of the stuff he writes is not bad, some, IMO, is questionable. I do have a big issue with the whole Yang Chengfu ruined Yang style stuff whilst he still teaches taiji from Yang Chengfu, but that is just me.


----------



## bigfootsquatch

I've delt with Erle before. I'm going to try to clear this up for everyone so that we can get to talking about tai chi. 

 Erle has practical self defense methods that most of us could use. Erle offers quite a bit of free information. Some of it is useful; some of it is not. A lot of the information is over 10 years old. As you read his documents, you may find that his views change. If you ask him a question, he will give you a straightforward answer. He is somewhat boastful however. He thinks he is one of the only people to do real tai chi. If you question him about his lineage, then he will get very defense. Many Bagua practitioners question his lineage in that as well. I have no knowledge of that however.

Some people swear by his tai chi, others do not. I believe that his tai chi is  greater than 90% of what is taught in the yang tai chi world, but then again most "tai chi" being taught is garbage that isn't good for health or self defense.


----------

