# Modification to Chen Man Ching's Tai Chi Form



## grydth (Jan 17, 2007)

The first Tai Chi form I was taught was the 37 posture form popularized in the USA by Professor Chen Man Ching. As most know, this was a 'dehydrated' version of the much longer original Yang form. Not only were many repetitions eliminated, but some moves were deleted entirely.

If others here practice this form, I wonder if any of you are familiar with the modification suggested by Professor Chi Chiang-tao in Angus Clark's book, "The Complete Illustrated Guide to Tai Chi."?  This restores a number of the 'lost moves', and eliminates - in my opinion - an annoying and possibly hazardous transition step. 

Any experiences with, or thoughts on, this?


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jan 17, 2007)

I did a bit of CMC and I must admit I am not familiar with modification suggested by Professor Chi Chiang-tao in Angus Clark's book, I should probably check it out, but wouldn't restoring a number of lost moves just be turning it back into Traditional Yang style or some facsimile thereof?

EDIT

I should probably ask which book?


----------



## grydth (Jan 17, 2007)

The full cite would be, "The Complete Illustrated Guide to Tai Chi - A Practical Approach to the Ancient Chinese Movement for Health and Well Being, by Angus Clark,  Element/Harper Collins, London 2001. Clark notes that Chiang - Tao was a student of Chen Man Ching.

No, the short additional segment Chiang-tao suggests does not come anywhere near making Chen Man ching's form back into the much longer original Yang form. 

Possibly the best illustration of the major differences between Chen Man Ching's Form and the original I have seen is the chart in Norman Chuckrow's "The Tai Chi Book" at page 143... 

What Clark/Chiang-Tao suggest is addition of a short segment of several 'lost moves' at a mid point in the form.... then rejoining the form.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jan 18, 2007)

grydth said:


> The full cite would be, "The Complete Illustrated Guide to Tai Chi - A Practical Approach to the Ancient Chinese Movement for Health and Well Being, by Angus Clark, Element/Harper Collins, London 2001. Clark notes that Chiang - Tao was a student of Chen Man Ching.
> 
> No, the short additional segment Chiang-tao suggests does not come anywhere near making Chen Man ching's form back into the much longer original Yang form.
> 
> ...


 
Thank You, I will have to pick this book up and take a look at it. 

I do the original Yang style form that CMC comes from and I did train CMC briefly and I have seen the entire CMC form done by the man who was my CMC Sifu and his Sifu (William CC Chen - who was also a student of Cheng Manching). There are a lot of BIG differences between CMC and Traditional Yang style, however I am not judging either, I liked CMC for the brief time I did it. But I do not think it can really be called Yang style any longer as some out there still do (although the Yang family has made it clear that they do not call it Yang style). There are just too many fundamental differences.

However it will be interesting to see what forms Chiang feels should be added.


----------



## TaiChiTJ (Jan 19, 2007)

Some instructors feel the CMC 37 is a practice that contains all of the concepts and principles of the Yang long form, if not every posture. 

I've also heard teachers say the same thing about the 24 posture form created in China in 1955. 

Xue Sheng is correct, though, there are significant postural differences in traditional Yang and CMC.  

You just have to decide what you want to study.


----------



## grydth (Jan 20, 2007)

TaiChiTJ said:


> Some instructors feel the CMC 37 is a practice that contains all of the concepts and principles of the Yang long form, if not every posture.
> 
> I've also heard teachers say the same thing about the 24 posture form created in China in 1955.
> 
> ...




It has always appeared to me that Professor Chen Man Ching believed America was very fertile ground for spreading Tai Chi, but that Americans had neither the time nor the patience for the Yang Long Form. (I believe he was correct in this not so flattering assessment. He certainly was correct in believing our society to be in need of the art!). He sought to provide us with the core principles.

One can contend that the large scale deletion of repetitions of postures does not forfeit, " all of the concepts and principles..." 

But...Given the complete deletion of a number of postures, at least some of which are of obvious value, I do not think the claim can be made  that all important things were preserved.... and I am a  very satisfied student of the CMC form. 

My best reading of Angus Clark's book is that Professor Chiang-Tao, a student of Chen Man Ching, believed that perhaps the cuts had gone too far. He would reintroduce a short sequence of some of the deleted postures at a midway point in the CMC form.

My study and practice has shown - and in full candor, I must say here that I do not pretend to be any major martial arts figure - that the segment is a welcome and invigorating addition to the Chen Man Ching form. I am curious if anyone else has tried it....


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jan 20, 2007)

grydth said:


> It has always appeared to me that Professor Chen Man Ching believed America was very fertile ground for spreading Tai Chi, but that Americans had neither the time nor the patience for the Yang Long Form. (I believe he was correct in this not so flattering assessment. He certainly was correct in believing our society to be in need of the art!). He sought to provide us with the core principles


 
Maybe yes, maybe no, but if you read his books, particularly "Cheng Tzus 13 treatises on Tai Chi Chuan" (which is a book I highly recommend to all Tai chi people) he actually says he shortened it because he didn't want to take the time to do it.


----------



## clfsean (Jan 20, 2007)

Why not just learn the original 108 & call it a day?


----------



## grydth (Jan 20, 2007)

clfsean said:


> Why not just learn the original 108 & call it a day?



I make no arguement against anyone choosing to learn the 108 form.... presuming they have the time to learn and practice it, and a worthy sifu to teach them. 

Currently I unfortunately lack 2 of the 3..... it would appear I am one of those Americans considered by Chen Man Ching..... for the lifestyle I have, the CMC form is heaven sent.

I raise the changes proposed by Professor Cheng-tao as a possible way for CMC practitioners to regain some of what postures were deleted, while retaining a relatively shorter form.


----------



## grydth (Jan 20, 2007)

Xue Sheng said:


> Maybe yes, maybe no, but if you read his books, particularly "Cheng Tzus 13 treatises on Tai Chi Chuan" (which is a book I highly recommend to all Tai chi people) he actually says he shortened it because he didn't want to take the time to do it.



I do thank you for the correction on one key point - that Chen initially shortened the original Yang form for other reasons besides his coming to America. You're right.

However, I in fact do own a fair number of books on the subject, and I must respectfully disagree on two points - Chen Man Ching's rationale beyond the shortening, and applicability with respect to teaching Americans. 

On the latter point, I would specifically cite, "There Are No Secrets" by Wolfe Lowenthal at page 46, "Aware of our impatience, he shaped his teaching to make it more accessible to Americans". Lowenthal, a student of his, further relates that he taught the form to Americans much more quickly than he did to Chinese. (I realize this relates to speed of teaching and not to elements taught, but there can be little real doubt he believed his shortened form better for Americans. See below - he believed this even for the Chinese.).

I disagree with the assertion that Chen shortened the original form simply,
 "because he didn't want to take the time to do it." Another of his students, Robert Chuckrow, in "The Tai Chi Book" on page 145 recalled that," 
Professor Cheng said that he found that one round of the long form, which he was taught by Yang Cheng-fu, took so long to complete that he tended to rush through the movements."

In the book you cite, there is one comment that he did shorten the form to spread it - but among the Chinese. I refer to the chapter 'Explanation of the Essential Points' where he says on page 104," I had to simplify the form in order to spread it..." A page earlier, he appears to strongly question  the utility of all the repetition in the long form.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jan 20, 2007)

grydth said:


> It has always appeared to me that Professor Chen Man Ching believed America was very fertile ground for spreading Tai Chi, but that Americans had neither the time nor the patience for the Yang Long Form. (I believe he was correct in this not so flattering assessment. He certainly was correct in believing our society to be in need of the art!). He sought to provide us with the core principles.


 


grydth said:


> I do thank you for the correction on one key point - that Chen initially shortened the original Yang form for other reasons besides his coming to America. You're right.
> 
> However, I in fact do own a fair number of books on the subject, and I must respectfully disagree on two points - Chen Man Ching's rationale beyond the shortening, and applicability with respect to teaching Americans.
> 
> ...


 
First, you have just contradicted yourself first you say he shortened because of Americans and now you say he shortened it to spread it among Chinese.

Next Neither Wolfe Lowenthal or Robert Chuckrow are Cheng Manching and I am talking about books written by Cheng Manching. 

Also I feel the need to point out it is Cheng not Chen. Chen is a Taiji family not to be confused with Cheng Manching they are not at all the same.

I do not have the statement or book in front of me at the moment but I will get it, look through it and post what Cheng Manching wrote.

However I do not disagree with the part about spreading his style by shortening it. He, if memory severs, said that he felt it was too long and that there were to many repeats and he did not have the time to do the long form so he shortened it and also felt that by shortening it more people would want to practice it. But I am currently working from memory and I will look up the exact statement later.

There is a book by William CC Chen you may be interested in; he too was a student of Cheng Manching. I have not read the book as of yet, but I have read many of William CC Chen's articles and I am rather impressed.




grydth said:


> Currently I unfortunately lack 2 of the 3..... it would appear I am one of those Americans considered by Chen Man Ching..... for the lifestyle I have, the CMC form is heaven sent.


 
I do not think any, or I should say the post I have been in that discuss CMC style, have said anything against CMC style or Cheng Manching. As a matter of fact there use to be someone on MT that was a long time CMC person and they were incredibly happy with the style. However I do not know if they still check in or not. So I do not understand the reasoning behind the above statement, at least as it applies to MT

I trained it briefly with a student in the CMC lineage and I was rather impressed, but there was only so much time in the day and I simply did not have the time to do the training justice.

I have trained the Yang Long form for many years. I have also trained Chen to a lesser degree and a bit of Wu and if the teacher were available at the time I would have chosen Chen or Wu over yang but there were not teachers. 

What style we choose to train is a matter of personal preference.

To quote a member of the Chen family I had the chance to talk to "Yang style is to high" To quote my Sifu whose teacher was Tung Ying Chieh, and whose teacher was Yang Chengfu "Chen style is to low" 

It is just a matter of personal preference that is all and if someone does not agree, big deal, who cares your style is your style that is all. 
.


----------



## East Winds (Jan 20, 2007)

Here is a direct quote from Cheng Man-ching 

"_The complete T'ai Chi Ch'uan form consisted of more than one hundred and twenty movements. Among these there were many repititions, executed over and over endlessly. This was a great waste of mental energy without any benefit to either theory or practice....................I believe that the repetitions are excessive and have no significance. Therefore I often felt a desire to omit the complexities and simplify the form"_

The above is taken from Cheng Man-chings "Advanced T'ai Chi Form Instructions" Compiled and translated by Douglas Wile. ISBN 0-912059-03-6 

Hope this helps

Vey best wishes


----------



## grydth (Jan 20, 2007)

When you concede a point to a person - - - only to get an allegation of self-contradiction in return, it's time for me to move to another thread.


----------



## East Winds (Jan 20, 2007)

Also, here is an interesting quote from Yang Cheng-fu

"_There is only one school of taijiquan; there are not two ways of learning. One may not make a show of one's cleverness by rashly making additions or deletions. The former worthies developed these methods. If alterations or corrections could be made, the ancestors preceeding me would already have put them into effect_".

Yang Chengfu : The Essence and Applications of Taijiquan. ISBN1-55643-545-2

I often wondered if this was a quiet reference to Cheng Man-ching's changes 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





Very best wishes


----------



## grappling_mandala (Jan 20, 2007)

> "_The complete T'ai Chi Ch'uan form consisted of more than one hundred and twenty movements. Among these there were many repititions, executed over and over endlessly. This was a great waste of mental energy without any benefit to either theory or practice....................I believe that the repetitions are excessive and have no significance. Therefore I often felt a desire to omit the complexities and simplify the form"_



Based on the above statement, CMC either did not see, or ignored the implications of understanding the connective structure in the arrangement of the Yang Cheng fu 103/108 form.

I have made some comments in other threads regarding specific changes I've noted concerning lead hip positions, overly simplified hand positions, removing parts of the GraspSparTail sequence, postures not conducive to wuji, etc etc. 

Particularlly in the book by Yang Chengfu, but most likely ghost edited by CMC: "The Essence and Applications of Taijiquan" (1934?) , which started out part of my "noticing" the differences, most notably the movements left out of Essense and Applications match CMC's 37 form... very suspicious.... Yang Cheng Fu's youngest son addresses this fact in his book printed in 1956.

I think the statement saying westerners have a short attention span is the EXACT reason why westerners should engage in learning the entire 103/108 form. A lot of people stay up late and do not rise early enough... sometimes experiencing Having 30 min of moving meditation in the morning will simply transform most peoples lives IF they practice. 

GM


----------



## East Winds (Jan 20, 2007)

grappling_mandala,

Can't disagree with anything you have said. Follows my philosphy exactly.

Very best wishes.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jan 20, 2007)

East Winds said:


> Here is a direct quote from Cheng Man-ching
> 
> "The complete T'ai Chi Ch'uan form consisted of more than one hundred and twenty movements. Among these there were many repititions, executed over and over endlessly. This was a great waste of mental energy without any benefit to either theory or practice....................I believe that the repetitions are excessive and have no significance. Therefore I often felt a desire to omit the complexities and simplify the form"
> 
> ...



Thank you, I just found this in the book I previously mentioned by Cheng Manching



East Winds said:


> Also, here is an interesting quote from Yang Cheng-fu
> 
> "There is only one school of taijiquan; there are not two ways of learning. One may not make a show of one's cleverness by rashly making additions or deletions. The former worthies developed these methods. If alterations or corrections could be made, the ancestors preceeding me would already have put them into effect".
> 
> ...



Thank You, I had not heard this before, but then I have not read that book yet either



grappling_mandala said:


> Based on the above statement, CMC either did not see, or ignored the implications of understanding the connective structure in the arrangement of the Yang Cheng fu 103/108 form.
> 
> I have made some comments in other threads regarding specific changes I've noted concerning lead hip positions, overly simplified hand positions, removing parts of the GraspSparTail sequence, postures not conducive to wuji, etc etc.
> 
> ...



I agree, but this can be said of all Tai Chi styles now in the USA not just Yang


----------



## marlon (Jan 21, 2007)

East Winds said:


> Also, here is an interesting quote from Yang Cheng-fu
> 
> "_There is only one school of taijiquan; there are not two ways of learning. One may not make a show of one's cleverness by rashly making additions or deletions. The former worthies developed these methods. If alterations or corrections could be made, the ancestors preceeding me would already have put them into effect_".
> 
> ...


 

i thought that Cheng Man-Ching had the changes approved by Yang Chengfu?
Marlon


----------



## marlon (Jan 21, 2007)

grappling_mandala said:


> Based on the above statement, CMC either did not see, or ignored the implications of understanding the connective structure in the arrangement of the Yang Cheng fu 103/108 form.
> 
> I have made some comments in other threads regarding specific changes I've noted concerning lead hip positions, overly simplified hand positions, removing parts of the GraspSparTail sequence, postures not conducive to wuji, etc etc.
> 
> ...


 
Could it be for the sake of softness and not showing the application in the form that he made some of the changes in posture and hand positions?  I am very new and am learning the 103 form slowly but i like CMC style and i find the softness of tai chi beneficila in alolowing one to respond better to what is actually happening in a fight than what you think is happening.  
loving learning

Respectfully,
Marlon


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jan 21, 2007)

marlon said:


> i thought that Cheng Man-Ching had the changes approved by Yang Chengfu?
> Marlon


 
Nope


----------



## East Winds (Jan 23, 2007)

Marlon,

It is only recently that the Yang family have finally acknowledged the existance of Cheng Man-ching. It is said that until about 5 years ago, if you mentioned CMC to them, they would just blank you.

Very best wishes


----------



## marlon (Jan 24, 2007)

East Winds said:


> Marlon,
> 
> It is only recently that the Yang family have finally acknowledged the existance of Cheng Man-ching. It is said that until about 5 years ago, if you mentioned CMC to them, they would just blank you.
> 
> Very best wishes


 
Thanks, that is ...intersting.  He seems to have been a very well educated and knowledgeable man.  a scholar , calligrapher, poet doctor, and an impressive thinker.  Does anyone dispute that he was a legitimate taiji master?  As for the form is taiji based on the form or taught through the form?  What of the 13 original postures....Chen and Yang are very different in many respects so aside from a competent teacher what makes taiji , taiji?  Does CMC's changes conform to the classics?  What makes changing the form acceptable, and by whom?

Respectfully,
marlon


----------



## marlon (Jan 24, 2007)

Xue Sheng said:


> Nope


 

You seem very sure but i thought that he mentioned somewhere that he at least discussed the changes with Yang Cheng fu...i assumed that meant they were approved but i see that i could easily be making wrong assumptions or being led to even.Did he make these changes while Yang Cheng fu was alive?

Respectfully,
Marlon


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jan 24, 2007)

marlon said:


> You seem very sure but i thought that he mentioned somewhere that he at least discussed the changes with Yang Cheng fu...i assumed that meant they were approved but i see that i could easily be making wrong assumptions or being led to even.Did he make these changes while Yang Cheng fu was alive?
> 
> Respectfully,
> Marlon


 
Yang Chengfu (1883 -1936),
Cheng Manching (1901 or 02 -1975)

Cheng Manching studied Tai Chi with Yang Chengfu from 1928 to 1935. Cheng allegedly ghost-wrote Yang Chengfu&#8217;s book "Tai chi Chuan Tiyung chuan-shu&#8221;, published in 1934. 

Yang Changeful died in 1936. I doubt they were having discussions about changes to Yang style then. Chengfu was discussing additions to the Yang family Taiji, meaning an additional form but not changes to existing forms. I have also read nothing that says Chengfu approved Cheng&#8217;s changes. 

By 1945 or 46 I believe Cheng had pretty much developed his style, he began teaching in Taiwan in 49 or 50. 

I find it highly unlikely Chengfu approved such changes since they are major bigtime fundamental changes to Yang style, which I am pretty sure Chengfu would not approve. The Yang family until recently never even acknowledged it as tai chi and when they finally did they said it is not Yang style. This also says not an approved change. Unless it is discussed and approved by a Yang family member it is not Yang style. 

Tung Ying Chieh (1898-1961) taught Yang style and he designed forms after Chengfu's death that he called Tung style and it appears the Yang family has never had a problem with this. I also do not beleive the Yang family would have had a problem with Cheng Manching style if he had called it that and not called it Yang style.


----------



## marlon (Jan 24, 2007)

Xue Sheng said:


> Yang Chengfu (1883 -1936),
> Cheng Manching (1901 or 02 -1975)
> 
> Cheng Manching studied Tai Chi with Yang Chengfu from 1928 to 1935. Cheng allegedly ghost-wrote Yang Chengfus book "Tai chi Chuan Tiyung chuan-shu, published in 1934.
> ...


 

i see your point.  It was my impression that he called it Yang style out of respect for his teacher and not to capitalize on the name.  Was Yang style that popular back then that he would want to do this?  In any case i like both sytle with my limited knowlegde they both seem to be true taiji systems.

Respectfully,
Marlon
p.s. Have you heard any dispute over Cheng Man ching's legitimacy as a taiji master?  Or any of his students being sub par due to his revisions in the form?


----------



## marlon (Jan 24, 2007)

Xue Sheng said:


> Yang Chengfu (1883 -1936),
> Cheng Manching (1901 or 02 -1975)
> 
> Cheng Manching studied Tai Chi with Yang Chengfu from 1928 to 1935. Cheng allegedly ghost-wrote Yang Chengfus book "Tai chi Chuan Tiyung chuan-shu, published in 1934.
> ...


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jan 24, 2007)

marlon said:


> Why did they say it was not taiji?
> 
> Marlon


 
They did not say it was not Taiji and I am sorry if I gave you that impression. They just did not acknowledge it at all, they pretty much ignored it. They did much later, rather recently actually, call it Cheng Manching Taiji. I believe it was Yang Zhandou that made this distinction and made it clear that it was not Yang style taiji. 

I believe this had to do with a few different things. First it is fundamentally different. Second the Yang family I feel is trying to regain control of the style. Currently it is very difficult to disprove many false lineage claims and if you add Cheng Manching style to it becomes impossible. Also I believe there is a bit of old fashion politics going on. But these are just speculations on my part

I would be very interested in what Yang Chengfu thought about it, but I seriously doubt I will ever know what his thoughts on it are.


----------



## marlon (Jan 24, 2007)

thanks for the clarification.  What do you feel constitues taiji, the form or the principles?  Does cmc style hold enough to the principles to be called taiji.  chen style is very different from yang and both are taiji...does the form itself define yang style?  Was Cheng Manching a legitimate taiji master and what constitues one?

wow i am full of questions, apologizes

Respectfully,
marlon


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jan 24, 2007)

marlon said:


> thanks for the clarification. What do you feel constitues taiji, the form or the principles? Does cmc style hold enough to the principles to be called taiji. chen style is very different from yang and both are taiji...does the form itself define yang style? Was Cheng Manching a legitimate taiji master and what constitues one?
> 
> wow i am full of questions, apologizes
> 
> ...


 
I would call CMC Taiji any day, actually I like Cheng Manching Tai Chi. I did it for a very brief period of time. The only thing that did not make sense to me, coming from a traditional Yang style background was the push hands. They were using the front foot much more than the back. But it seemed to work for the Sifu with no problem; I just couldnt get the hang of it. I stopped because there is only so much time in a day and I could not train that with everything else. 

Chen is the root family of todays Tai Chi and Yang style comes from Chen. But they called it Yang they did not try and continue to call it Chen. I think that is were the problem comes in for CMC. Many of its practitioners call it Yang style or Yang style from Cheng Manching and since it is very likely it was not approved by the Yang family and it looks very different form Yang style many Traditional Yang stylists do not consider it Yang and the Yang family has made it clear it is not Yang style. IF Cheng called it Cheng Manching Tai Chi in the first place I do not think there would be an issue at all. 

And I do think Cheng is a master of his style, but I have talked to some who would not agree, but it is more up to you and how you feel about your chosen style no matter what it is. If your happy withit, who cares what anyone else thinks.

Also I have read a couple of Cheng's books but they are very good and I generally recommend them to any Tai Chi person of any style.


----------



## marlon (Jan 25, 2007)

Thanks XS,
i appreciate your responses very much.  Until i find a cmc teacher i am learning the Yang form.  What does it mean that someone is a taiji master.  what does this entail?

Respectfully,
marlon


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jan 25, 2007)

marlon said:


> Thanks XS,
> i appreciate your responses very much. Until i find a cmc teacher i am learning the Yang form. What does it mean that someone is a taiji master. what does this entail?
> 
> Respectfully,
> marlon


 
What makes a master?

Good question, I dont know really. 

I would call my Sifu a master but I doubt he would ever call himself one and I know Im not one. 

I guess in the case of Cheng Manching I would say he has a deep understanding of his art and he is very skilled in its application. The same would also go for Tung Ying Chieh and Yang Chengfu or Chen Xiaowang or Chen Zhenglei or Yang Zhendao, etc. But to me for the most part it is a label that is generally applied to a teacher by someone else. 

I have had the opportunity to talk to a few I would consider a master and all but one used their first name. And the one used the title Doctor before his last name. None asked to be called master nor did they refer to themselves as such.


----------



## East Winds (Jan 26, 2007)

marlon,

My teacher who comes from the US to teach here in the UK is an undoubted Master, but prefers to be called "Coach" (jiao lian). Although he does not mind students calling him by his first name. There are too many "Masters" out there who do not deserve the title.

Very best wishes


----------



## marlon (Jan 26, 2007)

agreed, my teacher also calls himself my coach although i use a title when addressing him.  My question was more to content than titles as titles can be acquired anywhere by anyone...sadly

Respectfully,
Marlon


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jan 26, 2007)

This has been posted before but here it is again

A COMPARATIVE STUDY 
BETWEEN TRADITIONAL YANG STYLE OF YANG CHENGFU 
AND CHENG MAN
CHING'S STYLE.
http://sataichi.com/compare.html​ 
Also more here
http://www.longfei-taiji.co.uk/news/vol3iss3/yang.htm​ 
I am looking for the statement that Yang Zhendou made about CMC and when I find it I will post it


----------



## grappling_mandala (Feb 10, 2007)

I came to the conclusion today after staring at various geometric forms and mandalas it doned on me. I been drawing overlays on gym photos for years, looking at various angles, meditating on the mandalinguistic nature of what happens in the moment... So.... I been going back and forth looking at ycf's and cmc form ... I think the "filled out" look of the ycf form is because of an embodiment of the golden proportion. The asthetic "value" we find in art and movement. Plain and Simple. TCF appears to be more proportionally harmonic. I wish we had video of him moving, but am thankful we have the photos we do. Some more food for thought...

GM


----------



## East Winds (Feb 13, 2007)

grappling mandala,

Interesting take on the subject and one I must admit I hadn't taken into consideration when comapring YCF and CMC. I think there may some mileage in your reasoning and it is clearly an aspect that CMC had not considered when he changed the postures and alignmets of his form.

Thanks for the input

Very best wishes


----------



## Xue Sheng (Feb 13, 2007)

East Winds said:


> grappling mandala,
> 
> Interesting take on the subject and one I must admit I hadn't taken into consideration when comapring YCF and CMC. I think there may some mileage in your reasoning and it is clearly an aspect that CMC had not considered when he changed the postures and alignmets of his form.
> 
> ...


 
I have trained Yang Style for a long time and I only trained Cheng Manching style for a couple of months and what I trained I liked but it was decidedly not the same. The alignments where not the same the movements were not the same and the internal feel was not the same. 

In some cases the transitions were easier in others they seemed more awkward. 

And I have great respect for CMC and I have had a chance to train, briefly, with CC Chen and there is no doubt that Chen is a fighter but to me CMC seemed more geared towards health. Meaning that if you do not do the martial applications of it you will get greater health benefit than if you omit the martial side of traditional Yang style. 

And if you compare the forms they must be compared 3 dimensionally because where Chengfu has a longer/lower stance Manching has a wide/higher stance to compensate.

I am not exactly sure what all this means in actual benefit, I simply did not trained CMC long enough to understand it. 

However I do thing that grappling_mandala has made a good point and giving me something to think about in comparing the two styles


----------



## marlon (Feb 22, 2007)

grappling_mandala said:


> I came to the conclusion today after staring at various geometric forms and mandalas it doned on me. I been drawing overlays on gym photos for years, looking at various angles, meditating on the mandalinguistic nature of what happens in the moment... So.... I been going back and forth looking at ycf's and cmc form ... I think the "filled out" look of the ycf form is because of an embodiment of the golden proportion. The asthetic "value" we find in art and movement. Plain and Simple. TCF appears to be more proportionally harmonic. I wish we had video of him moving, but am thankful we have the photos we do. Some more food for thought...
> 
> GM


 

Excuse me what is the golden proportion?

Respectfully,
Marlon


----------



## East Winds (Feb 22, 2007)

marlon,

Have a look at this link.

http://www.heartbeat2000.com/phi.htm

Very best wishes


----------



## marlon (Feb 23, 2007)

thank you, to come to this conclusion you must accept that YCF's version of Yang style as apriori.  However, historically it is not.  Since he has become the standard and everyone in the yang family holds him as the standard then there is a certain bias when looking at his form.  If we take the T'ai ch'i classics as the basis for understanding then can we still make the same comment of him?

i  am knew and know very little but these are my thouhgts

Respectfully,
Marlon


----------



## Xue Sheng (Feb 23, 2007)

One must always take into account that the style that Yang Chengfu did comes form Yang Luchan which came form the Chen Family. And when looking at and comparing styles you must do your best to do that in an unbiased matter, but it is not easy since the majority of what you see comes from Chengfu. 

However I am finding that there are still people practicing the Yang style of Yang Shaohuo and Yang Banhuo (both pre-Chengfu) but it is rare and mostly in China. 

There are a lot of politics around why this version of Yang went away and the current Yang Chengfu version is around and growing but that is the stuff of a whole other post. One to be honest I do not want to get into because it would only end badly and it is for the most part based on theory and conjecture. The fact is all those that really could answer this, Chengfu, Shaohuo, Banhuo, Manching are all dead and the Yang family is not really talking about this much these days


----------

