# What is Considered Bad Taijiquan?



## Trent (Mar 19, 2007)

In another thread, I posed a question which was kindly answered by another poster.  The nice response generated another question and topic in my thoughts.  

It was stated that much taijiquan has been observed that lacked internal movement, but that it wasn't bad taijiquan, simply bad practice.

My mind is more likely to associate bad practice with bad movement, and leave it at that.  For example, speaking of another martial practice to not feed potential replies on this subject, if someone is throwing a jab, or series of combination punches, that lacks the proper footwork and bodywork to impart power, that person in my mind would be exhibiting poor boxing skills.  It's much harder to do it properly while getting hit than shadowboxing and working the bag and mitts with fundmental skills.

But I'd like to hear other folks opinions on the subject, as I thought this may be what leads to much miscommunication as folks may be using the same words for different ideas about the same perceptions.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Mar 19, 2007)

Taiji without Sandao - Unification of Shen (Spirit), Yi (thought, intension), and correct posture. 

Or taiji with one of them missing


----------



## East Winds (Mar 19, 2007)

As far as Traditional Yang Family Taijiquan is concerned, if _ANY_ of Yang Cheng fu's 10 essences are mssing from the form.

Very best wishes


----------



## Trent (Mar 20, 2007)

Xue Sheng said:


> Taiji without Sandao - Unification of Shen (Spirit), Yi (thought, intension), and correct posture.
> 
> Or taiji with one of them missing




That was essentially my thoughts as well, but it also included the use of the principle of chi since that is one of the major aspects of tajiquan.  Without any of those, it is bad taijiquan to me, or perhaps not even taijiquan at all.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Mar 20, 2007)

Trent said:


> That was essentially my thoughts as well, but it also included the use of the principle of chi since that is one of the major aspects of tajiquan. Without any of those, it is bad taijiquan to me, or perhaps not even taijiquan at all.


 
True

But don't forget Yi moves Qi so if Yi is not unified with Shen and posture you essentially have no qi or at best poor qi.


----------



## Trent (Mar 20, 2007)

Xue Sheng said:


> True
> 
> But don't forget Yi moves Qi so if Yi is not unified with Shen and posture you essentially have no qi or at best poor qi.



I surely agree, but what I wanted to know was other practitioner's definition of "bad" taiqjiquan.  We've all seen it, and I'm sure often.  I wish to further clarify, that I don't wish to consider neophytes or students who are learning how to do proper taijiquan, but those "teachers" who propose to offer taijiquan and don't appear to be doing it at all, and if asked unequivically state that they do, and well.

Names aren't necessary, merely descriptions of observations and impressions.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Mar 20, 2007)

Teachers that do not teach or practice correct posture

Or someone using to much Li


----------



## East Winds (Mar 21, 2007)

I think a lot of taiji we see today is "Wushu" taiji which lacks many of the fundamental principles left to us by each of the 5 families. That in my opinion is bad taiji.

Very best wishes


----------



## Steel Tiger (Mar 21, 2007)

East Winds said:


> I think a lot of taiji we see today is "Wushu" taiji which lacks many of the fundamental principles left to us by each of the 5 families. That in my opinion is bad taiji.
> 
> Very best wishes


 
I have to agree.  The biggest problem I see creating bad taiji is a lack of focus.  This lack of focus is both physical and internal.  All too often you see someone performing a form and the technique does not go all the way to the fingers or toes in its movement.  This is, of course, stems from a lack of understanding of the concepts of Yi, Shen, Qi, and Jin.


----------



## dmax999 (Mar 21, 2007)

I'll preface this with some people do Tai Chi for only health reasons, and their "correctness" is irrelevant.

See if they can fight with it. If they can't strike good, can't push hands well, and can't completely control a resisting opponent, they are probably doing bad Tai Chi.


----------



## Steel Tiger (Mar 21, 2007)

dmax999 said:


> I'll preface this with some people do Tai Chi for only health reasons, and their "correctness" is irrelevant.
> 
> See if they can fight with it. If they can't strike good, can't push hands well, and can't completely control a resisting opponent, they are probably doing bad Tai Chi.


 
Taiji is an internal art and to fully benefit from a health perspective you have to understand, posture, breathing, and thought.  

You're right the "correctness" of the form is not so important as long as the essences and principles are adhered to.  One of the telltale signs of bad taiji is an obsession with the correctness of the form, often to the exclusion of all else.


----------



## East Winds (Mar 22, 2007)

dmax999

"I'll preface this with some people do Tai Chi for only health reasons, and their "correctness" is irrelevant". 

Yes, perfectly put!! They don't realise that they are getting no more benefit than they would if they took up line dancing. No offence to any line dancing members on the forumby the way.  :rofl:

Very best wishes


----------



## oxy (Mar 22, 2007)

Japanese women, especially from Okinawa have among the highest average lifespans in the world. There are a few nonagenarians who still run their shops everyday as if they were still in their 60s.

Unless there is properly conducted and properly recorded statistical evidence that shows a _significant_ positive difference between those who practice "real taiji/internal-arts" and those who just exercise and those who have the lifestyle similar to Japanese women, then it is just not accurate to keep making the claim that "real" whatever somehow produces benefits that are miles ahead of the alternatives.

The key is _properly conducted and recorded_ statistical evidence.

If the population of "real taiji" practitioners do not significantly break the average lifespan, then there is really no evidence to back up the implication that there is "miles" of difference between "real internal" and normal exercise.

My own grandmother (who's still alive) was walking kilometres up and down a 30 degree slope every other day to buy groceries in her late eighties. No martial arts training at all. And her only complaint during recent years were knee pains. And all it took was consistent exercise for her whole life, walking up and down 30 degree slopes carrying over a kilogram of groceries in a trolley bag. Much less rigorous than line dancing (when adjusted for duration endurance).


----------



## Xue Sheng (Mar 22, 2007)

oxy said:


> Japanese women, especially from Okinawa have among the highest average lifespans in the world. There are a few nonagenarians who still run their shops everyday as if they were still in their 60s.
> 
> Unless there is properly conducted and properly recorded statistical evidence that shows a _significant_ positive difference between those who practice "real taiji/internal-arts" and those who just exercise and those who have the lifestyle similar to Japanese women, then it is just not accurate to keep making the claim that "real" whatever somehow produces benefits that are miles ahead of the alternatives.
> 
> ...


 
True, but I am not talking about real or fake I am talking about good or bad, not the same. I do not know what the others in the post are looking at but the original post was what is bad Taiji

To much li, no yi, no qi, incorrect posture all can make bad taiji

Doing Taiji for health as opposed to martial arts I'm not sure there. My suspicion is you get more form the full package than just part. 

As for Okinawa it is my understanding that in their case it is more diet and genetics than exercise. So if you eat kind of healthy will you live as long? No data to back that up either. 

Tibetans metabolize O2 better than anyone on the planet, Tibetans are Buddhists, does this mean Buddhist metabolize O2 better? No, it just means they have lived at incredibly high altitudes longer than anyone else. 
Andes Indians are similar, but they loose the ability if you take them out of the Andes for awhile, so far Tibetans dont. You or I can get our bodies to metabolize O2 at the same level as Tibetans or Andes Indians if we go live there for a few weeks. But we will loose the ability faster than the Andes Indians once removed from the high altitude environment.

Taiji for health as opposed to Taiji with MA intact I feel is more of the same thing. You can gain health either way but stop doing it who stays healthier longer? I dont know but again I suspect someone training the full package. Who gets more health benefits again I suspect those that follow the whole curriculum instead of just half. 

Regardless of how much different the health benefits may be you cannot go against genetics and if you train Zhaobao taiji (for example) for 20 years but eat nothing but hot dogs and French fries I am guessing you are not long for this world even though you might be considered a Taiji master. 

Yang Chengfu died young but he was close to 300 pounds. Chen Zhaokai died young as well, not sure why there. But for the most part the Sun family got to be very old. Is it taiji or is it genetics who knows


----------



## Trent (Mar 22, 2007)

dmax999 said:


> I'll preface this with some people do Tai Chi for only health reasons, and their "correctness" is irrelevant.
> 
> See if they can fight with it. If they can't strike good, can't push hands well, and can't completely control a resisting opponent, they are probably doing bad Tai Chi.



Hmm, I find the preface interesting as it deliberately excuses what many would perceive as "bad" due to the intent of the practitioners.  That was one of the reasons I asked the question.  People's perspectives and assumptions start with a different standard, therefore, little agreement can be made on many levels.

I agree that if they can't strike well, push or deal with a resisting opponent using taiji, then the taiji is "bad" on some or all levels, but, personally, despite the excuse that "I'm only doing it for health" if it is done without the essential things present that make taiji, it is therefore "bad" regardless of the reason.  Note, there are varying degrees of "bad" depending upon how much is absent in the practice I would think.

Also, earlier, I gave a pass to those who are new and learning what those essential practices are, and it could be considered that their taiji is "bad" as well.  Frankly, it is, but we don't call them out because they are learning and aren't expected to have good or correct practices.

Or is it just me?


----------



## Xue Sheng (Mar 22, 2007)

Trent said:


> Hmm, I find the preface interesting as it deliberately excuses what many would perceive as "bad" due to the intent of the practitioners. That was one of the reasons I asked the question. People's perspectives and assumptions start with a different standard, therefore, little agreement can be made on many levels.
> 
> I agree that if they can't strike well, push or deal with a resisting opponent using taiji, then the taiji is "bad" on some or all levels, but, personally, despite the excuse that "I'm only doing it for health" if it is done without the essential things present that make taiji, it is therefore "bad" regardless of the reason. Note, there are varying degrees of "bad" depending upon how much is absent in the practice I would think.
> 
> ...


 
nope, it's just you :uhyeah: just kidding.

I would not include a beginner in the definition of bad taiji for the same reason I would not call TKD, Xingyi, Bagua, JKD, or karate bad taiji. They don't know taiji therefore it is not good or bad. But that goes for just about anything we are new at; we start out bad and learn as we go to get better. And a beginner at taiji will HOPEFULLY get better. And before anyone jumps on that, a beginner cannot get better if the teacher is teaching bad taiji

Bad taiji is the guy that has been doing taiji for several years and is doing a very sloppy form or using to much muscular strength (Li), or in the case of Traditional Yang not following the 10 principals, etc.


----------



## East Winds (Mar 22, 2007)

I would not consider beginners to be doing bad taiji. I have been practising  Chinese Internal Arts now for 17 years and teaching for 10. My teacher  (yes, I'm still learning) makes corrections. Is that beacuse I am doing bad taiji? 

I agree with Xue Sheng's take on the matter.

Very best wishes


----------



## dmax999 (Mar 22, 2007)

Trent said:


> Hmm, I find the preface interesting as it deliberately excuses what many would perceive as "bad" due to the intent of the practitioners. That was one of the reasons I asked the question. People's perspectives and assumptions start with a different standard, therefore, little agreement can be made on many levels.
> 
> I agree that if they can't strike well, push or deal with a resisting opponent using taiji, then the taiji is "bad" on some or all levels, but, personally, despite the excuse that "I'm only doing it for health" if it is done without the essential things present that make taiji, it is therefore "bad" regardless of the reason. Note, there are varying degrees of "bad" depending upon how much is absent in the practice I would think.


 
I would never presume to make a comment that anyone who does Tai Chi only for health reasons is automatically bad. I know some that practice Tai Chi only for health and are fairly good at it. My point was it really doesn't matter if they do it right or not, they will still get the benefits they desire from it (They may get more by doing it correctly, but that is a different discussion)

To really be able to tell if they are doing it right they have to be able to use it. It would be similar to a race car driver that only raced solo on the track. Is he good or not? Doesn't matter. When you add the other drivers so many additional things, like drafting and passing, come up that he would never had to deal with by himself. He may be able to get the best lap times solo of anyone, but when it really counts is where he will learn if he is really good or bad.

That was the point about health reasons being "irrelevant". Not its automatically bad.


----------



## oxy (Mar 22, 2007)

Xue Sheng said:


> True, but I am not talking about real or fake I am talking about good or bad, not the same. I do not know what the others in the post are looking at but the original post was what is bad Taiji
> 
> To much li, no yi, no qi, incorrect posture all can make bad taiji
> 
> Doing Taiji for health as opposed to martial arts I'm not sure there. My suspicion is you get more form the full package than just part.



I don't doubt that you get more from the full package than otherwise. My doubt is exactly how much more.

I did get side-tracked by using the words "exercise", but I was including "bad Taiji" in that category, since East Winds made a comment about bad Taiji being only as good as line dancing. They're both good for exercise.



> As for Okinawa it is my understanding that in their case it is more diet and genetics than exercise. So if you eat kind of healthy will you live as long? No data to back that up either.



That people will live as long as okinawans? Probably not. That people will live longer than the people around them who do not eat as healthy? I think there's enough data there (of course, I would have to search for them). But given that all okinawans have basically the same diet and they, as a society, have above average average lifespans, that is good evidence right there.



> Tibetans metabolize O2 better than anyone on the planet, Tibetans are Buddhists, does this mean Buddhist metabolize O2 better? No, it just means they have lived at incredibly high altitudes longer than anyone else.
> Andes Indians are similar, but they loose the ability if you take them out of the Andes for awhile, so far Tibetans don&#8217;t. You or I can get our bodies to metabolize O2 at the same level as Tibetans or Andes Indians if we go live there for a few weeks. But we will loose the ability faster than the Andes Indians once removed from the high altitude environment.
> 
> Taiji for health as opposed to Taiji with MA intact I feel is more of the same thing. You can gain health either way but stop doing it who stays healthier longer? I don&#8217;t know but again I suspect someone training the full package. Who gets more health benefits again I suspect those that follow the whole curriculum instead of just half.



Again, I don't doubt you get more from the full package. My doubt is about exactly how much more. To be able to make solid claims, this "more" must be significantly more. You mentioned genetics and the environment. They are very important factors. Which is why you need the statistical significance to show that real taiji does something beyond what genetic and environment variables are present.

I agree (unfortunately without too much evidence) that those who do bad taiji might lose whatever they have at much quicker rates if they stop but I think that's beside the point because I was making the point that someone who does bad taiji for as long as someone who does good taiji do not have evidence to say they are miles apart. The assumption that they do not stop was made to make the two more comparable. Otherwise, you can't tell if it's really bad taiji that puts that gap in between or if it's because the bad taiji practitioner stopped practitioning.

If anything, the claims should only go as far as saying that bad taiji is more likely to cause injury through incorrect posture and too much li.



> Yang Chengfu died young but he was close to 300 pounds. Chen Zhaokai died young as well, not sure why there. But for the most part the Sun family got to be very old. Is it taiji or is it genetics who knows



Exactly. It's not clear. Which is why it's not a good idea to make claims about real taiji being significantly better than bad taiji without enough evidence. Comparing bad taiji to line dancing in order to imply real taiji is somehow miles better without real-world statistics is not a good thing to do. Ultimately, such claims will hurt the whole internal martial arts world. Even if studies show these claims are true, there will be others who will be tricked by other less honest studies. It's kind of like if a person was found innocent but the perception of guilt sticks around just because they were a suspect.


----------



## East Winds (Mar 23, 2007)

Oxy,

There are only three things you should know about statistics:
*
There are Lies, Damn Lies and statistics* - Mark Twain
*
Think about how stupid the average person is; now realise half of them are dumber than that* - George Carlin

and finally
*
47.3% of all statistics are made up on the spot*.

Very best wishes


----------



## pete (Mar 23, 2007)

East Winds said:


> My teacher (yes, I'm still learning) makes corrections. Is that beacuse I am doing bad taiji?


just the opposite, i'd consider the indicator of bad tai chi to be the lack of humility and persistence in study that prevents one from accepting corrections from a higher authority.


----------



## oxy (Mar 23, 2007)

East Winds said:


> Oxy,
> 
> There are only three things you should know about statistics:
> *
> ...



From my second year statistics unit, I know a lot more about the practice of statistics than just those three quotes.

It's unfortunate that your quotes have the effect of implying that because statistics are often misused and miscalculated it somehows makes the alternative (eg, merely asserting that real taiji is millions of miles ahead of bad taiji based on, I don't know, "gut feeling") is somehow more accurate. It's a logical fallacy. I give you the benefit of the doubt, as I'm sure you weren't implying such a thing.

Furthermore, your quotes imply that the examples of bad statistics somehow expands to encompass the whole field of statistics as misleading and not trustworthy. That would be the same as saying taiji in general must be useless because I can think of a few examples of bad taiji teachers. Again, I prefer to give you the benefit of the doubt.

The second quote by George Carlin also illustrates a very common misunsderstanding of statistics by people who deride it. In the example of intelligence, it is true that half of the population is below average (it's a definition, duh). But what that statement doesn't illustrate is that intelligence fits a normal distribution. Therefore, it's much more accurate to say that 67.5% (if I remember my figures correctly) of people are less than one standard deviation apart from the average. Ironically, an understanding of statistics makes it easier to see how empty these quotes are in substance.

Thirdly, only 13.2% of statistics are made up on the spot. Only 15% of people actually know this fact.

Lastly, I say again. Whatever you choose as your standard of measurement, whether it be statistics or gut feeling or bunch of "I knew a guy who..." statements, there is just no accurate information to say that bad taiji (and line dancing) is miles behind real taiji. As Xue Sheng's previous examples illustrated, real taiji does not seem to have some significantly overriding factor that makes it miles ahead. I repeat that I understand there is more benefit than doing bad taiji, but that benefit has not been shown to be significant that can't be attributed to other factors (or what we statisticians call too much noise in the sample).

If anyone thinks that it's okay to potentially jeopardise the whole internal martial arts field by making unfounded statements (which can either be proven wrong or misrepresented by unethical parties) then I will stop objecting to it. Of course, that means I have to think up some new term to distance myself away from you all before the fan becomes more browner.


----------



## Trent (Mar 23, 2007)

Xue Sheng said:


> nope, it's just you :uhyeah: just kidding.
> 
> I would not include a beginner in the definition of bad taiji for the same reason I would not call TKD, Xingyi, Bagua, JKD, or karate bad taiji. They don't know taiji therefore it is not good or bad. But that goes for just about anything we are new at; we start out bad and learn as we go to get better. And a beginner at taiji will HOPEFULLY get better. And before anyone jumps on that, a beginner cannot get better if the teacher is teaching bad taiji
> 
> Bad taiji is the guy that has been doing taiji for several years and is doing a very sloppy form or using to much muscular strength (Li), or in the case of Traditional Yang not following the 10 principals, etc.



I wouldn't call those examples bad taiji either; they are not claiming do to taiji.  And I believe that any beginner would tell you, "My taiji is poor," or "I don't really know how to do taiji," so, it wouldn't matter.  I don't judge them, mind you, but just offering a different idea.  However, we've all seen people who just learned their respective form over the last handful of weeks and wish to teach, saying, "I do taiji."  To me, they are still a beginner, and I would undoubtedly call what they do, "bad taiji" unless they are some sort of real genius at the movement and principles.

I do think we're on the same page with our thoughts.


----------



## East Winds (Mar 23, 2007)

Oxy,

I don't place too much reliance on High School statistics. What I do know is that aerobic exercise, be it Line Dancing or Jogging or whatever, works on the externals. Taiji, Qigong, Neigong and other internal arts work on the internal. Therefore it follows that by doing Internal Arts, you are getting a full body workoutl (internal and external) i.e. more benefit. Don't believe me of course, take a look at any of the medical databases such as Medline and type in Tai Chi and look at the hundreds of hits you will get (yes, complete with statistics) of carefully conducted trials in hospitals and clinics. The original question is of course had nothing to do with more or less benefits, it asked "What is considered Bad taijiquan?" I still say it is any Taiji that is missing the principles or essences of Taijiquan.

Trent, your original question was a good one, pity it has been hijacked and side tracked from its original intention.

Very best wishes


----------



## oxy (Mar 23, 2007)

> I don't place too much reliance on High School statistics.



I don't recall learning about techniques for estimating reliable sample sizes in high school. I only learned that in my second year of university. I also don't recall learning about p-values and tolerances until around the same time (in the same unit).



> Therefore it follows that by doing Internal Arts, you are getting a full body workoutl (internal and external) i.e. more benefit. Don't believe me of course,



It's not about belief. Read my previous posts. I never said there was no increased benefit from a "full" workout compared to "not full". Read carefully. I said there's no evidence of _significant_ increase.

Personally, despite my own affiliation with a decidedly internal art, I actually wonder if anything "internal" is nothing more than a cultural artifact that was invented to explain certain unknown things. Kind of like aether in early theories of light propagation.



> Don't believe me of course, take a look at any of the medical databases such as Medline and type in Tai Chi and look at the hundreds of hits you will get (yes, complete with statistics) of carefully conducted trials in hospitals and clinics.



And in those studies, are you assuring me that they only sampled those who practised "real taiji" and not those who do nothing more than "exercise taiji"? Are those statistics of "real taiji" practitioners significantly elevated from the rest of the exercising population?

Part of the study of statistics involves choosing a meaningful sample space. In this case, my point was about "good taiji" and "bad taiji" comparisons.

A brief look at taiji topics in Medline did not say anything about good or bad taiji. It treated taiji in general. There was no distinguishing between the two, from what I saw.

And again, as Xue Sheng's previous examples illustrated, there are many factors. Can anyone, from even the Medline statistics make a valued judgement that says their taiji data significantly exceeded that with other statistics on other kinds of exercise?

I don't know what your point is, because I've never made any argument about taiji having no benefit at all. My point was always about the comparison between bad taiji and good taiji and whether there is any significant difference that is not merely an assertion.



> The original question is of course had nothing to do with more or less benefits, it asked "What is considered Bad taijiquan?"



Yes, but then you also threw in a comparison between bad taiji and line dancing, which really opened up the discussion: what empirical attributes distinguish between bad and good taiji. Makes my points quite relevant in that case and not hijacking at all.

You can define bad taiji as "lacking principles and essences", but then there's no consistent definition or _understanding_ of "principles and essences" (within and between various internal arts), which makes the original definition of bad taiji as nothing than an exercise of non-answering . And therefore, Trent's question has not really been answered at all but merely shifted back a notch. Shift back any further and it becomes a circular definition.

It reminds of an old joke which ended with an economist (who's stranded on an island with a can of food) saying: "let's assume we have a can opener..."

My point now seems more relevant than first glance seems to give.


----------



## East Winds (Mar 23, 2007)

Oxy,
*
"but then there's no consistent definition or understanding of "principles and essences" (within and between various internal arts)"

*That's the trouble with having little knowledge of Taiji. You seem to be unaware of the Tai Chi Classics or Yang Cheng-fu's 10 Essences. These provide a very substantial definition of what is good Tai Chi. Incidentally, those of us with Batchelor of Science degrees (BSc.) studied practical (not theoretical)  mathematics and statistics.

Very best wishes


----------



## Xue Sheng (Mar 23, 2007)

Trent said:


> I do think we're on the same page with our thoughts.


 
agreed


----------



## Xue Sheng (Mar 23, 2007)

pete said:


> just the opposite, i'd consider the indicator of bad tai chi to be the lack of humility and persistence in study that prevents one from accepting corrections from a higher authority.



This is a very good point. I have run into a few people that know everything Taiji, I have talked about a few here on MT. The guy that told me he didnt DO martial arts, he did Tai Chi was a very good example of this. His form, his energy, his intention were all horrible. But he knew more than anyone in the room and would NOT take any suggestions. I would have to say he did bad Taiji.



- Now Bad Taiji good Taiji Heath vs. Martial Arts
Can a person who does Taiji specifically for health do good Taiji

Most certainly.

I will base this on Yang style

Can a person who does Taiji for health practice Sandao? Yes
Can a person who does Taij for health follow the 10 essences? Yes

I will base this on Yang style

Can a person who does Taij for martial art practice Sandao? Yes
Can a person who does Taij for martial arts follow the 10 essences? Yes
But both can be guilty of missing one or both. 
I have seen people that tell me they do Taiji martial arts and they are doing is karate which is most certainly bad Taiji. Good karate but not good Taiji.

I have seen people doing Taiji for health doing incredibly sloppy forms, not students, not beginner, I am talking a person that was teaching it here. This too is bad Taiji. 



- Statistics as proof of anything (Marc Twain was right by the way)
Now as to statistics being used to prove anything. I have a little experience with statistics (and I do mean a little meaning not much) but I know that with statistics, depending on what formula I use I can pretty much give you the results you are looking for which proves nothing. Statistical results are questionable with out the data used to give you said results. If you want to base anything on statistics just remember 3 out of 4 dentists say that toothpaste A is the best ever. Of course they fail to tell you they only spoke to 4 dentists.


----------



## oxy (Mar 24, 2007)

East Winds said:


> Oxy,
> *
> "but then there's no consistent definition or understanding of "principles and essences" (within and between various internal arts)"
> 
> ...



It's amusing how you use an ad hominem to imply that somehow my education is not as good as yours which further implies that I am somehow wrong, yet do nothing to address the points I made. Ad hominem is usually a logical fallacy because the faults of the person does not translate into faults of the argument. It really is unfortunate that logical fallacies are embraced by representatives of a supposed higher level of martial arts.

Do the Medline statistics differentiate between "good taiji" or "bad taiji"? That's a simple question which is very relevant regardless of whether or not my education is based on practicality rather than on theory. Yet your attempts to discredit me do nothing to say otherwise. I also mentioned other principles regarding choosing the correct sample spaces (eg, relevance, tolerances). Why would whether or not someone had theoretical or practical understanding somehow give credit or discredit the application of those principles? Do those principles somehow break down and are no longer applicable in the practical world?

I would think someone on their way to get a BEng degree (in which the mathematics and statistics related units have long been completed) would ALSO have practical knowledge of statistics, but don't let that get in the way of you making logically weak arguments. And don't let that get in the way of you assuming that I do not learn stuff on my own outside university. And certainly don't let that get in the way of you (potentially) assuming that BEng's don't need _practical_ understanding of statistics. Seriously, over and over again, our engineering lecturers stressed over and over again that engineering uses theories developed by science and rarely invent our own. Can you really get more practical than that?

Second, I am very aware of the numerous taiji classics. You do not understand my point. Just because it's written down does not mean it is _understood_ with exact consistency across the board. The keyword there is _understood_. Anyone can quote the classics but the ability to rote learn quotes have nothing to do with understanding on its own.

You yourself seem very aware that within the Yang school that there is a lot of variation even within the so-called "good taiji" sector. Really, if things were consistently understood, then why are there the different schools of Chen, Yang, Wu, Sun etc in the first place? In theory, the taiji writings give consistency, but in practice, that's demonstrably wrong. Funny, but I thought someone with a degree in practicality would understand something that simple (and demonstrated).

It's a sad day when someone with a degree would use it to give authority to shaky statements. And can I get on your mailing list so I am up to date on whether you are going to give up fallacious ad hominem arguments?

-----------------------------------------------

Now back to the topic about "bad taiji". There are theoretical differences between good and bad taiji, but not enough data about the practical differences between the two (really, it goes for all internal martial arts, of which mine is a part).

Hell, I've known many other people who define things as good or bad purely on the terms of which is more older. By that standard, Yang taiji is bad Chen and CMC is bad Yang. Conversely, there are also those who argue "the newer the better" and you get the reverse of the former line of reasoning.

The End.


----------



## East Winds (Mar 24, 2007)

oxy,

Thanks for the reply. Mine will be much shorter than yours. Rather than arguing _ad hominem _I am rather arguing _ad hominem tu quoque _and to save you running to your Latin dictionary, it means objecting to an argument by characterising the arguer as being guilty of the same thing he is arguing against. 

I do not mind debating a topic on this board as I have done on may occasions, however when the goal posts continually change and the argument becomes circular, it ts time for me at least to drop the topic of discussion. If you feel that by my so doing you have won the argument then so be it. I will let you as always, have the last word.

Very best wishes


----------



## oxy (Mar 24, 2007)

Xue Sheng said:


> Now as to statistics being used to prove anything. I have a little experience with statistics (and I do mean a little meaning not much) but I know that with statistics, depending on what formula I use I can pretty much give you the results you are looking for which proves nothing. Statistical results are questionable with out the data used to give you said results. If you want to base anything on statistics just remember 3 out of 4 dentists say that toothpaste A is the best ever. Of course they fail to tell you they only spoke to 4 dentists.



You are absolutely correct.

But within the practice of statistics, the actual nature of the sample and the question itself is used to decide on exactly which formula to use. For example, for tracking the time (or distance or whatever) between events, a Poisson distribution is used. For nuclear decay, an exponential distribution is used. For age, intelligence and exam mark scaling, if I remember correctly, uses a normal distribution.

Also, within the practice of scientific study, there is the process of peer review in which many independent scientists/organisations will test the findings of the original study to decide if there was any oversights or even fraud.

Your dentist example is a good representation of statistical misrepresentation used by the popular media, which is why I wouldn't recommend the popular media as a trustable source of science reporting.

Because of peer review, (and the rest of us really should be looking for peer reviews since we don't have the resources to verify ourselves), inaccurate statistics are found. The problems you mentioned about data sources is entirely correct. So when I mention statistical evidence, it is implied that the sources are presented as a part of the evidence so it can also be peer reviewed.

If statistics were truly misrepresentable, then there would be no way we would know about it in the first place. ie, a perfect lie is indistinguishable from the truth.

Lastly, in the practice of science, there is no such thing as proof. It's also one of the funny things when some people try to claim their martial art is scientific and yet talk about "proof". In science, all there is is evidence which either favours the theory, is neutral to the theory or against the theory. Sometimes, we might say "overwhelmingly". But there is no talk of proof in the traditional sense. Proof is left to mathematics where its universe is much more orderly.


----------



## oxy (Mar 24, 2007)

East Winds said:


> oxy,
> 
> Thanks for the reply. Mine will be much shorter than yours. Rather than arguing _ad hominem _I am rather arguing _ad hominem tu quoque _and to save you running to your Latin dictionary, it means objecting to an argument by characterising the arguer as being guilty of the same thing he is arguing against.



You would be right in assuming that I don't know enough Latin to require a dictionary.

The question is, are my supposed ad hominems in response to your initial ones or is it the other way around. These are the first ad hominems I found on this thread.

1: I don't place too much reliance on High School statistics.
2: That's the trouble with having little knowledge of Taiji. You seem to be unaware of the Tai Chi Classics or Yang Cheng-fu's 10 Essences.
3: Incidentally, those of us with Batchelor of Science degrees (BSc.)
4: studied practical (not theoretical) mathematics and statistics.
5: however when the goal posts continually change
6: If you feel that by my so doing you have won the argument then so be it.
7: I will let you as always, have the last word.

Strangely, none of those were from me. I continue to wonder why I can have a similar discussion with someone else (eg Xue Sheng) in a dignified manner and yet a discussion with you always end in me being attacked ad hominem.



> however when the goal posts continually change and the argument becomes circular, it ts time for me at least to drop the topic of discussion.



Goal posts haven't been changed at all. Merely that the discussion takes on various perspectives especially in the case of this thread.

One reason why you feel the goal posts moving was because you made a few arguments that obviously had the intent of trying to discredit me through my supposed lack of education or "practical" knowledge. Furthered by the fact that my original points were not addressed by you. Goal posts do have a tendency to shift when people do not address the points being made but tries to attack the other's credibility.

It's a pity goal posts would not have shifted if I wasn't attacked like that.



> If you feel that by my so doing you have won the argument then so be it.



That would be a logical fallacy and I will not be happy with myself if I make those. I feel very strongly toward intellectual honesty to myself.

What I will feel is the feeling of being left stranded since the points I made were not addressed and were perceived by you as being rebutted by your irrelevant ad hominems.



> I will let you as always, have the last word.
> 
> Very best wishes



I will happily have the last words purely because I am completely aware of the unfortunate assumption by many that the person who bows out of a discussion first somehow has the higher ground. And I always let people have the higher ground if they want it that badly.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Mar 24, 2007)

OK, I am not a moderator but let me see if I can get this back on topic because I feel it is an important topic.

Let me restate my previous post

Now Bad Taiji vs. good Taiji 

Taiji for Heath vs. for Martial arts Martial Arts

Can a person who does Taiji specifically for health do good Taiji

Most certainly.

Basing this on Yang style

can a person who does Taiji for health practice Sandao? Yes
can a person who does Taiji for health follow the 10 essences? Yes

again basing this on Yang style

Can a person who does Taiji for martial art practice Sandao? Yes
can a person who does Taiji for martial arts follow the 10 essences? Yes

But both can be guilty of missing one or both? Again yes, this also says that both can be guilty of bad Taiji

I have seen people that tell me they do Taiji martial arts and they are doing is karate which is most certainly bad Taiji. It is good karate but it is bad Taiji

I have seen people doing Taiji for health doing incredibly sloppy forms, not students, not beginner; I am talking a person that was teaching it here. This too is bad Taiji. 

So I still feel that whether or not you do Taiji for health or MA is not a standard of what is good or bad.

I still feel that not practicing Sandao and using to much Li is what constitutes bad Taiji and if you are talking Yang style, as it is taught by the Yang family today, not knowing or practicing the 10 essences would then again be bad Taiji.


----------



## East Winds (Mar 25, 2007)

My position on this thread has been consistent throughout. If Taiji does not contain or violates the taiji classics, then quite simply it is bad Taiji. Nothing more, nothing less. 

You apparently took offence at my gentle chide at line dancers and then launched into a lecture on statistical analysis and Okinawan women which had  little bearing on the subject matter of the thread.

You need to learn that when a Taiji player is  faced with a full frontal attack  - he merely steps aside.

Very best wishes


----------



## Xue Sheng (Mar 25, 2007)

East Winds said:


> You apparently took offence at my gentle chide at line dancers and then launched into a lecture on statistical analysis and Okinawan women which had little bearing on the subject matter of the thread.


 
Who took offense?

Not I that I can assure you.


----------



## oxy (Mar 25, 2007)

Xue Sheng said:


> Who took offense?
> 
> Not I that I can assure you.



Don't worry, he was talking to me.


----------



## oxy (Mar 25, 2007)

East Winds said:


> My position on this thread has been consistent throughout. If Taiji does not contain or violates the taiji classics, then quite simply it is bad Taiji. Nothing more, nothing less.



I never said your position wasn't consistent. All I said was you were responsible for a large part of some supposed "goal post shifting" purely because you launched into ad hominem attacks against me, as I have shown with select sentences from your posts. Like you said, you side-stepped when being "attacked" (even though my attacks weren't ad hominem, but more like a maths teacher "attacking" a student with incorrect answers). This is goal-post shifting.

Furthermore, I also made the point that the existence of taiji classics does not equate to the consistent existence/application/understanding of the principles of those classics in the real world of taiji. I gave quite a long answer to that question (unfortunately overshadowed by my defending my education which you focused on instead of the taiji-related points) of which one of them was: if the taiji classics were consistently understood, why did taiji split into Chen, Yang, Wu, Sun, CMC etc in the first place?

If we go by the definition of "not containing or violating the classics" then one can argue all taiji today is currently bad taiji because they're going to be violating somebody's classics (and their interpretation). And before you go on about consistent interpretation, may I just repeat the argument I laid out a few posts before and in the previous paragraph? Certainly, I think we all remember Xue Sheng's tale of a Chen saying Yang is too high and a Yang saying Chen is too low (as a trivial example where there seems to exist more representative ones)? I remember seeing many Chen videos with slanted torsos which, if I remember correctly, violates Yang's upright criteria.

This is my attempt to get this thread back on track (ie, the taiji-related points I made above). I leave it to you to focus on them instead of my defence of being attacked.



> You apparently took offence at my gentle chide at line dancers



To be more accurate, I only took offence to the lack of accuracy/unjustified-claim. And even then it's more like saying a maths teacher who "takes offence" at a wrong answer by giving less marks rather than on the lines of "nobody does this to oxy" kind of thing.



> and then launched into a lecture on statistical analysis and Okinawan women which had  little bearing on the subject matter of the thread.



Sure, when you quotemine like that. If you read the posts, you would see that "Okinawan women" and "statistical analysis" only purpose was to support my main point. And that main point, as I have shown over and over, is a vital part of answering the question of what is considered bad taiji. A request to focus on my main point instead of shifting goal-posts by not focusing on it.

I thought it was important for fundamental questions such as these not be answered with a single response because that single response begs the question and pre-empts the answer without giving an answer.



> You need to learn that when a Taiji player is  faced with a full frontal attack  - he merely steps aside.
> 
> Very best wishes



As I've shown before, only you were the one doing the attacking. Shall I requote your posts again (cropped)?

1: I don't place too much reliance on High School statistics.
2: That's the trouble with having little knowledge of Taiji. You seem to be unaware of the Tai Chi Classics or Yang Cheng-fu's 10 Essences.
3: Incidentally, those of us with Batchelor of Science degrees (BSc.)
4: studied practical (not theoretical) mathematics and statistics.
5: however when the goal posts continually change
6: If you feel that by my so doing you have won the argument then so be it.

Maybe I can conclude that you side-stepp when being "attacked" only because you can then attack the "attacker" with ad hominem fallacies?

My first post was questioning whether statements such as yours are founded in factual basis instead of a subjective/emotional/qualitative bases. Maybe you took offence at that because it appeared to be an attack on taiji itself (which was never the case had you not bothered with launching into a tirade of ad hominems). Certainly explains why you continue to side-step the issue that I raised about empirical differences between good and bad taiji as well the more recent ones about the principles in the taiji classics. I tried to at least stick to the subtopic I branched off into, but ended up failing because I suddenly found my credibility and education level coming under attack.

I raised a few taiji-related points in the first part of this post. Focus on them please. Allow a man to defend himself.

PS Ad hominem tu qoque does not excuse ad hominem (ie, to wrongs don't make a right) not that I (as far as I can see) actually started out with ad hominems mind you.


----------



## East Winds (Mar 26, 2007)

oxy,

Thank you for your input. Perhaps if you spent more time discussing the subject matter of this thread and less time defending some perceived injustices, your posts might attain more credibility.

Incidentally, the Tai Chi classics are not family specific and are a set of core principles which govern the training and performance of Taijiquan irrespective of its source. The splitting of Chen to Yang to Wu to Sun had absolutely no bearing on the applicability of the classics. 

By the way I have written out one hundred times "I must be more circumspect of Line Dancing" 





Very best wishes


----------



## oxy (Mar 26, 2007)

East Winds said:


> oxy,
> 
> Thank you for your input. Perhaps if you spent more time discussing the subject matter of this thread and less time defending some perceived injustices, your posts might attain more credibility.



You just can't stop, can you?

I did spend more time discussing the subject matter. Your not focussing on that in favour of your (documented) non-arguments obviously skewed your view. And incidentally, you still had to start off your post with yet another jab at me.

On the other hand, I think I'll not talk about your own "defence" of yourself as a substitute of you addressing my taiji-related points. I'll leave the charge of hypocrisy to the minds of the people.

(PS I'll stop if you'll stop. Simple concept)



> Incidentally, the Tai Chi classics are not family specific and are a set of core principles which govern the training and performance of Taijiquan irrespective of its source. The splitting of Chen to Yang to Wu to Sun had absolutely no bearing on the applicability of the classics.



Yang 10 essences are a part of Chen?

Plus, I think Xue Sheng threw in a good criteria (on the account of that it can be empirically quantified) of posture. Surely the postures are not consistent between the families. Unless, somehow, posture is not applicable in the definition of what good or bad taiji is...

Certainly, somewhere along the line, the Yang family just thought that they'll do away with Chen-style fajin in their form because of differences in their own principles. And then you get the in-fighting with some members of each family calling the others bad taiji.


----------



## East Winds (Mar 27, 2007)

oxy,

At last some substance that we can debate!!

_*Yang 10 essences are a part of Chen?

 Plus, I think Xue Sheng threw in a good criteria (on the account of that it can be empirically quantified) of posture. Surely the postures are not consistent between the families. Unless, somehow, posture is not applicable in the definition of what good or bad taiji is...

 Certainly, somewhere along the line, the Yang family just thought that they'll do away with Chen-style fajin in their form because of differences in their own principles. And then you get the in-fighting with some members of each family calling the others bad taiji*.

_Yes, surprisingly enough, the Yang 10 essences are part of Chen, or rather it is the other way  about. The Chens produced (or rather owned) "The Mental Elucidation of the 13 Postures". Yang took these and amalgamated a couple to make his 10 Essences. But they are all there. Which of course covers your second point about consistency of postures between the families. All the familes conform to "The Elucidation". If they don't they are doing bad Taiiji. Which members of which family stated that the other was doing bad taiji? Statements like that need source.

I don't know what "Chen fajin" is. Fa Jin is Fa Jin. The translation is "to issue energy". The Yang Traditional form is full of Fa Jin. Not as overt as in Chen. Yang Cheng-fu did not remove Fa Jin from his form, he merley hid it within his form. Push hands with a Traditonal Yang Family stylist and you will certainly find their Fa Jin. (The modern Chinese Government forms do not train Fa Jin, but then, neither are they Yang style).

And now finally to clear up a couple of points. I did not critise you personally, I was criticising Statistics as I thought I had made clear in my tongue in cheek post about the 3 "facts" of statistical analysis. I am very happy to debate Latin usage (or abusage) having over many years navigated my way through the minefield of taxonomic syntax. However this is not the place for that. I'm sorry if you felt my responses were personal, but I'm sure you will suffer much worse than that over the years of your life. However I will continue to address such points as I think are falacious when they are expressed on a public discussion board.

Very best wishes


----------



## oxy (Mar 27, 2007)

East Winds said:


> Yes, surprisingly enough, the Yang 10 essences are part of Chen, or rather it is the other way  about. The Chens produced (or rather owned) "The Mental Elucidation of the 13 Postures". Yang took these and amalgamated a couple to make his 10 Essences. But they are all there. Which of course covers your second point about consistency of postures between the families.



Well actually, my second point consisted of multiple types of consistency of which one of them was interpretation. That Yang essences modified the thirteen, which means some kind of incompatibility between what the Chens thought and what the Yang's thought the principles mean.

And then, there's also the other family styles.



> Which members of which family stated that the other was doing bad taiji? Statements like that need source.



I wasn't talking about specific ones. But that Yang-Chen politics seem to have gained an infamous reputation in some circles. And I suspect that no one from either family will publicly state anything of that nature. A thought experiment that tries to get them to work together on a "new taiji" (not specific to taiji, but within other schismed disciplines like Catholics and Protestants working together to get a "new Christianity") easily shows the potential for disagreement.



> I don't know what "Chen fajin" is. Fa Jin is Fa Jin. The translation is "to issue energy". The Yang Traditional form is full of Fa Jin. Not as overt as in Chen. Yang Cheng-fu did not remove Fa Jin from his form, he merley hid it within his form. Push hands with a Traditonal Yang Family stylist and you will certainly find their Fa Jin. (The modern Chinese Government forms do not train Fa Jin, but then, neither are they Yang style).



I used "Chen-style fajin" (in that context) as a set of properties. That makes Yang fajin different (in the context I used) because of the differences that you described. I fully understand that Yang has fajin. But I was saying that there must be some philosophical differences between Yang and Chen that made Yang-style develop into something more subtle than Chen. And those differences (along with other possible ones) can make one "bad taiji" in terms of the other (not that either side will publicly start the fight).



> And now finally to clear up a couple of points. I did not critise you personally, I was criticising Statistics as I thought I had made clear in my tongue in cheek post about the 3 "facts" of statistical analysis.
> ...
> I'm sorry if you felt my responses were personal, but I'm sure you will suffer much worse than that over the years of your life.



You criticised statistics. Then I criticised your criticism as not accurately portraying statistics but more like portraying people's general misconceptions about statistics (which I still stand by). Then you criticised my criticism by using the ad hominem fallacy of labelling my education in statistics as "High School" level, among other things. That makes it ad hominem because you made the argument that "X made statement A, but possessed the less-than-desirable quality of X', therefore the statement A is wrong/inaccurate".

I don't know any latin, but the area of logical fallacy regarding ad hominem is exactly how I describe. There is a common misconception that ad hominem is simply any personal attack, but it's use in logic is specifically for an personal attack that implies an inaccuracy by the attacked. Therefore my point was not that I was personally attacked, but that I was personally attacked in order to have my actual arguments ignored.



> However I will continue to address such points as I think are falacious when they are expressed on a public discussion board.
> 
> Very best wishes



What a coincidence! Addressing fallacious points was why I joined the discussion in the first place.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Mar 27, 2007)

One must take into account on any discussion of comparing Yang and Chen that what generally happens is that you are comparing the current Yang style to Chen which is not the Yang style that came directly from Chen. For that you would need to find someone with a clear line to Yang Shao Hou or Yang Ban Hou, which as much as some want to deny its existence, it still exists on mainland China and in Taiwan as well I believe.

Yang Luchan learned Chen style and changed it to Yang style. Yang Jianhou learned this Yang style and changed it and Yang Chengfu learned the Yang style of Jianhou and changed it again. 

And not meaning to be argumentative but Chengfu did remove some of the fajing from the style.


----------



## East Winds (Mar 27, 2007)

Xue Sheng,

Not wishing to be argumentative either, but I would be interested in knowing from which parts of the form you think Cheng-fu removed the Fa Jin?

Very best wishes


----------



## Xue Sheng (Mar 27, 2007)

I have read several articles on the change that say he removed some of the fajing from the form. Most unfortunately I do not remember where they are and I have none to site. 

However if you look at Chen style Laojia yilu and erlu and if you can find a person that does Yang of Banhou or Shaohou, the closest I have found and the only well known person I know that claims lineage to Banhou is Yang Jwing Ming. You see a lot of fajing. Yes some of it is overt and some is not but there is still more than you find (overt or hidden) in the current traditional Yang style from Yang Chengfu

Yang Luchan 15th generation Chen style, likely learned the longer version of Laojia yilu which was 108 forms. This is the style of Chen I use to do and there is one HECK of a lot of fast movement and fajing. most of which occurs in the current Yang family taiji. Yes Chengfu did hide some of it and yes there is fajing in Yang style long form but based on Chen I have done, the Yang I do and what I see from Yang Jwing Ming there is some missing in the Yang Long form. 

Chen Changxin was Yang Luchans teacher and he has been credited with taking the forms of Chen Wang Ting and dividing them into two forms: Chen Yi Lu and Chen Er Lu (aka Pao Chui or Cannon Fist). These forms and the weapons forms are known as big frame Chen or Chen Lao Jia (old frame). This is what Luchan learned and it was likely full of one whole heck of a lot of Fajing.

Now it is possible that Yang Chengfu did not remove any of the fajing movements from the style that he learned, remember he did not learn the style of Luchan, he learned the style of Yang Jian Hou who had already changed the style of Luchan so it is possible that the fajing was removed by Jian Hou and not Chengfu.


----------



## East Winds (Mar 27, 2007)

Xue Sheng,

You raise several interesting points. The whole subject of fa jin should probably have a thread of its own as I feel that although it is relevant to the title of this thread, it is sufficiently divergent to move to another thread.

The first problem is that we tend to think of Fa Jin only in terms of the fast power release we se in Chen style. However that is only one manifestation of Fa Jin. The translation of Fa Jin as you will know is "to release, issue or despatch energy" Nothing about speed  or "explosive" energy release. The Elucidation of the Thirteen Postures states "Store energy (xu jin) as though drawing a bow. Issue energy (fa jin) as though releasing an arrow. Seek the straight in the curved. Store up then issue".  Xu Jin is gathered and stored in Traditional Yang by practising Chou Si (gathering silk) in other words  utilising the Yin aspect of the postures then issued as Fa Jin in the Yang aspect of the posture by delivering it from the feet, through the waist to the hands. When your Sifu puts you on your backside in push hands he is using Fa Jin and I'll bet there is no great out breath or sudden explosion of energy. My own teacher merely seems to expand and suddenly I'm picking myself off the floor. 

I have great respect for Yang Jwing Ming but even he admits that he has made additions to the form he teaches therefore I don't think we can claim it comes from Ban Hou. I have seen several variations of the "Shao Hou"  forms and again which is the "real" one? We can however be sure that what the Yangs are teaching today is the form as finally formulated by Cheng-fu. Fortunatley we have videos of Fu Zhong Wen and Yang Shou Zhong (a senior student and the 1st son of Chhng-fu) to confirm a true lineage. Can we be sure that what Chen Xiaownag and Chen Zhenli are teaching today is exactly what Chen Chanxing was teaching. I was learning Chen Laojia some years ago and that is where I learned about the subtle issue of Fa Jin as well as the fast way. I suspect that Yang Lu Chan also learned that from the Chens and that it has been transmitted through all the Yangs to the present day.

When we stop just "doing the form" and begin to incorporate the "Elucidation" and Cheng-fu's 10 essences into EVERY posture in the WHOLE form (and that's REALLY hard) then we are starting to learn to use and issue the energies that are inherent in the form. Unfortunately very few Yang stylists reach this stage and there are even fewer teachers teaching this stage. Yang Zhen Ji and Zhen Duo are certainly teaching it, which is why it comes to me via my own teachers.

Hope this either clears up some misconceptions or stimulates further discusssion. I would be happy to expand on any aspect of this post which is not clear.

Very best wishes


----------



## Xue Sheng (Mar 27, 2007)

East Winds said:


> Xue Sheng,
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Ah but it sounds like you are making a similar assumption about Chen that you are accusing me of making about Yang. 

Not all fajing in Chen style is evident or explosive. And from my experience with both and from past reading somewhere between Yang Luchan and Yang Chengfu some of the fajing was removed. There is not as much evident of otherwise fajing present in the Yang 108 form as there is in the Chen 108 Laojia yilu. 

And which Laojia did you learn the current shorter laojia or the older longer one? 

The older one that it is likely that Luchan learned was 108, not to be confused with a 108 long form Chen that is floating around Shandong as well. Also there is some discussion as to the 13 postures as seen by Chen and as seen by Yang. Some interpret the Chen view as 13 sections which are made up of sub-postures some of course interpret it as 13 postures of Chen the same as Yang, but a different order in translation.

It is possible that Luchan himself removed some jin to make Yang style, who knows, at least who knows for sure that is alive today. And the early Yang style was, I believe called 13 postures Taiji when he first taught it in or near Chen village. 

As to Yang Jwing Ming what you say is true but there are a few I hear that still train the Yang of Shaohou and Banhou and I hope to some day meet one and see on do the form. I recently got a lead that there is one in Beijing. You can imagine how easy it will be to find one old Chinese guy in Beijing. :uhohh: 

Yang Chengfu&#8217;s 10 essences are important but you also have Tung Ying Cheih&#8217;s views as well, I believe he wrote down about 12. There is more to Taiji than the 10 essences, fajing, Sandao and the Yang family. If you listen to Kwan Si Hung, who is likely the last living student of Chengfu he says all Yang style is contemporary today and not what the old master (Chengfu) taught and he is including the Yang family when he says this. 

Yang is big on Shen, Chen is not, and that is why when I use my examples of good Taiji I reference Yang. If Sandao were the only indicator of good or bad Taiji then Chen could be defined as bad Taiji. If the 10 essences were the only indicator then I think it is Zhaobao (but I could be wrong) would likely be considered bad Taiji. All however seem to have a common link and that is the importance of posture and those vary from family to family and generation to generation. 

So what is good Taiji and what is bad Taiji? I honestly think that is to broad a question and it would be more correct to ask what is good Yang style and what is bad Yang style? What is good Chen style what is bad Chen style? What is good Sun style and what is bad Sun style? Because when it is all said and done I still have my Sifu who was a student of Tung Ying Chieh on one side saying Chen is to low and on the other side Chen Zhenglei saying Yang is to high. Does that make them good or bad? Depends on your point of view I guess.

As to the true Yang lineage, who were Yang Shou Zhong teachers? Who were Yang Zendou&#8217;s teachers?


----------



## pete (Mar 27, 2007)

you guys are too much~  seriously, very interesting read, but all the while my brain keeps telling me one's tai chi and one's form are two different things.  for instance, one style may appear to have obvious fa jin, or fa li, while another may be less obviously... does that mean its been removed from the style or not part of one's tai chi?

coiling, spirals, etc may be big circles or "hidden within the sleeve"... does that mean they are in one style and not in the other.

low stances, high stances, who cares... are you rooted? do you have mobility? the depth of your stance is relative to those qualities, not outward "external" appearance.

i know you two are interested (to say the least) in lineage and purity of style, but good and bad go beyond that.  i know you realize this too, and appreciate different practitioners of various styles and their interpretations of our art.  yes, sound tai chi principles are core and the ability to make it work is paramount.  beyond that its gets subjective. may as well be discussing whether batman or superman is the greatest hero.

oh well, back to the batcave...or the fortress of solitude?

 pete


----------



## Xue Sheng (Mar 28, 2007)

pete said:


> you guys are too much~ seriously, very interesting read, but all the while my brain keeps telling me one's tai chi and one's form are two different things. for instance, one style may appear to have obvious fa jin, or fa li, while another may be less obviously... does that mean its been removed from the style or not part of one's tai chi?
> 
> coiling, spirals, etc may be big circles or "hidden within the sleeve"... does that mean they are in one style and not in the other.
> 
> ...


 

Other than you, who mentioned purity of style in the definition of good or bad taiji? 

And I am guessing by your response you did not actually read my last post.

And as a point of reference Batman and superman are fictional, taiji is not.


----------



## pete (Mar 28, 2007)

Xue Sheng said:
			
		

> ... And as a point of reference Batman and superman are fictional, taiji is not.


 as fictional as, say, Zhang San Feng?


----------



## Xue Sheng (Mar 28, 2007)

pete said:


> as fictional as, say, Zhang San Feng?


 
But is he fictional? Not even Chinese Historians and martial artist agree on that one. However it is likely that just about everyone you talk to will agree that Batman and Superman are fictional characters. That have absolutely contributed nothing to Superhero training&#8230;. Oh wait superheroes are fictional too&#8230;.. but interestingly enough Taiji isn&#8217;t.

And to what point is Zhang Sanfeng fictional, is his existence fictional, Taoists generally say no. Did he invent Taiji? The Chen family generally says no. There are Chinese historians that say they feel he existed and came up with something similar to the 13 postures but not actually Taiji. There are also hsitorians in China that point to Taiji Qigong as the precursor of Taijiquan and it may have combined with something from Zhang Sanfeng which when it got to the Chen family got combines with some Shaolin and BINGO taijiquan. There are also historians that disagree. 

So is there some research or insight you would like to share with them to clear that little inconsistency up? I have the names of a couple you can contact if you like.

But mor eto th epoint of the post - was Zhang Sanfeng mentioned before as a basis of good or bad taiji?


----------



## pete (Mar 28, 2007)

more to the point:  is the criteria for good or bad tai chi based on form or function?  the tool or what is accomplished through using the tool?


----------



## East Winds (Mar 28, 2007)

Pete,

Yes, good relevant post!! and your references to principles and ability to make them work are spot on. But if you really want an argument, why did you not mention the greatest super hero of all - Spiderman 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





Xue Sheng,
_*
"Not all fa jin in Chen is evident or explosive" *_I agree, and I thought that was the point I was trying to make. The  supposed removal of fa jin by Cheng fu is misunderstood. Gu Liuxin who was a student of Cheng fu (and incidentally also of Chen Fake) says "Later, however, he (Cheng fu) changed to slow, gradual kicks, with the placement of fa jin (issuing energy) in the kicks being concealed within. His adroitness in push hands was exquisite; his skill at neutralising and in fa jin was unrivaled in his time"

Quite simply I think Kwan Si Hung was wrong. Fu Zhong Wen uses drawings (taken from photographs) of Cheng fu in his book showing his postures in detail. Chen Wei Ming's and later Cheng-fu's (Cheng Manching's) books on Taiji use original photographs and texts of Cheng fu and I can find no difference in any of these publications from what the Yang Family are teaching today. (And the teachings contained in Zhen Duo's book). Again the contemporary videos are consistent with these publications.

Yang Shou Zhong learned largely from his father and it is he who is used in some of the photographs in Cheng fu's book. I think Zhen Duo learned from both his elder brother (Zhen Ji) and from Fu Zhong Wen. I think he was only 6 when Cheng fu died. 

I agree entirely that when considering what is good or bad Taiji we should address the problem from inter family practises. To compare Chen and Yang is like comparing apples and oranges. They are both fruits but that is as far it goes.

Very best wishes


----------



## Xue Sheng (Mar 28, 2007)

To good or bad taiji

You know, I think the only way to tell good or bad taiji from the perspective of an average Taiji practitioner observing another person doing taiji is bad posture or using to much muscular strength.

However you could also make an argument that since they are using too much strength they are no using Yi or Shen properly, but then to say they are using too much strength or doing bad posture across all taiji styles would say you had an understanding of all taiji styles, which no one does really.

Beyond that, to me, this is just getting silly.


Now to contribute to the silly side here

East Winds

Do these all look the same to you?

Yang Shou Zong (Yang Sau Chung) Taiji. 





Yang Zhenduo - Yang Style

















Yang Jun


----------



## East Winds (Mar 28, 2007)

Xue Sheng,

I am probably going to surprise you by saying yes, I think they are all doing the same!!!! :erg:

If you are only concerned with the external appearance of what you are seeing, the only difference is Shou Zhong is doing the form faster that Zhen Duo or Jun. Are they all complying with the classics, the elucidation and the essences; Absolutely. Shou Zhong takes 8 minutes, Zhen Duo takes 30 minutes, Jun takes 23 minutes. What difference does that make? Absolutely none. There is nothing in the classics about the speed at which a form should be performed. Fu Zhong Wen takes 20 minuites. Tung Ying Chieh splits the difference. He is slower than Shou Zhong and faster than Zhen Duo. Are they all doing the same form? Without a doubt!!! (Dare I suggest that Shou Zhong is doing the "lost" Yang fast form?)

When students ask me how to perform a particular posture they say "Should my hand be here or there. Should my feet be here or there?" I invariably reply "Is what your doing complying with the essences? If so your posture is correct".

This is the difference between good and bad taiji - at least in Tardtional Yang Family Taijiquan.

Very best wishes


----------



## Xue Sheng (Mar 28, 2007)

Actually that was the answer I expected.

However they are all the same form (Yang Long form), but they are not done the same, Yang Shou Zong (Yang Sau Chung) is just doing it faster, even my sifu agrees with me on this. He also agrees that what Yang Shou Zong (Yang Sau Chung) is doing is not the same as Yang Zhenduo or Yang Jun are doing. Just look at the postures and it is obvious, which is very interesting considering the Yang family current claims about the ultimate Yang style of Yang Chengfu (nothing against Yang Chengfu, Actually I am rather impressed by his accomplishments). 

And it certainly could not be the lost Yang fast form because the Yang family states there is no such thing. And the Yang fast form that I do comes from Tung Ying Chieh and looks considerably different. Per my sifu it is likely Yang Shou Zong never learned it, even though one of the teachers assigned to him by Chengfu was Tung Ying Chieh. 

However this is way off post, getting very silly, pointless and to be honest I no longer care about any of it.

I no longer have the energy for this so I will retire from this post.


----------



## pete (Mar 28, 2007)

east winds, we practice different styles but agree on this 100%, apples to apples... pete.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Mar 29, 2007)

pete said:


> east winds, we practice different styles but agree on this 100%, apples to apples... pete.


 
Which leads me to a question pete

What style of taiji do you practice?


----------



## Morningstar (Aug 10, 2020)

NO CHI/QI No investment


----------

