# on the yang family long form



## bigfootsquatch (Sep 12, 2007)

It seems that the only people who do the yang family form as Fu Zhong Wen/Yang Family performs it is THEM. Everyone seems to have quite a few deviations otherwise. Even people who claim to have learned directly from the above do not perform the moves as they did. I'm not saying a form should be picture perfect, BUT why are moves such as the one leading into the first single whip done so differently. I know Erle Montaigue called the move Fishes in Eight, I don't know if that is the universal name or what....




 
Anyway: 1:27 is the move I'm talking about 
Most tend to do that move like this....(.24 is the move)




 
I know the history of Cheng Man Cheng and how many consider his form not a yang style and all that, but many perform the yang family long form more similiar to his style than to the traditional family style such as....
eyes to the front instead of to the side on ward off left
transitioning into the first single whip
an even the more compact stances

Why do people refuse to do the yang family form as it was handed down or is there something I am missing?


----------



## East Winds (Sep 12, 2007)

bigfootsquatch,

No, you are not missing anything. The problem is deciding WHICH is the correct form that was handed down. Handed down from whom? If you considering the form as handed down from Yang Cheng-fu to Fu Zhong Wen or Tung Ying Chieh or Chen Wei Ming or the two brothers Yang Zhen Ji or Yang Zhen Duo, then this is probably as it was handed down. If you consider the Cheng Man-Ching form then that is certainly nothing like the form handed down by Cheng-fu. The "Fishes in Eight" move comes from the Yang Shou Zhong (or the Hong Kong side of the Yang form). This was certainly not a move used or demonstrated by Yang Cheng-fu. So where it came from is a bit of a mystery. As for looking straight ahead in the Left Ward Off, look at any photographs of Cheng-fu and you will see he is looking straight ahead. What makes Traditional Yang- Traditional Yang and not some other derivative, is the incorporation of all of the 10 Essences. As I have said on this board many times, I think CMC mis-understood the purpose of the repititions in the Long Form and in removing them, I think he emasculated the form. Erle Montaigue of course claims to be performing the Yang Lu Chan form which again is nothing like the final Cheng-fu form. The flaw with Mr. Montaigues form is of course the external manfestation of Fa Jin. Yang Lu Chan changed the Chen form to conceal the Fa Jin within. So when you talk of trasnmitting the "correct" from, you need first to decide who indeed HAS the correct form.

Very best wishes


----------



## bigfootsquatch (Sep 12, 2007)

EW,

I appreciate your answer. So I guess this is why yang family tai chi  can be so controversial? No one really knows for sure exactly what even Yang Cheng Fu's form(much less Lu Chans) was since each of his students do it differently! Like you said though, his 10 essences are what defines Yang Tai Chi to begin with. It is just so frustrating to try and sort through all of the bogus out there. At least in the other main tai chi styles, you can follow the lineages better, Sun style especially. Anyway, who do YOU think does the most accurate Yang form?


----------



## East Winds (Sep 12, 2007)

bigfootsquatch,

I think the transmission that comes from Fu Zhong Wen, Tung Ying Chie, Chen Wei Ming, and the three sons (Shou Zhong, Zhen Ji and Zhen Duo) is pretty close to what Cheng-fu finally transmitted as his form. And although there appears to be differences in the performance of the forms listed above, the apparent differences can be accounted for by Age, physical ability and  speed of performance. Once you take all these into consideration you can see that they are in fact all doing the same form, and all performing with the 10 essences intact. 

I agree entirely about the other forms having a much truer continuity of form transmission, but lay squarely the Yang confusion at the door of Cheng Man-ching and the Chinese government of the 50's. Perhaps some of the blame can also be laid at the door of the Yang's themselves for not protecting their heritage more vigorously. However conditions of political upheaval  in the  40's, 50's and 60's perhaps made that somewhat difficult.

Very best wishes


----------



## TaiChiTJ (Sep 12, 2007)

Speaking on the martial side of the art, Frenchman Thierry Alibert performs quite close to the Yang standard mentioned above (the one that is NOT Cheng Man Ching), and derives good self defense from it. I have been "surprised" a bit by a few of his applications.  






 





 

:ultracool


----------



## grydth (Sep 23, 2007)

East Winds said:


> bigfootsquatch,
> 
> I think the transmission that comes from Fu Zhong Wen, Tung Ying Chie, Chen Wei Ming, and the three sons (Shou Zhong, Zhen Ji and Zhen Duo) is pretty close to what Cheng-fu finally transmitted as his form. And although there appears to be differences in the performance of the forms listed above, the apparent differences can be accounted for by Age, physical ability and  speed of performance. Once you take all these into consideration you can see that they are in fact all doing the same form, and all performing with the 10 essences intact.
> 
> ...



You are certainly entitled to possess and repeatedly post your negative opinions on Cheng Man-Ching... I have the same freedom, of course, to respectfully disagree. 

I had hoped we were reaching an era of tolerance in Tai Chi, where people could choose and practice what they wished... and do that without condemning the practice choices of others. I do find it unsettling that an obviously accomplished practitioner needs to keep disparaging a deceased master. 

You assert that the Yang family did not "protect their heritage more vigorously."  Can you, in fact, point to ANY contemporary disavowal or condemnation of Cheng Man Ching by the Yang family? Can you point to ANY actions they took against him?

These "conditions of political upheaval".... can you explain why these would affect the Yangs and not other families?  What specific conditions had what specific effects on the Yangs? Can you cite a source that shows what actions they would have taken?

I think blaming Cheng Man Ching alone for decades of confusion in Yang family transmission is by far an oversimplification. I trust you are aware of a number of Yang family derivatives.... why, pray tell, would they be blameless? 

In a prior post (above), you alleged that Cheng "emasculated" the Yang practice. You are asserting that his lineage has produced no martial artists of note? I'm wondering how many CMC practitioners from these parts you may have associated with.... I'm not thinking anyone has worked with my first sifu for over 15 minutes and come up with that opinion.... I realize the continuing debate over how much was deleted and the postures lost....but I believe the verb used is extreme and inaccurate.

I mean you no disrespect and have toned this down as we can hopefully debate the arts and not each other.


----------



## bigfootsquatch (Sep 24, 2007)

Every Yang does the form differently. Perhaps they all possess the 10 essences, but phsyically the form does look slightly different. I've almost gotten fed up with finding the proper Yang variation to study and have considered switching to Sun Style for that very reason. On another note I don't think Chen Man Ching caused as much confusion as the Yang themselves for not protecting their style more and for not having passed on the older forms. Even if they didnt want to teach the older forms, at least they could have cut the crap of the others who claim to teach the original forms.


----------



## jks9199 (Sep 24, 2007)

bigfootsquatch said:


> Every Yang does the form differently. Perhaps they all possess the 10 essences, but phsyically the form does look slightly different. I've almost gotten fed up with finding the proper Yang variation to study and have considered switching to Sun Style for that very reason. On another note I don't think Chen Man Ching caused as much confusion as the Yang themselves for not protecting their style more and for not having passed on the older forms. Even if they didnt want to teach the older forms, at least they could have cut the crap of the others who claim to teach the original forms.


Perhaps you're looking in the wrong places...

I and my partner can demonstrate "identical" techniques that look very different.  I'm a 270 pound guy; she's a 140 pound woman.  For that reason, and others, we often express the same principles and tactics in ways that look different on the surface.


----------



## Rabu (Sep 24, 2007)

I would like to chime in, if I may.

As for the commentary on the 'correct' form...oddly stated.

A teacher offers their art to the student, who may change or alter it, perhaps even improve it in doing so. In that way the teacher is like a bow and the student the arrow. The teacher offers guidence and direction, the student flies their own course.

I have heard demonization of both the Yang family and Cheng Man Ching, in relations to their practice and attitudes about the art they pass to their students. Really, all I want to know...can they push or not? Do they have a solid foundation in the principles of a _martial _art?

I have also heard great praise for both, and many others. I would prefer to work with people who have either little to say or perhaps only work towards bettering their practice, which would require them to evolve over time and work their art for themselves, rather than clinging to the coattails of people past.

I have seen a number of iterations of Yang forms, having only learned the 24 form myself, and the simplified version at that. All of them share immense similiarities, and often some individual flavor which speaks to the teacher and their methods.

I always hear the argument regarding who has it right. Sincerely, the argument is boring and pointless. The forms are out there and living and breathing at this point, guided by those arrows shot by the masters who shared their art. The 'Yang family' holds no copyrights to other peoples knowledge and it would be offensive to suggest so.

Best of luck in your practice, enjoy and simply disregard the noise. Find a good Shifu with skill who wants to share the art and learn.

Regards,

Rob


----------



## Nyarlathotep (Sep 24, 2007)

If there's one thing you can always rely on in discussions of the relative merits of styles and which best embodies the essence of Tai Chi.... 
It'll always be claimed as the one that they themselves practice.

But if there's one thing you can always be sure of, it's that the practitioner's skill is more important than the form they have learned!


----------



## bigfootsquatch (Sep 24, 2007)

if our bodies are engines and martial arts is fuel, then we want to be sure we are putting good fuel into our engines so that we run properly...food for thought

While I do appreciate the personalized knowledge of a teacher, many make modifications and still call it by the original name, which it no longer is. Modifying something takes away from the originality of it. Let's say a kickboxing instructor adds grappling into the classes. Is it still kickboxing or is it MMA now? 

I've enjoyed everyone's comments; keep em coming!


----------



## grydth (Sep 24, 2007)

bigfootsquatch said:


> if our bodies are engines and martial arts is fuel, then we want to be sure we are putting good fuel into our engines so that we run properly...food for thought
> 
> While I do appreciate the personalized knowledge of a teacher, many make modifications and still call it by the original name, which it no longer is. Modifying something takes away from the originality of it. Let's say a kickboxing instructor adds grappling into the classes. Is it still kickboxing or is it MMA now?
> 
> I've enjoyed everyone's comments; keep em coming!



Does a change take away from or improve - does that not depend both upon the change and the view of the beholder? 

One can lament a loss of "originality".... or celebrate it as an evolution. We expect almost all other things - indeed, even following generations - to improve and evolve. Why trap Tai Chi in the past, why freeze it in time without the inspired changes of a future master - who may equal or even surpass the founder?

This is why I hope we'll have some tolerance return to Tai Chi. If you wish to do things the original way - I wish you the best. If you believe new iterations make a great thing even better - I hope you prosper.


----------



## Nyarlathotep (Sep 25, 2007)

Fuel for thought 

Does Traditional always mean Better, or does it depend on the degree to which the teacher has mastered the essences?

Does New always equal Corrupted, or are there as many forms as there are people practicing?

Besides surely the real value of Tai Chi lies inside the form.
When I was a kid I didn't care about the color of the wrapping paper or the shape of the box my birthday presents came in either.

(resists the urge to shave head and call other posters grasshopper)


----------



## oxy (Sep 25, 2007)

bigfootsquatch said:


> if our bodies are engines and martial arts is fuel, then we want to be sure we are putting good fuel into our engines so that we run properly...food for thought





> While I do appreciate the personalized knowledge of a teacher, many make modifications and still call it by the original name, which it no longer is.



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


----------



## bigfootsquatch (Sep 25, 2007)

Oxy,

If you modify Yang Tai Chi to the point that it is no longer what the Yangs envisioned it to be, then it quite simply isn't Yang Tai Chi. There is no logical fallicy in that.


----------



## bigfootsquatch (Sep 25, 2007)

Nyarlathotep said:


> Fuel for thought
> 
> Does Traditional always mean Better, or does it depend on the degree to which the teacher has mastered the essences?
> 
> ...


 
Well I do agree that the real value lies in the form, but if the form isn't being taught properly due to it's modifications then where does that leave us? Yang Lu Chan and the 2nd and 3rd gen. Yangs were some of the best tai chi martial artists. Surely that should speak something for the traditional forms, along with their huge investment of practice.

Anyway, this discussion has gotten away from topic, so feel free to continue on without me. Thanks for the advice and answers from those who gave it.


----------



## oxy (Sep 25, 2007)

bigfootsquatch said:


> Oxy,
> 
> If you modify Yang Tai Chi to the point that it is no longer what the Yangs envisioned it to be, then it quite simply isn't Yang Tai Chi. There is no logical fallicy in that.



There is, actually. That is why I included the Begging the Question link. It's not a logical fallacy in that it's definitely wrong. It's a logical fallacy because your reasoning is incomplete and unsound through unsupported (but expected to be true) implications.

In your very short reply, you imply many things. Your reasoning requires that certain premises be accepted as truth without any reason to.

For example, the very small part of your sentence "what the Yangs envisioned it to be". For any of your reasoning you have in your previous post to have merit, you would first have to know what the Yangs envisioned their Taiji to be. Then, you have to ask whether the first Yang to learn Taiji really sought to create a new style or was he just adapting Chen to his personal preferences. For any of your "Real Yang" (no true scotsman) reasoning to have any use, you have to assume that there is somehow a universal law which states "Yang starts here" and "Yang ends here".

Another example of you begging the question is:


> if our bodies are engines and martial arts is fuel, then we want to be sure we are putting good fuel into our engines so that we run properly...food for thought



This requires anyone to accept this as true to also accept the implication that any slight deviation from a "standard" not only is "not good fuel" but also that our "engines" is unable to "run properly" on this other form of fuel.

As far as any martial arts is concerned, there are usually two main aspects of "run properly": it's good for our health; it's good for fighting.

For any of your complaints about the slight differences in Yang form to have any merit, you have to establish that there is some main standard in which to move your body. Then you have to prove that this is indeed healthy and also good for fighting with. Then you have to prove that there is no other way to get this optimal state.

Then you have to realise the implications of this if you actually do try to define it. Because then you would have implied that Yang Taiji is the superior martial art. You would have implied that Chen is inferior to "proper" Yang Taiji because, obviously, Chen moves in different ways to Yang. However, if you don't agree with these implications (which I'm quite sure you wouldn't), then you would have to agree that modifications to whatever the "original" Yang is is not a priori bad fuel. Nor can you a priori state that this different fuel is not good for your engine.

And, as others have said, evolution of the martial art happens. On the general scale, you beg the question that Yang is defined by a point in time, rather than defined by its evolution. In much the same way, if you define many things by a point in time rather than its evolution, you beg a whole lot of questions. Most of which are not absolute/universal/objective standards and most of which clearly cannot have complete dominance over another.


----------



## TaiChiTJ (Sep 25, 2007)

And then there is Yang Sau Cheung, Yang Chen Fu's son. The video is poor. 








Ip Tai Tak was Yang Sau Cheung's student: 

http://www.iptaichi.org/video3.html

:ultracool


----------



## Nyarlathotep (Sep 26, 2007)

bigfootsquatch said:


> Well I do agree that the real value lies in the form, but if the form isn't being taught properly due to it's modifications then where does that leave us? .



By not being taught 'properly' I take it you mean traditionally.
Provided the applications and essences are intact and it is equal or superior as a martial art, then surely it still remains good T'ai Chi.

So what that would leave us with is the beginning of a new style of T'ai Chi divergent from, but based upon the original.
Much as Yang style diverged from Chen through the alterations of Lu Chan.

What I am resisting here is the temptation to equate traditional with superior and the deification of the lineage's originator. 
By no means am I suggesting that half baked T'ai Chi is of any value.


----------



## bigfootsquatch (Sep 26, 2007)

Nyarlathotep said:


> By not being taught 'properly' I take it you mean traditionally.
> Provided the applications and essences are intact and it is equal or superior as a martial art, then surely it still remains good T'ai Chi.
> 
> So what that would leave us with is the beginning of a new style of T'ai Chi divergent from, but based upon the original.
> ...


 
I meant more of along the lines of people forming their own schools before they have completely learned the art from their teacher. Perhaps they do not understand why a certain move is done the way it is, so THEN they change it. I understand, to a point, about why the Yangs have modified the forms over the years, though I do not necessarily agree with it. Of course Lu Chan reshaped Chen style accordingly, but he was also an exceptional martial artist who modified it only after 30 or so years of intensive practice. Sun Lu tang modified Hao Tai Chi to form Sun Tai Chi as most know, of course he only spent his whole life studying internal arts, AND he no longer called it Hao/Wu style after the modification.  Cheng Man Ching's form is not considered Yang anymore. Chen Pan Ling modified the Older Yang Style and meshed with other knowledge to form CHEN PAN LING Tai Chi, not Yang/Old Yang.

When people modify things out of ignorance rather than experience, then we start getting bad tai chi, or half baked tai chi as you said. Most martial artists wouldn't be laughing at tai chi or treating it as a health art if it would not have gone through so many "progressive" modifications.

This post wasn't just aimed at you, I just quoted you since I liked your post best. Sorry if my message sounds scatterbrained.


----------



## bigfootsquatch (Sep 26, 2007)

oxy said:


> There is, actually. That is why I included the Begging the Question link. It's not a logical fallacy in that it's definitely wrong. It's a logical fallacy because your reasoning is incomplete and unsound through unsupported (but expected to be true) implications.
> 
> In your very short reply, you imply many things. Your reasoning requires that certain premises be accepted as truth without any reason to.
> 
> ...


 
So you spent your whole post on trying to pick apart mine?


----------



## East Winds (Sep 26, 2007)

bigfootsquatch,

Well said. I'm with you all the way on this. People who consider that it is OK to change a style or form when they have very little experience or understanding of that form are the people who end up practising half baked taiji.

Evolution does not necessarily equate with improvement. Go back and read Darwin!!!


----------



## oxy (Sep 26, 2007)

bigfootsquatch said:


> So you spent your whole post on trying to pick apart mine?



It's another no-win situation for me.

You make an logically flawed statement. And when someone tries to correct it and explain why your points need to be more solid, all you need to do is to make the other person look like a try-hard or petty as if that invalidates my points.

So basically, what you're really looking for is just for people to either agree with you, or to allow you to retain false notions in you head. It seems you make a lot of posts and threads that are very good at getting reputation points.


----------



## oxy (Sep 26, 2007)

> Evolution does not necessarily equate with improvement. Go back and read Darwin!!!



Although it has been shown, since Darwin, that stagnation ALWAYS equate to elimination.

Furthermore, since Darwin, it has been repeatedly shown that diversity is beneficial overall.

So evolution doesn't necessarily equate with improvement for the LONG term. But evolution is guaranteed to weed out the IMMEDIATELY undesirable traits. That is, if it is being put under evolutionary pressures and it is also able to mix with diverse populations.


----------



## oxy (Sep 26, 2007)

bigfootsquatch said:


> So you spent your whole post on trying to pick apart mine?



http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Gish_Gallop

It's easy to write short posts in a Gish Gallop format.

It's hard not to write long posts to debunk Gish Gallops.

But nice try anyway to avoid facing the flaws in your arguments.


----------



## bigfootsquatch (Sep 26, 2007)

oxy said:


> http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Gish_Gallop
> 
> It's easy to write short posts in a Gish Gallop format.
> 
> ...


 
Well, I do believe it is about time you grew up. Nice try in covering up your incompetences with cute phrases and wikipedia. Anyway, I'm done arguing with you child. 

Thanks to everyone who answered my questions. I believe it is now time we move on from this discussion before people start getting their feelings hurt.


----------



## oxy (Sep 27, 2007)

bigfootsquatch said:


> Well, I do believe it is about time you grew up. Nice try in covering up your incompetences with cute phrases and wikipedia. Anyway, I'm done arguing with you child.



Incompetencies?

You made a few points.

I pointed out the flaws in your points with explanations and everything. Then you brush it off with a comment that implies somehow that my long post is invalidated by way of, heck I don't know what to call it.

And now, you point to some vague incompetencies that I'm supposed to have and which you have failed to point out any actual examples. Furthermore, calling me a "child". You say I should grow up, implying my behaviour is somehow immature. And yet, up until this point, all I have done is try to show you where your reasoning is weak. So basically, all you're implying is that using intelligence is somehow immature and really speaks to the anti-intellectual culture of modern western society.

And yet in none of your posts have you bothered to address your logical flaws and other flaws of reasoning. You know, since calling me names is somehow LESS childish than trying to give an extensive explanation of reasoning weaknesses.

Keep up your useless threads that keep on bashing Erle Montaigue (as if he has any effect on your Taiji) and get cheap reputation points. Because, you know, it's really going to help your self-taught Taiji (with which you somehow feel qualified to tell people what Yang Taiji should be (ie, that everything should be picture perfect and mass-produced consistency)).


----------



## East Winds (Sep 27, 2007)

oxy,

Thanks for the input. You really should stop reading Wikipedia!!!:rofl:

I suppose that is why the cockroach has "stagnated" for so long and found absolutely no need to evolve further. Ignore cladistics and explore stable cadres. (No don't go to Wikipedia!!).

Like bigfootsquatch, this thread got lost some time ago. I'm outa here.


----------



## oxy (Sep 27, 2007)

East Winds said:


> oxy,
> 
> Thanks for the input. You really should stop reading Wikipedia!!!:rofl:
> 
> I suppose that is why the cockroach has "stagnated" for so long and found absolutely no need to evolve further. Ignore cladistics and explore stable cadres. (No don't go to Wikipedia!!).



Right, because Wikipedia must be automatically wrong. Therefore, the sun really revolves around the Earth because Wikipedia says otherwise.

I like the way you put quotes around the word "stagnated" to acknowledge the fact that cockroaches haven't REALLY stagnated but sufficiently similar to their ancestors to make your point. Not to mention that there are so many variety of cockroaches (eg segmented vs non-segmented, flight capable vs groundlocked) that didn't all appear at once.

The amazing thing about cockroaches is that they have hit their niche very early on and can survive in much the same way for millions of years.

If people are willing to claim this level of perfection for Yang Taiji (which necessarily implies that all other martial arts must be inferior) then I guess there's not much else to say. Hell, if any single Yang practitioner can claim this level of perfection...



> Like bigfootsquatch, this thread got lost some time ago. I'm outa here.



Different people have different perceptions.

I considered this thread lost from the moment he created a second thread aiming to get cheap accolades by bashing Erle and other unnamed noobs all those months ago.


----------



## exile (Sep 27, 2007)

*ATTENTION ALL USERS:*

Please keep the discussion at a mature, respectful level. Please review our sniping policy http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/sho...d.php?p=427486. Feel free to use the Ignore feature to ignore members whose posts you do not wish to read (it is at the bottom of each member's profile). Thank you.

Bob Levine
-MT Moderator-


----------



## bigfootsquatch (Sep 27, 2007)

exile said:


> *ATTENTION ALL USERS:*
> 
> Please keep the discussion at a mature, respectful level. Please review our sniping policy http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/sho...d.php?p=427486. Feel free to use the Ignore feature to ignore members whose posts you do not wish to read (it is at the bottom of each member's profile). Thank you.
> 
> ...


 
Thanks, I did not realize there was an ignore function. I'll put it to good use though. Since we have a moderator to keep the things from going wild again, maybe we can keep this discussion alive!


----------



## bigfootsquatch (Sep 27, 2007)

TaiChiTJ said:


> And then there is Yang Sau Cheung, Yang Chen Fu's son. The video is poor.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
I've always been interested in Sau Cheung's branch and have wondered about the snake, crane, and tiger yang styled tai chi systems which is discussed on that same site: http://www.iptaichi.org/snakestyle.htm


----------



## Nyarlathotep (Sep 27, 2007)

bigfootsquatch said:


> I meant more of along the lines of people forming their own schools before they have completely learned the art from their teacher. Perhaps they do not understand why a certain move is done the way it is, so THEN they change it.


I fully agree with you, and have experienced just this on several occasions, though I feel I have made my position quite clear already it bears repeating.
Good T'ai Chi is good T'ai Chi, regardless of whether it is Traditional Yang style, 24 step, 37 step or for that matter Chen, Sun or whatever. 



> I understand, to a point, about why the Yangs have modified the forms over the years, though I do not necessarily agree with it. Of course Lu Chan reshaped Chen style accordingly, but he was also an exceptional martial artist who modified it only after 30 or so years of intensive practice.


And if the Tai Chi Boxing Chronicle is to be believed he neutered his own form in an attempt to placate the Manchus, without giving too many of the secrets away.
The Yang form we are left with today is therefore very likely deliberately modified so as to conceal and obscure the correct applications.


> When people modify things out of ignorance rather than experience, then we start getting bad tai chi, or half baked tai chi as you said. Most martial artists wouldn't be laughing at tai chi or treating it as a health art if it would not have gone through so many "progressive" modifications.


Is that any less harmful than when knowledgeable people modify things to deliberately obscure?



> This post wasn't just aimed at you, I just quoted you since I liked your post best. Sorry if my message sounds scatterbrained.


Not at all mate  as long that is as you don't mind my scatterbrained replies.


----------



## Nyarlathotep (Sep 27, 2007)

East Winds said:


> bigfootsquatch,
> 
> Well said. I'm with you all the way on this. People who consider that it is OK to change a style or form when they have very little experience or understanding of that form are the people who end up practising half baked taiji.
> 
> Evolution does not necessarily equate with improvement. Go back and read Darwin!!!



Evolution is not necessarily improvement, but then neither is fossilisation.

Change coupled with some selection mechanism gives rise to what we call Survival of the fittest, which is a euphemism for the capacity of life forms that are well suited to their environment to survive and reproduce.

Now diversification is inevitable, but unfortunately the selection mechanism that would weed out the inferior practices and practitioners (combat) has been suppressed by polite society.

Given this I fully understand your annoyance at the preponderance of half baked T'ai Chi (I feel the same way.. especially as I can't find a decent teacher for love nor money where I live) and equation of diversity with inferiority, as well as the desire to resist degradation, but that doesn't change the simple fact that skill at T'ai Chi remains a property of the practitioner, rather than the form! 

Personally speaking the two best T'ai Chi players I have encountered thus far practiced the Chen and Man-Ching styles respectively, and the very worst and most self-deluded...  we're talking knuckle biting embarrassment, look away because it's too painful to watch.. was from the Yang style. 

Does this mean I think Yang style is inferior based only on this... Not a bit of it.. I just recognise that this lumbering hamhock of dead flesh was a paragon of how not to do it.


----------



## bigfootsquatch (Sep 29, 2007)

Nyarlathotep said:


> And if the Tai Chi Boxing Chronicle is to be believed he neutered his own form in an attempt to placate the Manchus, without giving too many of the secrets away.
> The Yang form we are left with today is therefore very likely deliberately modified so as to conceal and obscure the correct applications.
> 
> Is that any less harmful than when knowledgeable people modify things to deliberately obscure?


 
Well that is probably a prime reason why people teach half baked tai chi. The teachers that DO know generally do not teach the "full/secret transmission" until after an ungodly amount of years and time invested into the modifed art. I may be totally off my rocker in saying this, but even in the day when guns were not the norm. I do not see how concealing an art is going to keep bad people from doing bad things. 

Back to Lu Chan I imagine if he did not yield highly skilled tai chi artists in the imperial court, then he would have been put to death the same as if he had not taught at all, whether he taught a modified art to them or not.

Any of that make sense?


----------



## Nyarlathotep (Sep 30, 2007)

bigfootsquatch said:


> Back to Lu Chan I imagine if he did not yield highly skilled tai chi artists in the imperial court, then he would have been put to death the same as if he had not taught at all, whether he taught a modified art to them or not.
> 
> Any of that make sense?



Absolutely, but I also imagine you can get away with a huge amount based solely on reputation and gullibility. 
After all the Alchemists frequently fleeced nobles on the promise (never delivered) of easy riches.

Unlike Alchemy which has a pretty definite and testable outcome, (i.e. it is a lump of gold, or it is a lump of purest green) martial arts ability is less objective, especially in a cloistered atmosphere like the court.
Lesser ability can always be passed off as lack of diligence or natural ability on the part of the student.

Besides being trained by a master of great renown is to some extent it's own reward, especially as what is being sought is not necessarily martial ability per-se, but rather a fearsome reputation.
"Our personal guards and even the princes were trained in the fighting arts by the greatest fighter in the empire dontchaknow! ... No of course they never have to actually fight, this is the palace!"


My personal guess is simply that the largest omission made by Lu-Chan was in neglecting to teach the subtle internal aspect of the art such as understanding, listening and issuing energy, but this has been a bone of contention as at least one 'teacher' I know firmly believes that Lu-Chan just removed fast movements and sharp exhalations (he calls this fajing, I happen to disagree) from his form and taught it as a genteel dance.


----------



## Sunrise (Sep 30, 2007)

bigfootsquatch said:


> I've always been interested in Sau Cheung's branch and have wondered about the snake, crane, and tiger yang styled tai chi systems which is discussed on that same site: http://www.iptaichi.org/snakestyle.htm



Hi bigfootsquatch,
what yang style are you training in, and what are you wondering about exactly?


----------



## bigfootsquatch (Oct 1, 2007)

Sunrise said:


> Hi bigfootsquatch,
> what yang style are you training in, and what are you wondering about exactly?


 
Firstly, my MA school teaches a style very similiar to tai chi in terms of internal movement and applications. I also learned the 24 short form at the martial art school I am at, along with several other qigong exercises, then I expanded my tai chi knowledge based off the 24 short form through self study. My main sources thus far have been the Tai Chi classics, tons of videos, though I originally learned the 108 form by studying Terrence Dunn's video(mix of family yang/dong style with commencement and closing movements being more of chen man chings). Later I changed it to more in line with Erle Montaigue's Cheng Fu form, which you can find videos on his site or youtube. His is more in line with sau chungs, but he took out the forward lean. I am also working on Sun style.

As for what I wanted to know, what are the differences in the snake, crane, and tiger versions of the yang forms?


----------



## Sunrise (Oct 2, 2007)

Well, the namings come mostly from the movements of the form in correspondance to the three animals.

Crane style has large movements in big circles, similar to a crane who sands on the ground and swings his wings to shoo an enemy out of his territory.

Tigerstyle is more direct in its movements, going straight forward, has strong rooting as hell and is really good for fighting, like a tiger running through an enemy. (visit Gin Soon Chu for great Tigerstyle taiji)

Snakestyle moves more at angles, like a snake that sways from the left to the right to attack from a blind side. To the untrained eye it is very much like tigerstyle - but different. It also has great rooting, but more twisting and more upperbodymovement in all directions and a different placing of the weight for faster stepping techniques. (visit Bob Boyd for great Snakestyle taiji)


----------



## bigfootsquatch (Oct 11, 2007)

Sunrise said:


> Well, the namings come mostly from the movements of the form in correspondance to the three animals.
> 
> Crane style has large movements in big circles, similar to a crane who sands on the ground and swings his wings to shoo an enemy out of his territory.
> 
> ...


 
Thank you for that info. I know it has been awhile since you posted it and I never got around to saying thanks :asian:

So then the snake, tiger, and crane style are basically the different methods of performing the yang form, or are they different forms with many similiarities? Does that even make sense?


----------



## Sunrise (Oct 11, 2007)

bigfootsquatch said:


> Thank you for that info. I know it has been awhile since you posted it and I never got around to saying thanks :asian:
> 
> So then the snake, tiger, and crane style are basically the different methods of performing the yang form, or are they different forms with many similiarities? Does that even make sense?



They are basically different methods employed on the thame basic form. Of course, every teacher has his own slight variation of the form. In our  Snakestyle taiji the form is tranferred from Yang Sau Chung to Ip Tai Tak to Bob Boyd to all of his students. Ip said that it should now be taught open, and not only in a father son lineage. So "our" form is a wee bit different then the Gin Soon Chu form that is itself mighty different from the King Hung Chu form in regards of how the "play pipa" or "snake creeps down" is performed, for instance, but the sequence and general outer performance is quite the same. The inner work on the execution is the real difference.


----------



## East Winds (Oct 14, 2007)

Sunrise,

As a Tradiitonal Yang Family taijiquan practitioner (Yang Zhen Ji lineage) I would be interested to hear more about your expression of "_*The inner work on the execution is the real difference".

*_Very best wishes


----------



## Sunrise (Oct 15, 2007)

Well,
lets take a look the most opposite variants, the crane and the snake. 
In cranestyle you more or less let your bodyweight sink itself into your legs, have a 70/30 stance, turn the body and shoulderareas only on a horizontal level and stay generally most relaxed with rounded shoulders.
In snakestyle you are shifting your bodyweight more conscious to and fro, employ your sinews and deep micro muscles much more, have to have a 100/0 stance with all the additional power that this requires from the kwa. Also you "tilt, screw and snake" your whole body from position to position, thus integrating the coremuscles from the spinal and ribcage area much much more. You are also contracting and expanding much mor, working plenty on "hollow chest, raise back" combined with stretches according to the idea of application.
The shoulders are set back and kept there.
These are some of the "inner" differences, that I find at the moment.

regards,
Sunrise


----------



## East Winds (Oct 15, 2007)

Sunrise,

Interesting!! Can you say which member of the Yang family introduced these "systems" and why?

Regards


----------



## Sunrise (Oct 15, 2007)

Well,
most agree upon Yang Chen Fu as the great "spreader" AND the great "changer" of Yang tai chi chuan as well, but my personal believe and experience in day to day live is, that almot everyone had a hand in it, not only YCF.
As GM Ip has told there was allways a certain style transmitted within only the family,  in the father/son lineage, and something a bit (or a lot) changed to the outside. The snakestyle was the "inner" style of the family, the tiger and crane where taught to the outside.
This way of teaching is/was usual in all kinds of areas, be it external or internal MA schools, or any kind of bussiness.
You keep the true secrets within, for your own benefit, and only teach enough good stuff to the outside to look good, make a lot of money, and have a great reputation. But a bit is mostly kept within, to be brilliant over the other real great guys, and to keep an advantage for the own family/company at later times or old age. So keeping secrets was a very natural thing to do.
Nowadays there are more effective ways for self-defense, a normally good working police system, and a generall more open set of mind, so former secrets start to unravel. Also there is this "pain in the ***" invention called videotaping. A master gets "caught" on video, when he explains for example fa-jin, and then demonstrating it afterwards. You hear and see what he explains, and you see (again and again) what he does, and you start to notice that there is something different in his demonstration, something that he did not explain, either on purpos, or on lack of teaching skills. You don´t quite get what is is, maybe a little added move in the hip area, or whatever, and then you start to explore this, and search for answers.
In the west, we have an incredible good education, know about biomechanics, physiotherapy, bodyworks in general and the psychological force of singlemindedness pursuit of a goal - or a move. We start to throw 1 and one together and come up with a rather good explanation of the ominous word "Chi / Qi" or Jin (applied chi) and then we nag different teachers about our research, and slowly get the picture, they have not told us  everything - for what reason soever.
Same reason, as I stated elsewhere on a forum, why your and mine country, and many others, only sell 4th or 5th grade weapons to interested neighbouring countries. They want to make money, want them to be able to defend themselves a bit, but they keep the big guns only to themselves, and mostly for good reason - you can transfer that directly to martial arts.

Now think this through.
You are a taiji master of great skill, and you teach your main son, or your heartchoosen disciple in the whole curriculum. You want to ensure that you and he stay superior, so when another student wants to learn it, you take him in for sure, for you have to make a living (at least). You teach him about 90% of your skill, which makes him still incredible good, and tell him that he now has only to train on for many years so he develops an as great chi as your self and thats it. Still you and your number 1 still have some aces up your sleeves, in case he turns upon you...insurance.

The later very advanced student starts to teach himself, and for the same reasons as yourself he teaches only 90% of what he knows....... see where this leads?

This is why there are so many diverse styles out there, not only in taiji, but in mostly all martial arts.

So now students see there are different ways of doing the same form, and they get labeled, Large, medium or small frame, snakestyle, tigerstyle, crane....whatyoumightcallit.

I do not emply that one style is simply better then the other, in fact this diversity adds to taiji I think, for now there is something out for everyone, people just have to look a bit closer to see what to buy...


----------



## East Winds (Oct 15, 2007)

Sunset,

Thanks. Now you have told me everything I need to know about your Taiji knowledge.

Very best wishes


----------



## grappling_mandala (Oct 21, 2007)

Sorry to burst any bubbles, but watch Chen Man Chings 37. He didn't change anything other then bringing his own personality into the form. Look at his posture. That's him. 

Chen Man Chings 37 is almost identical to Yang Cheng Fu's 3rd section. 

Simply put? He taught the 3rd section of the original 108/103/111, etc.

Might as well learn the long form and draw from what Chen Man Ching did.

Once you learn the principles of a movement you can see variations in other forms that are simply different directions of transitions through the same postures... we have a rich history to draw from here. The various styles are brimming with body wisdom. Yang (expansive), Sun(compact), Chen(round), etc. Go watch Wudang taiji and spot all the different ways they use Single Whip and Grasp Sparrow. Taiji is an amazing art. Full of variations and universal body principles. 

Nice dialog here.

Thanks

GM


----------



## grydth (Oct 22, 2007)

GM, I have never heard that assertion regarding the Cheng Man Ching form....perhaps it is my limitation of knowledge, but I do not see that at all when examining the forms together.


----------



## grappling_mandala (Oct 26, 2007)

grydth said:


> GM, I have never heard that assertion regarding the Cheng Man Ching form....perhaps it is my limitation of knowledge, but I do not see that at all when examining the forms together.


*
I must **partially **take back my statement. Upon further review the CMC form appears to be composed of a kind of condensation of the long form: I have noted the parrallels below. It appears that a lot of the connective structure has been removed.

The first list is CMC's 37 the second and third are excerpts from different translations of the long form. 

Chen Man Ching 37*

_*kinda like the first section?*_
Preparation 
Beginning 
Left Ward-Off 
Right Ward-Off 
Roll Back, Press, and Push 
Turn the Body and Lower the Hands 
Single Whip 
Lift Hands 
Shoulder Strike 
White Crane Spreads Its Wings 
Brush Knee, Twist Step 
Strum the Lute 
Brush Knee, Twist Step 
Step Forward, Move, Parry, and Punch 
Apparent Close-Up 
Cross Hands 

_*pieces of the second section*_
Embrace Tiger, Return to Mountain 
Ward-Off, Roll Back, Press, and Push 
Turn the Body and Lower the Hands 
Diagonal Single Whip 
Fist Under Elbow 
Step Back to Repulse the Monkey 
Diagonal Flying 
Cloud Hands 

*parts of the third section*
Descending Single Whip 
Golden Rooster Stands on One Leg 
Right Toe Kick 
Left Toe Kick 
Turn Body, Heel Kick 
Brush Knee, Twist Step 
Step Forward and Plant a Punch
Step Forward to Right Ward-Off 
Roll Back, Press, and Push 
Turn the Body and Lower the Hands 
Single Whip 
Fair Lady Works Shuttles 
Left Ward-Off 
Right Ward-Off, Roll Back, Press, and Push 
Turn the Body and Lower the Hands 
Descending Single Whip 
Step Up to Seven Stars 
Step Back to Ride the Tiger 
Turn Body, Lotus Kick 
Draw a Bow to Shoot the Tiger 
Step Forward, Move, Parry, and Punch 
Apparent Close-Up 
Cross Hands 
Close T'ai Chi

*Two Versions of the last two sections of the Long Form (YCF 108):*

56 Tiger Returns to Mountain
57 Grasping Sparrows Tail
58 Horizontal Single Whip
59 Part Horses Mane Right
60 Part Horses Mane Left
61 Part Horses Mane Right
62 Ward Off Left
63 Grasping Sparrows Tail
64 Single Whip
65 Fair Lady Left
66 Fair Lady Right
67 Fair Lady Left
68 Fair Lady Right
69 Ward Off Left
70 Grasping Sparrows Tail
71 Single Whip
72 Wave Hands Like Clouds
73 Single Whip
74 Snake Creeps Down
75 Golden Cock Left
76 Golden Cock Right
77 Repulse Monkey Right
78 Repulse Monkey Left
79 Repulse Monkey Right
80 Diagonal Slant Flying
81 Raise Hands, Shoulder
82 White Crane
83 Brush Left Knee
84 Needle at Sea Bottom
85 Fan Through Back
86 White Snake Darts Tongue
87 Parry Punch
88 Ward Off Right
89 Grasp Sparrows Tail
90 Single Whip
91 Wave Hands Like Clouds
92 Single Whip
93 High Pat on Horse
94 Plain Crossed Hands
95 Turn and Cross Kick
96 Step up, Punch Crotch
97 Ward Off Right
98 Grasp Sparrows Tail
99 Single Whip
100 Snake Creeps Down
101 Seven Stars
102 Step Back to Tiger
103 Lotus Kick
104 Draw Bow Shoot Tiger
105 Deflect Parry Punch
106 Apparent Withdraw. Push
107 Cross Hands
108 Conclusion


Transition Form (Guo Du Shi)
64. Wardoff, Rollback, Press, and Push Forward (Peng, Lu, Ji, An)
65. Single Whip (Dan Bian)
66. The Wild Horse Parts Its Mane: Right (You Ye Ma Fen Zong)
67. The Wild Horse Parts Its Mane: Left (Zuo Ye Ma Fen Zong)
68. The Wild Horse Parts Its Mane: Right (You Ye Ma Fen Zong)
69. Grasp the Sparrow's Tail: Left (Zuo Lan Que Wei)
70. Wardoff, Rollback, Press, and Push Forward (Peng, Lu, Ji, An)
71. Single Whip (Dan Bian)
72. Fair Lady Weaves with Shuttle: Left (Zuo Yu Nu Chuan Suo)
73. Fair Lady Weaves with Shuttle: Right (You Yu Nu Chuan Suo)
74. Fair Lady Weaves with Shuttle: Left (Zuo Yu Nu Chuan Suo)
75. Fair Lady Weaves with Shuttle: Right (You Yu Nu Chuan Suo)
76. Grasp the Sparrow's Tail: Left (Zuo Lan Que Wei)
77. Wardoff, Rollback, Press, and Push Forward (Peng, Lu, Ji, An)
78. Single Whip (Dan Bian)
79. Wave Hands in the Clouds: Right (You Yun Shou)
80. Single Whip (Dan Bian)
81. Snake Creeps Down (She Shen Xia Shi)
82. Golden Rooster Stands on One Leg: Right (You Jin Ji Du Li)
83. Golden Rooster Stands on One Leg: Left (Zuo Jin Ji Du Li)
84. Step Back and Repulse the Monkey: Left (Zuo Dao Nian Hou)
85. Diagonal Flying (Xie Fei Shi)
86. Lift Hands to the Up Posture (Ti Shou Shang Shi)
87. White Crane Spreads Its Wings (Bai He Liang Chi)
88. Brush Knee and Step Forward: Left (Zuo Lou Xi Yao Bu)
89. Pick Up the Needle from the Sea Bottom (Hai Di Lao Zhen)
90. Fan Back (Shan Tong Bei)
91. White Snake Turns Its Body and Spits Poison (Zhuan Shen Bai She Tu Xin)
92. Step Forward, Deflect Downward, Parry and Punch (Jin Bu Ban Lan Chui)
93. Step Forward, Wardoff, Rollback, Press, and Push Forward (Shang Bu, Peng, Lu, Ji, An)
94. Single Whip (Dan Bian)
95. Wave Hands in the Clouds: Right (You Yun Shou)
96. Single Whip (Dan Bian)
97. Stand High to Search Out the Horse (Gao Tan Ma)
98. Cross Hands (Shi Zi Shou)
99. Turn and Kick (Zhuan Shen Shi Zi Tui)
100. Brush Knee and Punch Down (Lou Xi Zhi Dang Chui)
101. Step Forward, Wardoff, Rollback, Press, and Push Forward (Shang Bu, Peng, Lu, Ji, An)
102. Single Whip (Dan Bian)
103. Snake Creeps Down (She Shen Xia Shi)
104. Step Forward to the Seven Stars (Shang Bu Qi Xing)
105. Step Back and Ride the Tiger (Tui Bu Kua Hu)
106. Turn the Body and Sweep the Lotus with the Leg (Zhuan Shen Bai Lian)
107. Draw the Bow and Shoot the Tiger (Wan Gong She Hu)
108. Twist the Body and Circle the Fist (Pie Shen Chui)
109. Step Forward, Deflect Downward, Parry and Punch (Jin Bu Ban Lan Chui)
110. Seal Tightly (Ru Feng Si Bi)
111. Embrace the Tiger and Return to the Mountain (Bao Hu Gui Shan)
112. Close Taiji (He Taiji)
113. Return to Original Stance (Taiji Huan Yuan)


----------



## marlon (Nov 26, 2007)

what of the differences btwn Master Fu's form and master Yang Jun's way of doing the form?  What of the claims of Master Fu that he inherited the leadership of the Yang style taiji?  I know luois Swaim chose to continue his studies with Master Yang Jun after the elder Master Fu died rather than stay with his son.  Curiuos.  any thoughts?

marlon


----------



## marlon (Nov 26, 2007)

what of the differences btwn Master Fu's form and master Yang Jun's way of doing the form? What of the claims of Master Fu that he inherited the leadership of the Yang style taiji? I know luois Swaim chose to continue his studies with Master Yang Jun after the elder Master Fu died rather than stay with his son. Curiuos. any thoughts?  Looking for info and discussion not attacks and defenses of teachers and styles

marlon


----------



## Xue Sheng (Nov 26, 2007)

marlon said:


> what of the differences btwn Master Fu's form and master Yang Jun's way of doing the form? What of the claims of Master Fu that he inherited the leadership of the Yang style taiji? I know luois Swaim chose to continue his studies with Master Yang Jun after the elder Master Fu died rather than stay with his son. Curiuos. any thoughts? Looking for info and discussion not attacks and defenses of teachers and styles
> 
> marlon


 
If you mean Master Fu as Fu Zhongwen basically Fu is, or was, better and had a better understanding of what Yang Taijiquan is and Fu Zhongwen had a much better teacher. 

As to why Fu claimed he inherited leadership, don't know exactly but Fu Zhongwen was married into the Yang family I believe.

As to Louis Swam, couldn't tell you but it could be Yang politics which can get pretty nasty. For the real answer you would have to ask Louis Swam


----------

