# Chen Manching



## Xue Sheng (Apr 28, 2007)

Chen Manching's Yang Form
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=USJPmCZ6Efc&mode=related&search=

I will probably be cursed by the Yang family ancestors, but I like this form.


----------



## East Winds (May 1, 2007)

Xue Sheng,

Well there's no accounting for taste!!!!
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





Very best wishes

P.S. I would really be interetsed in what attracts you to this form rather than to Tung's form?


----------



## Xue Sheng (May 1, 2007)

East Winds said:


> Xue Sheng,
> 
> Well there's no accounting for taste!!!!
> 
> ...


 
I didn't say I didn't like Tung's form or that I liked this form better, actually I am very happy with the Yang style I do as it comes from Tung. 

What I like about this form is how it feels when I did, what little I did of it, for the short period of time I was learning it. 

To me it did 2 things, the first thing it did was give me better insight into the postures that I already did. IT appeared, at least to me; to be pretty much the same postures just stopped at a different point it what would be the martial application of that posture. Also it felt, again at least to me, to do what it claims to do with qi flow. It just seemed more relaxed and easier to understand the internal.

However having done traditional Yang for 15 years and Chen for 2 years before that I do not think I would change and do CMC style full time. 

But I do like the style, although I still maintain I would not call it Yang style, it is Cheng Manching style.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (May 1, 2007)

Xue Sheng said:


> Chen Manching's Yang Form
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=USJPmCZ6Efc&mode=related&search=
> 
> I will probably be cursed by the Yang family ancestors, but I like this form.


 
Nice find Xue Sheng!


----------



## Xue Sheng (May 1, 2007)

Xue Sheng said:


> However having done traditional Yang for 15 years and Chen for 2 years before that I do not think I would change and do CMC style full time.


 
OOPS

Not into quoting myself but I see I made an error here

Taiji total 15 years 13 years Traditional Yang, sorry about that.


----------



## marlon (May 1, 2007)

i like the form very much and i apply cmc's teachings to the yang 108 form that i am learning, so far i have not experienced any conflict. in fact cmc quotes and compliments YCF quite a bit.  What others have done with his teachings is not him.  He is very clear in his explainations and the flow is great...ion fact the student who is teaching me noted that i had done a correction on my own that he just recieved after 3 years of traijning...but it just happened as i tried to pay attention to adhereing to the ten essences and the things taught in cmc's books.   Not tooting my own horn just paying respects to the validity of the teachings....again i am very very very new to  taiji

respectfully,
Marlon


----------



## marlon (May 1, 2007)

the above sounded really cryptic so to be clear the correction concerned the path my arms and hands traveled into the brush knee posture... cmc's comment about letting the waist / centre make the movement through momentum gave me (apparently) the right movement even though i had been taught something different...nothing dramatic just interesting

respectfully,
marlon


----------



## dmax999 (May 1, 2007)

When I see different versions of the same thing by different high quality masters, I like to try and figure out the reasons for the changes. Tai Chi is one of the best styles for this because you can nit pick down to the direction your pinky is pointing for what is correct while this is not really possible for other styles.

I have never studied traditional CMC, but I do study William CC Chen's version. I believe all changes between what he teaches and traditional Yang family are so he can teach beginners easier. He is an excellent teacher, his form is easier to learn correctly, and a bit shorter. I would not go so far as to say its superior, I am not skilled enough to make that judgement. However, when teaching new students they learn to relax sooner and not use nearly as much muscle. Once you start to truly grasp concepts both should be equally easy/difficult to do.

If you compare YCF traditional long form, at least the beginning, to Chen Yi Lu Loa Jao (I think thats the first one) YCF has done very simiar changes to make it softer and easier to learn. I suspect CMC just took it a step farther and maybe his version was more approprate for Americans then for Chinese.

If you go with the concept that the forms are not a magical sequence and you are allowed to change them for the specific purpose of teaching, think about what you would change. Its just a taboo for people to change the Yang Long Form so anyone doing it any different is usually outcast as incorrect.


----------



## Xue Sheng (May 1, 2007)

dmax999 said:


> I have never studied traditional CMC, but I do study William CC Chen's version. I believe all changes between what he teaches and traditional Yang family are so he can teach beginners easier. He is an excellent teacher, his form is easier to learn correctly, and a bit shorter. I would not go so far as to say its superior, I am not skilled enough to make that judgement. However, when teaching new students they learn to relax sooner and not use nearly as much muscle. Once you start to truly grasp concepts both should be equally easy/difficult to do.



I did not train the CMC from William Chen all that long so I am no expert but I fully agree with what you are saying



dmax999 said:


> If you compare YCF traditional long form, at least the beginning, to Chen Yi Lu Loa Jao (I think thats the first one) YCF has done very simiar changes to make it softer and easier to learn. I suspect CMC just took it a step farther and maybe his version was more approprate for Americans then for Chinese.



Yes that is the first Chen form&#8230;. Kinda. 

It was shortened by the Chen Family but it is still virtually the same. 

And Chengfu did not change Chen style, his grandfather Yang Luchan did. Chengfu change the Yang family for to what we know today (for the most part) as Yang style



dmax999 said:


> If you go with the concept that the forms are not a magical sequence and you are allowed to change them for the specific purpose of teaching, think about what you would change. Its just a taboo for people to change the Yang Long Form so anyone doing it any different is usually outcast as incorrect.



Yes and no.

Tung Ying Chieh changed it slightly and it is still considered Yang Style and there is also a Tung style that is separate from the Yang style the Tung/Dong family now teaches along side of Yang style and the Yang family has no problem with this.

However I think what you have with CMC is much the same as the Change from Chen to Yang. Luchan learned Chen and later changed it to his own style and called it Yang style. I think that is, at least in my opinion, what you have with CMC. It was Yang style but Cheng Manching changed it to such a degree that it technically is no longer Yang style it is now Cheng Manching style. And to be honest I like the style but I have trained Traditional Yang (as it comes form Tung) for many years and I use to train Chen and have recently returned to training Chen and there is only so much time in a day.


----------



## marlon (May 2, 2007)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IqLxMPIVAlo&mode=related&search=


i really like this form but aside from not having a cmc teacher around my teacher once said "do not simply do what masters say, do what they did and seek what they sought"  so i am learning the 108 traditional yang form but cmc's insights and teachings are great for me as a beginner

respectfully,
marlon


----------



## Xue Sheng (May 2, 2007)

Very nice, thanks


----------



## dmax999 (May 2, 2007)

Xue Sheng said:


> However I think what you have with CMC is much the same as the Change from Chen to Yang. Luchan learned Chen and later changed it to his own style and called it Yang style.


 
Here is where I have a few questions. The story is Luchan changed Chen form and made it Yang, then YCF changed it to what we have today. Looking at the differences, it isn't greatly different but it has obviously changed.

My question is... Was Luchan's version really any different from Chen style? I've never seen his version. Even if someone could show me, how do I know thats not just the version for showing outside the family and YCF really learned something almost exactly like Chen style originally?

One of the other problems you have with changing the form today is it is so prevelant and popular. When CMC made his changes he was the student of the guy who made it. Now someone would be the student of the student of the student... I would have no problem changing forms that my teacher made up for specific reasons, especially if I knew the exact reasons he made it the way he did. Changing a traditional form and claiming it is improved is far more difficult to claim.


----------



## Xue Sheng (May 2, 2007)

dmax999 said:


> Here is where I have a few questions. The story is Luchan changed Chen form and made it Yang, then YCF changed it to what we have today. Looking at the differences, it isn't greatly different but it has obviously changed.
> 
> My question is... Was Luchan's version really any different from Chen style? I've never seen his version. Even if someone could show me, how do I know thats not just the version for showing outside the family and YCF really learned something almost exactly like Chen style originally?.


 
Actually it is not a story it is a historic fact. And look at what differences? 

If you study the history you will find that he was not teaching Chen style and it was different than Chen style. Likely not as different as what we see today but it was different. 

I am not sure what you are looking for here, but it is doubtful Yang Chengfu learned anything like Chen. The first to change the form was Luchan's son Jainhou and he taught Chengfu. Chengfu was the second to change to form and he taught just about everyone else.

But the fact still remains and I am not sure why this is an issue, that many that train Chen Manching style insist on calling it Yang, when it pretty much isn't. It is a great form but it is no more Yang than Yang is Chen. Besides the Yang family has come out and made it perfectly clear that it is not Yang style as far as they are concerned. 
And the Chen family has absolutely no problem with anyone teaching Yang style so again I am not sure where you are going with this.



dmax999 said:


> One of the other problems you have with changing the form today is it is so prevelant and popular. When CMC made his changes he was the student of the guy who made it. Now someone would be the student of the student of the student... I would have no problem changing forms that my teacher made up for specific reasons, especially if I knew the exact reasons he made it the way he did. Changing a traditional form and claiming it is improved is far more difficult to claim.


 
I have no problem with changing anything CMC is a great style; it just is not Yang style. 

And when CMC made his changes the guy that was his teacher was dead so he could not have been a student of Chengfu at the time. So the changes were made and they were not sanctioned by or even asked for by the Yang family. They Yang's have no problem with anyone changing what they taught them just don't continue to call it Yang style.

And Tung Ying Cheih was an inside student of Yang Chengfu and senior to Cheng Manching, so I do not know what you are getting at here.


----------



## dmax999 (May 2, 2007)

Xue Sheng said:


> If you study the history you will find that he was not teaching Chen style and it was different than Chen style. Likely not as different as what we see today but it was different.


 
My point is no one knows how different. It may have been nearly exactly the same.



Xue Sheng said:


> But the fact still remains and I am not sure why this is an issue, that many that train Chen Manching style insist on calling it Yang, when it pretty much isn't. It is a great form but it is no more Yang than Yang is Chen. Besides the Yang family has come out and made it perfectly clear that it is not Yang style as far as they are concerned.


 
I'm curious why you keep repeating this same point over and over anytinme CMC is mentioned. I didn't even come close to making that claim.


----------



## Xue Sheng (May 3, 2007)

dmax999 said:


> My point is no one knows how different. It may have been nearly exactly the same.


 
There are historical writings that claim it was fairly different, regardless it was different enough for the Chen family not to care he went off and was teaching something other than Chen and calling it Yang in fairly close proximity to Chen village.

But you are correct no one knows exactly how different for sure. But allegedly there are still people who have lineage to Shouhou and Banhou and that form is also allegedly very close to what Luchan had finally developed as Yang style. However it has also been recorded that some of the Chen Fajing was removed and replaced with more absorption and redirection



dmax999 said:


> I'm curious why you keep repeating this same point over and over anytinme CMC is mentioned. I didn't even come close to making that claim.


 
Because I do not understand what you are trying to say with your previous statements.

I do not understand what you are trying to say or get across with the following statement



> One of the other problems you have with changing the form today is it is so prevelant and popular. When CMC made his changes he was the student of the guy who made it. Now someone would be the student of the student of the student... I would have no problem changing forms that my teacher made up for specific reasons, especially if I knew the exact reasons he made it the way he did. Changing a traditional form and claiming it is improved is far more difficult to claim.


 
You are saying in response to my post "One of the other problems *you* have with changing the form today is it is so prevalent and popular." And as I said I have no problem with it at all. As a matter of fact the form I do is from Tung and does look a bit different than what the Yang family teaches today, and I do think it is better.

Also I feel I should repeat that CMC teacher was dead when CMC made the changes.


----------



## oxy (May 3, 2007)

Xue Sheng said:


> You are saying in response to my post "One of the other problems *you* have with changing the form today is it is so prevalent and popular." And as I said I have no problem with it at all. As a matter of fact the form I do is from Tung and does look a bit different than what the Yang family teaches today, and I do think it is better.



I think dmax was using the word "you" in a general sense and not aiming that at anyone in particular. Yeah?

ie, what he wrote can be interpreted as:

"One of the other problems people can have with changing the form today is it is so prevalent and popular."


----------



## dmax999 (May 3, 2007)

Xue Sheng said:


> Also I feel I should repeat that CMC teacher was dead when CMC made the changes.


 
Xue, are you trying to imply something here as well?

I don't understand the relevance at all, but apparently you feel this is a significant point. Could you enlighten us as to why you believe this is an important point?


----------



## Xue Sheng (May 3, 2007)

Have a nice day


----------



## oxy (May 3, 2007)

dmax999 said:


> Xue, are you trying to imply something here as well?
> 
> I don't understand the relevance at all, but apparently you feel this is a significant point. Could you enlighten us as to why you believe this is an important point?



dmax, when some people constantly encounter a certain class of comments over time, it becomes quite difficult for some to differentiate between the hackneyed comments from a more original one.

So when you bring up Yang and CMC in the same post, it is very hard for a seasoned mind to tell the difference between a comment claiming CMC is Yang from your comment about people changing Chen to Yang and Yang to CMC. I'm having a hard time too, but I can just about see the different angle you are coming from.

I've experienced having my comments brushed aside because people didn't take long enough to look at what I'm really saying instead of what it looked like I was saying. Just recently, I was accused of trying to talk about what I don't konw of Taiji, when I was really talking about people making judgements about one thing using a completely unrelated "clues". You've probably experienced having your comments mistaken before this. I'm sure Xue Sheng has as well.

The only way to get around this is to understand that the internet is the best place to encounter repeated arguments as if the people that made them thought it was something new that no one has thought of before. And you must understand that the people who encounter these hackeneyed arguments develop a set of conditioned responses. As time goes on, the conditioned responses seem adequate to answer related arguments as well and so they become used beyond their context. However, it's also hard not to see when these conditioned responses do not apply. You try not to bring attention to this because that will drown out your own point. Instead, continue to reword your thoughts to help them understand. Or quit. Either way is fine. It's not anyone's fault.

So to answer your question, I don't think Xue Sheng thinks it's an important point such that it must be brought up in every post with the words Yang and CMC in it. It's more of a conditioned response, I'm guessing.


----------



## Xue Sheng (May 4, 2007)

Out of respect for the moderator of the CMA section I have tried to NOT respond to any of this but I am sorry I think I really need to here, Sorry Jade



oxy said:


> dmax, when some people constantly encounter a certain class of comments over time, it becomes quite difficult for some to differentiate between the hackneyed comments from a more original one.
> 
> So when you bring up Yang and CMC in the same post, it is very hard for a seasoned mind to tell the difference between a comment claiming CMC is Yang from your comment about people changing Chen to Yang and Yang to CMC. I'm having a hard time too, but I can just about see the different angle you are coming from.
> 
> ...



Oxy

Please do not ever analyze me again nor answer a question for me in my name. 

I am assuming you are trying to help, but you are not so please stop. You are succesfully, once again, taking something off post.

You have absolutely no idea as to why I am responding or what I meant so please stop speaking for me. I have stated time and time again how I feel about CMC and I, unlike you, have a lot of Taiji background and know a lot about its history and I also have trained both, admittedly CMC considerably less, but that had nothing to do with any opinion of it, it was a decision purely based on the amount of time I have in my day to fit everything in. I just have no time to train another style.  I have also time and time again recommended Cheng Manchings books to all who train taiji so I am wondering where you are getting your ideas as to what I meant. The question is rhetorical, I do not wish a response nor will I respond in this post further after this post.

Please never answer for me again.



dmax999 said:


> Xue, are you trying to imply something here as well?
> 
> I don't understand the relevance at all, but apparently you feel this is a significant point. Could you enlighten us as to why you believe this is an important point?



OK here we go.

I have repeated this because you used it as a basis for a statement that you made and it was in fact it is a false statement and I asked for clarification on this and the rest of the statements twice and you have not given me any clarification what so ever. I have answered the questions you have asked me and yet you do not answer ANY of the questions I have asked you. Instead you come back at me with more questions in veiled accusations which lead me to the conclusion that you are pretty much here only to argue and I do not want to argue. I know much of the history of Taiji and I have absolutely no desire to educate you on it so I am outta here.

With that said the 2 of you can go back and forth analyzing, discussing and arguing ad nauseam but I am done here and I regret ever starting this post in the first place. I posted a link to a video of Cheng Manching doing his form which I felt was VERY worthy of posting and a great form that was developed by Chen Manching based on his training with Yang Chengfu and his background in Traditional Chinese Medicine and it has apparently degraded into a point counter point razor discussion followed by a psychoanalysis session and heading towards an argument clinic.

I wish you both the best
Later..


----------



## oxy (May 4, 2007)

Taking my own advice, I'll be clarifying myself, even if no one listens:

I read over the thread again to make sure I was not off my nut and I still don't see anything that has been suggested by either party.

None of dmax's posts ever had the feel of veiled accusations. The way he worded his posts did fit the pattern a lot, but not the content of his posts. That is why I made the analysis I did. His first question that started off this branch of discussion was one that was purely out of curiosity/desire-to-find-out. Mistakes were made in interpretation, and the reason used (that there was limited time available) is one of the most common reasons why people develop conditioned responses in the first place. It's nothing bad, but it was something someone on the receiving end might need to have something definite to outline with.

And Xue Sheng wasn't "implying" anything with his repeated points about the changes made to CMC. We're all familiar with Xue Sheng's opinions on CMC Taiji in general, so that's a non-issue.

Now I don't know why my lack of Taiji knowledge continues to come into question when, in this thread anyway (and I would say in other Taiji threads), I have never tried to confirm or deny the facts of the history, philosophy or technique of any style of Taiji. I do not understand why many people feel that my lack of qualifications in Taiji somehow makes me unqualified to clarify misunderstandings that occur between the points people are trying to make and what people are trying to talk about or that I'm unqualified to talk about rationality in thinking. Do I need to be a student of Taiji before I can talk about rationality or to make sense of what people are trying to say?

I have not been analysing anyone, unless the "situation" can qualify as a person. None of my comments have questioned Xue Sheng's opinions of CMC at all, so that question, rhetorical it may be, was a complete surprise.

As for me taking this thread off course, I apologise. Next time I'll just go through the motions of either agreeing or disagreeing like everybody else expects instead of looking at things from another angle. After all, who am I to say that the answer to both side's question is not whether one side is right and the other wrong, but that both sides have misunderstood the other's intentions?

Hanlon's Razor seems to be very useful as of late:

Do not attribute to malice that which can be explained by unawareness.

Not that anyone cares, but I'll continue to analyse who or what I like. What I do with that analysis will be used, hopefully without needing to be used publicly. I'll also be continuing to look at things from completely different angles rather than the stock positions of agreeing or disagreeing. This thread was already off course when one side's comments were pigeon-holed into a stock position of disagreement when it in fact was a curiosity that had the makings of a different angle but was unfortunately not recognised due to the kludge that is the intarwebs.


----------



## Jade Tigress (May 4, 2007)

*ATTENTION ALL USERS

Please keep the conversation polite, respectful, and return to the original topic. 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.


Pamela Piszczek
MT Super Moderator*


----------



## marlon (May 24, 2007)

Eastwinds, can i ask what exactly you find 'missing' in CMC teachings and form?

Respectfully,
Marlon


----------



## East Winds (May 26, 2007)

marlon,

Thanks for the enquiry. I don't (perhaps surprisingly) find anything "missing" from CMC's form or his teachings. CMC taiji is Cheng Man Ching Taiji
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 If however you mean "missing" in relation to Yang Cheng fu's form, then of course CMC dropped 2 thirds of Yang's form. I think he misunderstood the reason for the repititions in Yang's form and considered them to be "excessive and (to) have no significance".

Very best wishes


----------



## marlon (May 28, 2007)

Thank you east winds,
from what i have read cmc never thought the repetiions had no significance but that he wanted to make it easier for people to learn..and it seems to me that even in his form there are reptitionsbut what do i know.  What are the reasons and significance for the repitions?

Respectfully,
Marlon


----------



## East Winds (May 28, 2007)

marlon,

The quote I gave was a direct quote from Cheng Man Ching himself. Here is an expanded version of it. "_*I believe that the repetitions are excessive and have no significance. They waste mental energy and are without benefit" *Cheng Man-Ching's Advanced Form Instructions : Translated by Douglas Wile 1985 page 19.

_And of course the repetitions train Peng energy; the mainstay of Traditional Yang Family Taijiquan.

Very best wishes


----------



## Xue Sheng (May 28, 2007)

East Winds said:


> marlon,
> 
> The quote I gave was a direct quote from Cheng Man Ching himself. Here is an expanded version of it. "_*I believe that the repetitions are excessive and have no significance. They waste mental energy and are without benefit" *Cheng Man-Ching's Advanced Form Instructions : Translated by Douglas Wile 1985 page 19._
> 
> ...


 
I too have read that quote from Cheng Manching


----------



## marlon (May 29, 2007)

"tai chi chuan has traditionally consisted of about 120 movements, many of them repetitions.  I have doubts about these repetitions, for they are of no benefit to the substance and application.  I have come to believe there are three reasons for them.  First, it was feared that the practitioner had no perserverence and , therefore, the time of the set was purposely prolonged in order to cultivate perseverence.  Secondly, in the set there are some basic movements the student MUST repeat and practice if he is to improve.  Thridly, the original set of thirteen postures was too short and required too little expenditure of energy.....i had to simplify the form in order to spread it, and i had to spread it so that it could make the people and the country strong....i hope my readers may offer thier comments
CMC  Thirteen Treatises page 103 Ben Lo translation


----------



## marlon (May 29, 2007)

CMC says that Proffessor Yang taught him " the feet, legs, and waist must act together simultaneaously.  It is rooted in the feet, released through the legs, controlled by the waist, and manifested through the fingers..."...from thi, it can be seen that the beginnings and endings of movements cannot be separated.

any comments?

Respectfully,
marlon


----------



## East Winds (May 29, 2007)

marlon,

Even in Ben Lo's translation, CMC says (about the repetitions) "I have doubts about these repetitions, for they are of no benefit to the substance and application". I think he then shows his lack of understanding about the repetitions by giving his three reasons as to why they were added. 
*
 " the feet, legs, and waist must act together simultaneaously. It is rooted in the feet, released through the legs, controlled by the waist, and manifested through the fingers..."...from thi, it can be seen that the beginnings and endings of movements cannot be separated*.

I don't think any real taiji practitioner would argue with that
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 How do you think we issue Fa Jin in Traditional Yang?

Very best wishes


----------



## marlon (May 30, 2007)

_*" the feet, legs, and waist must act together simultaneaously. It is rooted in the feet, released through the legs, controlled by the waist, and manifested through the fingers..."...from thi, it can be seen that the beginnings and endings of movements cannot be separated*_.

I don't think any real taiji practitioner would argue with that
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 How do you think we issue Fa Jin in Traditional Yang?

Very best wishes[/quote]

thank you Eastwinds,
i also note that he says that they can do the form more often to have the repetitions..but again my ingnorance may be showing.  It is interesting. b The above quote in mention because i was told to demonstrate more distinction between each posture and that i flowed them together too much.  Also, please tell me how you issue fa jing in Yang taiji.

Respectfully,
Marlon


----------



## East Winds (May 30, 2007)

marlon,

Thanks for ther response. In our early efforts to make our taiji "flow", we tend, (as you have been told), to run one posture into the next and do not distinguish between each postsure. We have a concept (at least in Traditional Yang Family Taijiquan) of "Stopping without stopping". you need to get your teacher to show this process, it is too difficult to try and put into words. The concept is exactly to do with issuing Fa Jin. It is also the distinguishing of the Yin and Yang within each posture. Remember that the Yin aspect is every bit as important as the Yang aspect. 

As top how we issue Fa Jin in Yang style - exactly the same way as the Chen's do it!!!!
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 only not so obvious. Get your teacher to explain.

Very best wishes


----------



## Xue Sheng (May 30, 2007)

Each posture has a definite beginning and end however the end of one posture does not mean stop it means the beginning of the next posture. 

fajing - comes from the feet is directed by the waist and issued from there to but it simply and you also need to be rather relaxed but not soft like a pillow relaxed.


----------



## marlon (May 30, 2007)

EW and XS,
thank you.  unfortunately the teacher i have is a 3 year student and i do not think that he 'gets' everything yet but i will ask again.  I am working on the things you have mentioned the soft the flow the slow the issuing of energy through intention, using the root and allowing the waist to direct all movements after my intention has initiated the movement and let the rest of my body follow...ahhhhhh!!!!  but the effort is good and i am loving it.  All your words and advice and disagreements i find most useful

respectfully,
marlon


----------

