# Not Yang Style !?!?



## Xue Sheng

OK, I am shocked and the next guy&#8230;. Ok probably more so&#8230; the next guy probably couldn&#8217;t care less&#8230;. but I have come to the conclusion that after 12 years of studying Yang style that I was not studying Yang style, or at least not according to the Yang family and Tung/Dong family

But wait it gets more confusing.

My teacher did call it Yang Style and he not wrong, from his perspective. His teacher was Tung Ying Cheih and as far as I know master Tung taught Yang style and never said anything to the contrary. 

But now the Yang family has declared that those taught via Tung Ying Cheih are not learning Yang style but Tung style. (This by the way is the same thing as Dong Style)

And the Tung/Dong family teaches its family form called&#8230; you guessed it&#8230; Dong style.

Now after much video viewing of Old Yang style guys and Yang Jun and then comparing them to what I do and what I saw Tung Ying Chieh do in an old film. I am doing Dong Style. 

Yang and Dong are very similar but have some obvious differences. Could be because prior to studying with Yang Chengfu, Tung Ying Chieh studied Wu style, I believe Wu/Hao style to be honest. Also there was some speculation. Although not proven as far as I am concerned that Master Tung studied Yang style with Yang Shaohou until Shaohou's death and then studied with Yang Chengfu.

So now I have to go and buy Tung Ying Cheih&#8217;s book to see what the heck I was suppose to be doing, since it is not Yang style and I have based everything on the fact I did Yang style&#8230;which I apparently do not. 

This does not change the fact I am returning to Chen style, but it does mean&#8230;. Well to be honest I am not sure what it means.


----------



## Flying Crane

I dunno, maybe it doesn't mean anything.  Since most of the other established styles came from Yang originally, they share the same root.  I hadn't heard of a Dong or Tung style.  Is it "appropriate" for the Yang family to suddenly push out someone and claim that a different party now teaches a style with their name on it, if that person never made the claim themselves?  These arts change from generation to generation and person to person.  You will NEVER find any two people who do it exactly alike, even from the same family.  So what makes Tung style suddenly not Yang?  I don't know. 

My sifu teaches some Yang style.  I don't know who he learned it from, I don't know how different it might be from how the official Yang Family does it.  Does this make it "Fong Style"?  I don't think so.  It's just Yang style done according to how he understands it.  Where do you draw the line in separating something?  If Tung didn't try to make the separation, I'd say it's really just a variant of Yang.

Of course I don't have any familiarity with Tung, so I don't know if it really is different.  Just my thoughts, tho.


----------



## crushing

Like sands through the hour glass, so are the days of our lives.  Sounds like some sort of MA soap opera.  In which episode do you start the search for your biological father that was kidnapped by the local mafia family?

Whatever it means, I'm sure you have made and will make the best of it.  Oh, and I hope the Chen style you return to is really Chen style.  

Best,
crushing


----------



## charyuop

The weird is that Yang family is coming out now after so many years. I wonder if recently something happened between the two families and Yang family wanted to hurt them just by diregardin what Tung family has been teaching.
If I were you I would try to contact someone from the lineage of Tung family to "politely" ask for information.


----------



## Xue Sheng

Flying Crane said:
			
		

> I dunno, maybe it doesn't mean anything. Since most of the other established styles came from Yang originally, they share the same root. I hadn't heard of a Dong or Tung style. Is it "appropriate" for the Yang family to suddenly push out someone and claim that a different party now teaches a style with their name on it, if that person never made the claim themselves? These arts change from generation to generation and person to person. You will NEVER find any two people who do it exactly alike, even from the same family. So what makes Tung style suddenly not Yang? I don't know.
> 
> My sifu teaches some Yang style. I don't know who he learned it from, I don't know how different it might be from how the official Yang Family does it. Does this make it "Fong Style"? I don't think so. It's just Yang style done according to how he understands it. Where do you draw the line in separating something? If Tung didn't try to make the separation, I'd say it's really just a variant of Yang.
> 
> Of course I don't have any familiarity with Tung, so I don't know if it really is different. Just my thoughts, tho.


 
I'm short on time right now, more later, but here is a link to the Tung/Dong Family if you are interested
http://www.dongtaichi.com/


----------



## Xue Sheng

crushing said:
			
		

> Like sands through the hour glass, so are the days of our lives. Sounds like some sort of MA soap opera. In which episode do you start the search for your biological father that was kidnapped by the local mafia family?
> 
> Whatever it means, I'm sure you have made and will make the best of it. Oh, and I hope the Chen style you return to is really Chen style.
> 
> Best,
> crushing


 
Chen will be no problem, it comes from Chen Zhenglei, can't get much more Chen family than that. They are very exact when it comes to what is and what isn't Chen and have been for a very long time. Beides the only thing that even looks close is Zhaobao and that comes directly form a Chen family mamber.


----------



## Xue Sheng

charyuop said:
			
		

> The weird is that Yang family is coming out now after so many years. I wonder if recently something happened between the two families and Yang family wanted to hurt them just by diregardin what Tung family has been teaching.
> If I were you I would try to contact someone from the lineage of Tung family to "politely" ask for information.


 
Doubtful, they also recently made it clear that Cheng Manching is not Yang style either. 

I think they are just trying to seperate themselves from the others. 

Even though both Tung and Cheng learned from Yang Chengfu.

Could be a lot of reasons, I am guessing at least one of those reasons is money.


----------



## Flying Crane

Xue Sheng said:
			
		

> I'm short on time right now, more later, but here is a link to the Tung/Dong Family if you are interested
> http://www.dongtaichi.com/


 
Hmmm... it's hard to pull much info out of that website.  It doesn't at all make clear what might be different from Yang.

It does appear that Dong studied extensively under Yang Chengfu,  and even handled many challenge fights on his behalf.

While there may be a formal separation and I am sure there are definite differences, underneath it all, is it really distinct enough to be "not the same"?


----------



## Xue Sheng

Flying Crane said:
			
		

> Hmmm... it's hard to pull much info out of that website. It doesn't at all make clear what might be different from Yang.
> 
> It does appear that Dong studied extensively under Yang Chengfu, and even handled many challenge fights on his behalf.
> 
> While there may be a formal separation and I am sure there are definite differences, underneath it all, is it really distinct enough to be "not the same"?


 
I now have more time.

There is greater waist use in the Tai Chi of Master Tung and more apparent Fajing in the heal kicks. 

Tung also created a fast form of his own and possibly finished the Yang Fast form for Yang Chengfu. 

Frankly, to me the differences are negligible, but to the Yang family it is different. They also made a generational statement that amounts to, If I interpret it properly, they can teach Yang style to me and I can teach Yang style to you, but I cannot tell you that you can teach Yang style. 

By this they can say Cheng Manching learned Yang taught Yang style, Tung Ying Cheih taught Yang style but anything after that is not Yang style. 

I have my thoughts as to why, but I will not go into them here.

Also I have heard, and this is not substantiated yet, that the Dong family is more interested in the fighting side than the Yang family. 

Tung Ying Chieh
Forgive the quality and choppiness, it is an old film.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g8ydIbWD_sQ

Interestingly enough I recently saw a Gentleman do Yang style Tai chi that was a student of Yang Chengfu and his form looks different than the current Yang family, it is a VERY good form, the best I have ever seen, and he says the Yang family changed it since The old master (Yang Chengfu). But there has never been any mention of him by the current Yang family.


----------



## Flying Crane

Xue Sheng said:
			
		

> Frankly, to me the differences are negligible, but to the Yang family it is different. They also made a generational statement that amounts to, If I interpret it properly, they can teach Yang style to me and I can teach Yang style to you, but I cannot tell you that you can teach Yang style.
> 
> By this they can say Cheng Manching learned Yang taught Yang style, Tung Ying Cheih taught Yang style but anything after that is not Yang style.
> 
> Interestingly enough I recently saw a Gentleman do Yang style Tai chi that was a student of Yang Chengfu and his form looks different than the current Yang family, it is a VERY good form, the best I have ever seen, and he says the Yang family changed it since The old master (Yang Chengfu). But there has never been any mention of him by the current Yang family.


 
Sounds like a lot of politics, frankly...


----------



## Xue Sheng

Flying Crane said:
			
		

> Sounds like a lot of politics, frankly...


 
You got it


----------



## Xue Sheng

Once again something I am hesitant to post but here goes, once again into the void..

I thought of this last night and most of this is pure speculation. Let me repeat that; *most of this is pure speculation*.

I do believe to some extent that the at least part of the reason for the Yang family making it clear what is and what is not Yang style is general politics and money. But it also may be an attempt to regain control of the style. 

I was thinking (always a dangerous thing) about the 6 recognized Tai Chi families. And ironically after finishing Chen style Silk reeling this came to me.

The Chen family pretty much knows who is and who is not teaching Chen and if they learned it from the Chen Family. I need to use a name here for example, when my wife was the translator for Chen Zhenglei I found that he knew my teacher&#8217;s teacher was (Tung Ying Chieh), he did not know my Sifu. He also knew Tung&#8217;s daughter. He knew that my first Sifu, who is now teaching Chen style and Sifu Chen, said that my first Sifu never learned it form the Chen family. He was absolutely certain of this; I also know it to be the truth as well. 

The Wu family, now based in Canada also appears to have a fairly good grasp on who has learned from them. As I believe the Wu/Hao family does too. And although I do not know who is currently the inheritor of Sun style since Sun Jian Yun died I would not be surprised if they did not know who was taught by their family, face it not that many people are doing Sun Style. And then there is Zhaobao, also not that many people doing Zhaobao and it appears that if you show up and say &#8220;I learned Zhaobao&#8221; if your teacher is not 1 of a half dozen or less people the family in charge would say &#8220;No you didn&#8217;t&#8221;

Now the Yang family, first it is the most popular style of tai chi on the planet today. And there are a lot of people out there training and teaching what they call Yang that may know little or nothing about Yang Chengfu, and nothing about anyone else in the Yang family. Many are teaching Yang style (Beijing) 24 form or Yang 48 form, (which to me looks like it was based on Yang style pre-Yang Chengfu) and do not know traditional but they still claim to teach Yang style.

Yang Chengfu taught a lot of people, all over China, and I am not sure if the Yang family knows all he taught. Now go to his students, Cheng Manching was, I believe, the first to come to the US but he taught a lot of people in Taiwan, I believe, before he came to the US to teach many more. And I doubt the Yang family has any idea who TT Liang taught or CC Chen. Now Tung Ying Cheih taught a lot of people as well and his sons went to America, Hawaii first and taught a lot more people and it is highly unlikely they know all that Tung Ying Cheih taught little alone his sons. 

Now within the Yang family, Yang Shouhao (Chengfu&#8217;s older brother) taught some people, no where near the number that Chengfu taught and then a generation back Yang Banhao (uncle) also taught. But both Banhao and Shouhao taught a different form of Yang than Chengfu and that form still exists, see Yang Jwing Ming&#8217;s Yang style. And the family is not sure who knows this style or if anyone doing it was taught by their family.

There is absolutely no way the Yang family can have any idea who did and who did not learn form them at this point. So what do you do? 

Well Cheng Manching&#8217;s form is decidedly different so you say that is not Yang style and now you have a whole lot of people you no longer have to worry about. Then you see Tung&#8217;s students doing something similar but different enough and you can say the same there and get the same result and they rarely if ever talk about Banhao&#8217;s or Shouhao&#8217;s students. Shouhao by the way had at least 1 son I believe he taught. 

It is possible that the Yang family is simply trying to regain control of their family style. They can teach you Yang style and a few others outside of the family can (I believe Gin Soo Chu is one of these &#8211; he was as a student of Zhendao older brother) but that is it. This way they can cut down the numbers and make sure that if you are doing Yang style it is in reality Traditional Yang style from Yang Chengfu, which is the current excepted family style. 

They have also instituted a time requirement to study before you are considered a teacher, this is not a bad thing, but it is not traditional and it does not really mean you are better or worse than the next guy, it just means you have trained with the Yang family X amount of years. But it does insure that you have trained with them and it cuts down on the number of people that can truly say I teach Yang family tai Chi that I learned from the Yang Family.  

Also I have been on their site (http://www.yangfamilytaichi.com/) and they are listing people as teachers that learned form Tung Ying Chieh, so I am a bit confused here, but the

Example: Yang Lu-Chan > Yang Chang-Fu > Tung Ying Chieh > Master Mary Chow > Richard Jesaitis

Mary Chow by the way is my Teachers mother, but she did not study with Master Tung as long as my teacher.

I have not gone through all of the teachers listed but they seem to all come from Yang Chengfu not Shouhao or Banhao

I may be way off base with all of this, but this actually makes some sense to me.


----------



## charyuop

http://www.wuji.com/YangTaijiQuan.htm
Here you can read some of the students of Yang ChengFu. I put this site to show that in the site of the Yang family it is not shown all of the people teaching and that actually studied under Yang ChengFu lineage.
The man I bought all my Tai Chi videos from (Micheal Gilman) studied under Choy Kam-Man whose father, Choy Hok-Peng, studied directly under Chengfu. If you go to the Yang site none of them are mentioned (even tho masters Choy now are deceased).

I am sure it is not a matter of knowing, but more a matter of belonging to Yang family (not as related). If you go to them and say I studied Yang style under this master and ask for their certification then you will be one of the masters who DOES Yang style.


----------



## Xue Sheng

This is very true and from the site you posted 
"It's impossible to list all of the students of Yang Chengfu since he traveled all over China to spread and teach Yang family Taiji Quan"

Styles of Tai Chi
http://www.chebucto.ns.ca/Philosophy/Taichi/styles.html

Yang style Lineage
http://www.chebucto.ns.ca/Philosophy/Taichi/yang.html

Tung Ying-chieh
http://www.answers.com/topic/tung-ying-chieh



			
				charyuop said:
			
		

> I am sure it is not a matter of knowing, but more a matter of belonging to Yang family (not as related). If you go to them and say I studied Yang style under this master and ask for their certification then you will be one of the masters who DOES Yang style.


 
This is not uncommon, After 12 years of study with my Sifu I was looking to go study with Vincent Chu in Boston and although he did not say you need to start over he did say you need to start from correction and I agree with this. And his father Gin Soo Chu I believe is recognized by the Yang family as teaching Yang style, but I am not sure if Vincent is. 

Anyone can show up and say I studied Yang Style, but you need to prove what you know and the Yang family today is not giving out certification without a certain number of years studying with them.

Example: I am returning to Chen, I use to do the old frame one and do silk reeling, but I am starting from the beginning with Chen Zhengleis 18 basic forms, and silk reeling before I return to old frame 1.


----------



## East Winds

Xue Sheng,

I think you are correct in that the Yang Family are trying to reclaim Traditional Yang Family taijiquan. What Yang Zhen Ji and Yang Zhen Duo (+ Yang Jun) teach today is as close to what Yang Cheng-fu finally taught as you will be able to get. Fu Zhong Wen was Yang Cheng-fu's most senior student and Yang Zhen Ji (Cheng-fu's second son and still alive and teaching in China) has said of him "each movement, each posture is done according to the way my father taught the form in the past, with no alterations to the fixed postures". If you watch Fu Zhong Wen's video you will see the form as taught by the Yang's today. Cheng Man-ching and Wialliam C.C. Chen and T.T.Liang are entirely different kettles of fish. Cheng Man-ching so changed Cheng-fu's form that it can no longer be considered Yang style. Cheng Man-ching style, yes, by all means, but not Traditional Yang style. Tung  changed the form less than Cheng man-ching and is much closer to Yang than Cheng's form.  However he introduced fast forms which have never been part of the Traditional Yang curriculum.  The modern 24, 48 and 88 forms cannot be called Yang style either, because they were formulated by a committee which did not include any of the Yang Family members and they violate some of Yang Cheng-fu's 10 essences. The Yangs (Shou Hou, Zhen Ji and Zhen Duo) had difficulties with the communist regime hence Shou Hou's fleeing to Hong Kong.  It was during this period of course that the modern Wushu forms were formulated.(i.e.minus any martial intent as the communist regime were very wary of martial artists). There are so many forms masquerading as "Yang" style today, that I am not really surprised at the Yang family trying to reign things in. At the other extreme of the "Yang" teaching, you have the Taoist Tai Chi Society teaching Yangs Long Form and calling it Taoist Tai Chi claiming it was formulated by Moy Lin Shin. If it is any consolation to you, I think Tungs form is the closest of all the "Yang" forms to the original (and final) Cheng-fu form (apart that is from Zhen Ji and Zhen Duo's forms). The basis for true Traditional Yang Family Taijiquan is strict observance and adherence to Cheng-fu's 10 essences whilst playing the form. Many pay lip service to these essences whilst ignoring them playing the form.

Sorry for the long rant (learning a lot from you Xue Sheng).

Very best wishes


----------



## Xue Sheng

East Winds said:
			
		

> Xue Sheng,
> 
> I think you are correct in that the Yang Family are trying to reclaim Traditional Yang Family taijiquan. What Yang Zhen Ji and Yang Zhen Duo (+ Yang Jun) teach today is as close to what Yang Cheng-fu finally taught as you will be able to get. Fu Zhong Wen was Yang Cheng-fu's most senior student and Yang Zhen Ji (Cheng-fu's second son and still alive and teaching in China) has said of him "each movement, each posture is done according to the way my father taught the form in the past, with no alterations to the fixed postures". If you watch Fu Zhong Wen's video you will see the form as taught by the Yang's today. Cheng Man-ching and Wialliam C.C. Chen and T.T.Liang are entirely different kettles of fish. Cheng Man-ching so changed Cheng-fu's form that it can no longer be considered Yang style. Cheng Man-ching style, yes, by all means, but not Traditional Yang style. Tung changed the form less than Cheng man-ching and is much closer to Yang than Cheng's form. However he introduced fast forms which have never been part of the Traditional Yang curriculum. The modern 24, 48 and 88 forms cannot be called Yang style either, because they were formulated by a committee which did not include any of the Yang Family members and they violate some of Yang Cheng-fu's 10 essences. The Yangs (Shou Hou, Zhen Ji and Zhen Duo) had difficulties with the communist regime hence Shou Hou's fleeing to Hong Kong. It was during this period of course that the modern Wushu forms were formulated.(i.e.minus any martial intent as the communist regime were very wary of martial artists). There are so many forms masquerading as "Yang" style today, that I am not really surprised at the Yang family trying to reign things in. At the other extreme of the "Yang" teaching, you have the Taoist Tai Chi Society teaching Yangs Long Form and calling it Taoist Tai Chi claiming it was formulated by Moy Lin Shin. If it is any consolation to you, I think Tungs form is the closest of all the "Yang" forms to the original (and final) Cheng-fu form (apart that is from Zhen Ji and Zhen Duo's forms). The basis for true Traditional Yang Family Taijiquan is strict observance and adherence to Cheng-fu's 10 essences whilst playing the form. Many pay lip service to these essences whilst ignoring them playing the form.
> 
> Sorry for the long rant (learning a lot from you Xue Sheng).
> 
> Very best wishes


 
Nice rant. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





once again agreed.


----------



## wuchi

> Originally Posted by Eastwind
> 
> Cheng Man-ching and Wialliam C.C. Chen and T.T.Liang are entirely different kettles of fish. Cheng Man-ching so changed Cheng-fu's form that it can no longer be considered Yang style. Cheng Man-ching style, yes, by all means, but not Traditional Yang style. Tung changed the form less than Cheng man-ching and is much closer to Yang than Cheng's form. However he introduced fast forms which have never been part of the Traditional Yang curriculum.



If Yang Zhen Ji and Yang Zen Dou have registered the name "Traditional Yang Family Taijiquan", then no other people apart from them teach the true "Traditional Yang Family Taijiquan".  There is no argument that when others want to use that name they have to pay  a royalty to use it.  Instructors need to be certified by them, they need to attend workshops, pay affiliation fees etc...

If that is not the case the more correct thing to say in my opinion would be Cheng Man Ching and Tung Ying Chieh are not teaching "Yang Cheng Fu Style Tai Ji Quan". If just because someone is not conforming to Yang Chengfu's standard form you label them as not Yang style taiji - then how would you classify Yang Lu Chan, Yang Ban Hou, Yang Shao Hou and all the people that learnt from them - are they doing Yang's style taiji?



> Originally Posted by Eastwind
> The basis for true Traditional Yang Family Taijiquan is strict observance and adherence to Cheng-fu's 10 essences whilst playing the form.



I have a copy of "Yang Cheng Fu Shi Tai Ji Quan" written by Yang Zhen Ji (1st edition published 1993) in front of me and I have just read though the 10 essences.
If the basis for a true Traditional Yang Family Taijiquan is someone who strictly observes and adheres to Yang Chengfu's 10 essences. Please enlighten me as to which of the 10 essences Cheng Man-Ching didn't observe and adhere to so that his taiji is not Yang's taiji.  _Please note there is no offence intended!!_

If you have an opportunity to read Cheng Man Ching's book, you would notice that he might not list it as Yang Chengfu did but those essences appeared all over the place and the truth of the matter was he clarified some of them and added some more essences. It is an essential and integral part of his teaching.

Coincidentally Yang Zhen Ji's book incorporated in appendix (2) Yang Chengfu's classic first published in 1934. Like it or not that classic was actually worded by Cheng Man-Ching.


----------



## Xue Sheng

wuchi said:
			
		

> If Yang Zhen Ji and Yang Zen Dou have registered the name "Traditional Yang Family Taijiquan", then no other people apart from them teach the true "Traditional Yang Family Taijiquan". There is no argument that when others want to use that name they have to pay a royalty to use it. Instructors need to be certified by them, they need to attend workshops, pay affiliation fees etc...
> 
> If that is not the case the more correct thing to say in my opinion would be Cheng Man Ching and Tung Ying Chieh are not teaching "Yang Cheng Fu Style Tai Ji Quan". If just because someone is not conforming to Yang Chengfu's standard form you label them as not Yang style taiji - then how would you classify Yang Lu Chan, Yang Ban Hou, Yang Shao Hou and all the people that learnt from them - are they doing Yang's style taiji?
> 
> 
> 
> I have a copy of "Yang Cheng Fu Shi Tai Ji Quan" written by Yang Zhen Ji (1st edition published 1993) in front of me and I have just read though the 10 essences.
> If the basis for a true Traditional Yang Family Taijiquan is someone who strictly observes and adheres to Yang Chengfu's 10 essences. Please enlighten me as to which of the 10 essences Cheng Man-Ching didn't observe and adhere to so that his taiji is not Yang's taiji. _Please note there is no offence intended!!_
> 
> If you have an opportunity to read Cheng Man Ching's book, you would notice that he might not list it as Yang Chengfu did but those essences appeared all over the place and the truth of the matter was he clarified some of them and added some more essences. It is an essential and integral part of his teaching.
> 
> Coincidentally Yang Zhen Ji's book incorporated in appendix (2) Yang Chengfu's classic first published in 1934. Like it or not that classic was actually worded by Cheng Man-Ching.


 
Actually Yang Zhendao made the statement that Cheng Manching is not Yang style and I believe he included Tung as well. This is not a statement from me or Eastwind. So it would be more correct to say in the opinion of the Yang Family. 

- WARNING RANT AHEAD -

And you are dealing with a Chinese Martial Arts currently based in China, they simply do not do copy writes there. If in China and you pop up saying I teach Yang, Chen, Wu, etc. in China you are likely to get a visit form the offended family. That is if you are crazy enough to make the statement very public. I have talked to a Chen family member about this very issue and the statement basically was 'It&#8217;s America so who cares, there is nothing the Chen family can do here'. The statement that someone had made was they trained with the Chen family and the Chen family is aware of the statement and knows it to be false. And frankly the majorities of these family members that come here do not take Americans seriously and we generally give then good reason to feel this way. We train a couple of classes with them and run off and tell the world we trained with Master X and we can now teach there family form (Permission to do so be damned). Also many, not all, go to these seminars and have absolutely no idea what Tai Chi really is. They are just there to relax and if you mention martial arts they walk out (the student not the teacher). By the way I have taught Tai Chi and had that very thing happen. 

- RANT OVER -

I have trained Yang, I think, could be Tung style, it depends on who you talk to. I have seen VERY traditional Yang style and I also briefly trained Cheng Manching style as it comes from CC Chen. To be honest I was rather impressed with Cheng Manching's version, if you will. I have also read Cheng Manching&#8217;s books, the Yang family translations from Yang Jwing Ming, and various other Yang style books as well. 

As to the older members of the Yang line. At this time it does not appear that there is much talk about them from the Yang family, as I previously posted.

Yang Banhou's Form or Yang is different than the currently excepted Yang family style which is based on Yang Chengfu.

I have never understood the Yang family&#8217;s stance on this. The Chen family has old frame 1 and old frame 2 as well as new frame 1 and new frame 2 and various other forms. They have never ignored the older family member forms and it appears that the Yang family is and I just don&#8217;t understand that part of the issue at all.


----------



## East Winds

Wuchi,

Thanks for the reply. You raise some interesting and relevant points. First of all let me say what I have said many times on this board before. I have no problem with Cheng Man-ching form or Tung  forms or any other form for that matter, so long as they do what they say on the tin!!!  I believe that what the Yang family are teaching today (Yang Zhen Ji, Yang Zhen Duo and Yang Jun) is as close to what Yang Cheng-fu finally formulated as you are likely to get. Now, if I bought a Skoda car and stuck a Rolls Royce emblem on the front, would I be driving a Skoda or a Rolls Royce. I cannot really understand the desparation of  Cheng Man-Ching practitioners to label their style Yang!! What's wrong with Cheng Man-ching style? I do have both books you mention and if you look at the photographs of Yang Cheng-fu and Cheng Man-Ching do you really believe they are doing the same form?  I did not say that Cheng Man-ching form violated the essences. If you read my post you see that that referred to the modern Wushu forms. However, Cheng-fu clearly thought that 10 essences were sufficient to support his form without the addition of any more. I am not sure that the current Yang Family do ignore the ancestors. They are certainly all listed on their family tree.  I think they believe that these earlier forms were lost (despite the exagerated claims of some pratitioners) and that they now follow that style formulated finally by Yang Cheng-fu, their father. 

Very best wishes


----------



## Xue Sheng

East Winds said:
			
		

> I am not sure that the current Yang Family do ignore the ancestors. They are certainly all listed on their family tree. I think they believe that these earlier forms were lost (despite the exagerated claims of some pratitioners) and that they now follow that style formulated finally by Yang Cheng-fu, their father.
> 
> Very best wishes


 
Yes they put them in the tree, the form was not lost. Yang Shouhao's son listed and he learned from his father. Also he very likely had children who are certainly not listed in the tree. The same goes for another brother whose name escapes me for the moment 

Also Yang Shouhao, Chengfu's older brother, had several students and there is documentation to prove this. However he was a rather hard teacher and it is also alleged he killed at least one of his students. Chengfu was a kinder gentler teacher by far and had many more students than Shouhao

The following I only read from one source so it is again unsubstantiated. 
When Shouhao died the Yang family allegedly told his few students that if they wanted to be considered Yang style practitioners they had to now train with Chengfu. Most had trained longer than Chengfu and refused. They were then told no students they teach will be considered Yang Style practitioners. Also there are the students of Yang Banhao (Chengfu's Uncle); although I know little about them other than one was Yang Shouhao. Yang Chengfu learned from his father (Yang Jianhou)

Regardless of what happened I do not believe the form is lost, it is rare. And I also believe the Yang family knows it still exists. However they have put their name behind the Tai Chi of Chengfu. I have no problem with this; I just do not understand why they did not keep the older form as well.

Unless it has to do with the current heads do not know it. My example of Chen, all current Chen family style holders know all forms.


----------



## East Winds

Xue Sheng,

Go here for the full Yang Family tree including the fourth son Yang Zhen Guo. It lists all the family from Lu Chan down to present day great, great, grandchildren.
http://www.yangfamilytaichi.com/info/images/familytree.jpg

I'm not sure why the Yang family do not retain some of the old forms. You would need a family member to answer that one. It may be that they consider Cheng fu's form as the final synthesis of Yang Family taijiquan. Cheng-fu did say of his form.... "That is it. It cannot be improved upon. To change one thing would be to destroy the essence of the form". Perhaps Cheng man-ching would have been wise to regard that.

Very best wishes


----------



## Xue Sheng

East Winds said:
			
		

> Xue Sheng,
> 
> Go here for the full Yang Family tree including the fourth son Yang Zhen Guo. It lists all the family from Lu Chan down to present day great, great, grandchildren.
> http://www.yangfamilytaichi.com/info/images/familytree.jpg
> 
> I'm not sure why the Yang family do not retain some of the old forms. You would need a family member to answer that one. It may be that they consider Cheng fu's form as the final synthesis of Yang Family taijiquan. Cheng-fu did say of his form.... "That is it. It cannot be improved upon. To change one thing would be to destroy the essence of the form". Perhaps Cheng man-ching would have been wise to regard that.
> 
> Very best wishes


 
It lists all the children and Grandchildren of Chengfu. It does not list anything past the sons of Yang Zhao Yuan & Yang Shaohou, Yang Chengfu's older brothers. This I find interesting and have been trying to find out why for a while now. And admittedly I know little about Zhao Yuan, but I will have to research further. 

And I should probably add I mean no disrespect to the Yang family or the style they teach, I just find this type of stuff intriguing.

But you are correct only the Yang family knows for sure.


----------



## East Winds

Xue Sheng,

Thanks for the input. I, of course, am not here to defend the Yang family and therefore I take no offence at anything you write about them. I think part of the problem is that the traditional famies only considered succession to come through the male line. It may be that the succession stopped at Yang Cong and Yang Zhen Sheng either because there was no issue or the children were female. Of course I could be way off the mark here, but I suspect that is the case with Yang Shouzhong's (Sau Chung) lineage (Cheng Fu's eldest son). I believe he only had daughters. I stand to be corrected on that aspect though. Yang Zhen Guo I believe teaches only a short form in China today and does not therefore teach his fathers form. Any information or correction would be appreciated.

Very best wishes


----------



## Xue Sheng

East Winds said:
			
		

> Xue Sheng,
> 
> Thanks for the input. I, of course, am not here to defend the Yang family and therefore I take no offence at anything you write about them. I think part of the problem is that the traditional famies only considered succession to come through the male line. It may be that the succession stopped at Yang Cong and Yang Zhen Sheng either because there was no issue or the children were female. Of course I could be way off the mark here, but I suspect that is the case with Yang Shouzhong's (Sau Chung) lineage (Cheng Fu's eldest son). I believe he only had daughters. I stand to be corrected on that aspect though. Yang Zhen Guo I believe teaches only a short form in China today and does not therefore teach his fathers form. Any information or correction would be appreciated.
> 
> Very best wishes


 
Your are correct about the lineage holders. Tung Ying Cheih has a daughter that is still living in Hong Kong, but I am not sure if she even knows Tai Chi and the lineage holder was his son that moved to Hawaii, he has since passed away however. It is now I believe his Grandson and Great Grandson.

 But there is always an exception to the rule. The Sun family lineage holder was most recently Sun Lutang daughter but she died in 2003, I am not sure who it is now. 

As for the Children of the Yang family members in question. It is something I am going to research as soon as I have more time. When and if I find anything I will let you know,


----------



## East Winds

Xue Sheng,

I will look forward to the results of your research with interest.

Just as an aside, which part of China do you visit?

Very best wishes

P.S. I have just found out that Yang Sou Chung did have a son, but he died at an early age. How early, I don't know.


----------



## Xue Sheng

East Winds said:
			
		

> Xue Sheng,
> 
> I will look forward to the results of your research with interest.
> 
> Just as an aside, which part of China do you visit?
> 
> Very best wishes
> 
> P.S. I have just found out that Yang Sou Chung did have a son, but he died at an early age. How early, I don't know.


 
It will be awhile before I get back to it, this change back to Chen is taking much of my time as well as the other demands we all have in life.

As for China, I go to Beijng. However I will not be going back until after the Olympics, the entire place is a construction zone currently. But I have been informed that on the next visit I also need to go to Henan. Sadly  Henan is where Chen village and Cheng Zhenlei are (He is the person the Local Chen group is associated with) as well as Shaolin. As brare rabbit said, "Oh please oh please don't throw me into the briar patch"

Thanks for the P.S.


----------



## wuchi

> Originally posted by *East Winds*
> Wuchi,
> 
> Thanks for the reply. You raise some interesting and relevant points. First of all let me say what I have said many times on this board before. I have no problem with Cheng Man-ching form or Tung forms or any other form for that matter, so long as they do what they say on the tin!!! I believe that what the Yang family are teaching today (Yang Zhen Ji, Yang Zhen Duo and Yang Jun) is as close to what Yang Cheng-fu finally formulated as you are likely to get. Now, if I bought a Skoda car and stuck a Rolls Royce emblem on the front, would I be driving a Skoda or a Rolls Royce. I cannot really understand the desparation of Cheng Man-Ching practitioners to label their style Yang!! What's wrong with Cheng Man-ching style? I do have both books you mention and if you look at the photographs of Yang Cheng-fu and Cheng Man-Ching do you really believe they are doing the same form? I did not say that Cheng Man-ching form violated the essences. If you read my post you see that that referred to the modern Wushu forms. However, Cheng-fu clearly thought that 10 essences were sufficient to support his form without the addition of any more. I am not sure that the current Yang Family do ignore the ancestors. They are certainly all listed on their family tree. I think they believe that these earlier forms were lost (despite the exagerated claims of some pratitioners) and that they now follow that style formulated finally by Yang Cheng-fu, their father.
> 
> Very best wishes



Personally I am very proud to call my taiji Cheng Tze's tai chi (CMC taiji) or simply taijquan. However, like others from my lineage I have no problem with it being called SIMPLIFIED Yang's taiji.

Correct postures and form are very important otherwise one would never get there, so are the principles outlined in the classics. Yang Chengfu's contribution was huge, so were his ancestors and their abilities have always been regarded as invincible and above that of his. If there is one way only to do a perfect form and that alone is the single most important thing, don't you think Wang Chung Yue, Yang Chengfu's ancestors plus others would have left behind scrolls of drawings rather than just some worded principles and wisdoms?

I can see the plight of Yang Zhen Ji and Yang Zen Dou regarding Traditional Yang's Taiji but I am glad not every one is sharing their view.

For your information:  
During 23-26 August 2003 at Suzho, China.  Professor Shi Yeming of the Shanghai Tungji University Taijquan Study Group organised the inaugural meeting for the 5th generation Yang's Taijquan disciples from all over the world.

One of the main purposes of the meeting was to unite the 5th generation disciples and promote the contribution of the 4th generation Yang's masters. 

Following was the list of people attended, representing various 4th generation Yang's masters:

Yang Sau Chung (YCF's oldest son) lineage was represented by 
>   Ma Wei Huann (Hong Kong)

Fu Chung Wen lineage was represented by
>   Shi Yeming (Shanghai, China)
>   Chen Guo Jen  (Shanghai, China)
>   Hung Je Zhing (Guangxi, China)
>   Guh Shu Ping (Shanghai, China)
>   Hu Ching Lu (Kantan, China)

Zhao Bin lineage was represented by
>   Li Zheng (Guangdong, China)
>   Zhao Yu Bin - youngest son of Zhao Bin (Xian, China)
>   Lu Di Min (Xian, China)

Cheng Man Ching lineage was represented by
>   Benjamin Law (USA)
>   Katy Cheng - second daughter of CMC (USA)
>   Hsu Yi Chung - gate keeper of CMC taijiquan (Taiwan)

Niu Chun Ming lineage was represented by
>   Mong Shien Min (Hangzhow, China)
>   Mok Ruu Dong  (Hangzhow, China)

Fu Chung Yuen lineage was represented by
>   Hao Hung Wei (Hebei, China)

Tian Chao Ling lineage was represented by
>   Wang Ming Shan (Nanjing, China)

Tung Ying Chieh lineage was represented by
>   Jasmine Tung  - Tung Ying Chieh's youngest daughter (Hong Kong)

Chan Wei Ming lineage was represented by
>   Wei Chyuan (Wuhan, China)

One of the things noted in that meeting was Chen Wei Ming, Niu Chun Ming, Li Ya Shien, Tung Ying Chieh, Tian Chao Ling and Cheng Man Ching did their form differently from Yang Chengfu.  So did Yang Sau Chung, Yang Zhen Ji and Yang Zen Dou to a certain degree.


----------



## Xue Sheng

wuchi said:
			
		

> Personally I am very proud to call my taiji Cheng Tze's tai chi (CMC taiji) or simply taijquan. However, like others from my lineage I have no problem with it being called SIMPLIFIED Yang's taiji.


 
I would not refer to CMC as simplified Yang myself, but if that is what is accepted by its practitioners then I guess it is up to them. To me CMC has its own intricacies that make it very good. I admittedly only trained in briefly, but I did not stop because I did not like it. To be honest I like it better than the Yang (or Tung whatever it is considered now) I trained for 12 years. It was just my schedule and the Sifu's Schedule were not even close to matching up, so I had to stop. However I still like Chen best, but someday if I get a chance I will go back to CMC.

CMC, at lest to me, had the side that was focused on health aspects like all Tai Chi forms, but it also had a side that was focused on application, free style push hands and martial arts. But this may be because what I trained came from William CC Chen, I have no idea what the others of this lineage focus on.

To me simplified Yang is Beijing style (Yang 24) or the Yang 48. 



			
				wuchi said:
			
		

> For your information:
> During 23-26 August 2003 at Suzho, China. Professor Shi Yeming of the Shanghai Tungji University Taijquan Study Group organised the inaugural meeting for the 5th generation Yang's Taijquan disciples from all over the world.
> 
> One of the main purposes of the meeting was to unite the 5th generation disciples and promote the contribution of the 4th generation Yang's masters.
> 
> Following was the list of people attended, representing various 4th generation Yang's masters:
> 
> Yang Sau Chung (YCF's oldest son) lineage was represented by
> > Ma Wei Huann (Hong Kong)
> 
> Fu Chung Wen lineage was represented by
> > Shi Yeming (Shanghai, China)
> > Chen Guo Jen (Shanghai, China)
> > Hung Je Zhing (Guangxi, China)
> > Guh Shu Ping (Shanghai, China)
> > Hu Ching Lu (Kantan, China)
> 
> Zhao Bin lineage was represented by
> > Li Zheng (Guangdong, China)
> > Zhao Yu Bin - youngest son of Zhao Bin (Xian, China)
> > Lu Di Min (Xian, China)
> 
> Cheng Man Ching lineage was represented by
> > Benjamin Law (USA)
> > Katy Cheng - second daughter of CMC (USA)
> > Hsu Yi Chung - gate keeper of CMC taijiquan (Taiwan)
> 
> Niu Chun Ming lineage was represented by
> > Mong Shien Min (Hangzhow, China)
> > Mok Ruu Dong (Hangzhow, China)
> 
> Fu Chung Yuen lineage was represented by
> > Hao Hung Wei (Hebei, China)
> 
> Tian Chao Ling lineage was represented by
> > Wang Ming Shan (Nanjing, China)
> 
> Tung Ying Chieh lineage was represented by
> > Jasmine Tung - Tung Ying Chieh's youngest daughter (Hong Kong)
> 
> Chan Wei Ming lineage was represented by
> > Wei Chyuan (Wuhan, China)
> 
> One of the things noted in that meeting was Chen Wei Ming, Niu Chun Ming, Li Ya Shien, Tung Ying Chieh, Tian Chao Ling and Cheng Man Ching did their form differently from Yang Chengfu. So did Yang Sau Chung, Yang Zhen Ji and Yang Zen Dou to a certain degree.



Thank You for this, I was aware that it occurred but I did not know who attended. Also it was my understanding that Jasmine Tung did not know Tai Chi, but once again I am fully willing to admit I am wrong here, and hoping that I am actually. I got this info from my Sifu who was a student of Tung Ying Chieh, long story that I will not go into again. 

Was there any representation of the line from Yang Banhou or Yang Shouhao?


----------



## East Winds

Wu Chi,

Thanks for the input. Let me state again quite unequivocably, I have no problem with Chen Man-ching style Taijiquan. It is a very able fighting, as well as health giving form. It is just not anything like what Yang Chen-fu formulated as his final form. And it is this final form that the present day Yang family call "Traditional Yang Family Taijiquan" to distinguish it from the many other Yang variations that exist. I too was aware of the meeting that took place in 2003, but found it interesting that neither Fu Zhong Wen (one of the most prominent 4th generation disciples) nor any of the present day Yang Family were represented. There is no doubt that what Fu Zhong Wen tranmsmitted was as close to what Yang Cheng-fu finally formulated as it is possible to get. (and as I have said before, Cheng-fu said of it  "That is it. It cannot be improved upon. To change one thing would be to destroy the essence of the form". It is this form that the present day Yang family are trying to preserve. The conclusion must be therefore that any other "Yang" style, cannot be in accordance with what Yang Cheng-fu considered the absolute sythesis of "Yang Shi Taijiquan".

Very best wishes


----------



## wuchi

East Winds,

Forgotten to change Fu's name to the more popular Pinyin form.

Professor Shi Yeming is from the Fu Zhong Wen lineage.

Fu Zhong Wen lineage was represented by
>   Shi Yeming (Shanghai, China)
>   Chen Guo Jen  (Shanghai, China)
>   Hung Je Zhing (Guangxi, China)
>   Guh Shu Ping (Shanghai, China)
>   Hu Ching Lu (Kantan, China)


----------



## wuchi

> Originally Posted by *Xue Sheng*
> 
> Was there any representation of the line from Yang Banhou or Yang Shouhao?



As far as I know only those people on the list attended that meeting.


----------



## Xue Sheng

wuchi said:
			
		

> As far as I know only those people on the list attended that meeting.


 
Thank You


----------



## East Winds

Wuchi,

Thanks for the additional information.

Very best wishes


----------



## Xue Sheng

East Winds said:


> Xue Sheng,
> 
> I will look forward to the results of your research with interest.
> 
> Just as an aside, which part of China do you visit?
> 
> Very best wishes
> 
> P.S. I have just found out that Yang Sou Chung did have a son, but he died at an early age. How early, I don't know.


 
Eastwind

This answered some of my questions and you may find this interesting as well. See "the letter that Yang Jun wrote"
http://www.yangfamilytaichi.com/ubb/Forum1/HTML/000007.html

XS


----------



## East Winds

Xue Sheng,

Many thanks for that fascinating link. Although I have been a member of the International Yang Style Tai Chi Association for three years now and have been working my way through the BB, I had not seen this particular series of posts. It certainly puts a lot of pieces of the jigsaw into place.

I have fond memories of Beijing. In particular standing with the crowd outside Ritan Park at 6.00am waiting for the gates to open and going in, doing some Taiji and then having my mind blown watching the variety of activities being performed!!!!

Many thanks again for the link.

Very best wishes


----------



## Xue Sheng

East Winds said:


> Xue Sheng,
> 
> Many thanks for that fascinating link. Although I have been a member of the International Yang Style Tai Chi Association for three years now and have been working my way through the BB, I had not seen this particular series of posts. It certainly puts a lot of pieces of the jigsaw into place.
> 
> I have fond memories of Beijing. In particular standing with the crowd outside Ritan Park at 6.00am waiting for the gates to open and going in, doing some Taiji and then having my mind blown watching the variety of activities being performed!!!!
> 
> Many thanks again for the link.
> 
> Very best wishes


 
Most unfortunately I was going through a bit of a Martial Arts breakdown, due to my teachers change of teaching style, that lead to a minor epiphany when I was last in Beijing so I pretty much did nothing but get disgusted and decide it was time to change or quit. 

And what I ran into most in Yang style was a best contributing to my decision to change or quit (to many people doing 24 form badly) and the few (3) Chen style people I saw were amazing and the 2 (very) old guys doing Long fist left me speechless, but I was still not ready to admit after 12 years of Yang that I should change. But the rest of my Beijing trip was fantastic. 

But next time it will be better.


----------



## Xue Sheng

To answer the question as to what style I do, Dong style or Yang Style?

Yes, depending on the form. 

The long for 103 or 108, depending on how you count, that I do is considered Yang Style Tai Chi as taught by Tung Ying Chieh. If I trained with the Dong family today it would be Yang style as taught by the Dong family. 

However there are 2 fast forms Dong style and Yang style and they are very different and the jury is still out as to whether there are Dong family specific Weapons forms.

So at least in part it is Yang style Tai Chi, but in reality I find that it is really not that important after all. Tai Chi is Tai Chi just as long as it is good Tai Chi.


----------



## East Winds

Xue Sheng,

I think you are absolutely right, that it dosen't matter what Taiji you do, so long as it is good Taiji!! Tung style is certainly much closer to what Yang Cheng-fu finally taught, than many of the other styles that call themselves "Yang". I suppose us Yang stylists should consider it a compliment that so many other forms wish to associate themselves with the Yang family. However, as a purist, I sometimes shudder when I see some of the forms of Taiji calling themselves Yang style, and my immediate reaction is to say - that is not Yang style!!!  (Cheng Man-ching, 24, 48 and 88 step being prime examples). Better not get the soap box out again!!! :erg:

Good to have you back by the way :asian:

Very best wishes


----------



## Xue Sheng

East Winds said:


> Xue Sheng,
> 
> However, as a purist, I sometimes shudder when I see some of the forms of Taiji calling themselves Yang style, and my immediate reaction is to say - that is not Yang style!!! (Cheng Man-ching, 24, 48 and 88 step being prime examples). Better not get the soap box out again!!! :erg:
> 
> Good to have you back by the way :asian:
> 
> Very best wishes


 
Thanks and you're not alone, I feel the same way about the things called Yang these days. 

Forgive me for adding this but before we both get jumped in this post for the Cheng Manching part. I am not nor do I believe you are saying anything against Cheng Manching style, I believe we have had this conversation before. It is a great style, and I even did it for a little while and I rather liked it. But if you compare Cheng Manching's long form to Yang Chengfu's long form they are considerably different as is Yang 103 from Chen 1st old form, Therefore I usually do not refer to it as Yang style, I call it Cheng Manching style. 

But 24, 48 and 88 that is a different story. Although I will have to admit my very first form was 24 and I still do it from time to time. But it now looks very different and very traditional.


----------



## East Winds

Xue Sheng,

Yes, of course, as I have said many times on this board, I have no problem with Cheng Man-ching style. I have seen it as a fighting form and very effective it is too!! And yes, like you, I still do 24 step occassionaly but in the style of Traditonal Yang, not the flailing arms and legs and exagerated postures you see so often in that form!!!

Very best wishes


----------



## Xue Sheng

East Winds said:


> Xue Sheng,
> 
> Yes, of course, as I have said many times on this board, I have no problem with Cheng Man-ching style. I have seen it as a fighting form and very effective it is too!! And yes, like you, I still do 24 step occassionaly but in the style of Traditonal Yang, not the flailing arms and legs and exagerated postures you see so often in that form!!!
> 
> Very best wishes


 
Yup that is it exactly and it is amazing how all of a sudden, when you make it more traditional, how all the applications just seem to show up that made no sense before. 

Just as a brief side to this in reference to Beijing 24 form looking very traditional these days. I use to do a bit of Wu style, many years ago, and I liked it. However I had to stop because every single Tai Chi form I did began to look like Wu. I was just starting Chen and I had been learning Yang and every single form had a look of Wu to it, especially wave hands of (and that is incredibly noticeable to the untrained eye when your talking Chen). I even had moments when I would be doing Yang style and the next thing I know I was doing the Wu form I had learned. So Wu had to stop and I have not trained any Wu since. I have never had that problem between Chen and Yang but Wu just seems to bleed into everything for me. 

OK that had NOTHING to do with the topic, but I had to throw that out there.


----------



## East Winds

Xue Sheng,

I know what you mean. I started with "Yang" style, but when I discovered that the teaching was worse than useless, I went to a renowned Wu teacher. He wanted to teach me the "square" form first, but I wanted to keep making it round, like Yang!!! So I  found a Chen teacher and had absolutely no problem adapting to the teaching. When I changed back to Traditional Yang with my current teacher, again I had no problem adapting. The main lesson I learned was that beginners do not really know the difference between good and bad Taiji. That is why there are so many  "bad" forms out there.

Very best wishes


----------



## Xue Sheng

East Wind

Your signature made me think of a question.

In training traditional Yang is there specific breathe training done?

I am curious because I remember being taught how to breath in (forgive the reference) 24 form. But in the version from Tung Ying Cheih, that I do, it is taught to learn to relax in the forms and postures and the breathing will naturally follow. And it has been my experience that this works at least for me. 

Also I may have told you this before, but my sifu was once asked by one of his students What should we do about breathing And he responded with I will tell you what my Sifu told me, Yes you should so apparently Sifu Tung said that as well.

XS


----------



## East Winds

Xue Sheng,

Interesting topic and probably worth a whole thread on its own. As far as I am aware, there is no special breathing technique taught by the Yang family. Normally it is assumed that you should breath in on a Yin action and out on a Yang action, but this does not follow for instance in the Pung and Lu of Ward Off and Roll Back in Grasp the Birds Tail. Pung of course is a Yang action, but of course Roll Back is also a Yang action, but as you know Yang cannot follow Yang!!!!! Yang Zhen Ji in his book says that it is possible to strike while breathing in or out!! I let the breathing happen on its own, but do try to breath down into the Dantien. So it would seem that the comment by the master in my bootstrap and the comment by Tung Yin Cheih is good advice
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





Very best wishes


----------



## Xue Sheng

East Winds said:


> Xue Sheng,
> 
> Interesting topic and probably worth a whole thread on its own. As far as I am aware, there is no special breathing technique taught by the Yang family. Normally it is assumed that you should breath in on a Yin action and out on a Yang action, but this does not follow for instance in the Pung and Lu of Ward Off and Roll Back in Grasp the Birds Tail. Pung of course is a Yang action, but of course Roll Back is also a Yang action, but as you know Yang cannot follow Yang!!!!! Yang Zhen Ji in his book says that it is possible to strike while breathing in or out!! I let the breathing happen on its own, but do try to breath down into the Dantien. So it would seem that the comment by the master in my bootstrap and the comment by Tung Yin Cheih is good advice
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Very best wishes


 
Thank You 

And if you don't make it a topic, I just might. It would be interesting to see if there are differences between various Tai Chi styles as it applies to breathing.


----------



## East Winds

Xue Sheng,

Yes, breathing brings a whole new set of "challenges" into taijiquan. I'll let you start the new thread and would be very happy to contribute to it.

Very best wishes.

P.S. just started Mandarin classes and now understand your signature!!


----------



## Xue Sheng

East Winds said:


> I'll let you start the new thread and would be very happy to contribute to it.


 
OH SURE!!! Make me do the work 

I will have to think about how to word this one, but I will start a post on it 




East Winds said:


> P.S. just started Mandarin classes and now understand your signature!!


 
Mandarin COOL

My signatures are metaphors from North China. They generally mean more than the direct translation gives you, and I hear them all the time, so it is best I know what is being said. 

If you like I can PM you the entire meaning, but some are fairly easy to grasps from the translation. In the North they are BIG on metaphors. 

I need to improve my mandarin immensely before my wife beats me. I need to be able to talk to my in-laws without her as a translator and we want our youngest daughter to be bilingual (she already understands more than dad) so I need to become, I have been told, fluent in Mandarin.

zai jian


----------



## East Winds

Xue Sheng,

Manythanks. I would be interersted in a PM on the entire meaning. I teach taijiquan at the University of St. Andrews here in Scotland, and that is where I am also learning Mandarin. I intend to be able to converse with my Master when he comes over to the the UK next year!!!

Very best wishes

P.S. You are so good at starting threads it seemed logical to leave it to you:erg:


----------



## grappling_mandala

In my opinion the Dong family form is almost identical to the Yang style. Much closer then any of the CMC stuff or PRC crapola.


----------



## East Winds

I agree entirely. Tung's style is certainly much closer to Traditional Yang. The main differences are the subtle bend at the waist, occassional cross stepping and closing of the heels in Cloud Hands. I also said in an earlier post that I  thought that Fa Jing was more overt whilst watching Tung Ying Cheih than watching the present day Yangs.

Very best wishes


----------



## marlon

Is there is a philosophic difference btwn Tung and Yang Jun's teachings?

Respectfully
Marlon


----------



## Xue Sheng

marlon said:


> Is there is a philosophic difference btwn Tung and Yang Jun's teachings?
> 
> Respectfully
> Marlon


 
I don't think so, but I train with one of Tung's students and I have never trained with Yang Jun or Zhendou so I cannot be sure. I have yet to read Yang Chengfu's book and I have read Tungs a few times. Once I do read Yang Chengfu's book I will have a better Idea. I believe they are pretty much along the lines of Chengfu.

Possibly East Winds could better answer your question. 

Also since I started this post I do believe that I found out that the Yang family does recognize the Yang style coming from the Tung/Dong family as Yang style (the long form specifically and possibly one Dao form but I am not sure about the rest). However the Tung/Dong family does also have there own style as well that is a bit different in one of the the Jain forms and a Dao form. 

Also it is likely that Yang Jun does not recognize the Yang fast form from Tung in collaboration with Chengfu as Yang style, although it is very much Yang style by appearance there is also a Tung Fast form that is very different. However as far as I know the Yang families stance is there is no Yang fast form.


----------



## East Winds

marlon,

I too don't know enough about Tung style to comment, but I would think it highly unlikely that there would be any philosphical differences between the two. Most of the philosophy of Taiji is based in the "Classics" and although each family has their own version in addition to the mainstream classics they are all pretty much in agreement. A good source book is "T'ai Chi's Ancestors, the Making of an Internal Art"  by Douglas Wile :  Sweet Chi Press ISBN 0-912059-04-4

Very best wishes


----------



## marlon

Thank you EW

marlon


----------



## Ronnin

Xue Sheng said:


> OK, I am shocked and the next guy. Ok probably more so the next guy probably couldnt care less. but I have come to the conclusion that after 12 years of studying Yang style that I was not studying Yang style, or at least not according to the Yang family and Tung/Dong family
> 
> But wait it gets more confusing.
> 
> My teacher did call it Yang Style and he not wrong, from his perspective. His teacher was Tung Ying Cheih and as far as I know master Tung taught Yang style and never said anything to the contrary.
> 
> But now the Yang family has declared that those taught via Tung Ying Cheih are not learning Yang style but Tung style. (This by the way is the same thing as Dong Style)
> 
> And the Tung/Dong family teaches its family form called you guessed it Dong style.
> 
> Now after much video viewing of Old Yang style guys and Yang Jun and then comparing them to what I do and what I saw Tung Ying Chieh do in an old film. I am doing Dong Style.
> 
> Yang and Dong are very similar but have some obvious differences. Could be because prior to studying with Yang Chengfu, Tung Ying Chieh studied Wu style, I believe Wu/Hao style to be honest. Also there was some speculation. Although not proven as far as I am concerned that Master Tung studied Yang style with Yang Shaohou until Shaohou's death and then studied with Yang Chengfu.
> 
> So now I have to go and buy Tung Ying Cheihs book to see what the heck I was suppose to be doing, since it is not Yang style and I have based everything on the fact I did Yang stylewhich I apparently do not.
> 
> This does not change the fact I am returning to Chen style, but it does mean. Well to be honest I am not sure what it means.


 
So why are you returning to Chen style?


----------



## Xue Sheng

Ronnin said:


> So why are you returning to Chen style?


 
This is an old post and I have since found that what I do is Yang style and Dong/Tung style and this is fairly typical if yout tai chi comes from the Tung/Dong lineage

As for why returing to Chen, I did and then went back to Yang style with my Sifu. 

But my reasons for returing to Chen were simple. I liked it better and it fit me better. However due to the lack of teachers in my area I went with Yang way back when. And I decided that after many years in Yang I would continue with it. But I still like Chen better and I likely always will.


----------

