# tai chi experts?



## hapki-bujutsu (Nov 4, 2003)

I want to learn some forms from tai chi. What I want it to learn ones that mimic fighting the most. kung fu almost. I emailed tuttle web sites and they said they had no recomendations. anyone know what  i mean? anyone know where I caould find this?
thx


----------



## Taiji fan (Nov 4, 2003)

You might want to do a search on Google for Chen Taijiquan....there does seem to be less airy fairy stuff there.  Avoid anything called Cheng Man Ching style and some  other Yang style variations are not up to much either. Taijiquan does take a while to learn before you are able to apply it, much of its sucess as a fighting art is down to the body mechanics.


----------



## 7starmantis (Nov 4, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Taiji fan _
> *You might want to do a search on Google for Chen Taijiquan....there does seem to be less airy fairy stuff there.  Avoid anything called Cheng Man Ching style and some  other Yang style variations are not up to much either. Taijiquan does take a while to learn before you are able to apply it, much of its sucess as a fighting art is down to the body mechanics. *



Why avoid Professor Chen Man Ching or Yang style?

Yang is what I practice, and its extremely effective if done correctly. It does however take many years to be proficient with it.

Taiji doesn't really mimic kung fu however, I'm not sure what your looking for. Many of the techniques are the same principles in KF and TC, so maybe thats what you mean.

7sm


----------



## Taiji fan (Nov 4, 2003)

> Why avoid Professor Chen Man Ching or Yang style


 because CMC style is a bastardisation of Yang.  It lacks correct body mechanics, it encourages poor posture and it is favoured by the new age. Of all the practitioners I have met who practice this style, not one of them had a clear understanding of body mechanics and body usage. I never said avoid Yang style...I said some Yang variations....as in the simplified form and  the Taoist tai chi brigade etc.  I also study Yang Shi, but it does seem that there have been far more misrepresentations and missinterpretations of Yang style than any other.  You are absolutley correct that Yang taijiquan is very efficient when understood and practiced correctly.


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 4, 2003)

Chen Men Ching was an excellent martial artist.  Some would say a master.  One of his students was TT Liang, who is one of the most reknown teachers of tai chi in the US.  One of TT Liangs senior students (2nd I believe) is Stewart Alve Olson.  Any search in tai chi will bring up his name and if you've ever seen the man in action, you will clearly see competancy in the "supreme ultimate fist"  My instructor is Mr. Olson's senior student and from what I've seen of Yang, style, this style is nothing to avoid.  It works and it compliments many other martials arts.  Bad teachers are something that should be avoided though.  Tai chi is no different then any martial art in that respect.

upnorthkyosa


----------



## Taiji fan (Nov 4, 2003)

Did you meet Cheng Man Ching?



> One of his students was TT Liang, who is one of the most reknown teachers of tai chi in the US


 this is really interesting and does tend to show a huge problem in the taiji world.  It is often thought that when someone is 'one of the first' to bring something to a nation that automatically makes them an expert in the subject....unfortunately it takes a number of years before people start to look deeper and get to the heart of the matter.  For many years the Yang family wouldn't even mention CMC's name.  Many people are good martial arts, that doesn't necessarily mean they know Taiji.  I find it very curious that our USA cousins revere CMC so and in China the style is unheard of......


----------



## pete (Nov 4, 2003)

> Why all the animosity?
> 
> Forgive me if I speak out of turn....
> 
> ...



i lifted this question was taken from the Kenpo forum... please replace "Kenpo" with Tai Chi and "Mr Parker" with the founder or prominant master of any of the Tai Chi styles, and then ask yourself why?

pete.


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 5, 2003)

TT Liang used to live in my hometown St. Cloud MN.  Unless you have seen him and Stewart do Tai Chi, I would honest reserve your opinions of the style.  I will tell you what, they were amazing and I have NEVER seen the things that they were able to do, ANYWHERE.  As far as not being seen in China, Stewart Olson's books are being translated into Chinese and sold widely over there because he is now considered one of the foremost experts in the world on the subject of Tai Chi.  Even Guro's such as Dan Inosanto are trying to get Mr. Olson to train them.  I think one of the reasons that CMC yang styles isn't seen so much can be traced back to china's recent communist history.  I imagine that only the styles that toed the government line were allowed to be taught and that the boxing tradition in china was so large that they could never really completely suppress it.  So, perhaps a watered down version was offered to the "people" in response.  I don't have much evidence of this surmization so please enlighten if I am totally off my rocker.

upnorthkyosa


----------



## Taiji fan (Nov 5, 2003)

> I have NEVER seen the things that they were able to do, ANYWHERE


 such as..............................?



> I think one of the reasons that CMC yang styles isn't seen so much can be traced back to china's recent communist history. I imagine that only the styles that toed the government line were allowed to be taught and that the boxing tradition in china was so large that they could never really completely suppress it. So, perhaps a watered down version was offered to the "people" in response


 CMC studied (although briefly as is commonly thought) with the Yangs.  It is curious that in his time it would appear that he never leaned (or abandoned) the body requirements, and the 10 essences.  I have no problem with people going off and 'developing' their own style, but if your only contact with Taijiquan was CMC style you are missing out a great deal of what the 'family' style has.  Interestingly, a number of my taiji buddies spent a week working on sword with CMC's daughter.  As they all have a background in traditional Yang, they were astounded and even appalled by the lack of any apparent understanding of taijiquan from the teacher.  There was no foundation, loose feet, no body connections, no essences and poor sword control.  

The Chinese government like to promote taijiquan, especially the simplified form which again pays little attention top correct body usage, and now they are starting to promote Yang family taiji although this is through their 'favourite' son Yang Zhen Duo.  This is better than nothing but does ignore the oldest living son who's taijiquan is significantly different.

In the UK we also have our 'leading authorities'  many of them are in this position by virtue of the length of time they have practised, or they are credited with 'being the first', again it is interesting to note that many of them are CMC style and most of them wouldn't know taijiquan if they fell over it.  Now that access to higher level teachers is getting easier, more and more people are becoming more questioning and questing to cut through the superficial and get to the depths.

upnorthkyosa, have you ever had any experience with the Taoist Tai Chi Society?   Now that is some seriously messed up Yang style


----------



## someguy (Nov 5, 2003)

Wouldn't Tai chi still be part of kung fu? sorry of topic I know:-offtopic 
So shoot me
:uzi: :bazook: :uhohh: :lasma: :ripper: :shock::biggun:
uhhhh dang


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 5, 2003)

I think its good to be skeptical of martial arts instructors in general and this is a healthy debate to be having about any art.  Frankly, I am surprised by the anti-CMC sentiment.  I am not sure if it is coming from his rivals or if it is coming from the truth.  

I have had three tai chi instructors over the last 15 years.  My current instructor is a pupil of Stewart Olson whom I have mentioned above.  I also mentioned that I lived in St. Cloud, the same town that TT Liang lived in.  Here is what I remember of his studio.  I first heard about it from my shotokan instructor when I was a boy.  He talked about an old man who was teaching Tai Chi out of some guy's basement.  It turns out that some guy was Stewart Olson's house.  I was interested to see what Tai Chi was, so I asked my instructor if he would take me sometime.  So I get to the studio.  The first thing I see is mats lining the concrete walls of the basement.  People are doing push hands and some people are being moved around without even touching the other person.  "What's that?" I asked.  "Intrinsic energy" my instructor replies.  He then tells me to go and sit in the corner and watch quietly.  I obey like a good Karate student.  He joins in the push hands.  An Old Man comes down the stairs.  He is wearing a too tight micky mouse shirt and blue jeans.  His socks have holes in them.  Its TT Liang.  He takes one look at the mess and talks about applications.  Then he proceedes to "show" applications.  Those mats on the wall got good use!  This man, short and kind of fat was throwing grown men across the room and it looked as if he hardly did anything at all.  That is what I mean by stuff I have never seen anywhere.  And this is just two examples.  

As I said above, TT Liang was CMC top student and I am surprised by the anti-feelings.

upnorthkyosa


----------



## 7starmantis (Nov 5, 2003)

I can't say that I have ever seen anyone of the CMC lineage actually perform taiji. I have however read both Wolfe Lowenthal's books on CMC and his taijiquan. The principles written in these books are the fundamental basics, MOST taiji students and instructors are missing. CMC never claimed to be anything more than a follower of taiji. He was alot more than simply a taiji practitioner. He was a chinese doctor and wholist. His principles by which he tought taiji, at least from the books, were exactly perfectly on. They are the principles taiji is truly about. The 4oz principle to name one. 

From reading those books, I would have a hard time agreeing that CMC's tajiquan is a watered down, no application version of Yang. Again, however, I have not seen it in action. 

I study Yang style with my Sifu, and I have to say, the principles in There are no Secrets are exactly what my sifu says to me. And the moving a person with no more than 4 oz of energy is amazing, and when finally learned, is extremely effective.

JMHO,
 7sm


----------



## 7starmantis (Nov 5, 2003)

> _Originally posted by someguy _
> *Wouldn't Tai chi still be part of kung fu? sorry of topic I know:-offtopic
> So shoot me
> :uzi: :bazook: :uhohh: :lasma: :ripper: :shock::biggun:
> uhhhh dang *



If you are using the term Kung Fu to mean all Chinese Martial Arts, then I guess so. If using Kung Fu to mean system of kung fu then no. I study 7 Star Preying Mantis Kung Fu, there are like 300 systems, but tai chi would not be included in a kung fu listing.

They are however very similar many time in principles. In fact, Tai Chi is in reality the basis of most martial arts today, including kung fu.

7sm


----------



## Taiji fan (Nov 5, 2003)

> I first heard about it from my shotokan instructor when I was a boy. He talked about an old man who was teaching Tai Chi out of some guy's basement. It turns out that some guy was Stewart Olson's house. I was interested to see what Tai Chi was, so I asked my instructor if he would take me sometime. So I get to the studio. The first thing I see is mats lining the concrete walls of the basement. People are doing push hands and some people are being moved around without even touching the other person. "What's that?" I asked. "Intrinsic energy" my instructor replies. He then tells me to go and sit in the corner and watch quietly. I obey like a good Karate student. He joins in the push hands. An Old Man comes down the stairs. He is wearing a too tight micky mouse shirt and blue jeans. His socks have holes in them. Its TT Liang. He takes one look at the mess and talks about applications. Then he proceedes to "show" applications. Those mats on the wall got good use! This man, short and kind of fat was throwing grown men across the room and it looked as if he hardly did anything at all. That is what I mean by stuff I have never seen anywhere


 thanks that sounds like  agreat experience............was this what lead you to begin studying taijiquan?



> I can't say that I have ever seen anyone of the CMC lineage actually perform taiji. I have however read both Wolfe Lowenthal's books on CMC and his taijiquan. The principles written in these books are the fundamental basics, MOST taiji students and instructors are missing.


 I hear ya......and yes I agree that it all looks good in print.....but, my first teacher could intellectualise taijiquan till the cows came home, but as for actually understanding the principles in his body and actually being 'in' the principles, he definately was/is not.  And he is considered a top boy in the UK.......his real taijiquan ability is minescule, but it took for me to find a traditional Yang teacher before I really understood what was missing in my first teachers form...and what was missing......everything, his form was not biomechanically correct, there was no integration of the essences and in particular...no spirit.  And in all of the CMC practitioners I have seen this is what has also been missing.  CMC taijiquan is fine if that is what you choose, just don't call it Yang style....because it aint....simple as that.


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 5, 2003)

What about CMC style makes it not Yang Style?  Maybe I am missing something, but didn't CMC learn from the Yang Cheng Fu liniage?  I have seen trained in three different "yang" styles and each is different.  Maybe Yang Tai Chi is now just a name with random techniques behind it?  I don't know?  How could anyone find the "true" Yang style?

As far as seeing TT Liang when I was a boy...I thought it was really cool, but I didn't have the discipline for something like that yet.  (I still don't, I am a half assed tai chi student at best)  I enjoy the harder physical martial arts more at this moment, but a grain of wisdom inside me says, to keep doing some tai chi for when I'm older.  Maybe then I'll be ready eh?  I would like to try Chen style Tai Chi for a while and see how it goes.

Anyone ever heard of Erle Montague?  I wonder if he fits into this equation?

upnorthkyosa


----------



## 7starmantis (Nov 6, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Taiji fan _
> *I hear ya......and yes I agree that it all looks good in print.....but, my first teacher could intellectualise taijiquan till the cows came home, but as for actually understanding the principles in his body and actually being 'in' the principles, he definately was/is not.  And he is considered a top boy in the UK.......his real taijiquan ability is minescule, but it took for me to find a traditional Yang teacher before I really understood what was missing in my first teachers form...and what was missing......everything, his form was not biomechanically correct, there was no integration of the essences and in particular...no spirit.  And in all of the CMC practitioners I have seen this is what has also been missing.  CMC taijiquan is fine if that is what you choose, just don't call it Yang style....because it aint....simple as that. *



So you just think that CMC lineage is lacking in application and understanding then? Also you don't think it is Yang style?

I don't mean to offend you at all, but may I ask how long you have studied Taijiquan? I'm just simply curious. I obviously dont have the knowledge about the different systems that you do, but I just have a hard time seeing all the understanding that CMC had about the true principles of taiji, and then hearing that he had no application. Thats all.

7sm


----------



## Taiji fan (Nov 6, 2003)

> Also you don't think it is Yang style?


 no, it is not Yang style.   It is CMC style, the same was as Yang Shi is not Chen shi even though its origins were.  

I have studied now for 10 years, firstly in wishy washy taiji then later as I looked deeper with a trad. Yang teacher.  the differences were immence.  The most notable was the incorrect use of the body.  In all end frames and transitions the body is lined in a very particular was to ensure that the minimum energy is used and that the power issue is explosive.  Each 'move' / posture/ form whatever you refer to them as has a preciscion that ensures its application.  In the 10 essences, essence number 1 is straighten the head and raise the spirit, this is concerned with the manner in which the head and neck are connected and also with the manner in which you approach you practice.  In all of the CMC practitioners I have watched, not one of them have aligned their head in the way the Yang family have taught.  Sinking shoulders and elbow seems to have been missinterpretated to be overly bent and floppy.  In trad Yang, the pratcitioners hands are stretched and open, also reflected in the spirit of practice.  There is no following the hands with your eyes.

in the end frames, with the the CMC practitioners I have watched, there was no disctinction between body open or body closed.....one of the fundamental principles of correct mechanics. 

I have no doubt there are plenty of good martial artists who practice CMC style but that does not make them Yang style Taiji practitioners.  Perhaps it does have application, but not in the way that Trad Yang does because the body mechanics are not the same.  I also meet an awful lot of CMC practitioners with knee problems................

CMC appeared to have studied only breifly with the Yangs and his form looks nothing like Tradtional Yang..........you really need to watch a Trad Yang practitioner to see the differences.


----------



## 7starmantis (Nov 6, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Taiji fan _
> *..........you really need to watch a Trad Yang practitioner to see the differences. *



My sifu has been studying trad. Yang style for nearly 25 years, and my sigung for about 41 or so. I get to see true application of Yang style. I don't get to see CMC style, thats the problem.

The only thing that bothers me is that both of them (My Sifu and Sigung) refer to the books I mentioned earier, heavily. Thats what makes me have a hard time writting off CMC as unapplicable.

It is interesting however about many CMC students having knee issues, thats a bad sign.

7sm


----------



## Taiji fan (Nov 7, 2003)

My appologies, my comments were not intended to offend...certainly here there seem to be more CMC practitioners or simplified 24 step folk and few who have seen Trad Yang.  The differences are very clear when you see one from each of the 'styles'.

I totally agree that many of the books seem to show a good grasp of the concepts, where I have the problem is when watching the practitioners and seeing that they haven't integrated these principles into their body.....its like the theory and the practical are 2 different things.


----------



## Crouching Tiger (Nov 7, 2003)

> _Originally posted by someguy _
> *Wouldn't Tai chi still be part of kung fu? sorry of topic I know:-offtopic
> So shoot me
> :uzi: :bazook: :uhohh: :lasma: :ripper: :shock::biggun:
> uhhhh dang *



If I may interject, Taijiquan actually falls under the practice of Qigong, not Gungfu; Yang being recognized as the most traditional.  For further reference I suggest:

http://store.yahoo.com/ymaa/esoftaijqigi.html.  Dr. Yang, Jwing-Ming has written several books on the subject for all of us.

Regards,

Jeff

:asian:


----------



## Taiji fan (Nov 7, 2003)

> If I may interject, Taijiquan actually falls under the practice of Qigong, not Gungfu;


 ?????????? since when?  Qigong is qigong Taijiquan is 'boxing'.  Infact since gong fu/kung fu/gungfu etc simply means aquired skill......qigong is also gong fu/ Kung fu/gungfu.  Taijiquan is martial art, that happen ( due to the manner of the training) to strengthen the body.  Yang taijiquan (or at least its variations) are the most widely practiced but Chen is the original.  Yang Jwing Mings ideas on taijiquan are very 'interesting' although I would tend to recommend Fu Zhongwen's Mastering Yang style Taijiquan over any of Yang Jwing Ming's publications.

:asian:


----------



## 7starmantis (Nov 7, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Taiji fan _
> *My appologies, my comments were not intended to offend...*



No worries, I wasn't offended, its hard to really convey emotions via this medium. I understand what your saying.



> _Originally posted by Crouching Tiger _
> *If I may interject, Taijiquan actually falls under the practice of Qigong, not Gungfu;*



Qigong and Taiji are actually different. Taiji falls under Taiji. Its like using the term Kung Fu. Wouldn't every CMA fall under Kung Fu? But in reality we don't use the word that way, because there are somewhere around 300 different styles of Kung Fu, actual complete martial art systems.

7sm


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 7, 2003)

When asked, my instructor and Stewart Olson, will tell you that our style of Tai Chi is Yang style.  I've studied under another Yang system though and I was surprised at the differences.  In fact, I really didn't understand how they both could be the same system!  Then I read an old book by Robert W. Smith and Donn Draeger and in it, Robert Smith breaks down CMA for the western reader for perhaps the very first time.  It is interesting to note that Smith was also a student of CMC, by his own admission, and he considered Chen Men Ching to be an excellent martial artist.  I wonder if the differences in the systems can be seen by going back to which Yang trained who.  Forgive me if I mangle this, but I don't have the book infront of me, but Yang Lu Chan had two grandsons that survived the murder of his family.  Both of these men carried on the tai chi tradition.  Yang Cheng Fu changed what his grandfather taught him though, taking out a lot of the silk reeling fa jing and making it more of a hidden and healing art.  Yang San hou, on the other hand, kept the silk reeling and taught the applications more directly.  Basically from my vantage point, both are Yang, but they are interpretations.  With Yang San Hou you can see the effectiveness and applications readily.  With Yang Cheng Fu, it takes an instructor to point them out.  

All this about knee problems...in class we NEVER put our knees over the line of our toes.  Perhaps that is TT Liangs interpretation of CMC.  

upnorthkyosa


----------



## pete (Nov 7, 2003)

> Yang Jwing Mings ideas on taijiquan are very 'interesting' -Taiji fan.



please elaborate... 

i'm not loking for trouble, i have no affilliations, heck, i don't even practice any of the "yang" styles...  if you'd rather not post, please pm

thanks,
pete


----------



## Crouching Tiger (Nov 7, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Taiji fan _
> *?????????? since when?  Qigong is qigong Taijiquan is 'boxing'.  Infact since gong fu/kung fu/gungfu etc simply means aquired skill......qigong is also gong fu/ Kung fu/gungfu.  Taijiquan is martial art, that happen ( due to the manner of the training) to strengthen the body.  Yang taijiquan (or at least its variations) are the most widely practiced but Chen is the original.  Yang Jwing Mings ideas on taijiquan are very 'interesting' although I would tend to recommend Fu Zhongwen's Mastering Yang style Taijiquan over any of Yang Jwing Ming's publications.
> 
> :asian: *



I was only quoting what I have read from Dr. Yang.  That's why I referenced him.   Personally, I am no authority on the matter.  If Dr. Yang is incorrect, then so be it.  I will look into your recommended book above for further reading.  Thank you.


----------



## Randy Strausbaugh (Nov 12, 2003)

An article comparing CMC and Yang styles may be found here.


----------



## someguy (Nov 13, 2003)

We can discuse if its gung fu or not here
http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=11606


----------



## Karasu Tengu (Nov 25, 2003)

My appologies for entering this forum so late.  Tai Chi Chuan/Taiqiquan, though a form of boxing, is not Kung/Gung Fu.  Many Westerners lump it into that catagory.   Just like they lump Japanese empty hand arts into the Karate catagory when many are clearly not just Karate.  The bigest difference is that TCC/TQQ focuses on developing one "internal energy" (Chi) in concert with one's physical abilities (techniques).  Whereas "Kung/Gung Fu" stresses more physical development of technique.  (I've studied White Crane and Dragon's Fist Kung Fu in addition to TCC).  The emphasis on Breathing, Balance and Form   "Internal" exercises such as Chi Gong and Nei Gong are essential in bringing all of this together.

The purpose of slow movement originally (from my research that is) was to perfectly coordinate the mind, body and spirit.  Slow practice of technique develops perfect and efficient movement. Proper breathing allows one to remain centered (calm) in the face of conflict.  Together they create powerful combat techniques that are executed with extreme speed, accuracy and penitration.  So if you are looking for fast and flashy just take that which you have learned and do it at combat speed.  Thats the martial art of it. Oh and don't forget to breath! (a common effect when one speeds things up)


----------



## Taiji fan (Dec 2, 2003)

> Tai Chi Chuan/Taiqiquan, though a form of boxing, is not Kung/Gung Fu.


  Taijiquan formerly known as cotton fist boxing among other things does come under the bracket name of kung fu.  It doesn't actually matter if the art/style is further classed as internal or external, the aim is the same, to reach a high level of skill through training .....kung fu.....in a martial art.



> Whereas "Kung/Gung Fu" stresses more physical development of technique.


 Taiji starts with physical development of technique and this remains important throughout the training.  A punch is still a punch regardless of whether it is delivered by an internal/external/chinese/japanese/korean etc etc stylist



> The purpose of slow movement originally (from my research that is) was to perfectly coordinate the mind, body and spirit. Slow practice of technique develops perfect and efficient movement


 very true...which is exactly why it is skill aquired through patience and training.....kung fu.
It would appear that it is a typical weastern approach to consider only hard styles as kung fu........where would you put Xing Yi....


----------



## 7starmantis (Dec 3, 2003)

Its a mater of semantics, why argue over it?

In what your saying, what would you call what I practice? Kung Fu? and what about the Yang Tai Chi my Sifu is going to teach me, is that kung fu too? So when I'm asked at a demonstration or tournement what style I am competing in when its a Tai Chi competition, do I say Kung Fu? Its really kind of stupid, why even argue about it?  It doesn't matter, we need something to call my system, so we use Kung Fu, is that so bad?

7sm


----------



## Taiji fan (Dec 3, 2003)

> Its a mater of semantics, why argue over it?


 :erg: you are right.......its getting really boring now.....but it is simple......if the standard western term for martial arts from china used is kung fu, then taijiquan comes under that banner......your style of kung fu is still taijiquan.:wink:


----------



## 7starmantis (Dec 3, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Taiji fan _
> *......your style of kung fu is still taijiquan.:wink: *



What? I'm really getting confused, but I hear ya, this is boring now.

7sm


----------



## Matt Bernius (Jan 8, 2004)

> _Originally posted by upnorthkyosa _
> *Anyone ever heard of Erle Montague?  I wonder if he fits into this equation?*


I was wondering how long this might go before someone brought up Erle. As far as where he fits into the equation, his name usually stirs up more controversy.

What Erle teaches is a Yang variation. It's defintely combat oriented. Plus three's a lot of Dim Mak striking built into what he's doing as well.

I've never had the chance to meet him in person. But I have gotten the chance to learn from one of his students (Jack Davis) on a number of occaisions. Jack's stuff is solid. Also I've had a number of conversations with other people in the "Erle" family on another board.

- Matt


----------



## 7starmantis (Jan 8, 2004)

Erle as in the most dangerous man on earth ?

7sm


----------



## Makalakumu (Jan 9, 2004)

> _Originally posted by 7starmantis _
> *Erle as in the most dangerous man on earth ?
> 
> 7sm *



Sarcasm noted.  Have you read the encyclopedia of Dimak that he published?  Interesting.


----------



## Kodanjaclay (Jan 9, 2004)

Ok... as a Taijiquan teacher, And I mean Taijiquan not Tai Cheese, I can say a couple of things definitively. First of Taijiquan is a combat oriented art. Its just that the approach dictated by the classics takes a whole lot of training for it to be Taijiquan as opposed to something else, which may be taiji-esque. Second, Dim Mak is a rather common technique. It was just seriously hyped in the 80's. cavity press is something used in both the healing arts and martial arts, and have been for centuries.

I don't know much about Erle. I can say that I sincerely doubt the assessment of his skill. The most dangerous man on earth is the one that you are facing who is trying to end your life. That is the only man you need concern yourself with at any given time.

I hope this helps.


----------



## Matt Bernius (Jan 9, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Kodanjaclay _
> *Second, Dim Mak is a rather common technique. It was just seriously hyped in the 80's. cavity press is something used in both the healing arts and martial arts, and have been for centuries.
> 
> I don't know much about Erle. I can say that I sincerely doubt the assessment of his skill.*



Erle's good. No doubt about that. His students are good as well. He's never advertised (as far as I know) that he's the deadliest man on Earth.

But he is a character and a tempermental personality. Both of those have helped him get a larger than life reputation.

As far as his approach to Dim Mak, from my understanding it's straight forward and very good. He's doesn't try to mystify it. In fact he's taken Dillman to task on a few occaisions for overhyping it (and in his opinion demonstrating dangerous techniques on people at seminars).

Personally I have a lot of respect for Erle's students. So, at least in my case, that translates to respect for Erle.

- Matt


----------



## Makalakumu (Jan 9, 2004)

Crap, hit the wrong button.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jan 9, 2004)

> _Originally posted by upnorthkyosa _
> *I agree with Montaigue taking Dillman to task in practicing some of those light force knockouts.  In my opinion, that is very dangerous.  In our school, we learn those techniques at high ranks and NEVER use them for show.  In fact, my instructor will demonstrate the technique once, in a private class, to show us that they do work and then never again.  This demonstration is also done so the healing aspects of Dim-mak can be demonstrated. *


----------



## 7starmantis (Jan 19, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Matt Bernius _
> *Erle's good. No doubt about that. His students are good as well. He's never advertised (as far as I know) that he's the deadliest man on Earth.
> 
> But he is a character and a tempermental personality. Both of those have helped him get a larger than life reputation.
> *



That was my bad, when I saw his name I somehow thought we were talking about Count Dante and I posted without checking myself. My mistake, sorry to have posted my sarcasm incorrectly. I don't know why my mind went to this guy, but it just subverted to him.

My appologies,
 7sm


----------



## Matt Bernius (Jan 19, 2004)

> _Originally posted by 7starmantis _
> *That was my bad, when I saw his name I somehow thought we were talking about Count Dante and I posted without checking myself. My mistake, sorry to have posted my sarcasm incorrectly. I don't know why my mind went to this guy, but it just subverted to him.
> 
> My appologies,
> 7sm *



It's no prob. Erle tends to have a polarizing effect on people so I just assumed his reputation preceeded him.

- Matt


----------



## TaiChiTJ (Mar 22, 2005)

"Flowing Combat is a careful synthesis of the Chinese Neija arts.. taijiquan, hsing i chuan and baguachuan..." 

I think he's a student of Erle's. 

Any comments? I saw one movement that was new to me. Darn, thought i knew everything!  

http://www.flowingcombat.com/demos.php

once you have clicked on a clip at the left, you still have to click the little arrow button to make it play.


----------



## Jerry (Mar 23, 2005)

Learning all three of the Niejia arts is not that uncommon. (well, once you isolate to only look at people learnign neijia arts to begin with).


----------



## Hammer Head (Mar 23, 2005)

Interesting topic. 

 In terms of terminology, kung-fu means skill and effort, the chinese term for martial art is wu-shu and the term for fist art or method is chuan-fa. Taijiquan could be considered a form of wu-shu and of chuan-fa.

 I am a practitioner of Chen Style Taijiquan (15 years) and I would say it is a very effective martial art. I am not so familiar with the Yang Style but have seen Yang practitioners demonstrate practical applications of their art and it seems to be very effective too.

www.chenzhonghua.com


----------



## TaiChiTJ (Mar 23, 2005)

Hammer Head, it does indeed appear you are part of a great school!

Does the 24 Hunyuantaichi form flow like Chen style or Yang style? I'm assuming like Chen. 

Do you practice this form? Are the applications both striking and grappling? 

Any throws? I would be interested in any comments you might have on it.


----------



## Hammer Head (Mar 24, 2005)

Hi TaiChi TJ:

 Yes, it is a great school! The Hunyuan 24 form is an interpretation of the "new frame" chen style taijiquan. It was developed by Master Feng Zhiquian, who is the last living disciple of Chen FaKe.

 The way the form flows is definitely Chen. It is very good for health and self defense as well. In general, techniques found in Chen style taijiquan include strikes, locks and trows. I guess this is true of all styles of taijiquan.


 Keep on training!


----------



## TaiChiTJ (Apr 2, 2005)

What caught my eye about your school was that in reviewing the cd for the 24 posture form, Plum Publications' Ted Mancuso suggested the master had almost created a new style! That's why I asked if it looked like Chen or not. You have informed me it does, but Mancuso is noticing a "loose" quality to it. That, in my book anyway, is a positive. 

Here is Shifu Manucso review of the 24 posture form: 
[font=Palatino, AGaramond, Arial][/font] 
[font=Palatino, AGaramond, Arial]*Hun-Yuan Tai-Chi Er Shi Si Shi. Feng Zhi Qiang's earlier VCDs show a loose, powerful Chen style Tai Chi. Here his work on Hun Yuan (Primoridal) Chi Kung is melded into almost a new style. Loose and powerful with even more Reeling Silk energy and a natural series of moves highly inspired by Taoist Hun Yuan breathing techniques. Both Feng and his top female student demonstrate the postures and actions.*[/font]


----------



## mwelch (Nov 30, 2005)

In the old days, when money meant coins and precious metals, some "enterprising" souls, some of them kings, found ways to debase the coinage in such a way that it resembled the original, full-value coins of the realm, but which were not as valuable owing to their gold or silver being alloyed with base metals.  This led a man of the day named Gresham to propound Gresham's Law, which states bad money drives out good.  If you possess gold coins, why would you spend them in an economy that is full of debased or "bad" money.  What one did, of course, was simply keep his "good" money while the circulating money became increasingly worthless.

We live in a time and place that permits people with very little in the way of skill, knowledge or experience to spend a little time learning "t'ai chi" and then setting themselves up as teachers, masters, sifus, whatever.  pretty soon these people teach others who then go on to become "teachers." And so it goes.

The truth is there is a variant of Gresham's Law at work in the world of martial arts, and especially with respect to the so-called "internal arts."  Good teaching is being driven out by the bad.

There are world- famous teachers, students of people like Cheng Man-Ching and other notables, who are teaching forms that bear no resemblance to the fighting forms of Yang Cheng-Fu or his brother or anyone of that ilk.  Because the forms are meant to be performed slowly, the "players" adopt these silly, rubbery, "tofu" movements as legitimate and somehow potentially powerful techniques.

The truth is there are few, very few, teachers of T'ai Chi Ch'uan who could use their art and skill in a fight.  And I believe after 30+ years of studying and practicing, this simple criterion is the only one you should apply when looking for a teacher.  Ifr the person cannot show you simply and directly how he/she has evolved fighting technique out of the practice of the forms, then the person is a fraud.  In my own personal experience -- which includes studying in Cheng Man-Ching's school in NYC and with a number of the so-called "masters" mentioned on this board, I have found exactly one person who fits the description of martial artist.  the rest of them remind me of the log-rolling literary critics who give rave reviews to each other's books.

The T'ai Chi Ch'uan form is a rigorous, exacting, powerful exercise that cannot be done in just any old way.  There is only one correct way.  Period.


----------



## Flying Crane (Nov 30, 2005)

mwelch said:
			
		

> And I believe after 30+ years of studying and practicing, this simple criterion is the only one you should apply when looking for a teacher. Ifr the person cannot show you simply and directly how he/she has evolved fighting technique out of the practice of the forms, then the person is a fraud. In my own personal experience -- which includes studying in Cheng Man-Ching's school in NYC and with a number of the so-called "masters" mentioned on this board, I have found exactly one person who fits the description of martial artist.


 
I agree with much of what you are saying here.  I do have one question:  who is this one person that you feel fits the bill?


----------



## dmax999 (Dec 1, 2005)

I take a guess that its William CC Chen.  Youngest student of CMC and respected as a full contact fighter in his youth and based out of NYC.  He continuously does seminars around the country.  Worth going just to see how a fighter likes to do Tai Chi.


----------



## 7starmantis (Dec 1, 2005)

Its always refreshing to see a real tai chi fighter.

7sm


----------



## dmax999 (Dec 5, 2005)

Received a message from mwelsh.  He was reffering to somone other then William CC Chen.  Somone I'm not familiar with, but some of the best teachers are the ones not spouted about everywhere (My old WC teacher being an example)

I'll leave it to mwelsh if he wants to let everyone know who he was talking about.


----------



## mwelch (Dec 12, 2005)

My teacher's name is Yu Cheng Hsiang, and he lives and teaches in NYC.  His background includes a lot of different fighting disciplines, and his approach to Taiji Quan is colored by his firm opinion that it is meant to be part of a total approach to martial training, that you could never derive effective fighting technique from the Taiji Quan form alone.  

On the other hand, you will never find anyone with more respect for the form than Master Yu.  His form is impeccable, and he demands nothing but perfection from his students.  I have studied with him for 15 years and learn something new every class.  

In Taiwan Master Yu studied with two different TAiji Quan teachers, Li Su Chin, who studied with Yang Cheng Fu's brother, and, after Master Li's death, with Cheng Man Ching, who studied with Yang Cheng Fu.

Master Yu teaches every class and every student himself because he feels a heavy responsibility to transmit what he knows directly.  He teaches several times a week, but the group I belong to has 3 sessions per week.  If you are within reach of NYC on a weekend, I suggest you check him out.  380 Broadway fifth floor from 10am to 1pm.  That is a complete class, icnluding the 108-posture form, Shaolin Temple boxing (3 different sets), Taiji Sword, Shaolin staff, lecture and pushing hands.


----------

