# Differnces in the Taijiquan



## BillK (Feb 2, 2016)

I wouldn't doubt that this topic has been discussed before, but seeing how I'm new here, I thought I'd ask. What are the major differences between the styles of Taijiquan (Yang, Chen, Sun, etc.)? It wasn't until recently that I even learned of the vast martial applications of Taijiquan, more specifically, Yang Taijiquan. Like many others, I only saw it as a form of "moving meditation", not knowing of the Chin Na, Shuai Jiao, and fighting applications. Thank you in advance for your responses.


----------



## ChenAn (Feb 2, 2016)

The major difference between different style of taiji is san si jin or silk reeling (that only Chen method retains ) Supposedly, eight basic energies: peng, lu, ji, an, kao, lieh, cai, zhou are in the root of all Taijiquan methods

Some people believe Taijiquan origin starts with mythological person - a taosist who's identity has never been confirm by historical fact and only lives in oral tradition. His name Zhan Sanfeng.

Historically speaking root of taiji can be traced up to Chen Wangting 9th generation of Chen fighters at the end of Ming dynasty. What was before him history hasn't revealed so far, but there some theories ..

So from chronologically taiji traces from Chen to Yang to Wu to Sun and so on .

No matter what taiji method is practiced  it is one thing is remains common taijiquan is not application driven art. Applications serves purpose of understanding and developing jins (energies) that in turn leads to formless state of response ..


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Zeny (Feb 2, 2016)

I doubt there is anyone here who has working knowledge of all the styles. Even within styles there are sub-styles resulting from personal interpretations and understanding of different teachers. I practise a specific sub-style of huang taichi, and i know nothing of chen, yang, wu, sun and hao styles.

I think we should stop worrying about styles and just enjoy taichi.


----------



## zzj (Feb 3, 2016)

Zeny said:


> I doubt there is anyone here who has working knowledge of all the styles. Even within styles there are sub-styles resulting from personal interpretations and understanding of different teachers. I practise a specific sub-style of huang taichi, and i know nothing of chen, yang, wu, sun and hao styles.
> 
> I think we should stop worrying about styles and just enjoy taichi.



Zeny has a point, what we can offer are more or less personal our understanding of what differentiates the major styles.

From my perspective:

Chen (the style i practice) is the oldest known historical form of taijiquan originating from the end of Ming / Beginning of Qing era (late 1600's to early 1700's). It is a hybrid style combining known military-based techniques with taoist breathing exercise and philosophy. The forms combine hard and soft, fast and slow movements, emphasizing 'silk reeling', which is a spiraling kind of energy infused into every movement. Chen forms are quite distinct, you can instantly recognize it by the use of stomping, jumping, fast punches and kicks in between slow and deliberate moves.

Yang style is the most widespread and popular style at the moment, and is probably what people have in mind when one mentions taijiquan. Yang style is directly descended from Chen, but there is a lot of speculation as to why the 2 styles seem to differ so much. Yang style is slow and meticulous, and does not include (as far as I can tell) fast or hard moves in forms. While some have suggested that the Yang style either discarded the hard / fast moves in order to cater to aristocratic students, or that Yang Lu Chan learned a different form of Taijiquan than what we know of as Chen Style today, my own view is that Yang style chose to concentrate on the more subtle elements and evolved as it was no longer kept within the confines of Chen Village. In fact, Yang Style is very fragmented in my view, with very different interpretations and offshoots. Zeny's Huang Style is what I would consider one of the modern offshoots of Yang.

Wu (吴) style is descended from Yang, but is recognizably different in that it is a 'small frame' style. Movements are smaller and more attention is paid to the internal mechanics. 

Wu (武) or Wu-Hao in English, so as not to confuse with Wu (吴) is a relatively rare style that to me seems quite similar to Wu (吴) in that they are both small frame forms. This style is also descended from Yang, but the creator also studied in Chen Village and combined elements of Chen small frame into his style.

Sun style is the most modern of the bunch. It is descended from Wu-Hao, but takes in elements of other so called 'internal' arts such as xingyi and bagua, so if you are familiar with the characteristics of these styles, you would be able to recognize them in Sun forms.

There is another major (arguably) style known as 'Zhaobao', after the village it originated from. The origins of this style is quite controversial, as it is claimed by some practitioners that it pre-dates Chen style, while others, especially Chen stylists, who say that it descended from Small frame Chen. I am least familiar with this style so I don't think I can comment on the characteristics.


----------



## zzj (Feb 3, 2016)

In addition, there are also other styles of Taijiquan such as Wudang (origins unclear, as it claims to be descended from Zhang San Feng, who is a mythological figure), Lee style, which is similarly shrouded in mystery, Fu style, that supposedly combines Chen, Yang, Sun and Bagua. I'm sure there are many other obscure styles out there, including unrelated styles that claim to be taijiquan (*ahem*Tibetan White Crane tai chi) or 'tai chi' forms within other styles.. (pai lum, Oom Young Doe 'Tai CHi CHung' etc.)


----------



## 23rdwave (Feb 3, 2016)

ChenAn said:


> No matter what taiji method is practiced  it is one thing is remains common taijiquan is not application driven art. Applications serves purpose of understanding and developing jins (energies) that in turn leads to formless state of response ..



ChenAn speaks the truth. IMA is not about application it is about awareness.


----------



## BillK (Feb 3, 2016)

Thank you all for the responses, they're very informative.


----------



## BillK (Feb 3, 2016)

zzj said:


> In addition, there are also other styles of Taijiquan such as Wudang (origins unclear, as it claims to be descended from Zhang San Feng, who is a mythological figure), Lee style, which is similarly shrouded in mystery, Fu style, that supposedly combines Chen, Yang, Sun and Bagua. I'm sure there are many other obscure styles out there, including unrelated styles that claim to be taijiquan (*ahem*Tibetan White Crane tai chi) or 'tai chi' forms within other styles.. (pai lum, Oom Young Doe 'Tai CHi CHung' etc.)


So it would seem the latter mentioned styles (White Crane, Oom Young Doe etc.) are just a bastardized version of traditional styles such as Chen and Yang.


----------



## BillK (Feb 3, 2016)

Zeny said:


> I doubt there is anyone here who has working knowledge of all the styles. Even within styles there are sub-styles resulting from personal interpretations and understanding of different teachers. I practise a specific sub-style of huang taichi, and i know nothing of chen, yang, wu, sun and hao styles.
> 
> I think we should stop worrying about styles and just enjoy taichi.


It isn't a matter of "worrying" about styles, but a wanting to understand the art, it's differences, history, martial application etc. I believe knowing these things would help the practitioner to gain a deep respect and admiration for the art, thus making him a better artist. There is more to the arts than forms and techniques, which I'm sure you know.


----------



## mograph (Feb 3, 2016)

Conceptually, they're similar, when compared to other martial arts. Many of their differences lie in the postures, the size of the frame (how extended your body is) and the tempo of the movements. 

There's no international body that defines the styles, so none of their characteristics are cast in stone and what you read may not apply to a local club. Also, differences between teachers may dictate a course of study more than the difference between styles: you may like Yang Style based on research, but if a local Chen teacher is better than the local Yang teacher, you might be better off studying Chen style.

On these pages, they attempt to sort out some of the differences; others in this thread may offer other pages. (Take the "fast & easy" with a grain of salt, of course.) Remember again, there is no international authority across styles. Gather what you can, and make your own judgement.

Tai Chi Style Differences:  A Brief Guide
How Do I Choose a Tai Chi Style?


----------



## kuniggety (Feb 3, 2016)

BillK said:


> So it would seem the latter mentioned styles (White Crane, Oom Young Doe etc.) are just a bastardized version of traditional styles such as Chen and Yang.



I wouldn't call them bastardized versions but rather derivative realizations. I am not a taiji expert but have some experience with both Yang and Chen. Understand that just because you're studying Chen doesn't mean you're practicing the same Chen as someone else! I specifically trained the laojia form but there are many form versions and individual interpretations.


----------



## BillK (Feb 3, 2016)

mograph said:


> Conceptually, they're similar, when compared to other martial arts. Many of their differences lie in the postures, the size of the frame (how extended your body is) and the tempo of the movements.
> 
> There's no international body that defines the styles, so none of their characteristics are cast in stone and what you read may not apply to a local club. Also, differences between teachers may dictate a course of study more than the difference between styles: you may like Yang Style based on research, but if a local Chen teacher is better than the local Yang teacher, you might be better off studying Chen style.
> 
> ...


Thank you.


----------



## BillK (Feb 3, 2016)

kuniggety said:


> I wouldn't call them bastardized versions but rather derivative realizations. I am not a taiji expert but have some experience with both Yang and Chen. Understand that just because you're studying Chen doesn't mean you're practicing the same Chen as someone else! I specifically trained the laojia form but there are many form versions and individual interpretations.


Ah, I see! Thanks for the clarification.


----------



## zzj (Feb 3, 2016)

BillK said:


> So it would seem the latter mentioned styles (White Crane, Oom Young Doe etc.) are just a bastardized version of traditional styles such as Chen and Yang.



Bastardized is quite a strong word to use, although I have to admit I did have my bias when it comes to 'tai chi' forms in arts such as tibetan white crane / oom yung doe versions. Have a look at the videos below and come to your own conclusions...











Different variations of Taijiquan really run the gamut, from possibly genuine historical variations, to derivative versions, modern refinements, adaptations, to deviations, mimicry and indeed bastardizations


----------



## zzj (Feb 3, 2016)

kuniggety said:


> I wouldn't call them bastardized versions but rather derivative realizations. I am not a taiji expert but have some experience with both Yang and Chen. Understand that just because you're studying Chen doesn't mean you're practicing the same Chen as someone else! I specifically trained the laojia form but there are many form versions and individual interpretations.



Good point about the variations within the same style. Every teacher teaches slightly differently, my forms have a slightly different flavor as they come from the Zhu family and not the Chen Family (although we are all under the Chen umbrella), even the theoretical emphasis differ between teachers. It is not hard to see how the different major styles and offshoots came to be as things change and get tweaked (consciously or not) every generation and every teacher teaches what works for them and every student discovers what works for themselves...


----------



## BillK (Feb 3, 2016)

It's not so much about me deriving a conclusion, but about understanding the difference in the taiji styles. If I take Yajiqun, most likely will be Yang style.


----------



## zzj (Feb 3, 2016)

BillK said:


> It's not so much about me deriving a conclusion, but about understanding the difference in the taiji styles. If I take Yajiqun, most likely will be Yang style.



Found this very interesting video showing Chen and Yang side by side, its fascinating that you can see so many parallels and even both practitioners doing essentially the same movements differently at the same time.






EDIT: These are examples of mainstream Chen/Yang forms performed by direct descendants of the originators of the styles (Chen Zhenglei and Yang Jun). I'm still amazed at the similarity... *watching again*


----------



## Flying Crane (Feb 4, 2016)

zzj said:


> I'm sure there are many other obscure styles out there, including unrelated styles that claim to be taijiquan (*ahem*Tibetan White Crane tai chi) or 'tai chi' forms within other styles.. (pai lum, Oom Young Doe 'Tai CHi CHung' etc.)


Im a Tibetan White Crane guy.  We don't claim to be taiji.

We do have a form that is done slowly, called Needle in Cotton.  It's not taiji.  We don't claim that it is.


----------



## Flying Crane (Feb 4, 2016)

zzj said:


> Bastardized is quite a strong word to use, although I have to admit I did have my bias when it comes to 'tai chi' forms in arts such as tibetan white crane / oom yung doe versions. Have a look at the videos below and come to your own conclusions...



Ok.  Geezuz.  I have no idea what that was, or where it came from.  It's not Needle in Cotton.  Not even a vague bastardized version.  It's not Tibetan White Crane.  It looks to me like someone made it up, or it's meant to be a qi-gong, or someone adopted something from somewhere else.  Poorly.

This is not Tibetan White Crane.  Please understand that.


----------



## BillK (Feb 4, 2016)

zzj said:


> Found this very interesting video showing Chen and Yang side by side, its fascinating that you can see so many parallels and even both practitioners doing essentially the same movements differently at the same time.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Now that is awesome! Thanks for sharing that. A very good visual of the differences!


----------



## clfsean (Feb 4, 2016)

Flying Crane said:


> Ok.  Geezuz.  I have no idea what that was, or where it came from.  It's not Needle in Cotton.  Not even a vague bastardized version.  It's not Tibetan White Crane.  It looks to me like someone made it up, or it's meant to be a qi-gong, or someone adopted something from somewhere else.  Poorly.
> 
> This is not Tibetan White Crane.  Please understand that.



Ditto ... Lama Pai here. We have our own internal practices & exercises, (noi gung & hei gung). We also have a version of Needle in Cotton. What that woman was doing was exactly not what Tibetan practitioners do. 

That was made up BS.


----------



## zzj (Feb 4, 2016)

Flying Crane said:


> Ok.  Geezuz.  I have no idea what that was, or where it came from.  It's not Needle in Cotton.  Not even a vague bastardized version.  It's not Tibetan White Crane.  It looks to me like someone made it up, or it's meant to be a qi-gong, or someone adopted something from somewhere else.  Poorly.
> 
> This is not Tibetan White Crane.  Please understand that.



Actually I had my suspicion that the people doing this were as much 'Tibetan White Crane' as they were 'Tai Chi', as in, they are not.


----------



## zzj (Feb 4, 2016)

clfsean said:


> Ditto ... Lama Pai here. We have our own internal practices & exercises, (noi gung & hei gung). We also have a version of Needle in Cotton. What that woman was doing was exactly not what Tibetan practitioners do.
> 
> That was made up BS.



Thanks for that clarification. I always knew Tibetan White Crane as a perfectly legitimate and respected MA style, so I was a little perplexed to find this 'tai chi' form demonstrated.


----------



## mograph (Feb 4, 2016)

It's not at all Tai Chi. More like somebody pretending to do Qigong.


----------



## mograph (Feb 4, 2016)

mograph said:


> It's not at all Tai Chi. More like somebody pretending to do Qigong.


Actually, the more I watch, the more it looks like an improvised gag.


----------



## ChenAn (Feb 5, 2016)

zzj said:


> Good point about the variations within the same style. Every teacher teaches slightly differently, my forms have a slightly different flavor as they come from the Zhu family and not the Chen Family (although we are all under the Chen umbrella), even the theoretical emphasis differ between teachers. It is not hard to see how the different major styles and offshoots came to be as things change and get tweaked (consciously or not) every generation and every teacher teaches what works for them and every student discovers what works for themselves...



 What is Zhu family? You meant Zhu Tiancai? If so, there no such thing as Zhu family. Zhu Tiancai is the same village guy whose mother married outsider. Even though village flavor is different teacher to teacher they represent the same thing.


----------



## greytowhite (Feb 5, 2016)

Hmm... I'd say the Chen shi Xiaojia guys have something a little different honestly.

ChinaFromInside.com presents...  TAIJIQUAN - Small Frame of Chen  Style Taijiquan


----------



## Goku2 (Feb 5, 2016)

My thoughts on current taijiquan practices, for what they're worth: At this time, taiji is becoming popular. As with most popular things, there is marketing to set each style or version distinct from the others. As with marketing, the trick is to appeal to the masses. If the masses do not want to work hard, or understand what they are doing, then so be it. As with most marketing, success is defined by the most money brought in. If you come from China, it stands to reason you must know taiji. Give the people what they want!

For an understanding of the popularity of 'qigong', I'd recommend reading "Qigong Fever" by David A. Palmer. The author writes on the development of the popularity of qigong practices in Mao's China. He is not commenting on its efficacy, but the politics involved.  Also consider tourism in China. 

The wonderful thing about taiji(quan) is its flexibility. It is so many things to so many people! If you want spirituality, it can be there. If you're just looking for health, it can be there. If you're looking for a martial art, it can be there, and it is in this where finding someone one who truly understands it and is willing to share -herein lies the difficulty!


----------



## Goku2 (Feb 5, 2016)

greytowhite said:


> Hmm... I'd say the Chen shi Xiaojia guys have something a little different honestly.
> 
> ChinaFromInside.com presents...  TAIJIQUAN - Small Frame of Chen  Style Taijiquan


Not really different, just different intention in the moves. This is where people think are the 'differences' are in Chen styles. If you understand what you are doing, you can see the variations or the possibilities. As my Shifu says: "Act according to the situation!"


----------



## zzj (Feb 5, 2016)

ChenAn said:


> What is Zhu family? You meant Zhu Tiancai? If so, there no such thing as Zhu family. Zhu Tiancai is the same village guy whose mother married outsider. Even though village flavor is different teacher to teacher they represent the same thing.



I mentioned Zhu family because my teacher is one of Zhu tiancai's sons (and yes, I know they are related to the chen's). I found that they have a consistent 'flavor' within their family which is different from the chen's or the wang's, but of course the differences are not too consequential and we definitely consider ourselves very much part of Mainstream Chen style. In the end, for an art that is so predicated upon self discovery and internalization, it is only natural that each and everyone of us practices taijiquan in a way unique to ourselves.


----------



## ChenAn (Feb 5, 2016)

zzj said:


> I mentioned Zhu family because my teacher is one of Zhu tiancai's sons (and yes, I know they are related to the chen's). I found that they have a consistent 'flavor' within their family which is different from the chen's or the wang's, but of course the differences are not too consequential and we definitely consider ourselves very much part of Mainstream Chen style. In the end, for an art that is so predicated upon self discovery and internalization, it is only natural that each and everyone of us practices taijiquan in a way unique to ourselves.



I like ZTC he is fun delightful guy to study with..However, there is  a sad truth about 4 tigers. It not that much about self discovery and internalization, it's about lost transmission and lack of knowledge. Chen Zhaopi was too old to show much sick and demoralized by cultural revolution while Chen Zhaokui brief visits interrupted by  a sudden death from stroke in 1981 (yes it's genetic in Chen Fake line, Chen Fake brother died from a stoke as well) 

The truth is there are no old frame and new frame (laojia and xinjia respectfully) as it presented today. There are only big (dajia) and small (xiaojia) frame in Chen method. Unfortunately Chen village lost it and had to make up for the lost knowledge on their own. Chen Fake line was able to retain original method. CFK frame was't really new (as it labeled by Chen village today) it shared the same core as the small frame. Contemporary Chen maser don't have that knowledge and marketing it as is. Only Chen Xiowang had some of it when he was young, but he changed it over the years for whatever reasons. What village has today is a sad display of modern sport wrestling - not traditional Chen. Here Chen Xiaoxing brunch





If one wants to learn traditional Chen I would recommend to look search for representatives of the small frame or Feng Ziqiang/Chen Zhaokui line..Although even within those lineages there are people who substitute lack of skills by famous teacher name (standard marketing move).So there is no guarantee but there is chance.

 I'm personally happy to settle with Chen Yu line after spending decade with Chen village. I'm not afraid to start over and rebuild from ground zero. I'm my opinion authentic knowledge totally worth it


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Feb 5, 2016)

ChenAn said:


> What village has today is a *sad* display of modern sport wrestling - not traditional Chen.


In Taiji push hand, if you don't punch, it will soon turn into wrestling. There are so many Chinese wrestlers in the northern part of China. If Chen Taiji guys want to test their skill, soon or later they have to face those Chinese wrestlers. If a Chen Taiji guy can handle himself on the mat or in the ring, his Chen Taiji is good , otherwise, his Chen Taiji is bad. Is that "sad"? I don't think so.

Every time I play push hand with Taiji guys, I like to drag their arm and move in circle. Most of the Taiji guys are not used to that strategy. IMO, it's always a good idea to integrate some wrestling strategy into Chen Taiji. From that point of view, Chen Taiji guys are not doing enough.


----------



## ChenAn (Feb 5, 2016)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> In Taiji push hand, if you don't punch, it will soon turn into wrestling. There are so many Chinese wrestlers in the northern part of China. If Chen Taiji guys want to test their skill, soon or later they have to face those Chinese wrestlers. Is that "sad"? I don't think so. If a Chen Taiji guy can handle himself on the mat or in the ring, his Chen Taiji is good , otherwise, his Chen Taiji is bad.



I used practiced sambo in my youth it's much better than this! I understand a lot of people may find this video very delightful and martial, but this only due to fact that nobody really knows what original purpose of push hand practice was, and how traditional Chen used in wrestling scenarios.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Feb 5, 2016)

ChenAn said:


> how traditional Chen used in wrestling scenarios.


For the sake of discussion, if you are a Chen Taiji guy (or other Taiji system guy), what will you do when your opponent drags your arm like this in push hand?


----------



## Goku2 (Feb 5, 2016)

You follow, of course!


----------



## Goku2 (Feb 5, 2016)

ChenAn said:


> I like ZTC he is fun delightful guy to study with..However, there is  a sad truth about 4 tigers. It not that much about self discovery and internalization, it's about lost transmission and lack of knowledge. Chen Zhaopi was too old to show much sick and demoralized by cultural revolution while Chen Zhaokui brief visits interrupted by  a sudden death from stroke in 1981 (yes it's genetic in Chen Fake line, Chen Fake brother died from a stoke as well)
> 
> The truth is there are no old frame and new frame (laojia and xinjia respectfully) as it presented today. There are only big (dajia) and small (xiaojia) frame in Chen method. Unfortunately Chen village lost it and had to make up for the lost knowledge on their own. Chen Fake line was able to retain original method. CFK frame was't really new (as it labeled by Chen village today) it shared the same core as the small frame. Contemporary Chen maser don't have that knowledge and marketing it as is. Only Chen Xiowang had some of it when he was young, but he changed it over the years for whatever reasons. What village has today is a sad display of modern sport wrestling - not traditional Chen. Here Chen Xiaoxing brunch
> 
> ...


My current teacher studied with Ma Hong and Chen Yu. Ma Hong studied with Chen Zhaokui. I cannot agree with you more, ChenAn, as I too started over.


----------



## ChenAn (Feb 5, 2016)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> For the sake of discussion, if you are a Chen Taiji guy (or other Taiji system guy), what will you do when your opponent drags your arm like this in push hand?



In my line if someone ascent his hand on the arm is happiest moment. A lot of things can be done..To answer your question let me come from another angle - one thing I wouldn't do is to hold an opponent resisting his pull


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Feb 5, 2016)

Goku2 said:


> You follow, of course!


Are you talking about "yielding"?


----------



## Goku2 (Feb 5, 2016)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Are you talking about "yielding"?


If my opponent wants me to go in a direction, I oblige.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Feb 5, 2016)

Goku2 said:


> If my opponent wants me to go in a direction, I oblige.


Both resisting and yielding are all bad solutions. The reason is you are reacting as your opponent wants you to react. IMO, the best solution is to take the control back and attack. The question is how? If you don't train this counter in Taiji PH, you may not react properly when it happens.

There are so many "wrestling strategies" such as "arm dragging" and "circle running" that can be integrated into Taiji PH. I believe Chen Taiji is doing that (which is not a "sad" thing), but in my opinion, they are still not doing enough yet.


----------



## Goku2 (Feb 5, 2016)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Both resisting and yielding are all bad solutions. The reason is you are react as your opponent want you to react. IMO, the best solution is to take the control back and attack. The question is how to that?


I cannot help you understand this, but I'll give it a try. One follows (yield, if you will) until your opponent 'runs out' of his own. Change must occur. The video you posted is not of a very skilled player as there is too much of a gap between opponents.


----------



## Goku2 (Feb 5, 2016)

Goku2 said:


> I cannot help you understand this, but I'll give it a try. One follows (yield, if you will) until your opponent 'runs out' of his own. Change must occur. The video you posted is not of a very skilled player as there is too much of a gap between opponents.


One 'sticks' closer so that one is able to 'read' the opponent. Think of this: You do NOT let a kicker kick - you close the gap, not allowing his/her room to launch an attack.


----------



## mograph (Feb 5, 2016)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Both resisting and yielding are all bad solutions. The reason is you are reacting as your opponent wants you to react.


There are two components to the reaction: spatial and temporal. You (KFW) are only thinking about spatial: going where the opponent wants. However, if we consider the temporal component, a good tai chi artist goes where the opponent wants (sticking), but _sooner_ than the opponent wants him to (sensing & anticipating), closing the distance and staying "in the game", maintaining options. Actually, by staying close, black would _not_ be going where white wants: white depends on a specific orientation (distance and angle), and black need not oblige.



Goku2 said:


> One follows (yield, if you will) until your opponent 'runs out' of his own. Change must occur. The video you posted is not of a very skilled player as there is too much of a gap between opponents.


Yes -- the black shirt is not sensing or sticking in order to anticipate, but instead is waiting for white shirt to define the interaction.



Goku2 said:


> One 'sticks' closer so that one is able to 'read' the opponent. Think of this: You do NOT let a kicker kick - you close the gap, not allowing his/her room to launch an attack.


Yes. A good Tai chi artist would be aware enough to sense that the pull was coming (before white shirt reached full extension) and move in to push white shirt, disrupt him, or strike. Black shirt is very slow: why is he standing there, not even turning as white shirt moves around him before reaching full extension? He should have turned _with_ white shirt and closed the gap, never allowing white to get beside/behind him, and should have moved _with_ white shirt, never allowing him to get that far away.

Of course, another option for black would be to spiral his arm to release white's grip.


----------



## Goku2 (Feb 5, 2016)

Yes, I agree - I missed the temporal big time!


----------



## ChenAn (Feb 5, 2016)

I used to have a student who asked a lot of questions like "how to react on this" or "what to do on that"..I always answer him - I don't know how I will react or what I will do unless you try. Then depending on your action I will do what my body feel is appropriate at the moment.  

Similar answer come to mind on posted video above. The only thing I think is wrong in to do is resist to the pull. Whatever will follow next - weather its going to be  sealing, the gap,   following , kicking, punching , locking or any combination of thereof  totally depends on my sensitivity and reaction...


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Feb 5, 2016)

ChenAn said:


> I used to have a student who asked a lot of questions like "how to react on this" or "what to do on that"..I always answer him - I don't know how I will react or what I will do unless you try.


Whenever my students ask me such question, I would always tell them that instead of reacting to their opponent's attack, they should take they control back.

In this "circle running arm dragging" example, you should neither resist nor yield because that's exactly what your opponent want you to do. The "arm dragging" is a "door opening" move. Depending on your opponent's reaction, it open many doors for you. In order to take your control back, you can use "引(Yin) - arm guiding" to press across the elbow joint of his dragging arm (this will interrupt his arm dragging). At the same time if you step in front of his leading leg (this will interrupt his circular footwork), you can then take your control back and apply your counter.


----------



## ChenAn (Feb 5, 2016)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Whenever my students ask me such question, I would always tell them that instead of reacting to their opponent's attack, they should take they control back.
> 
> In this "arm dragging" example, you should neither resist nor yield. When your opponent use his arm to drag your arm, you can use "引(Yin) - arm guiding" to press across the elbow joint of his dragging arm. At the same time if you step in front of his leading leg to interrupt his circular footwork, you can take your control back and counter with a beautify "head lock leg blocking" throw.



When it comes to usage I'd rather show than talk 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------

