Chainsawing Yang Cheng Fu

[grydth]

An article in the current (May 2007) issue of Kung Fu Tai Chi manages, in my opinion, to capture both the best and the worst of current writings on our art. As I was discussing with EastWinds yesterday, this is a prime example of writing with an agenda. By this, I mean a writer who has motivations besides that of simply conveying information.

"Yang Tai Chi as a Fighting Art" by Dale Napier introduces us to Master George Hu, his teachings and philosophy. Hu is an advocate and teacher of "Michuan" a/k/a "YMT" , a supposedly secret version of Yang Tai Chi with a pure focus on martial applications. Hu believes this secret should be taught publicly. Hu stresses forms only have value to the extent they can be effectively applied in a combat setting. The article nicely illustrates how to apply two common Yang postures to self defense situations.

If only this were all that was said, I would think it was absolutely terrific.

But, unfortunately, there is more.... Hu and Napier succumb to trying to sell this art by using questionable writing tactics to disparage a central figure in Yang Tai Chi..... Yang Cheng Fu.

The article asserts that the martial YMT tradition was never passed to Yang Cheng Fu and states,"The story of how this happened is curious and interesting, but must be left for another time." How convenient. One indeed might be concerned at a key tradition being withheld, and the inferences to be drawn from that - - - but Napier excuses Hu and himself from backing their disturbing claim. If one is going to make such a claim, it should be fully and forthrightly supported!

Hu asserts he instead was trained by Wang Yennien, who had been taught by Zhang Qinlin..... but the article then goes on to state," Increasingly softer and simpler routines were developed for public consumption...Many believe... Yang Cheng Fu took this evolution several steps too far, which resulted in a system more widely practiced for health alone, with little martial content."

"Many believe...", but none are named. Once again, how convenient. Who are these believers: Serious scholars, teachers and practitioners? Anna Nicole Smith Groupies? Disciples of Master Hu?

Since when does "many believe" equal what is true? Many once believed in a flat earth, but that made no difference. Is mass opinion to replace careful research and evidence gathering?

Left conveniently unexplained is the huge logical gap in how large numbers of health practitioners equals a conclusion that large numbers are not also practicing Tai Chi as a martial art.

Since Master Hu claims no lineage from Yang Cheng Fu, he has no business disparaging him. How would he know all of what was passed to Yang Cheng Fu? If he is no part of this lineage, practice or hierarchy , how can he say there is little or no martial tradition remaining? (Obviously, somebody forgot to tell my instructor that, as he emphasized martial applications!)

In all candor, I can see no justification for their even mentioning Yang Cheng Fu in the article, other than to try to make Master Hu's art look better by comparison. The journalistic tactics were simply cheap parlor tricks.

Master Hu and Mr Napier should know that an art must survive on its own merits.... no good will come of trying to promote it by chainsawing a deservedly respected figure such as Yang Cheng Fu.

 

[charyuop]

By what I read Yang Cheng-Fu was a very good fighter, very hard to defeat.
Even tho old China customes, I seriously doubt that belonging to the Yang family they withdrew information from Yang Chneg-Fu. Either he was not worthy to learn Tai Chi or he was worthy to learn it all.
If you read the book with the classical from Yang Cheng-Fu, you will see that the way he talks about Tai Chi and above all HIS Tai Chi makes you understand that it has a value in Martial Art.
I agree it might not be as complete as can be Traditional or Chen Style, but let's think that YCF tried to modify Tai Chi to give people not phisically well fit a way to defend themselves.
Unfortunately you hear attacking Yang Cheng-Fu's Tai Chi all the time...

 

[Xue Sheng]

Welcome to the wonderful world of Yang Taiji politics. And the “my sifu is better than your sifu” argument. If you focus on this to much it will suck you in, and I am talking from experience.

Yang Chengfu was a talented Martial Artists. It is very easy to say someone is no good if he is not around to prove you wrong.

And if Chengfu did not know martial arts then where did my sifu and his sifu learn it?

You can complain or you can train, I choose train. I have complained enough.

 

[grydth]

By what I read Yang Cheng-Fu was a very good fighter, very hard to defeat.
Even tho old China customes, I seriously doubt that belonging to the Yang family they withdrew information from Yang Chneg-Fu. Either he was not worthy to learn Tai Chi or he was worthy to learn it all.
If you read the book with the classical from Yang Cheng-Fu, you will see that the way he talks about Tai Chi and above all HIS Tai Chi makes you understand that it has a value in Martial Art.
I agree it might not be as complete as can be Traditional or Chen Style, but let's think that YCF tried to modify Tai Chi to give people not phisically well fit a way to defend themselves.
Unfortunately you hear attacking Yang Cheng-Fu's Tai Chi all the time...

Any innovator, be it Yang Cheng Fu or Chen Man Ching, will be attacked from many quarters. Attacks multiply once a man is dead and cannot defend himself. But... It is the cheapness and nastiness of this attack that bothers me.

Out one side of his mouth, the author makes the unsupported assertion that Yang Cheng Fu was not given the secret martial transmission; then out of the other side of his mouth, the author cites the unnamed "many" claiming Yang Cheng Fu was the one who took the martial side out of Tai Chi!

Cannot even a child see through such a ploy?

The sad thing is that Master Hu probably has an art of some quality, at least worth taking a look at.... but I would never visit a Master who resorts to this.