Mr. Zhu Huaiyuan - Yang Style Tai Chi (Old Sixth Form)

[windwalker099]

I'm not questioning the teacher's ability. I'm questioning the end usage of "push". You can put on any "push" video. my question is still the same.

The interaction is not about pushing or using brute force. If you perceive it as pushing, test whether force achieves the same result—it won’t. Instead, the skill relies on sensitivity and whole-body connectedness, where any point of contact links to the entire body. There’s no single target; the goal is to disrupt the opponent’s balance and structure.

Developing this skill transforms the nature of combat. Striking, grappling, or any interaction becomes about control and efficiency, forcing the opponent to recover from the effects. Depending on your skill level, this disruption can create openings for follow-up techniques or be decisive on its own.

In demonstrations, practitioners showcase these skills in a controlled manner, allowing others to feel the effects without harm. However, in real combat, the same techniques would be applied decisively, leaving no time for the opponent to react.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

this disruption can create openings for follow-up techniques or be decisive on its own.

This is the part that I don't agree with.

disruption -> follow-up technique

IMO, you move in and take your opponent down. The disruption is not needed.

 

[windwalker099]

This is the part that I don't agree with.

disruption -> follow-up technique

IMO, you move in and take your opponent down. The disruption is not needed.

It’s the “level “ of skill that determines what can be done or not. In the gif’s posted. There is a large disparity of skill level between the demonstrator and the one acting as the opponent.

 

[isshinryuronin]

IMO, you move in and take your opponent down. The disruption is not needed.

Disruption may be helpful to set up moving in. Once you're in takedown position it's not needed (unless you aren't efficient in immediately executing the takedown and the opponent begins resistance).

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

Disruption may be helpful to set up moving in.

The disruption should be a "pull" instead of a "push". You can use "pull" to set up moving in. I just don't see how you can use "push" to set up moving in.

The purpose of

- move in is to close the distance.
- "push" is to increase distance.

Both contradict to each other. Do you have any example?

Here is an example to use "pull" to set up a strike.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

It’s the “level “ of skill that determines what can be done or not. In the gif’s posted. There is a large disparity of skill level between the demonstrator and the one acting as the opponent.

Do you have any example that one uses "push" to set up a punch or a throw? I just cannot image how that will work.

 

[isshinryuronin]

Do you have any example that one uses "push" to set up a punch or a throw? I just cannot image how that will work.

See my post #26

The disruption should be a "pull" instead of a "push". You can use "pull" to set up moving in. I just don't see how you can use "push" to set up moving in.

The disruption I was thinking of is a strike on the lead arm or leg, or a distraction such as a feint or kiai, not a push. I was a little off topic.

My post #26 would be used when I'm up against the opponent but in poor position (or lacking in skill) to take advantage. The "push" combo described allows me to disengage and give me distance/time to re-boot my attack and move back in with a superior position.

 

[windwalker099]

Do you have any example that one uses "push" to set up a punch or a throw? I just cannot image how that will work.

It's not a push nor about pushing

Examples of the training, have already been provided to demonstrate what can be achieved using this method as part of an overall strategy. What is done is executed at the point of contact or beforehand—it doesn’t need to be part of a larger system (e.g., a punch or throw), though it can be integrated into an approach based on either.

The best way forward is to test whether one can replicate what’s shown in the videos. If they can’t, it likely means they wouldn’t be able to use the method effectively or fully understand how it could be applied.

Does it matter ?

 

[Same Trick]

The OP(WW) attribute the method to Wang Yongquan as of being Wang’s continued development of Yang-taijiquan, however Wei Shuren seems to have stated it’s pure Yang taijiquan from the teachings by Yang Jianhou .
So It’s somewhat interesting considering the participants in this thread. One of the more famous disciples of Yang Jianhou was General Li Jinglin, general Li was good friend and Taiji teacher of Chang Dongsheng the legendary wrestling grandmaster, who’s Taiji Quan demonstrations occasionally been posted on this forum and else place can be seen significantly different both in form and application from for example above mentioned Wei Shuren’s demonstrations.

Also interesting is another famous linage from Yang Jianhou through Li Jinglin is that of the “wushu’ish” taijiquan represented by Li Deyin with the famous Beijing 24 taijiquan form and Yang 40, 81 and 88 forms .



Just an observation on how differently same linage so quickly can split

 

[Same Trick]

Wei Shuren, was considered a Chen style master at one time.

That Wei Shuren was a Chen-Taiji master is something I’ve only heard about lately years, about some 20 years ago I recall the info was he had only learned the Beijing 24 form(nothing wrong with that) prior to becoming a student of Wang Yongquan.



And this statement of him having practiced Chen and Wu-styles, but finding those “unprofitable” sounds somewhat strange, and to my mind makes his background seem somewhat muddled



“started training in the Chen- and Wu-styles of taiji at the age of 29. In 1980, after nearly stopping training in taiji as an unprofitable pursuit”

Wèi Shù Rén 魏树人

Wèi Shù Rén 魏树人 Wei Shuren (1924-2013) started training in the Chen- and Wu-styles of taiji at the age of 29. In 1980, after nearly stopping training in taiji as an unprofitable pursuit, he met the master of the Yang-style taiji, Wang Yongquang, who started to train Wei in the true deep skill of...

bajiquan.fandom.com

And also on top of that his Taiji line today is called “Imperial”Yang-taijiquan definitely doesn’t make the story any better.

 

[windwalker099]

That Wei Shuren was a Chen-Taiji master is something I’ve only heard about lately years, about some 20 years ago I recall the info was he had only learned the Beijing 24 form(nothing wrong with that) prior to becoming a student of Wang Yongquan.



And this statement of him having practiced Chen and Wu-styles, but finding those “unprofitable” sounds somewhat strange, and to my mind makes his background seem somewhat muddled



“started training in the Chen- and Wu-styles of taiji at the age of 29. In 1980, after nearly stopping training in taiji as an unprofitable pursuit”

Wèi Shù Rén 魏树人

Wèi Shù Rén 魏树人 Wei Shuren (1924-2013) started training in the Chen- and Wu-styles of taiji at the age of 29. In 1980, after nearly stopping training in taiji as an unprofitable pursuit, he met the master of the Yang-style taiji, Wang Yongquang, who started to train Wei in the true deep skill of...

bajiquan.fandom.com

As you may know, translations into English are sometimes done by those who do not fully understand the nuances of the language. For example, 有益的 (yǒu yì de), which means something beneficial, advantageous, or useful, can sometimes be translated as "profitable."

In my reading, it seemed to mean "not useful" or "not advantageous"

history from your link

"he met the master of the Yang-style taiji, Wang Yongquang, who started to train Wei in the true deep skill of taiji. Wei was known for his ability to use his inner strength hidden in extreme softness. This skill is shown in his tuishou pair training, which he preferred to call roushou (“kneading the hands”, cf. kneading dough)."


Lu Baochun 呂寶春

One of Wei's more public students didn’t seem to question his teacher. Of course, being his student, he could directly experience his skill.

And also on top of that his Taiji line today is called “Imperial”Yang-taijiquan definitely doesn’t make the story any better.

“Imperial”Yang-taijiquan"
A name ?

how about "Yangjia Michuan Taijiquan"
is that better ?

What is the story line?

We seem to be reading a different story

 

[windwalker099]

The OP(WW) attribute the method to Wang Yongquan as of being Wang’s continued development of Yang-taijiquan, however Wei Shuren seems to have stated it’s pure Yang taijiquan from the teachings by Yang Jianhou .
So It’s somewhat interesting considering the participants in this thread. One of the more famous disciples of Yang Jianhou was General Li Jinglin, general Li was good friend and Taiji teacher of Chang Dongsheng the legendary wrestling grandmaster, who’s Taiji Quan demonstrations occasionally been posted on this forum and else place can be seen significantly different both in form and application from for example above mentioned Wei Shuren’s demonstrations.

Different teachers reach different levels or specialize in different aspects.
People tend to perceive and interpret things based on what they can understand.

When looking at Teacher Chang Dongsheng (常東昇) style, it seems to me that it is essentially the same as the others but expressed in a different way based on his experience. Different enough that he did not feel the need to tie it to Yang style.
To my knowledge, the Yang family does not recognize it as part of their lineage, just as they do not recognize Zheng Manqing's (鄭曼青) style.

Also interesting is another famous linage from Yang Jianhou through Li Jinglin is that of the “wushu’ish” taijiquan represented by Li Deyin with the famous Beijing 24 taijiquan form and Yang 40, 81 and 88 forms .
Just an observation on how differently same linage so quickly can split

The Yang family had distinct methods of teaching and practicing, shaped by the temperament and personality of the founder’s sons and others. According to the Yang, families history,

While these differences were distinct, they may not have been significant enough to warrant a complete separation from the family style itself, as seen in other practices that adopt different names to mark their distinctions.