on the yang family long form

[bigfootsquatch]

There is, actually. That is why I included the Begging the Question link. It's not a logical fallacy in that it's definitely wrong. It's a logical fallacy because your reasoning is incomplete and unsound through unsupported (but expected to be true) implications.

In your very short reply, you imply many things. Your reasoning requires that certain premises be accepted as truth without any reason to.

For example, the very small part of your sentence "what the Yangs envisioned it to be". For any of your reasoning you have in your previous post to have merit, you would first have to know what the Yangs envisioned their Taiji to be. Then, you have to ask whether the first Yang to learn Taiji really sought to create a new style or was he just adapting Chen to his personal preferences. For any of your "Real Yang" (no true scotsman) reasoning to have any use, you have to assume that there is somehow a universal law which states "Yang starts here" and "Yang ends here".

Another example of you begging the question is:


This requires anyone to accept this as true to also accept the implication that any slight deviation from a "standard" not only is "not good fuel" but also that our "engines" is unable to "run properly" on this other form of fuel.

As far as any martial arts is concerned, there are usually two main aspects of "run properly": it's good for our health; it's good for fighting.

For any of your complaints about the slight differences in Yang form to have any merit, you have to establish that there is some main standard in which to move your body. Then you have to prove that this is indeed healthy and also good for fighting with. Then you have to prove that there is no other way to get this optimal state.

Then you have to realise the implications of this if you actually do try to define it. Because then you would have implied that Yang Taiji is the superior martial art. You would have implied that Chen is inferior to "proper" Yang Taiji because, obviously, Chen moves in different ways to Yang. However, if you don't agree with these implications (which I'm quite sure you wouldn't), then you would have to agree that modifications to whatever the "original" Yang is is not a priori bad fuel. Nor can you a priori state that this different fuel is not good for your engine.

And, as others have said, evolution of the martial art happens. On the general scale, you beg the question that Yang is defined by a point in time, rather than defined by its evolution. In much the same way, if you define many things by a point in time rather than its evolution, you beg a whole lot of questions. Most of which are not absolute/universal/objective standards and most of which clearly cannot have complete dominance over another.

So you spent your whole post on trying to pick apart mine?

 

[East Winds]

bigfootsquatch,

Well said. I'm with you all the way on this. People who consider that it is OK to change a style or form when they have very little experience or understanding of that form are the people who end up practising half baked taiji.

Evolution does not necessarily equate with improvement. Go back and read Darwin!!!

 

[oxy]

So you spent your whole post on trying to pick apart mine?

It's another no-win situation for me.

You make an logically flawed statement. And when someone tries to correct it and explain why your points need to be more solid, all you need to do is to make the other person look like a try-hard or petty as if that invalidates my points.

So basically, what you're really looking for is just for people to either agree with you, or to allow you to retain false notions in you head. It seems you make a lot of posts and threads that are very good at getting reputation points.

 

[oxy]

Evolution does not necessarily equate with improvement. Go back and read Darwin!!!

Although it has been shown, since Darwin, that stagnation ALWAYS equate to elimination.

Furthermore, since Darwin, it has been repeatedly shown that diversity is beneficial overall.

So evolution doesn't necessarily equate with improvement for the LONG term. But evolution is guaranteed to weed out the IMMEDIATELY undesirable traits. That is, if it is being put under evolutionary pressures and it is also able to mix with diverse populations.

 

[oxy]

So you spent your whole post on trying to pick apart mine?

http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Gish_Gallop

It's easy to write short posts in a Gish Gallop format.

It's hard not to write long posts to debunk Gish Gallops.

But nice try anyway to avoid facing the flaws in your arguments.

 

[bigfootsquatch]

http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Gish_Gallop

It's easy to write short posts in a Gish Gallop format.

It's hard not to write long posts to debunk Gish Gallops.

But nice try anyway to avoid facing the flaws in your arguments.

Well, I do believe it is about time you grew up. Nice try in covering up your incompetences with cute phrases and wikipedia. Anyway, I'm done arguing with you child.

Thanks to everyone who answered my questions. I believe it is now time we move on from this discussion before people start getting their feelings hurt.

 

[oxy]

Well, I do believe it is about time you grew up. Nice try in covering up your incompetences with cute phrases and wikipedia. Anyway, I'm done arguing with you child.

Incompetencies?

You made a few points.

I pointed out the flaws in your points with explanations and everything. Then you brush it off with a comment that implies somehow that my long post is invalidated by way of, heck I don't know what to call it.

And now, you point to some vague incompetencies that I'm supposed to have and which you have failed to point out any actual examples. Furthermore, calling me a "child". You say I should grow up, implying my behaviour is somehow immature. And yet, up until this point, all I have done is try to show you where your reasoning is weak. So basically, all you're implying is that using intelligence is somehow immature and really speaks to the anti-intellectual culture of modern western society.

And yet in none of your posts have you bothered to address your logical flaws and other flaws of reasoning. You know, since calling me names is somehow LESS childish than trying to give an extensive explanation of reasoning weaknesses.

Keep up your useless threads that keep on bashing Erle Montaigue (as if he has any effect on your Taiji) and get cheap reputation points. Because, you know, it's really going to help your self-taught Taiji (with which you somehow feel qualified to tell people what Yang Taiji should be (ie, that everything should be picture perfect and mass-produced consistency)).

 

[East Winds]

oxy,

Thanks for the input. You really should stop reading Wikipedia!!!:rofl:

I suppose that is why the cockroach has "stagnated" for so long and found absolutely no need to evolve further. Ignore cladistics and explore stable cadres. (No don't go to Wikipedia!!).

Like bigfootsquatch, this thread got lost some time ago. I'm outa here.

 

[oxy]

oxy,

Thanks for the input. You really should stop reading Wikipedia!!!:rofl:

I suppose that is why the cockroach has "stagnated" for so long and found absolutely no need to evolve further. Ignore cladistics and explore stable cadres. (No don't go to Wikipedia!!).

Right, because Wikipedia must be automatically wrong. Therefore, the sun really revolves around the Earth because Wikipedia says otherwise.

I like the way you put quotes around the word "stagnated" to acknowledge the fact that cockroaches haven't REALLY stagnated but sufficiently similar to their ancestors to make your point. Not to mention that there are so many variety of cockroaches (eg segmented vs non-segmented, flight capable vs groundlocked) that didn't all appear at once.

The amazing thing about cockroaches is that they have hit their niche very early on and can survive in much the same way for millions of years.

If people are willing to claim this level of perfection for Yang Taiji (which necessarily implies that all other martial arts must be inferior) then I guess there's not much else to say. Hell, if any single Yang practitioner can claim this level of perfection...

Like bigfootsquatch, this thread got lost some time ago. I'm outa here.

Different people have different perceptions.

I considered this thread lost from the moment he created a second thread aiming to get cheap accolades by bashing Erle and other unnamed noobs all those months ago.

 

[exile]

ATTENTION ALL USERS:

Please keep the discussion at a mature, respectful level. Please review our sniping policy http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/sho...d.php?p=427486. Feel free to use the Ignore feature to ignore members whose posts you do not wish to read (it is at the bottom of each member's profile). Thank you.

Bob Levine
-MT Moderator-

 

[bigfootsquatch]

ATTENTION ALL USERS:

Please keep the discussion at a mature, respectful level. Please review our sniping policy http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/sho...d.php?p=427486. Feel free to use the Ignore feature to ignore members whose posts you do not wish to read (it is at the bottom of each member's profile). Thank you.

Bob Levine
-MT Moderator-

Thanks, I did not realize there was an ignore function. I'll put it to good use though. Since we have a moderator to keep the things from going wild again, maybe we can keep this discussion alive!

 

[bigfootsquatch]

And then there is Yang Sau Cheung, Yang Chen Fu's son. The video is poor.

Ip Tai Tak was Yang Sau Cheung's student:

http://www.iptaichi.org/video3.html

:ultracool

I've always been interested in Sau Cheung's branch and have wondered about the snake, crane, and tiger yang styled tai chi systems which is discussed on that same site: http://www.iptaichi.org/snakestyle.htm

 

[Nyarlathotep]

I meant more of along the lines of people forming their own schools before they have completely learned the art from their teacher. Perhaps they do not understand why a certain move is done the way it is, so THEN they change it.

I fully agree with you, and have experienced just this on several occasions, though I feel I have made my position quite clear already it bears repeating.
Good T'ai Chi is good T'ai Chi, regardless of whether it is Traditional Yang style, 24 step, 37 step or for that matter Chen, Sun or whatever.

I understand, to a point, about why the Yangs have modified the forms over the years, though I do not necessarily agree with it. Of course Lu Chan reshaped Chen style accordingly, but he was also an exceptional martial artist who modified it only after 30 or so years of intensive practice.

And if the Tai Chi Boxing Chronicle is to be believed he neutered his own form in an attempt to placate the Manchus, without giving too many of the secrets away.
The Yang form we are left with today is therefore very likely deliberately modified so as to conceal and obscure the correct applications.

When people modify things out of ignorance rather than experience, then we start getting bad tai chi, or half baked tai chi as you said. Most martial artists wouldn't be laughing at tai chi or treating it as a health art if it would not have gone through so many "progressive" modifications.

Is that any less harmful than when knowledgeable people modify things to deliberately obscure?

This post wasn't just aimed at you, I just quoted you since I liked your post best. Sorry if my message sounds scatterbrained.

Not at all mate as long that is as you don't mind my scatterbrained replies.

 

[Nyarlathotep]

bigfootsquatch,

Well said. I'm with you all the way on this. People who consider that it is OK to change a style or form when they have very little experience or understanding of that form are the people who end up practising half baked taiji.

Evolution does not necessarily equate with improvement. Go back and read Darwin!!!

Evolution is not necessarily improvement, but then neither is fossilisation.

Change coupled with some selection mechanism gives rise to what we call Survival of the fittest, which is a euphemism for the capacity of life forms that are well suited to their environment to survive and reproduce.

Now diversification is inevitable, but unfortunately the selection mechanism that would weed out the inferior practices and practitioners (combat) has been suppressed by polite society.

Given this I fully understand your annoyance at the preponderance of half baked T'ai Chi (I feel the same way.. especially as I can't find a decent teacher for love nor money where I live) and equation of diversity with inferiority, as well as the desire to resist degradation, but that doesn't change the simple fact that skill at T'ai Chi remains a property of the practitioner, rather than the form!

Personally speaking the two best T'ai Chi players I have encountered thus far practiced the Chen and Man-Ching styles respectively, and the very worst and most self-deluded... we're talking knuckle biting embarrassment, look away because it's too painful to watch.. was from the Yang style.

Does this mean I think Yang style is inferior based only on this... Not a bit of it.. I just recognise that this lumbering hamhock of dead flesh was a paragon of how not to do it.

 

[bigfootsquatch]

And if the Tai Chi Boxing Chronicle is to be believed he neutered his own form in an attempt to placate the Manchus, without giving too many of the secrets away.
The Yang form we are left with today is therefore very likely deliberately modified so as to conceal and obscure the correct applications.

Is that any less harmful than when knowledgeable people modify things to deliberately obscure?

Well that is probably a prime reason why people teach half baked tai chi. The teachers that DO know generally do not teach the "full/secret transmission" until after an ungodly amount of years and time invested into the modifed art. I may be totally off my rocker in saying this, but even in the day when guns were not the norm. I do not see how concealing an art is going to keep bad people from doing bad things.

Back to Lu Chan I imagine if he did not yield highly skilled tai chi artists in the imperial court, then he would have been put to death the same as if he had not taught at all, whether he taught a modified art to them or not.

Any of that make sense?

 

[Nyarlathotep]

Back to Lu Chan I imagine if he did not yield highly skilled tai chi artists in the imperial court, then he would have been put to death the same as if he had not taught at all, whether he taught a modified art to them or not.

Any of that make sense?

Absolutely, but I also imagine you can get away with a huge amount based solely on reputation and gullibility.
After all the Alchemists frequently fleeced nobles on the promise (never delivered) of easy riches.

Unlike Alchemy which has a pretty definite and testable outcome, (i.e. it is a lump of gold, or it is a lump of purest green) martial arts ability is less objective, especially in a cloistered atmosphere like the court.
Lesser ability can always be passed off as lack of diligence or natural ability on the part of the student.

Besides being trained by a master of great renown is to some extent it's own reward, especially as what is being sought is not necessarily martial ability per-se, but rather a fearsome reputation.
"Our personal guards and even the princes were trained in the fighting arts by the greatest fighter in the empire dontchaknow! ... No of course they never have to actually fight, this is the palace!"


My personal guess is simply that the largest omission made by Lu-Chan was in neglecting to teach the subtle internal aspect of the art such as understanding, listening and issuing energy, but this has been a bone of contention as at least one 'teacher' I know firmly believes that Lu-Chan just removed fast movements and sharp exhalations (he calls this fajing, I happen to disagree) from his form and taught it as a genteel dance.

 

[Sunrise]

I've always been interested in Sau Cheung's branch and have wondered about the snake, crane, and tiger yang styled tai chi systems which is discussed on that same site: http://www.iptaichi.org/snakestyle.htm

Hi bigfootsquatch,
what yang style are you training in, and what are you wondering about exactly?

 

[bigfootsquatch]

Hi bigfootsquatch,
what yang style are you training in, and what are you wondering about exactly?

Firstly, my MA school teaches a style very similiar to tai chi in terms of internal movement and applications. I also learned the 24 short form at the martial art school I am at, along with several other qigong exercises, then I expanded my tai chi knowledge based off the 24 short form through self study. My main sources thus far have been the Tai Chi classics, tons of videos, though I originally learned the 108 form by studying Terrence Dunn's video(mix of family yang/dong style with commencement and closing movements being more of chen man chings). Later I changed it to more in line with Erle Montaigue's Cheng Fu form, which you can find videos on his site or youtube. His is more in line with sau chungs, but he took out the forward lean. I am also working on Sun style.

As for what I wanted to know, what are the differences in the snake, crane, and tiger versions of the yang forms?

 

[Sunrise]

Well, the namings come mostly from the movements of the form in correspondance to the three animals.

Crane style has large movements in big circles, similar to a crane who sands on the ground and swings his wings to shoo an enemy out of his territory.

Tigerstyle is more direct in its movements, going straight forward, has strong rooting as hell and is really good for fighting, like a tiger running through an enemy. (visit Gin Soon Chu for great Tigerstyle taiji)

Snakestyle moves more at angles, like a snake that sways from the left to the right to attack from a blind side. To the untrained eye it is very much like tigerstyle - but different. It also has great rooting, but more twisting and more upperbodymovement in all directions and a different placing of the weight for faster stepping techniques. (visit Bob Boyd for great Snakestyle taiji)

 

[bigfootsquatch]

Well, the namings come mostly from the movements of the form in correspondance to the three animals.

Crane style has large movements in big circles, similar to a crane who sands on the ground and swings his wings to shoo an enemy out of his territory.

Tigerstyle is more direct in its movements, going straight forward, has strong rooting as hell and is really good for fighting, like a tiger running through an enemy. (visit Gin Soon Chu for great Tigerstyle taiji)

Snakestyle moves more at angles, like a snake that sways from the left to the right to attack from a blind side. To the untrained eye it is very much like tigerstyle - but different. It also has great rooting, but more twisting and more upperbodymovement in all directions and a different placing of the weight for faster stepping techniques. (visit Bob Boyd for great Snakestyle taiji)

Thank you for that info. I know it has been awhile since you posted it and I never got around to saying thanks :asian:

So then the snake, tiger, and crane style are basically the different methods of performing the yang form, or are they different forms with many similiarities? Does that even make sense?