What is Considered Bad Taijiquan?

[oxy]

Yes, surprisingly enough, the Yang 10 essences are part of Chen, or rather it is the other way about. The Chens produced (or rather owned) "The Mental Elucidation of the 13 Postures". Yang took these and amalgamated a couple to make his 10 Essences. But they are all there. Which of course covers your second point about consistency of postures between the families.

Well actually, my second point consisted of multiple types of consistency of which one of them was interpretation. That Yang essences modified the thirteen, which means some kind of incompatibility between what the Chens thought and what the Yang's thought the principles mean.

And then, there's also the other family styles.

Which members of which family stated that the other was doing bad taiji? Statements like that need source.

I wasn't talking about specific ones. But that Yang-Chen politics seem to have gained an infamous reputation in some circles. And I suspect that no one from either family will publicly state anything of that nature. A thought experiment that tries to get them to work together on a "new taiji" (not specific to taiji, but within other schismed disciplines like Catholics and Protestants working together to get a "new Christianity") easily shows the potential for disagreement.

I don't know what "Chen fajin" is. Fa Jin is Fa Jin. The translation is "to issue energy". The Yang Traditional form is full of Fa Jin. Not as overt as in Chen. Yang Cheng-fu did not remove Fa Jin from his form, he merley hid it within his form. Push hands with a Traditonal Yang Family stylist and you will certainly find their Fa Jin. (The modern Chinese Government forms do not train Fa Jin, but then, neither are they Yang style).

I used "Chen-style fajin" (in that context) as a set of properties. That makes Yang fajin different (in the context I used) because of the differences that you described. I fully understand that Yang has fajin. But I was saying that there must be some philosophical differences between Yang and Chen that made Yang-style develop into something more subtle than Chen. And those differences (along with other possible ones) can make one "bad taiji" in terms of the other (not that either side will publicly start the fight).

And now finally to clear up a couple of points. I did not critise you personally, I was criticising Statistics as I thought I had made clear in my tongue in cheek post about the 3 "facts" of statistical analysis.
...
I'm sorry if you felt my responses were personal, but I'm sure you will suffer much worse than that over the years of your life.

You criticised statistics. Then I criticised your criticism as not accurately portraying statistics but more like portraying people's general misconceptions about statistics (which I still stand by). Then you criticised my criticism by using the ad hominem fallacy of labelling my education in statistics as "High School" level, among other things. That makes it ad hominem because you made the argument that "X made statement A, but possessed the less-than-desirable quality of X', therefore the statement A is wrong/inaccurate".

I don't know any latin, but the area of logical fallacy regarding ad hominem is exactly how I describe. There is a common misconception that ad hominem is simply any personal attack, but it's use in logic is specifically for an personal attack that implies an inaccuracy by the attacked. Therefore my point was not that I was personally attacked, but that I was personally attacked in order to have my actual arguments ignored.

However I will continue to address such points as I think are falacious when they are expressed on a public discussion board.

Very best wishes

What a coincidence! Addressing fallacious points was why I joined the discussion in the first place.

 

[Xue Sheng]

One must take into account on any discussion of comparing Yang and Chen that what generally happens is that you are comparing the current Yang style to Chen which is not the Yang style that came directly from Chen. For that you would need to find someone with a clear line to Yang Shao Hou or Yang Ban Hou, which as much as some want to deny its existence, it still exists on mainland China and in Taiwan as well I believe.

Yang Luchan learned Chen style and changed it to Yang style. Yang Jianhou learned this Yang style and changed it and Yang Chengfu learned the Yang style of Jianhou and changed it again.

And not meaning to be argumentative but Chengfu did remove some of the fajing from the style.

 

[East Winds]

Xue Sheng,

Not wishing to be argumentative either, but I would be interested in knowing from which parts of the form you think Cheng-fu removed the Fa Jin?

Very best wishes

 

[Xue Sheng]

I have read several articles on the change that say he removed some of the fajing from the form. Most unfortunately I do not remember where they are and I have none to site.

However if you look at Chen style Laojia yilu and erlu and if you can find a person that does Yang of Banhou or Shaohou, the closest I have found and the only well known person I know that claims lineage to Banhou is Yang Jwing Ming. You see a lot of fajing. Yes some of it is overt and some is not but there is still more than you find (overt or hidden) in the current traditional Yang style from Yang Chengfu

Yang Luchan 15th generation Chen style, likely learned the longer version of Laojia yilu which was 108 forms. This is the style of Chen I use to do and there is one HECK of a lot of fast movement and fajing. most of which occurs in the current Yang family taiji. Yes Chengfu did hide some of it and yes there is fajing in Yang style long form but based on Chen I have done, the Yang I do and what I see from Yang Jwing Ming there is some missing in the Yang Long form.

Chen Changxin was Yang Luchan’s teacher and he has been credited with taking the forms of Chen Wang Ting and dividing them into two forms: Chen Yi Lu and Chen Er Lu (aka Pao Chui or Cannon Fist). These forms and the weapons forms are known as big frame Chen or Chen Lao Jia (old frame). This is what Luchan learned and it was likely full of one whole heck of a lot of Fajing.

Now it is possible that Yang Chengfu did not remove any of the fajing movements from the style that he learned, remember he did not learn the style of Luchan, he learned the style of Yang Jian Hou who had already changed the style of Luchan so it is possible that the fajing was removed by Jian Hou and not Chengfu.

 

[East Winds]

Xue Sheng,

You raise several interesting points. The whole subject of fa jin should probably have a thread of its own as I feel that although it is relevant to the title of this thread, it is sufficiently divergent to move to another thread.

The first problem is that we tend to think of Fa Jin only in terms of the fast power release we se in Chen style. However that is only one manifestation of Fa Jin. The translation of Fa Jin as you will know is "to release, issue or despatch energy" Nothing about speed or "explosive" energy release. The Elucidation of the Thirteen Postures states "Store energy (xu jin) as though drawing a bow. Issue energy (fa jin) as though releasing an arrow. Seek the straight in the curved. Store up then issue". Xu Jin is gathered and stored in Traditional Yang by practising Chou Si (gathering silk) in other words utilising the Yin aspect of the postures then issued as Fa Jin in the Yang aspect of the posture by delivering it from the feet, through the waist to the hands. When your Sifu puts you on your backside in push hands he is using Fa Jin and I'll bet there is no great out breath or sudden explosion of energy. My own teacher merely seems to expand and suddenly I'm picking myself off the floor.

I have great respect for Yang Jwing Ming but even he admits that he has made additions to the form he teaches therefore I don't think we can claim it comes from Ban Hou. I have seen several variations of the "Shao Hou" forms and again which is the "real" one? We can however be sure that what the Yangs are teaching today is the form as finally formulated by Cheng-fu. Fortunatley we have videos of Fu Zhong Wen and Yang Shou Zhong (a senior student and the 1st son of Chhng-fu) to confirm a true lineage. Can we be sure that what Chen Xiaownag and Chen Zhenli are teaching today is exactly what Chen Chanxing was teaching. I was learning Chen Laojia some years ago and that is where I learned about the subtle issue of Fa Jin as well as the fast way. I suspect that Yang Lu Chan also learned that from the Chens and that it has been transmitted through all the Yangs to the present day.

When we stop just "doing the form" and begin to incorporate the "Elucidation" and Cheng-fu's 10 essences into EVERY posture in the WHOLE form (and that's REALLY hard) then we are starting to learn to use and issue the energies that are inherent in the form. Unfortunately very few Yang stylists reach this stage and there are even fewer teachers teaching this stage. Yang Zhen Ji and Zhen Duo are certainly teaching it, which is why it comes to me via my own teachers.

Hope this either clears up some misconceptions or stimulates further discusssion. I would be happy to expand on any aspect of this post which is not clear.

Very best wishes

 

[Xue Sheng]

Xue Sheng,



You raise several interesting points. The whole subject of fa jin should probably have a thread of its own as I feel that although it is relevant to the title of this thread, it is sufficiently divergent to move to another thread.



The first problem is that we tend to think of Fa Jin only in terms of the fast power release we se in Chen style. However that is only one manifestation of Fa Jin. The translation of Fa Jin as you will know is "to release, issue or despatch energy" Nothing about speed or "explosive" energy release. The Elucidation of the Thirteen Postures states "Store energy (xu jin) as though drawing a bow. Issue energy (fa jin) as though releasing an arrow. Seek the straight in the curved. Store up then issue". Xu Jin is gathered and stored in Traditional Yang by practising Chou Si (gathering silk) in other words utilising the Yin aspect of the postures then issued as Fa Jin in the Yang aspect of the posture by delivering it from the feet, through the waist to the hands. When your Sifu puts you on your backside in push hands he is using Fa Jin and I'll bet there is no great out breath or sudden explosion of energy. My own teacher merely seems to expand and suddenly I'm picking myself off the floor.



I have great respect for Yang Jwing Ming but even he admits that he has made additions to the form he teaches therefore I don't think we can claim it comes from Ban Hou. I have seen several variations of the "Shao Hou" forms and again which is the "real" one? We can however be sure that what the Yangs are teaching today is the form as finally formulated by Cheng-fu. Fortunatley we have videos of Fu Zhong Wen and Yang Shou Zhong (a senior student and the 1st son of Chhng-fu) to confirm a true lineage. Can we be sure that what Chen Xiaownag and Chen Zhenli are teaching today is exactly what Chen Chanxing was teaching. I was learning Chen Laojia some years ago and that is where I learned about the subtle issue of Fa Jin as well as the fast way. I suspect that Yang Lu Chan also learned that from the Chens and that it has been transmitted through all the Yangs to the present day.



When we stop just "doing the form" and begin to incorporate the "Elucidation" and Cheng-fu's 10 essences into EVERY posture in the WHOLE form (and that's REALLY hard) then we are starting to learn to use and issue the energies that are inherent in the form. Unfortunately very few Yang stylists reach this stage and there are even fewer teachers teaching this stage. Yang Zhen Ji and Zhen Duo are certainly teaching it, which is why it comes to me via my own teachers.



Hope this either clears up some misconceptions or stimulates further discusssion. I would be happy to expand on any aspect of this post which is not clear.



Very best wishes

Ah but it sounds like you are making a similar assumption about Chen that you are accusing me of making about Yang.

Not all fajing in Chen style is evident or explosive. And from my experience with both and from past reading somewhere between Yang Luchan and Yang Chengfu some of the fajing was removed. There is not as much evident of otherwise fajing present in the Yang 108 form as there is in the Chen 108 Laojia yilu.

And which Laojia did you learn the current shorter laojia or the older longer one?

The older one that it is likely that Luchan learned was 108, not to be confused with a 108 long form Chen that is floating around Shandong as well. Also there is some discussion as to the 13 postures as seen by Chen and as seen by Yang. Some interpret the Chen view as 13 sections which are made up of sub-postures some of course interpret it as 13 postures of Chen the same as Yang, but a different order in translation.

It is possible that Luchan himself removed some jin to make Yang style, who knows, at least who knows for sure that is alive today. And the early Yang style was, I believe called 13 postures Taiji when he first taught it in or near Chen village.

As to Yang Jwing Ming what you say is true but there are a few I hear that still train the Yang of Shaohou and Banhou and I hope to some day meet one and see on do the form. I recently got a lead that there is one in Beijing. You can imagine how easy it will be to find one old Chinese guy in Beijing. :uhohh:

Yang Chengfu’s 10 essences are important but you also have Tung Ying Cheih’s views as well, I believe he wrote down about 12. There is more to Taiji than the 10 essences, fajing, Sandao and the Yang family. If you listen to Kwan Si Hung, who is likely the last living student of Chengfu he says all Yang style is contemporary today and not what the old master (Chengfu) taught and he is including the Yang family when he says this.

Yang is big on Shen, Chen is not, and that is why when I use my examples of good Taiji I reference Yang. If Sandao were the only indicator of good or bad Taiji then Chen could be defined as bad Taiji. If the 10 essences were the only indicator then I think it is Zhaobao (but I could be wrong) would likely be considered bad Taiji. All however seem to have a common link and that is the importance of posture and those vary from family to family and generation to generation.

So what is good Taiji and what is bad Taiji? I honestly think that is to broad a question and it would be more correct to ask what is good Yang style and what is bad Yang style? What is good Chen style what is bad Chen style? What is good Sun style and what is bad Sun style? Because when it is all said and done I still have my Sifu who was a student of Tung Ying Chieh on one side saying Chen is to low and on the other side Chen Zhenglei saying Yang is to high. Does that make them good or bad? Depends on your point of view I guess.

As to the true Yang lineage, who were Yang Shou Zhong teachers? Who were Yang Zendou’s teachers?

 

[pete]

you guys are too much~ seriously, very interesting read, but all the while my brain keeps telling me one's tai chi and one's form are two different things. for instance, one style may appear to have obvious fa jin, or fa li, while another may be less obviously... does that mean its been removed from the style or not part of one's tai chi?

coiling, spirals, etc may be big circles or "hidden within the sleeve"... does that mean they are in one style and not in the other.

low stances, high stances, who cares... are you rooted? do you have mobility? the depth of your stance is relative to those qualities, not outward "external" appearance.

i know you two are interested (to say the least) in lineage and purity of style, but good and bad go beyond that. i know you realize this too, and appreciate different practitioners of various styles and their interpretations of our art. yes, sound tai chi principles are core and the ability to make it work is paramount. beyond that its gets subjective. may as well be discussing whether batman or superman is the greatest hero.

oh well, back to the batcave...or the fortress of solitude?

pete

 

[Xue Sheng]

you guys are too much~ seriously, very interesting read, but all the while my brain keeps telling me one's tai chi and one's form are two different things. for instance, one style may appear to have obvious fa jin, or fa li, while another may be less obviously... does that mean its been removed from the style or not part of one's tai chi?

coiling, spirals, etc may be big circles or "hidden within the sleeve"... does that mean they are in one style and not in the other.

low stances, high stances, who cares... are you rooted? do you have mobility? the depth of your stance is relative to those qualities, not outward "external" appearance.

i know you two are interested (to say the least) in lineage and purity of style, but good and bad go beyond that. i know you realize this too, and appreciate different practitioners of various styles and their interpretations of our art. yes, sound tai chi principles are core and the ability to make it work is paramount. beyond that its gets subjective. may as well be discussing whether batman or superman is the greatest hero.

oh well, back to the batcave...or the fortress of solitude?

pete

Other than you, who mentioned purity of style in the definition of good or bad taiji?

And I am guessing by your response you did not actually read my last post.

And as a point of reference Batman and superman are fictional, taiji is not.

 

[pete]

... And as a point of reference Batman and superman are fictional, taiji is not.

as fictional as, say, Zhang San Feng?

 

[Xue Sheng]

as fictional as, say, Zhang San Feng?

But is he fictional? Not even Chinese Historians and martial artist agree on that one. However it is likely that just about everyone you talk to will agree that Batman and Superman are fictional characters. That have absolutely contributed nothing to Superhero training…. Oh wait superheroes are fictional too….. but interestingly enough Taiji isn’t.

And to what point is Zhang Sanfeng fictional, is his existence fictional, Taoists generally say no. Did he invent Taiji? The Chen family generally says no. There are Chinese historians that say they feel he existed and came up with something similar to the 13 postures but not actually Taiji. There are also hsitorians in China that point to Taiji Qigong as the precursor of Taijiquan and it may have combined with something from Zhang Sanfeng which when it got to the Chen family got combines with some Shaolin and BINGO taijiquan. There are also historians that disagree.

So is there some research or insight you would like to share with them to clear that little inconsistency up? I have the names of a couple you can contact if you like.

But mor eto th epoint of the post - was Zhang Sanfeng mentioned before as a basis of good or bad taiji?

 

[pete]

more to the point: is the criteria for good or bad tai chi based on form or function? the tool or what is accomplished through using the tool?

 

[East Winds]

Pete,

Yes, good relevant post!! and your references to principles and ability to make them work are spot on. But if you really want an argument, why did you not mention the greatest super hero of all - Spiderman

Xue Sheng,

"Not all fa jin in Chen is evident or explosive" I agree, and I thought that was the point I was trying to make. The supposed removal of fa jin by Cheng fu is misunderstood. Gu Liuxin who was a student of Cheng fu (and incidentally also of Chen Fake) says "Later, however, he (Cheng fu) changed to slow, gradual kicks, with the placement of fa jin (issuing energy) in the kicks being concealed within. His adroitness in push hands was exquisite; his skill at neutralising and in fa jin was unrivaled in his time"

Quite simply I think Kwan Si Hung was wrong. Fu Zhong Wen uses drawings (taken from photographs) of Cheng fu in his book showing his postures in detail. Chen Wei Ming's and later Cheng-fu's (Cheng Manching's) books on Taiji use original photographs and texts of Cheng fu and I can find no difference in any of these publications from what the Yang Family are teaching today. (And the teachings contained in Zhen Duo's book). Again the contemporary videos are consistent with these publications.

Yang Shou Zhong learned largely from his father and it is he who is used in some of the photographs in Cheng fu's book. I think Zhen Duo learned from both his elder brother (Zhen Ji) and from Fu Zhong Wen. I think he was only 6 when Cheng fu died.

I agree entirely that when considering what is good or bad Taiji we should address the problem from inter family practises. To compare Chen and Yang is like comparing apples and oranges. They are both fruits but that is as far it goes.

Very best wishes

 

[Xue Sheng]

To good or bad taiji

You know, I think the only way to tell good or bad taiji from the perspective of an average Taiji practitioner observing another person doing taiji is “bad posture” or using “to much muscular strength”.

However you could also make an argument that since they are using too much strength they are no using Yi or Shen properly, but then to say they are using too much strength or doing bad posture across all taiji styles would say you had an understanding of all taiji styles, which no one does really.

Beyond that, to me, this is just getting silly.


Now to contribute to the silly side here

East Winds

Do these all look the same to you?

Yang Shou Zong (Yang Sau Chung) Taiji.

Yang Zhenduo - Yang Style

Yang Jun

 

[East Winds]

Xue Sheng,

I am probably going to surprise you by saying yes, I think they are all doing the same!!!! :erg:

If you are only concerned with the external appearance of what you are seeing, the only difference is Shou Zhong is doing the form faster that Zhen Duo or Jun. Are they all complying with the classics, the elucidation and the essences; Absolutely. Shou Zhong takes 8 minutes, Zhen Duo takes 30 minutes, Jun takes 23 minutes. What difference does that make? Absolutely none. There is nothing in the classics about the speed at which a form should be performed. Fu Zhong Wen takes 20 minuites. Tung Ying Chieh splits the difference. He is slower than Shou Zhong and faster than Zhen Duo. Are they all doing the same form? Without a doubt!!! (Dare I suggest that Shou Zhong is doing the "lost" Yang fast form?)

When students ask me how to perform a particular posture they say "Should my hand be here or there. Should my feet be here or there?" I invariably reply "Is what your doing complying with the essences? If so your posture is correct".

This is the difference between good and bad taiji - at least in Tardtional Yang Family Taijiquan.

Very best wishes

 

[Xue Sheng]

Actually that was the answer I expected.

However they are all the same form (Yang Long form), but they are not done the same, Yang Shou Zong (Yang Sau Chung) is just doing it faster, even my sifu agrees with me on this. He also agrees that what Yang Shou Zong (Yang Sau Chung) is doing is not the same as Yang Zhenduo or Yang Jun are doing. Just look at the postures and it is obvious, which is very interesting considering the Yang family current claims about the ultimate Yang style of Yang Chengfu (nothing against Yang Chengfu, Actually I am rather impressed by his accomplishments).

And it certainly could not be the lost Yang fast form because the Yang family states there is no such thing. And the Yang fast form that I do comes from Tung Ying Chieh and looks considerably different. Per my sifu it is likely Yang Shou Zong never learned it, even though one of the teachers assigned to him by Chengfu was Tung Ying Chieh.

However this is way off post, getting very silly, pointless and to be honest I no longer care about any of it.

I no longer have the energy for this so I will retire from this post.

 

[pete]

east winds, we practice different styles but agree on this 100%, apples to apples... pete.

 

[Xue Sheng]

east winds, we practice different styles but agree on this 100%, apples to apples... pete.

Which leads me to a question pete

What style of taiji do you practice?

 

[Morningstar]

NO CHI/QI No investment