What is Considered Bad Taijiquan?

[pete]

My teacher (yes, I'm still learning) makes corrections. Is that beacuse I am doing bad taiji?

just the opposite, i'd consider the indicator of bad tai chi to be the lack of humility and persistence in study that prevents one from accepting corrections from a higher authority.

 

[oxy]

Oxy,

There are only three things you should know about statistics:

There are Lies, Damn Lies and statistics - Mark Twain

Think about how stupid the average person is; now realise half of them are dumber than that - George Carlin

and finally

47.3% of all statistics are made up on the spot.

Very best wishes

From my second year statistics unit, I know a lot more about the practice of statistics than just those three quotes.

It's unfortunate that your quotes have the effect of implying that because statistics are often misused and miscalculated it somehows makes the alternative (eg, merely asserting that real taiji is millions of miles ahead of bad taiji based on, I don't know, "gut feeling") is somehow more accurate. It's a logical fallacy. I give you the benefit of the doubt, as I'm sure you weren't implying such a thing.

Furthermore, your quotes imply that the examples of bad statistics somehow expands to encompass the whole field of statistics as misleading and not trustworthy. That would be the same as saying taiji in general must be useless because I can think of a few examples of bad taiji teachers. Again, I prefer to give you the benefit of the doubt.

The second quote by George Carlin also illustrates a very common misunsderstanding of statistics by people who deride it. In the example of intelligence, it is true that half of the population is below average (it's a definition, duh). But what that statement doesn't illustrate is that intelligence fits a normal distribution. Therefore, it's much more accurate to say that 67.5% (if I remember my figures correctly) of people are less than one standard deviation apart from the average. Ironically, an understanding of statistics makes it easier to see how empty these quotes are in substance.

Thirdly, only 13.2% of statistics are made up on the spot. Only 15% of people actually know this fact.

Lastly, I say again. Whatever you choose as your standard of measurement, whether it be statistics or gut feeling or bunch of "I knew a guy who..." statements, there is just no accurate information to say that bad taiji (and line dancing) is miles behind real taiji. As Xue Sheng's previous examples illustrated, real taiji does not seem to have some significantly overriding factor that makes it miles ahead. I repeat that I understand there is more benefit than doing bad taiji, but that benefit has not been shown to be significant that can't be attributed to other factors (or what we statisticians call too much noise in the sample).

If anyone thinks that it's okay to potentially jeopardise the whole internal martial arts field by making unfounded statements (which can either be proven wrong or misrepresented by unethical parties) then I will stop objecting to it. Of course, that means I have to think up some new term to distance myself away from you all before the fan becomes more browner.

 

[Trent]

nope, it's just you :uhyeah: just kidding.

I would not include a beginner in the definition of bad taiji for the same reason I would not call TKD, Xingyi, Bagua, JKD, or karate bad taiji. They don't know taiji therefore it is not good or bad. But that goes for just about anything we are new at; we start out bad and learn as we go to get better. And a beginner at taiji will HOPEFULLY get better. And before anyone jumps on that, a beginner cannot get better if the teacher is teaching bad taiji

Bad taiji is the guy that has been doing taiji for several years and is doing a very sloppy form or using to much muscular strength (Li), or in the case of Traditional Yang not following the 10 principals, etc.

I wouldn't call those examples bad taiji either; they are not claiming do to taiji. And I believe that any beginner would tell you, "My taiji is poor," or "I don't really know how to do taiji," so, it wouldn't matter. I don't judge them, mind you, but just offering a different idea. However, we've all seen people who just learned their respective form over the last handful of weeks and wish to teach, saying, "I do taiji." To me, they are still a beginner, and I would undoubtedly call what they do, "bad taiji" unless they are some sort of real genius at the movement and principles.

I do think we're on the same page with our thoughts.

 

[East Winds]

Oxy,

I don't place too much reliance on High School statistics. What I do know is that aerobic exercise, be it Line Dancing or Jogging or whatever, works on the externals. Taiji, Qigong, Neigong and other internal arts work on the internal. Therefore it follows that by doing Internal Arts, you are getting a full body workoutl (internal and external) i.e. more benefit. Don't believe me of course, take a look at any of the medical databases such as Medline and type in Tai Chi and look at the hundreds of hits you will get (yes, complete with statistics) of carefully conducted trials in hospitals and clinics. The original question is of course had nothing to do with more or less benefits, it asked "What is considered Bad taijiquan?" I still say it is any Taiji that is missing the principles or essences of Taijiquan.

Trent, your original question was a good one, pity it has been hijacked and side tracked from its original intention.

Very best wishes

 

[oxy]

I don't place too much reliance on High School statistics.

I don't recall learning about techniques for estimating reliable sample sizes in high school. I only learned that in my second year of university. I also don't recall learning about p-values and tolerances until around the same time (in the same unit).

Therefore it follows that by doing Internal Arts, you are getting a full body workoutl (internal and external) i.e. more benefit. Don't believe me of course,

It's not about belief. Read my previous posts. I never said there was no increased benefit from a "full" workout compared to "not full". Read carefully. I said there's no evidence of significant increase.

Personally, despite my own affiliation with a decidedly internal art, I actually wonder if anything "internal" is nothing more than a cultural artifact that was invented to explain certain unknown things. Kind of like aether in early theories of light propagation.

Don't believe me of course, take a look at any of the medical databases such as Medline and type in Tai Chi and look at the hundreds of hits you will get (yes, complete with statistics) of carefully conducted trials in hospitals and clinics.

And in those studies, are you assuring me that they only sampled those who practised "real taiji" and not those who do nothing more than "exercise taiji"? Are those statistics of "real taiji" practitioners significantly elevated from the rest of the exercising population?

Part of the study of statistics involves choosing a meaningful sample space. In this case, my point was about "good taiji" and "bad taiji" comparisons.

A brief look at taiji topics in Medline did not say anything about good or bad taiji. It treated taiji in general. There was no distinguishing between the two, from what I saw.

And again, as Xue Sheng's previous examples illustrated, there are many factors. Can anyone, from even the Medline statistics make a valued judgement that says their taiji data significantly exceeded that with other statistics on other kinds of exercise?

I don't know what your point is, because I've never made any argument about taiji having no benefit at all. My point was always about the comparison between bad taiji and good taiji and whether there is any significant difference that is not merely an assertion.

The original question is of course had nothing to do with more or less benefits, it asked "What is considered Bad taijiquan?"

Yes, but then you also threw in a comparison between bad taiji and line dancing, which really opened up the discussion: what empirical attributes distinguish between bad and good taiji. Makes my points quite relevant in that case and not hijacking at all.

You can define bad taiji as "lacking principles and essences", but then there's no consistent definition or understanding of "principles and essences" (within and between various internal arts), which makes the original definition of bad taiji as nothing than an exercise of non-answering . And therefore, Trent's question has not really been answered at all but merely shifted back a notch. Shift back any further and it becomes a circular definition.

It reminds of an old joke which ended with an economist (who's stranded on an island with a can of food) saying: "let's assume we have a can opener..."

My point now seems more relevant than first glance seems to give.

 

[East Winds]

Oxy,

"but then there's no consistent definition or understanding of "principles and essences" (within and between various internal arts)"

That's the trouble with having little knowledge of Taiji. You seem to be unaware of the Tai Chi Classics or Yang Cheng-fu's 10 Essences. These provide a very substantial definition of what is good Tai Chi. Incidentally, those of us with Batchelor of Science degrees (BSc.) studied practical (not theoretical) mathematics and statistics.

Very best wishes

 

[Xue Sheng]

I do think we're on the same page with our thoughts.

agreed

 

[Xue Sheng]

just the opposite, i'd consider the indicator of bad tai chi to be the lack of humility and persistence in study that prevents one from accepting corrections from a higher authority.

This is a very good point. I have run into a few people that know everything Taiji, I have talked about a few here on MT. The guy that told me he didn’t DO martial arts, he did Tai Chi was a very good example of this. His form, his energy, his intention were all horrible. But he knew more than anyone in the room and would NOT take any suggestions. I would have to say he did bad Taiji.



- Now Bad Taiji good Taiji Heath vs. Martial Arts
Can a person who does Taiji specifically for health do good Taiji

Most certainly.

I will base this on Yang style

Can a person who does Taiji for health practice Sandao? Yes
Can a person who does Taij for health follow the 10 essences? Yes

I will base this on Yang style

Can a person who does Taij for martial art practice Sandao? Yes
Can a person who does Taij for martial arts follow the 10 essences? Yes
But both can be guilty of missing one or both.
I have seen people that tell me they do Taiji martial arts and they are doing is karate which is most certainly bad Taiji. Good karate but not good Taiji.

I have seen people doing Taiji for health doing incredibly sloppy forms, not students, not beginner, I am talking a person that was teaching it here. This too is bad Taiji.



- Statistics as proof of anything (Marc Twain was right by the way)
Now as to statistics being used to prove anything. I have a little experience with statistics (and I do mean a little meaning not much) but I know that with statistics, depending on what formula I use I can pretty much give you the results you are looking for which proves nothing. Statistical results are questionable with out the data used to give you said results. If you want to base anything on statistics just remember 3 out of 4 dentists say that toothpaste A is the best ever. Of course they fail to tell you they only spoke to 4 dentists.

 

[oxy]

Oxy,

"but then there's no consistent definition or understanding of "principles and essences" (within and between various internal arts)"

That's the trouble with having little knowledge of Taiji. You seem to be unaware of the Tai Chi Classics or Yang Cheng-fu's 10 Essences. These provide a very substantial definition of what is good Tai Chi. Incidentally, those of us with Batchelor of Science degrees (BSc.) studied practical (not theoretical) mathematics and statistics.

Very best wishes

It's amusing how you use an ad hominem to imply that somehow my education is not as good as yours which further implies that I am somehow wrong, yet do nothing to address the points I made. Ad hominem is usually a logical fallacy because the faults of the person does not translate into faults of the argument. It really is unfortunate that logical fallacies are embraced by representatives of a supposed higher level of martial arts.

Do the Medline statistics differentiate between "good taiji" or "bad taiji"? That's a simple question which is very relevant regardless of whether or not my education is based on practicality rather than on theory. Yet your attempts to discredit me do nothing to say otherwise. I also mentioned other principles regarding choosing the correct sample spaces (eg, relevance, tolerances). Why would whether or not someone had theoretical or practical understanding somehow give credit or discredit the application of those principles? Do those principles somehow break down and are no longer applicable in the practical world?

I would think someone on their way to get a BEng degree (in which the mathematics and statistics related units have long been completed) would ALSO have practical knowledge of statistics, but don't let that get in the way of you making logically weak arguments. And don't let that get in the way of you assuming that I do not learn stuff on my own outside university. And certainly don't let that get in the way of you (potentially) assuming that BEng's don't need practical understanding of statistics. Seriously, over and over again, our engineering lecturers stressed over and over again that engineering uses theories developed by science and rarely invent our own. Can you really get more practical than that?

Second, I am very aware of the numerous taiji classics. You do not understand my point. Just because it's written down does not mean it is understood with exact consistency across the board. The keyword there is understood. Anyone can quote the classics but the ability to rote learn quotes have nothing to do with understanding on its own.

You yourself seem very aware that within the Yang school that there is a lot of variation even within the so-called "good taiji" sector. Really, if things were consistently understood, then why are there the different schools of Chen, Yang, Wu, Sun etc in the first place? In theory, the taiji writings give consistency, but in practice, that's demonstrably wrong. Funny, but I thought someone with a degree in practicality would understand something that simple (and demonstrated).

It's a sad day when someone with a degree would use it to give authority to shaky statements. And can I get on your mailing list so I am up to date on whether you are going to give up fallacious ad hominem arguments?

-----------------------------------------------

Now back to the topic about "bad taiji". There are theoretical differences between good and bad taiji, but not enough data about the practical differences between the two (really, it goes for all internal martial arts, of which mine is a part).

Hell, I've known many other people who define things as good or bad purely on the terms of which is more older. By that standard, Yang taiji is bad Chen and CMC is bad Yang. Conversely, there are also those who argue "the newer the better" and you get the reverse of the former line of reasoning.

The End.

 

[East Winds]

oxy,

Thanks for the reply. Mine will be much shorter than yours. Rather than arguing ad hominem I am rather arguing ad hominem tu quoque and to save you running to your Latin dictionary, it means objecting to an argument by characterising the arguer as being guilty of the same thing he is arguing against.

I do not mind debating a topic on this board as I have done on may occasions, however when the goal posts continually change and the argument becomes circular, it ts time for me at least to drop the topic of discussion. If you feel that by my so doing you have won the argument then so be it. I will let you as always, have the last word.

Very best wishes

 

[oxy]

Now as to statistics being used to prove anything. I have a little experience with statistics (and I do mean a little meaning not much) but I know that with statistics, depending on what formula I use I can pretty much give you the results you are looking for which proves nothing. Statistical results are questionable with out the data used to give you said results. If you want to base anything on statistics just remember 3 out of 4 dentists say that toothpaste A is the best ever. Of course they fail to tell you they only spoke to 4 dentists.

You are absolutely correct.

But within the practice of statistics, the actual nature of the sample and the question itself is used to decide on exactly which formula to use. For example, for tracking the time (or distance or whatever) between events, a Poisson distribution is used. For nuclear decay, an exponential distribution is used. For age, intelligence and exam mark scaling, if I remember correctly, uses a normal distribution.

Also, within the practice of scientific study, there is the process of peer review in which many independent scientists/organisations will test the findings of the original study to decide if there was any oversights or even fraud.

Your dentist example is a good representation of statistical misrepresentation used by the popular media, which is why I wouldn't recommend the popular media as a trustable source of science reporting.

Because of peer review, (and the rest of us really should be looking for peer reviews since we don't have the resources to verify ourselves), inaccurate statistics are found. The problems you mentioned about data sources is entirely correct. So when I mention statistical evidence, it is implied that the sources are presented as a part of the evidence so it can also be peer reviewed.

If statistics were truly misrepresentable, then there would be no way we would know about it in the first place. ie, a perfect lie is indistinguishable from the truth.

Lastly, in the practice of science, there is no such thing as proof. It's also one of the funny things when some people try to claim their martial art is scientific and yet talk about "proof". In science, all there is is evidence which either favours the theory, is neutral to the theory or against the theory. Sometimes, we might say "overwhelmingly". But there is no talk of proof in the traditional sense. Proof is left to mathematics where its universe is much more orderly.

 

[oxy]

oxy,

Thanks for the reply. Mine will be much shorter than yours. Rather than arguing ad hominem I am rather arguing ad hominem tu quoque and to save you running to your Latin dictionary, it means objecting to an argument by characterising the arguer as being guilty of the same thing he is arguing against.

You would be right in assuming that I don't know enough Latin to require a dictionary.

The question is, are my supposed ad hominems in response to your initial ones or is it the other way around. These are the first ad hominems I found on this thread.

1: I don't place too much reliance on High School statistics.
2: That's the trouble with having little knowledge of Taiji. You seem to be unaware of the Tai Chi Classics or Yang Cheng-fu's 10 Essences.
3: Incidentally, those of us with Batchelor of Science degrees (BSc.)
4: studied practical (not theoretical) mathematics and statistics.
5: however when the goal posts continually change
6: If you feel that by my so doing you have won the argument then so be it.
7: I will let you as always, have the last word.

Strangely, none of those were from me. I continue to wonder why I can have a similar discussion with someone else (eg Xue Sheng) in a dignified manner and yet a discussion with you always end in me being attacked ad hominem.

however when the goal posts continually change and the argument becomes circular, it ts time for me at least to drop the topic of discussion.

Goal posts haven't been changed at all. Merely that the discussion takes on various perspectives especially in the case of this thread.

One reason why you feel the goal posts moving was because you made a few arguments that obviously had the intent of trying to discredit me through my supposed lack of education or "practical" knowledge. Furthered by the fact that my original points were not addressed by you. Goal posts do have a tendency to shift when people do not address the points being made but tries to attack the other's credibility.

It's a pity goal posts would not have shifted if I wasn't attacked like that.

If you feel that by my so doing you have won the argument then so be it.

That would be a logical fallacy and I will not be happy with myself if I make those. I feel very strongly toward intellectual honesty to myself.

What I will feel is the feeling of being left stranded since the points I made were not addressed and were perceived by you as being rebutted by your irrelevant ad hominems.

I will let you as always, have the last word.

Very best wishes

I will happily have the last words purely because I am completely aware of the unfortunate assumption by many that the person who bows out of a discussion first somehow has the higher ground. And I always let people have the higher ground if they want it that badly.

 

[Xue Sheng]

OK, I am not a moderator but let me see if I can get this back on topic because I feel it is an important topic.

Let me restate my previous post

Now Bad Taiji vs. good Taiji

Taiji for Heath vs. for Martial arts Martial Arts

Can a person who does Taiji specifically for health do good Taiji

Most certainly.

Basing this on Yang style

can a person who does Taiji for health practice Sandao? Yes
can a person who does Taiji for health follow the 10 essences? Yes

again basing this on Yang style

Can a person who does Taiji for martial art practice Sandao? Yes
can a person who does Taiji for martial arts follow the 10 essences? Yes

But both can be guilty of missing one or both? Again yes, this also says that both can be guilty of bad Taiji

I have seen people that tell me they do Taiji martial arts and they are doing is karate which is most certainly bad Taiji. It is good karate but it is bad Taiji

I have seen people doing Taiji for health doing incredibly sloppy forms, not students, not beginner; I am talking a person that was teaching it here. This too is bad Taiji.

So I still feel that whether or not you do Taiji for health or MA is not a standard of what is good or bad.

I still feel that not practicing Sandao and using to much Li is what constitutes bad Taiji and if you are talking Yang style, as it is taught by the Yang family today, not knowing or practicing the 10 essences would then again be bad Taiji.

 

[East Winds]

My position on this thread has been consistent throughout. If Taiji does not contain or violates the taiji classics, then quite simply it is bad Taiji. Nothing more, nothing less.

You apparently took offence at my gentle chide at line dancers and then launched into a lecture on statistical analysis and Okinawan women which had little bearing on the subject matter of the thread.

You need to learn that when a Taiji player is faced with a full frontal attack - he merely steps aside.

Very best wishes

 

[Xue Sheng]

You apparently took offence at my gentle chide at line dancers and then launched into a lecture on statistical analysis and Okinawan women which had little bearing on the subject matter of the thread.

Who took offense?

Not I that I can assure you.

 

[oxy]

Who took offense?

Not I that I can assure you.

Don't worry, he was talking to me.

 

[oxy]

My position on this thread has been consistent throughout. If Taiji does not contain or violates the taiji classics, then quite simply it is bad Taiji. Nothing more, nothing less.

I never said your position wasn't consistent. All I said was you were responsible for a large part of some supposed "goal post shifting" purely because you launched into ad hominem attacks against me, as I have shown with select sentences from your posts. Like you said, you side-stepped when being "attacked" (even though my attacks weren't ad hominem, but more like a maths teacher "attacking" a student with incorrect answers). This is goal-post shifting.

Furthermore, I also made the point that the existence of taiji classics does not equate to the consistent existence/application/understanding of the principles of those classics in the real world of taiji. I gave quite a long answer to that question (unfortunately overshadowed by my defending my education which you focused on instead of the taiji-related points) of which one of them was: if the taiji classics were consistently understood, why did taiji split into Chen, Yang, Wu, Sun, CMC etc in the first place?

If we go by the definition of "not containing or violating the classics" then one can argue all taiji today is currently bad taiji because they're going to be violating somebody's classics (and their interpretation). And before you go on about consistent interpretation, may I just repeat the argument I laid out a few posts before and in the previous paragraph? Certainly, I think we all remember Xue Sheng's tale of a Chen saying Yang is too high and a Yang saying Chen is too low (as a trivial example where there seems to exist more representative ones)? I remember seeing many Chen videos with slanted torsos which, if I remember correctly, violates Yang's upright criteria.

This is my attempt to get this thread back on track (ie, the taiji-related points I made above). I leave it to you to focus on them instead of my defence of being attacked.

You apparently took offence at my gentle chide at line dancers

To be more accurate, I only took offence to the lack of accuracy/unjustified-claim. And even then it's more like saying a maths teacher who "takes offence" at a wrong answer by giving less marks rather than on the lines of "nobody does this to oxy" kind of thing.

and then launched into a lecture on statistical analysis and Okinawan women which had little bearing on the subject matter of the thread.

Sure, when you quotemine like that. If you read the posts, you would see that "Okinawan women" and "statistical analysis" only purpose was to support my main point. And that main point, as I have shown over and over, is a vital part of answering the question of what is considered bad taiji. A request to focus on my main point instead of shifting goal-posts by not focusing on it.

I thought it was important for fundamental questions such as these not be answered with a single response because that single response begs the question and pre-empts the answer without giving an answer.

You need to learn that when a Taiji player is faced with a full frontal attack - he merely steps aside.

Very best wishes

As I've shown before, only you were the one doing the attacking. Shall I requote your posts again (cropped)?

1: I don't place too much reliance on High School statistics.
2: That's the trouble with having little knowledge of Taiji. You seem to be unaware of the Tai Chi Classics or Yang Cheng-fu's 10 Essences.
3: Incidentally, those of us with Batchelor of Science degrees (BSc.)
4: studied practical (not theoretical) mathematics and statistics.
5: however when the goal posts continually change
6: If you feel that by my so doing you have won the argument then so be it.

Maybe I can conclude that you side-stepp when being "attacked" only because you can then attack the "attacker" with ad hominem fallacies?

My first post was questioning whether statements such as yours are founded in factual basis instead of a subjective/emotional/qualitative bases. Maybe you took offence at that because it appeared to be an attack on taiji itself (which was never the case had you not bothered with launching into a tirade of ad hominems). Certainly explains why you continue to side-step the issue that I raised about empirical differences between good and bad taiji as well the more recent ones about the principles in the taiji classics. I tried to at least stick to the subtopic I branched off into, but ended up failing because I suddenly found my credibility and education level coming under attack.

I raised a few taiji-related points in the first part of this post. Focus on them please. Allow a man to defend himself.

PS Ad hominem tu qoque does not excuse ad hominem (ie, to wrongs don't make a right) not that I (as far as I can see) actually started out with ad hominems mind you.

 

[East Winds]

oxy,

Thank you for your input. Perhaps if you spent more time discussing the subject matter of this thread and less time defending some perceived injustices, your posts might attain more credibility.

Incidentally, the Tai Chi classics are not family specific and are a set of core principles which govern the training and performance of Taijiquan irrespective of its source. The splitting of Chen to Yang to Wu to Sun had absolutely no bearing on the applicability of the classics.

By the way I have written out one hundred times "I must be more circumspect of Line Dancing"

Very best wishes

 

[oxy]

oxy,

Thank you for your input. Perhaps if you spent more time discussing the subject matter of this thread and less time defending some perceived injustices, your posts might attain more credibility.

You just can't stop, can you?

I did spend more time discussing the subject matter. Your not focussing on that in favour of your (documented) non-arguments obviously skewed your view. And incidentally, you still had to start off your post with yet another jab at me.

On the other hand, I think I'll not talk about your own "defence" of yourself as a substitute of you addressing my taiji-related points. I'll leave the charge of hypocrisy to the minds of the people.

(PS I'll stop if you'll stop. Simple concept)

Incidentally, the Tai Chi classics are not family specific and are a set of core principles which govern the training and performance of Taijiquan irrespective of its source. The splitting of Chen to Yang to Wu to Sun had absolutely no bearing on the applicability of the classics.

Yang 10 essences are a part of Chen?

Plus, I think Xue Sheng threw in a good criteria (on the account of that it can be empirically quantified) of posture. Surely the postures are not consistent between the families. Unless, somehow, posture is not applicable in the definition of what good or bad taiji is...

Certainly, somewhere along the line, the Yang family just thought that they'll do away with Chen-style fajin in their form because of differences in their own principles. And then you get the in-fighting with some members of each family calling the others bad taiji.

 

[East Winds]

oxy,

At last some substance that we can debate!!

Yang 10 essences are a part of Chen?

Plus, I think Xue Sheng threw in a good criteria (on the account of that it can be empirically quantified) of posture. Surely the postures are not consistent between the families. Unless, somehow, posture is not applicable in the definition of what good or bad taiji is...

Certainly, somewhere along the line, the Yang family just thought that they'll do away with Chen-style fajin in their form because of differences in their own principles. And then you get the in-fighting with some members of each family calling the others bad taiji.

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. All the familes conform to "The Elucidation". If they don't they are doing bad Taiiji. Which members of which family stated that the other was doing bad taiji? Statements like that need source.

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).

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 am very happy to debate Latin usage (or abusage) having over many years navigated my way through the minefield of taxonomic syntax. However this is not the place for that. 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. 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