YCF form differences

Postby oldyangtaijiquan » Fri May 07, 2004 11:26 pm

I am not a Yang Taijiquan authority that I can "claim" that, I only resumed some of the disciples of YCF. One of the best masters of Yang Style Taijiquan was the YCF eldest son Yang Sau Chung and in his book "Practical Use of Tai Chi Chuan: It's Application and Variations" the martial applications are explained without "giving back of weight before a pivot". Also others main disciples of YCF such Chen Wei Ming, Tung Ying Chieh and Fu Zhong Wen used mainly "weighted pivots". In conclusion YCS's self in his book "Complete Principles and Applications of Taijiquan" did not mentioned the "giving back of weight before a pivot". I am not said that "giving back" isn't martialy applicable, but I only express my doubts about its necessity.
oldyangtaijiquan
 
Posts: 73
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2004 7:01 am
Location: Slovenia

Postby Wushuer » Sat May 08, 2004 12:23 pm

OYT,
Is TCC martially necessary, at all?
Nope.
There are other forms of martial arts, most of them much easier to learn quickly.
We could question the martial usage of a lot of different postures in the forms of all the masters.
The more important question would be "is it ever going to be martially necessary to do this"? If you answer that question with, "Well, at least in some instances, yes".
Once you've answered that question positively once, I don't think you need to ask again. If you're ever going to need it, then practicing it regularly sounds like a good idea to me.
Will you sometimes not need to do this? Will you even usually not need to do this?
These questions leave a lot of wiggle room. I would rather know how, and have practiced it until I have it right, so that if I ever need to....
I can.
It's your own, personal, TCC. Use it any way you'd like.
For my part, I think I'll cover all the bases I know. If I even might need to do something from the form, even only once in my lifetime, then I consider that a "necessity".

Peace.
Wushuer
 
Posts: 631
Joined: Wed Nov 06, 2002 7:01 am

Postby oldyangtaijiquan » Sat May 08, 2004 2:49 pm

TJQ is a Martia Art. It is a pacific Martial Art, because it is purposed to be used as "Self-defence" (to defend against an attack). YLC used it as a MA and also YCF used it as a MA. TJQ is also a type of Qigong and so has "side effects" (good influence) on Health. Use TYQ for "only" Health is as you practice the shooting for "only" relaxation. For whichever reason you use/practice TJQ is O.K., if it works use it! Peace.
oldyangtaijiquan
 
Posts: 73
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2004 7:01 am
Location: Slovenia

Postby Wushuer » Mon May 10, 2004 1:18 pm

OYT,
Yes, TCC is a martial art. I think the word you were going for is "passive" martial art, in that you wait for your opponent to attack.
If you practice only for health, that's fine, but if you don't know for sure that you're applying the principals of the art in a martially correct manner, how do you know you're doing it correctly for the health benefit?
Applying the principals martially proves you are moving correctly, which proves you are circulating chi correctly, which means you are getting the health benefits you so desire.
If you arnen't able to apply the moves martially correctly, you are not doing the correctly at all. Therefore, very reduced health benefit.
So even the "health nuts" among TCC players, those with no desire for the martial part of the art, should at least go far enough with their training to feel the correctness of their moves martially.
Otherwise, you'd be better off with Yoga.
Which is NOT a martial art, but very healthy.
Wushuer
 
Posts: 631
Joined: Wed Nov 06, 2002 7:01 am

Postby oldyangtaijiquan » Mon May 10, 2004 7:21 pm

Wushuer, the Taiji Classics say: »It is said if the opponent does not move, then I do not move. At the opponent's slightest move, I move first.« This is without doubt "passive" (as you called it) martial art (but is active when is needed). I practice the TJQ only as a »Martial Art«. I not agree to call the TJQ practioners as »Taiji players«, because it is a real »watered down« New Age term that not describe a real »hard work« needed to practice TJQ.
oldyangtaijiquan
 
Posts: 73
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2004 7:01 am
Location: Slovenia

Postby Wushuer » Tue May 11, 2004 1:19 pm

OTY,
Well, I play at TCC. It's not something I do for a living, after all. It's a hobby.
I practice it martially, first and foremost, but have no problem with anyone who is practicing strictly for health reasons.
Improving your health is as good of a reason to learn TCC as any. Maybe better than most.
I personally got back into training TCC for health reasons. I had been involved in a car accident that injured my neck. Training by myself wasn't pushing me far enough to really help, I needed the catalyst of others to keep me motivated.
It worked, and I'm just about healed up except for what my doctor calls the "long term" problems I guess I'll always have.
So I have a bit more sympathy for those who are practicing for health reasons now.
It's a perfectly acceptable reason for training TCC, as good as, if not better really, than martial training.
As I said above though, it doesn't do you anywhere near as much good if you don't learn the martial applications and how to apply them.
I'm not suggesting that anyone who doesn't wish to learn how to kill and maim and rend, what I am sugesting is that they should at least learn enough about the martial aspects to apply them in a basic way and then test to be sure they are doing that correctly. Even if it's just in push hands practice you should feel the energy in the forms and that you are applying the motions, which were originally designed as martial art movements against an opponent, correctly.
If you are doing so, you are accruing a much larger benefit than if you simply do the form emptily, without proper "intent".
I'm not suggesting anyone strive to be a Yang Lu Chan or Sun Lu Tang, I'm simply saying that you should at the very least know one martial app for each form well, and be able to apply it well against an actual person.
In that way, you put the sense of opponent in your forms that will move the chi much more effeciently, taking you to the health benefits in a faster and more efficient manner.
Wushuer
 
Posts: 631
Joined: Wed Nov 06, 2002 7:01 am

Postby DavidJ » Wed May 12, 2004 10:07 pm

Hi OYT,

You wrote, > - to "watered down" the martial art [the not possible version]

I agree. He didn't need to water down anything. He was very talented and it is said that he studied 18 years to get to be unbeatable. When he was teaching the bodyguards and nobles - who was he going to teach who would be able to beat him?

> - for health purposes [the least probable version]

He may have taught some nobles for health reasons.

> - to easily teach it [the most spreaded version]

I've heard that of YCF, but not explicitly of YLC. Making the basics clearer for outdoor students is different from "watering down" the art.

> - to bring it back to the origins (Zhang Sanfeng's Taqijiquan) [the most probable version]

I doubt this. I believe that he got the whole of the art from Chen Chang Hsiang. That he developed his own sets I have no doubt.

Chen style is suitable for defense outdoors in the countryside. Yang Lu Chan altered it so that it was suitable for defense in the city. Yang Lu Chan also developed the basis for Wu style so that the nobles that he taught could defend themselves indoors in fairly restrictive clothing.

That he taught different things to different people apparently led some people to jump to the conclusion that he was short changing people.

> The "Old Yang" is also very good but it is almost (or completely) extinct.

I am told that when the Manchu throne was overthrown that the nobles scattered all over China and many taught what Yang forms they had learned. So I would imagine that a number of claims would be true, but how well they learned and retained "Old Yang" is a different question.

IMO, of course.

Regards,

David J
DavidJ
 
Posts: 349
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 7:01 am

Postby rvc_ve » Wed May 12, 2004 10:20 pm

whats the "oficial" position on the yang family (YZD/YJ) on this issue? Do they acknowledge the existence of and "old yang style" in contemporary times? do they also practice it? is the chang san feng theory supported by them? It would be really interestign to know, and who would have better authority to reveal the truth than the family itself?
rvc_ve
 
Posts: 111
Joined: Mon Dec 15, 2003 7:01 am
Location: Lawrence, KS

Postby Polaris » Wed May 12, 2004 11:16 pm

Greetings DavidJ & All,

I just want to add a comment to the statement:

"Yang Lu Chan also developed the basis for Wu style so that the nobles that he taught could defend themselves indoors in fairly restrictive clothing."

This is a misconception, according to the Wu family themselves. Wu Ch'uan-yu (Quanyou) and Wu Chien-ch'uan (Jianquan) were not courtiers, they were military officers. The clothing they wore when they trained under Yang Lu-ch'an and Yang Pan-hou was standard Manchu military gear, which was not restrictive in its design. The Wu family emphasise the small circles in their forms for a different reason, it has to do with their preferred expression of power generation in T'ai Chi Ch'uan. There are also many large circles expressed in the standard Wu style T'ai Chi form (the ratio is about 50-50), so restrictive clothing would inhibit their expression just as much as in an all-large-circle form.

And also, the Wu family Academies internationally pay respect to Chang San-feng (Zhang Sanfeng) as the Founder of T'ai Chi Ch'uan, as well as to the Yang and Ch'en families as being in the lineage of teachers who brought the art to them. There are many didactic stories of the Founder told in our classes, and if people want to argue with the instructor over whether he was a real person or not they will be asked to leave.

Cheers,
P.
Polaris
 
Posts: 170
Joined: Wed Apr 23, 2003 6:01 am

Postby DavidJ » Thu May 13, 2004 12:46 am

Hi Polaris,

You wrote, > I just want to add a comment to the statement:
"Yang Lu Chan also developed the basis for Wu style so that the nobles that he taught could defend themselves indoors in fairly restrictive clothing."
> This is a misconception, according to the Wu family themselves. Wu Ch'uan-yu (Quanyou) and Wu Chien-ch'uan (Jianquan) were not courtiers, they were military officers. <

I didn't say they were courtiers. I think you are reading a lot that isn't there into what I wrote.

> The clothing they wore when they trained under Yang Lu-ch'an and Yang Pan-hou was standard Manchu military gear, which was not restrictive in its design.

I was referring to the restrictive clothing worn by nobles - I didn't say that the military clothing was restrictive.

But the bodyguards still learned indoor fighting. I think there was bleed-over from one kind of teaching to the other. Small spaces can be as restrictive as clothing can be, and I think that YLC considered and taught how to deal with *any* restriction of movement.

> The Wu family emphasise the small circles in their forms for a different reason, it has to do with their preferred expression of power generation in T'ai Chi Ch'uan.

To some degree I understand the enegetic aspect of Wu/Hao style.

> There are also many large circles expressed in the standard Wu style T'ai Chi form (the ratio is about 50-50), so restrictive clothing would inhibit their expression just as much as in an all-large-circle form.

I didn't specify anything about large- or small-circle, nor any specific change. I believe both Chen Style and YLC's TCC forms included small circle.

> And also, the Wu family Academies internationally pay respect to Chang San-feng (Zhang Sanfeng) as the Founder of T'ai Chi Ch'uan, as well as to the Yang and Ch'en families as being in the lineage of teachers who brought the art to them.

I said nothing to contradict this. I was saying that if YLC learned the whole art there was no need for him to "bring it back to the origins (Zhang Sanfeng's Taqijiquan)."

> There are many didactic stories of the Founder told in our classes, and if people want to argue with the instructor over whether he was a real person or not they will be asked to leave.

I have no problem with CSF. I believe that CSF is in both Yang and Chen lineage.

Regards,

David J
DavidJ
 
Posts: 349
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 7:01 am

Postby oldyangtaijiquan » Thu May 13, 2004 7:25 am

DavidJ - YLC was a teacher of the "bodyguards" of the Imperial Family, so his art was without no doubt one of the bests aviable. YLC got the whole of the art from Chen Chang Hsiang, but my opinion is that Chen Chang Hsiang was also teached by Jiang Fa (not only the Chen Family Pao Chui). YLC changed the »set« of his master acording the »origins« of the Jiang Fa teaching. »Bring it back to the origins« means that he omit some »Shaolin« (Pao Chui) elements that was introduced to the art he learned by Chen Family. How YLC found the »source« of his art is not known, because in time of his life he didn't talk about it in respect of his teacher! There is no dubt that YLC »changed« something of what he learned from Chen Chang Hsiang (he was a member of the Chen Family and the core of the Chen's art is the »Shaolin« Pao Chui), also Chen Style changed from the time of Chen Chang Hsiang. It is also said the Chen Chang Hsiang was not alowed to teach the Chen Family art because he learned from a stranger (Jing Fa). Also is posible that YLC learne "only" the art that Jiang Fa teached to Chen Chang Hsiang.
rvc_ve – Today not exist the authentic »old yang style« but only its derivations. There is not a clear vison on the TJQ origins and developement.
Polaris - My opinion is that the Zhang Sanfeng (Wudang Shan) theory on TJQ origin is the most probable. We must only know that today manin TJQ's originated from a mix of "Shaolin" (Chen Family Pao Chui)and "Wudang" (Neijia Quan).
oldyangtaijiquan
 
Posts: 73
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2004 7:01 am
Location: Slovenia

Postby Polaris » Thu May 13, 2004 2:25 pm

Greetings All,

I'm sorry DavidJ, my comments about CSF were actually for rvc_ve.

BTW, I am speaking of Wu Chien-ch'uan style, not Wu/Hao. They are different. There is a fuller version of the "restrictive clothing" story on Peter Lim's "History of T'ai Chi Ch'uan" website. The restrictive clothing story is just false, Yang Lu-ch'an or the Palace Battalion members wouldn't have worn such clothing if such clothing even existed. Wu style T'ai Chi practitioners train to fight indoors, in a long, narrowly focussed, linear direction rather like Hsing-i Ch'uan (a little Sun Lu-t'ang influence, I suppose), as well as in larger, unconfined spaces, but I have seen and heard much evidence (museum exhibitions of forbidden city clothing, family history from Wu Chien-ch'uan's grandson and great-grandson) that restrictive clothing wasn't an issue.

I would like to apologise if I came across as confrontational, that wasn't my intent. The history of T'ai Chi has enough stories in it that have been started by those who don't understand the style they are telling stories about, and Peter Lim's source (I use him as an example because he is the most famous source for the "restrictive clothing" story) didn't understand how or why the Wu family uses small circles in their T'ai Chi Ch'uan.

Regards,
P.
Polaris
 
Posts: 170
Joined: Wed Apr 23, 2003 6:01 am

Postby DavidJ » Thu May 13, 2004 8:48 pm

Hi oldyangtaijiquan,

We've been over this Jiang Fa tale before on this board.
http://www.yangfamilytaichi.com/ubb/Forum1/HTML/000015.html

Start with Mike's post dated 03-05-2001 08:04 PM about a third of the way down the page.

I am told that Yang Lu Chan learned the oral history of TCC from the Chen Family and had it written down.

Wu Yu Hsiang learned Tai Chi Chuan from Yang Lu Chan. No doubt he learned YLC's lineage, too, including the Chang Sang-Fung story, and that Jiang Fa was the name of a friend of Chen Wang Ting who lived hundreds of years earlier than YLC's time.

To cover up this most logical of occurrences, an additional story had to be concocted that YLC never passed on his lineage!

Regards,

David J

[This message has been edited by DavidJ (edited 05-13-2004).]

[This message has been edited by DavidJ (edited 05-13-2004).]
DavidJ
 
Posts: 349
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 7:01 am

Postby DavidJ » Thu May 13, 2004 9:22 pm

Hi Polaris,

You wrote, > I'm sorry DavidJ, my comments about CSF were actually for rvc_ve.<

I see. OK, thanks.

You wrote, > The restrictive clothing story is just false, Yang Lu-ch'an or the Palace Battalion members wouldn't have worn such clothing if such clothing even existed. <

Please note that in refering to restrictive clothing I was not talking about Yang Lu Chan or the Palace Battalion members, but the nobles.
Do you mean to say that the nobles didn't wear restrictive clothing?

Regards,

David J
DavidJ
 
Posts: 349
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 7:01 am

Postby oldyangtaijiquan » Fri May 14, 2004 8:30 am

DavidJ - Do not confuse the Jiang Fa - friend of Chen Wang Ting with a Jiang Fa – teacher of Chen Chang Hsiang! They are two different persons. Some said that the Chens modified the data of the time when the Jiang Fa comes in Chen village. I don't know what is true. I can only say that I belive to the Wu Tu Nan research!
Also are usually wrongly confused Wang Zong – disciple of Zhang San Feng and Wang Zong Yue – teacher of Jiang Fa! Also this two are different persons.

[This message has been edited by oldyangtaijiquan (edited 05-14-2004).]
oldyangtaijiquan
 
Posts: 73
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2004 7:01 am
Location: Slovenia

PreviousNext

Return to Tai Chi Chuan - Barehand Form

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron