Erle Montaigue?

Postby T » Fri Feb 20, 2009 1:08 am

Ba-men

Per the book “The Spring and Autumn of Chinese Martial Arts – 5000 years” by Kang Gewu

Yang Luchan did in fact teach Wu Yuxiang but he did not learn Yang style from him Yang Luchan taught him Chen style. He then went to Chen Village to learn Chen and allegedly learned that from Chen Qingping but he learned this from Chen in Zhaobaozhen.

However a book my Yang style sifu has that he got many years ago when he still lived in China says Yang Luchan taught Wu Yuxiang but does not mention style and that Wu Yuxiang went to Chen village to learn Chen but no one would teach him so he ended up learning Zhaobao. Interestingly Chen Qingping is credited with the founding or at least the person that started Zhaobao taijiquan.

As to Yang luchan teaching Wu Quanyu also per my sifu’s book and per my sifu’s teacher (Tung Ying Chieh) Yang Luchan did not want to teach Wu Quanyu taiji since Wu was a Manchu and what he did end up teaching Wu was defense not attack.

Also Hao (Wu Yuxiang) style does look similar to Yang but Wu style really does not look that similar in posture also there are now 2 branches of Wu (Wu Quanyu) Northern which is allegedly much closer to what Yang Luchan taught and Southern, which is the Wu family but was changed after they got to Hong Kong

As to the style of Luchan being the same as the style of Chengfu, I am sorry but there is just way to much documentation to the contrary.
T
 
Posts: 143
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 7:01 am
Location: North American Tectonic Plate

Postby shugdenla » Fri Feb 20, 2009 4:19 am

T said
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">As to Yang luchan teaching Wu Quanyu also per my sifu’s book and per my sifu’s teacher (Tung Ying Chieh) Yang Luchan did not want to teach Wu Quanyu taiji since Wu was a Manchu and what he did end up teaching Wu was defense not attack.</font>
but there is evidence to the contrary that Manchu lineage taijiquan of Yang Luchan as being present in the style of Li Zheng and those who studied Imperial Yang! Even the Yang style that brought to fruition Li style is still similar but again exposure and understanding creates the differences based on depth of learning and insight!

Obviously, with the Imperial Yang style thang (as opposed to thing) now all of a sudden Imperial Yang style will be the new thang on the block!

[This message has been edited by shugdenla (edited 02-19-2009).]
shugdenla
 
Posts: 209
Joined: Thu Apr 21, 2005 6:01 am
Location: USA

Postby Bob Ashmore » Fri Feb 20, 2009 8:19 pm

T,
I find the assertion in this book of your teachers that claims Yang Lu Chan only taught Wu Chuan Yu defense and not attack to be a curious thing.
It makes me wonder...
How could you do that?

Eddie, Wu Kwong Yu, and his uncle, Wu Tai Sin, taught a seminar that I was priviledged to attend in my home town.
Yes, it was quite a long time ago. I believe it was in 1988 or 1989, but I might be off a year or two in either direction.
Be that as it may...
I remember clearly that it was an incredible eye opener for me at the time into one of the intricacies of TCC theory. I was a very beginner student at the time, having come over from a short stint learning Tae Kwon Do, and I was eager to learn something about this "Tai Chi" I'd been hearing about from the Masters.
At this seminar Eddie and his Uncle clearly demonstrated, among other things, that in TCC there is no seperation between attack and defense. If I'm remembering Sifu Eddie's phrasology correctly he said something along the lines of "attack and defense are two sides of the same coin".
I believe I'm close to how he said it, but if anyone with greater knowledge of how Sifu Eddie states this can put me to rights I would be happy to bow to their superior knowledge. That is how I remember what he taught, but my memory is not always to be trusted for exact phrasing.
Anyway, I remember watching their demonstrations, with my jaw quite literally hanging on the ground, as they showed time and time again how they could both attack and defend in the same motion.
It was an incredible thing to see, especially for a guy who just came out of learning "Block, punch, block, punch" as a mantra.
I left with a much clearer understanding of at least that one aspect of the art and I have kept it with me to this day.
My Yang style teachers have frequently made this same point and have taught me a little of how to do this.
Admittedly only a very little. I'm not good yet, I need a LOT more practice.

Reading about the assertion made in your teachers book, and keeping the above in mind, leads me to wonder how it could be possible for someone to teach you only the defense aspects of an art in which attack and defense are two sides of the same coin?

I don't doubt the veracity of your statement regarding your teachers book. I'm quite sure that what you have said is put forth there as you have stated. All I am wondering is how these two things can be reconciled.

Regards,
Bob
Bob Ashmore
 
Posts: 603
Joined: Wed Aug 31, 2005 6:01 am
Location: Frankfort, KY, USA

Postby Louis Swaim » Fri Feb 20, 2009 10:31 pm

Greetings Bob,

I concur with your observations. I don't see how one could teach taijiquan exclusively as "defense not attack" -- that just wouldn't be taijiquan. My first sifu often demonstrated that taijiquan applications should not be understood as "block, then punch" as with some martial arts. Every "block" is simultaneously an attack. These hearsay stories always put me off, and it's kind of disturbing to see chauvinism being represented as a rationale for witholding complete transmission.

--Louis
Louis Swaim
 
Posts: 1344
Joined: Mon Feb 12, 2001 7:01 am
Location: Oakland, CA

Postby T » Sun Feb 22, 2009 1:04 am

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Bob Ashmore:
<B>T,
I find the assertion in this book of your teachers that claims Yang Lu Chan only taught Wu Chuan Yu defense and not attack to be a curious thing.
It makes me wonder...
How could you do that?

Eddie, Wu Kwong Yu, and his uncle, Wu Tai Sin, taught a seminar that I was priviledged to attend in my home town.
Yes, it was quite a long time ago. I believe it was in 1988 or 1989, but I might be off a year or two in either direction.
Be that as it may...
I remember clearly that it was an incredible eye opener for me at the time into one of the intricacies of TCC theory. I was a very beginner student at the time, having come over from a short stint learning Tae Kwon Do, and I was eager to learn something about this "Tai Chi" I'd been hearing about from the Masters.
At this seminar Eddie and his Uncle clearly demonstrated, among other things, that in TCC there is no seperation between attack and defense. If I'm remembering Sifu Eddie's phrasology correctly he said something along the lines of "attack and defense are two sides of the same coin".
I believe I'm close to how he said it, but if anyone with greater knowledge of how Sifu Eddie states this can put me to rights I would be happy to bow to their superior knowledge. That is how I remember what he taught, but my memory is not always to be trusted for exact phrasing.
Anyway, I remember watching their demonstrations, with my jaw quite literally hanging on the ground, as they showed time and time again how they could both attack and defend in the same motion.
It was an incredible thing to see, especially for a guy who just came out of learning "Block, punch, block, punch" as a mantra.
I left with a much clearer understanding of at least that one aspect of the art and I have kept it with me to this day.
My Yang style teachers have frequently made this same point and have taught me a little of how to do this.
Admittedly only a very little. I'm not good yet, I need a LOT more practice.

Reading about the assertion made in your teachers book, and keeping the above in mind, leads me to wonder how it could be possible for someone to teach you only the defense aspects of an art in which attack and defense are two sides of the same coin?

I don't doubt the veracity of your statement regarding your teachers book. I'm quite sure that what you have said is put forth there as you have stated. All I am wondering is how these two things can be reconciled.

Regards,
Bob </B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wrong wording, sorry, stronger on defense than attack due to the fact that he was a Manchu and Yang Luchan was not but then there in lies the problem with many things in CMA history especially Taijiquan History and I feel more so with Yang Style and it’s off shoots. There is all sort of evidence to the contrary on just about everything Image
T
 
Posts: 143
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 7:01 am
Location: North American Tectonic Plate

Postby Bob Ashmore » Thu Mar 05, 2009 9:49 pm

T,
That's true. There are more fables than facts in the history of TCC.
I know that my teacher places a much heavier emphasis on defense than offense when teaching the martial art of TCC.
I think this is a natural thing to do for almost any teacher. Teaching people to defend themselves is a noble thing, teaching them to go out and hurt people...
Not so much.

Bob
Bob Ashmore
 
Posts: 603
Joined: Wed Aug 31, 2005 6:01 am
Location: Frankfort, KY, USA

Postby jeanne372 » Mon Apr 06, 2009 1:04 pm

Hello,
I wanted to ask a question but I am not sure I am quite at the right place.

I had a question on the differences betw. Yang Jwing Ming Yang tai chi and Yang Jun tai chi. I do not really understand how they can be different in principles and to practice. In fact, I tried to practice at a training session near my home but I was really surprised at how the teacher moved. She would always move on the full leg without emptying it before for instance. And also the moves were exagerating compared to my regular teachers.

Do you have other experiences such as mine ?
jeanne372
 
Posts: 2
Joined: Mon Apr 06, 2009 6:01 am

Postby jeanne372 » Mon Apr 06, 2009 1:05 pm

Hello,
I wanted to ask a question but I am not sure I am quite at the right place.

I had a question on the differences betw. Yang Jwing Ming Yang tai chi and Yang Jun tai chi. I do not really understand how they can be different in principles and to practice. In fact, I tried to practice at a training session near my home but I was really surprised at how the teacher moved. She would always move on the full leg without emptying it before for instance. And also the moves were exagerating compared to my regular teachers.

Do you have other experiences such as mine ?
jeanne372
 
Posts: 2
Joined: Mon Apr 06, 2009 6:01 am

Postby shugdenla » Mon Apr 06, 2009 1:56 pm

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by jeanne372:
<B>Hello,
I wanted to ask a question but I am not sure I am quite at the right place.

I had a question on the differences betw. Yang Jwing Ming Yang tai chi and Yang Jun tai chi. I do not really understand how they can be different in principles and to practice. In fact, I tried to practice at a training session near my home but I was really surprised at how the teacher moved. She would always move on the full leg without emptying it before for instance. And also the moves were exagerating compared to my regular teachers.

Do you have other experiences such as mine ? </B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Those kinds of things are the rule and not the exception in taijiquan. Individuals bring their own 'spirit' 'form' etc to a system and it changes according to that principle.

What I tend to look for is training curriculum and how such is accomplished. Yang Jwingming is accomplished though his Yang style may not be in sync with performance taijiquan (what most people look at) but my basic question are:
1. Can I find utility in taijiquan?
2. Can the teacher show the martial part encompassing qinna, shuai, or tuishou.

From the above criteria, Yang Jwingming is above reproach.
There are some great teachers who have 'lineage', are truly great but are arrogant so they fail the test based on the fact people do not follow them or give them face. In their own right, they are exceptional but why give face to people who appear to be ungrateful or refuse to teach.
I am referring to perception of arrogance since one never truly knows people, do one!

Continue training and enjoy the 100 flowers in bloom and choose one you like!
shugdenla
 
Posts: 209
Joined: Thu Apr 21, 2005 6:01 am
Location: USA

Postby Bob Ashmore » Mon Apr 06, 2009 8:09 pm

Jeanne,
Shugdenla has the right of it.
I only wanted to add that "moving back weight" to transition is not the only way to do things.
I have studied some styles that do not move any weight back but rather step directly with the weighted leg as you describe.
I see both types of movement as perfectly legitimate for Tai Chi Chuan, maybe because I know how to do both.
Anyway, how I get my Yang family style friends to understand how this can work is to have them move in that fashion during Part the Wild Horses Mane.
That form makes it very easy to do because of the footwork involved. Instead of "moving back weight" then repositioning the foot, then stepping out, just step out to the next Parting. It's very easy, it feels natural and will give you a very clear understanding of how this type of movement works. Your feet are already well positioned and no adjustements are really necessary.
Give it a try and let me know what you think.

Bob
Bob Ashmore
 
Posts: 603
Joined: Wed Aug 31, 2005 6:01 am
Location: Frankfort, KY, USA

Postby Audi » Mon Apr 06, 2009 11:28 pm

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">I had a question on the differences betw. Yang Jwing Ming Yang tai chi and Yang Jun tai chi. I do not really understand how they can be different in principles and to practice. In fact, I tried to practice at a training session near my home but I was really surprised at how the teacher moved. She would always move on the full leg without emptying it before for instance. And also the moves were exagerating compared to my regular teachers.</font>


Many different styles of Taiquan really represent different gates to the same garden. The gates may look different, feel different, and have a different appeal; but ultimately they lead to the same place. There can be lively debates about which gate is the most suitable and which will lead to the best part of the garden, but these arguments are not about fundamentals.

As for emptying the front foot before stepping, even the Association's Taijiquan shows an outward difference between the bare-hand form and the weapons forms. Although the underlying principle is the same, the training method is slightly different.

Take care,
Audi
Audi
 
Posts: 1137
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 7:01 am
Location: New Jersey, USA

Postby Bob Ashmore » Fri Apr 10, 2009 7:49 pm

I've been thinking about this subject quite a bit since my last posting and you know...
There are places in the Yang family form where you clearly step forward without giving back any weight to your rear leg.
One: the transition during Step Up to Grasp the Birds Tail in between Left and Right Ward Off.
Two: the steps taken during Wave Hands Like Clouds.
There are plenty more, but I'll let you all have the fun of find them for yourselves.

And thinking back on it, and practicing them again, I found that even in the forms of the styles I've learned where they say there is no giving back of weight, they have plenty of steps in their forms where they clearly do.

So much for absolutes!

Bob
Bob Ashmore
 
Posts: 603
Joined: Wed Aug 31, 2005 6:01 am
Location: Frankfort, KY, USA

Postby Audi » Wed Apr 29, 2009 1:11 am

Hi Bob,

Are you sure about your two examples? It seems to me that we do shift weight away from the stepping or pivoting leg in these cases. The only situations in the barehand form I can think of offhand involve transitions into various kicks (e.g., Separate Foot).

In the Saber and Sword Forms, however, I am cannot think of a single instance of shifting weight merely to allow a pivot or prepare for a step.

Take care,
Audi
Audi
 
Posts: 1137
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 7:01 am
Location: New Jersey, USA

Re: Erle Montaigue?

Postby brasled » Thu Jan 14, 2010 5:16 pm

By searching on youtube, I discovered an old black and white video, probably from the 40's, of a gentleman doing the moves in the same sequence as the yang lu chan of erle's, thus proving it is an old style at the least. The styling of course was different, but definitely the same form. The video, titled classic yang style, was a chinese video with no subtitles, and from what little I could understand, it was filmed in Chen city.
brasled
 
Posts: 1
Joined: Thu Jan 14, 2010 5:08 pm

Re:

Postby rmallis » Fri Dec 09, 2011 6:52 pm

Ba-men wrote:The real mystery is.... what did Chen Changxing teach Yang lu Chan? Yang style is NOT a simplified Chen style as some would think. There is a distillation of Chen style techniques, but there is also a wealth of "other" techniques not orthodox to chen style.

Known small frame Chen styles do have a similarity to Yang style. Given the depth of Yang style it was probably a chen small frame Lu chan was taught.



It is pretty clear that the Yang 108 form is a transmission of the Chen family's Liaojia Yilu. There are some modifications and additions, notably the expansion of the the grasp bird's tail sequence, but even that is taught as a silk reeling exercise by some Chen family exponents.

Just clarifying.
rmallis
 
Posts: 3
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2011 4:19 pm

Previous

Return to Tai Chi Chuan - Barehand Form

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 1 guest