24 or the 48 Tai Chi Forms

Postby Thomas C. McCauley » Mon Feb 26, 2007 2:34 pm

Good Morning Jerry;

OK - All of you are up in arms, because of the "Demise of Taiji" that Erle wrote! Now, I read it, and it does beat up on Yang Cheng-fu! But, if its just speculation, then what is the Truth? I asked this question yesterday- If Yang Cheng-fu Did Not Change His Fathers Form as Erle has stated, then Who Did? And, this question isn't to simple, its just a simple question! I Know for a Fact, that if anyone wrote an untrue article against my Teacher, or against Nonaka Ryu Ju-jutsu - I would be knocking on his door!

I also, have to ask myself - where did Erle get this information from? I know Erle well enough to Know that He just does not make stuff up!

So, Jerry; You have a lot of weight on this web-site, iv'e noticed that all agree with you - You said that Erle's credibility will be seriously damaged for you, if Erle keeps that article on his web - So, What again is the True Story?

Yours

Thomas

(oops, sorry, didn't mean to edit - Jerry)

[This message has been edited by JerryKarin (edited 02-26-2007).]
Thomas C. McCauley
 
Posts: 17
Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2007 7:01 am
Location: Bend, Oregon USA

Postby mckwu » Mon Feb 26, 2007 3:40 pm

Thomas, I really don't care what Erle Montaigue posts on his site - don't know him, don't train in his system.

My issue was the way that you posted and then reacted to views that weren't in line with yours. You came across as: believe this, it's true, take my word! I know! Erle knows!

As far as my teachers in the martial arts over the years, I could care less what people post or say about them in cyberspace. They can handle themselves.

You must be new to cyberspace. Realize this: anyone is capable or writing anything and posting it. Right. Wrong. Indifferent.

Michael
mckwu
 
Posts: 18
Joined: Wed Aug 02, 2006 6:01 am
Location: Upstate, NY

Postby Bob Ashmore » Mon Feb 26, 2007 3:44 pm

Man! I was some worried about the deplorable state of modern Tai Chi Chuan! But now that I've read Erle's article I can sleep well at night again.
It's good to know that both he and his snake (I still have NO idea what the hell is up with that snake, nor why he mentioned having it, but that too is a comfort) are out there keeping a straight and narrow path to real, honest to goodness Yang style T'ai Chi Chuan instead of that Yang Cheng Fu crap we've all wasted a lot of time learning from his son and great-grandson.
Now that I know Erle (and let's not forget his snake!) are keeping Yang style Tai Chi Chuan real for all time despite all that Yang Cheng Fu and his family (and apparently his senior students as well) have done to sublimate it, I can once again sleep nights.

Keep up the good work, Erle! You and your snake, who I hope is enjoying the best of health, are beacons of reality shining in the dark night of misinformation the rest of us were out here swimming in before your article enlightened us.
I stand in awe of your ability to learn the "real" Tai Chi, oh 'scuse me!!! Hoa Chuan, while the Yang family themselves are busily spreading trash and calling it Tai Chi Chuan. It's truly awesome that you have found the pipeline that people worldwide have searched for, that ever elusive path to the REAL art of Yang Lu Chan that apparently his own descendants have foresaken, forgotten or are hiding purpesfully from the rest of us.
Our total ignorance is offset by your shining example of brilliance. And since the truest form of brilliance is the brilliance born of ignorance, I salute you as being a singular bearer of that standard.

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

Postby Thomas C. McCauley » Mon Feb 26, 2007 4:04 pm

Hi Gentlemen:

I think that I have answered my question - of who changed the Form. In your History Articles it is stated that In order to adapt to the changing needs of society, Yang Cheng-fu began with his Father's revised middle frame, and made futher revisions. He gradually established the Yang Family Large Frame.
Now, in your "History Introduction" Article,its stated that His Son's, but also his Grandsons, and even his Great-grandsons have all worked together to research, chang, develop Yang Style Tai Chi Chuan, which still maintaining the Martial Aspects!
Is it correct for me to say that in your study You Do Have Dim-mak in Your Forms?
If that is True, then Erle is Wrong, but if the Dim-mak has been removed then Erle is Correct.

Yours,
Thomas
Thomas C. McCauley
 
Posts: 17
Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2007 7:01 am
Location: Bend, Oregon USA

Postby Bob Ashmore » Mon Feb 26, 2007 4:15 pm

Thomas,
Audi has answered that question for you already:

"As for dim mak, is this not merely a matter of intent? I do not recall anywhere in the classics where it says that dim mak must be the basis for Taijiquan. I think that the Association's Taijiquan is aimed more at understanding Jin than stressing things like dim mak. If you truly understand Jin, you can have an entire set of options at your disposal, from the very gentle to the not so gentle. If you do not understand Jin well, then there is little that can be said about martial applications and Fajin has little scope for use."

I sure couldn't say it better than he did.

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

Postby Thomas C. McCauley » Mon Feb 26, 2007 4:54 pm

Thank You for answering my question concerning Your Dim-mak Study; - No one stated that Dim-mak was supposed to be the foundation of anything!

Thomas
Thomas C. McCauley
 
Posts: 17
Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2007 7:01 am
Location: Bend, Oregon USA

Postby mckwu » Mon Feb 26, 2007 4:56 pm

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Thomas C. McCauley:
<B>Is it correct for me to say that in your study You Do Have Dim-mak in Your Forms?

</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Could you explain to me what you mean by this?

I mean, if I exectued a push (an) on a person at full force, and they didn't defend against it, and I struck the point on the Uriniary Bladder Meridian (which would make sense with this scenario with a push and no-defense as that meridian run two paths down your back), it's possible that the blow may cause the person to pee themselves if I hit the right point.

Furthermore, if the strike took place between the hours of 3:00-5:00 PM, it could cause that person to have multiple problems down the road, including peeing themselves.

So, I'm not sure what you mean by having dim-mak in the form.

Thanks in advance,
Michael

[This message has been edited by mckwu (edited 02-26-2007).]
mckwu
 
Posts: 18
Joined: Wed Aug 02, 2006 6:01 am
Location: Upstate, NY

Postby Bob Ashmore » Mon Feb 26, 2007 5:28 pm

From Wikipedia, for the purpose of edification and clarification:

"Dim Mak or "Touch Point" is said by its adherents to train attacks on pressure points and meridians in some styles of Chinese martial arts to kill, incapacitate, or otherwise control an opponent.

Traditional Chinese medicine theory is based on the idea that specific pathway lines called meridians exist on the human body, along which are found many hundreds of acupressure points. Acupuncture is the most well known use of the meridian system. Pressing, seizing or striking these points (or combinations of points) with specific intent and at certain angles can result in either heightening or diminishing qi circulation in the body, according to this theory.

Effects are said to range between weakening an opponent, to deadening limbs or organ systems, to slowing bodily functions to the point of death.

Many modern martial artists consider the legends of Dim Mak to be a wuxia fiction. Others assert that it was a form of sorcery, at one point, but is now a lost art. Yet others claim to teach it in the martial syllabus of their schools."

Dim mak is a skill inside of chinese martial arts, not the lynchpin of any one of them. It's presence, or lack thereof, does not make or break Yang style Tai Chi Chuans authenticity, any more or less than it would make or break Wing Chun.
I only know of it from my general learning of Chinese martial arts, it has not been "taught" to me as part of my Yang style training.
That said, what is so hard about it? Anyone can perform "Dim mak", with or without training in Chinese martial arts.
You locate an accupoint, you strike it if you can. That's the entire enchilada.
No big deal, really.
It's a sub-system, not the be all and end all, of not only Yang style Tai Chi Chuan but any martial art.
We can no more use Dim Mak as the proof for the question "is Yang Cheng Fu Tai Chi Chuan 'real' Yang style" than we could use Chin Na or silk reeling in the same context.
Would I choose to strike an accupoint? Certainly, but only if it were what gave me the advantage.
Can I do that using Yang Cheng Fu style Tai Chi Chuan principles? Of course, but I don't HAVE to.

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

Postby JerryKarin » Mon Feb 26, 2007 5:47 pm

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Thomas C. McCauley:
<B>Good Morning Jerry;

OK - All of you are up in arms, because of the "Demise of Taiji" that Erle wrote! Now, I read it, and it does beat up on Yang Cheng-fu! But, if its just speculation, then what is the Truth? I asked this question yesterday- If Yang Cheng-fu Did Not Change His Fathers Form as Erle has stated, then Who Did? And, this question isn't to simple, its just a simple question! I Know for a Fact, that if anyone wrote an untrue article against my Teacher, or against Nonaka Ryu Ju-jutsu - I would be knocking on his door!

I also, have to ask myself - where did Erle get this information from? I know Erle well enough to Know that He just does not make stuff up!

So, Jerry; You have a lot of weight on this web-site, iv'e noticed that all agree with you - You said that Erle's credibility will be seriously damaged for you, if Erle keeps that article on his web - So, What again is the True Story?

Yours

Thomas

]</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nice try, Thomas!
JerryKarin
 
Posts: 1067
Joined: Wed Jan 24, 2001 7:01 am

Postby fol » Mon Feb 26, 2007 6:38 pm

However amusing this discussion has been, I'm afraid it has gone Wrong. If You look at the Website, you'll See that the Author of the Piece may be Eli Montaigue, son of Erle. Since every Generation has less Truth than the One Before, we can't necessarily blame the Father for the Son's speculations, can we Now? We ought to be more Forebearing.
fol
 
Posts: 26
Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2004 6:01 am

Postby T » Mon Feb 26, 2007 6:51 pm

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Bob Ashmore:
<B>From Wikipedia, for the purpose of edification and clarification:

"Dim Mak or "Touch Point" is said by its adherents to train attacks on pressure points and meridians in some styles of Chinese martial arts to kill, incapacitate, or otherwise control an opponent.

Traditional Chinese medicine theory is based on the idea that specific pathway lines called meridians exist on the human body, along which are found many hundreds of acupressure points. Acupuncture is the most well known use of the meridian system. Pressing, seizing or striking these points (or combinations of points) with specific intent and at certain angles can result in either heightening or diminishing qi circulation in the body, according to this theory.

Effects are said to range between weakening an opponent, to deadening limbs or organ systems, to slowing bodily functions to the point of death.

Many modern martial artists consider the legends of Dim Mak to be a wuxia fiction. Others assert that it was a form of sorcery, at one point, but is now a lost art. Yet others claim to teach it in the martial syllabus of their schools."

Dim mak is a skill inside of chinese martial arts, not the lynchpin of any one of them. It's presence, or lack thereof, does not make or break Yang style Tai Chi Chuans authenticity, any more or less than it would make or break Wing Chun.
I only know of it from my general learning of Chinese martial arts, it has not been "taught" to me as part of my Yang style training.
That said, what is so hard about it? Anyone can perform "Dim mak", with or without training in Chinese martial arts.
You locate an accupoint, you strike it if you can. That's the entire enchilada.
No big deal, really.
It's a sub-system, not the be all and end all, of not only Yang style Tai Chi Chuan but any martial art.
We can no more use Dim Mak as the proof for the question "is Yang Cheng Fu Tai Chi Chuan 'real' Yang style" than we could use Chin Na or silk reeling in the same context.
Would I choose to strike an accupoint? Certainly, but only if it were what gave me the advantage.
Can I do that using Yang Cheng Fu style Tai Chi Chuan principles? Of course, but I don't HAVE to.

Bob

</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

First I believe the actual dim mak (and much of the dim mak stuff is legend) in Mandarin it is dian xue but that is really neither here nor there.


I agree that it is a subsystem of a lot of CMA styles. However it would and does take a lot of training to be able to hit an acupuncture point during a fight. And if it were no big deal to learn the points the Chinese would not train their TCM docs so long in just in acupuncture points.

Also it depends on how hard you hit sometimes. You may know a great point but if you do not press hard enough it does nothing. The mantis styles are big on point attacks and they train a long time to become proficient at it.

But the question I guess it did Chengfu remove Dim Mak from Yang style?

Well I would look to Chen. How much pressure point training is there in Chen?

There is a lot of qinna but I do not see that much dian xue, although I only did a little more than 2 years in Chen I do not remember much training in pressure point attacks. But I suppose Luchan could have added some to Yang style after he learned Chen.

In Xingyi we have a Phoenix eye punch that is used for attacking specific points, but it is only a part of Xingyi and you can be very effective without it. But I do not remember any such punch in Chen style, which Yang comes from, but then again I only trained Chen for a little over 2 years and then found myself in Yang.

And then the next question is Yang style from Yang Chengfu real Yang style? Well since it is all we really have and the Yang family teaches it I would have to say yes.
T
 
Posts: 143
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 7:01 am
Location: North American Tectonic Plate

Postby T » Mon Feb 26, 2007 6:55 pm

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by fol:
However amusing this discussion has been, I'm afraid it has gone Wrong. If You look at the Website, you'll See that the Author of the Piece may be Eli Montaigue, son of Erle. Since every Generation has less Truth than the One Before, we can't necessarily blame the Father for the Son's speculations, can we Now? We ought to be more Forebearing.</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have been referring to this article,

The Demise Of T'ai Chi Ch'uan
By Erle Montaigue

is there another one I have missed?
T
 
Posts: 143
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 7:01 am
Location: North American Tectonic Plate

Postby Thomas C. McCauley » Mon Feb 26, 2007 7:40 pm

Hello (MCKWU)

To answer your question about what I mean concerning Dim-mak in the Forms, is, just take a look at Your History -- It states that the one who invented Your Taijiquan (regardles of what Style) Forms HID All of the Dim-mak Application's, so others could not steal it! All of your Postures have Dim-mak within! Honest, Take a look at your own History. Its just that because somewhere down the line, someone for what ever reason removed the study of Dim-mak - For the most part, its lost!

I have Four Friends that Still Teach Dim-mak within their Style: First is Erle, Second is Flane Walker, and Richard Bauer (These Two Masters, wrote the Book "The Ancient Art of Life and Death - The book Of Dim-mak") The Forth is My Sensei! But, by no means is Dim-mak the Foundation of what I Train in either! Its just a part or tool that we can use if we choose too!

Yours,

Thomas
Thomas C. McCauley
 
Posts: 17
Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2007 7:01 am
Location: Bend, Oregon USA

Postby Bob Ashmore » Mon Feb 26, 2007 8:40 pm

In no way am I saying Dim Mak is simplistic or that those who practice it are simple minded nor am I disparaging Dim Mak in any way, all I'm saying is that the concept, all by itself, is really quite a simple one.
The basic idea is to know the location of pressure points, then hit them. That's it, end of class.
You can of course, as with all things, complicate the hell out of it and do more or less "advanced" versions. But up front all you need to know is where the pressure point is, you hit it and it has an effect.
And it doesn't take a whole lot of time to figure out how hard to hit someone to make simple expressions of Dim Mak effective, nor does it take eleven years of training in secret with monks or Masters to learn some Dim Mak points.
I can't go into details the locations of the points or how much pressure to apply to each point necessary to get someone to turn blue and climb up walls. I have never studied the concept that deeply. I have, however, studied the idea that hitting certain points on a persons body will cause more damage than hitting others.
Kick a male in his nads, he will expell all of his air and crumple in pain. This is down and dirty "accupoint striking", Dim Mak at its least elegant but arguably most effective.
There was no advanced, complicated, in depth, secretive, years long training required to be good at that, was there?
I stand by my original statement. The idea behind Dim Mak is simple.
I will append it by allowing that you could, if you so chose to do so, make a lifetime study out of knowing where each and every pressure point is on the human body, male and female, and just exactly how much pressure to apply to each to get the maximum and minimum results for each one.
But there certainly is no reason to do that in order to know and be effective at Dim Mak.

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

Postby Bob Ashmore » Mon Feb 26, 2007 8:48 pm

Um...?
Which history are we referring to here?
I don't recall reading that one, so you'll have to refresh my memory.
Is this the same "history" that claims that the Chin Na and fajing were also removed, or hidden, by YCF?
Because if it is, that part of it is wrong too.
It's all in there, and if any of it is hidden it's hidden in the best possible location, right out in plain sight where everyone with eyes can see it.
No one will ever find them there, and so the "secrets" can be kept.
Shhhhhhh..........
Don't tell anyone.

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

PreviousNext

Return to Website Announcements and Support

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests