If that's what you think complain and get it taken off - but this is a taiji forum and they are one of the most prominent families - I thought it'd start a good discussion - it's direct from the family and clearly states their views.
It's interesting that in describing the lineage, they made no mention of Sau Chung's disciple, Ip Tai Tak. I'd like to know what they say about his line of teaching.
Actually the Topic Moderators brought up the same question. I'm assuming the reason they want this "advertised" ... is to answer claims brought up against them. But why would they request you to post this on MAP ... ? Are you their liason? Why could they not post this themselves?
It's simply because I'm known to them (have trained with Ma Lee Yeung several times and Jim Uglow for some years) and as a writer and regular contributer to the Martial Arts press in the UK, have written articles for the Ma Lee Yeung Student Association. This was passed to me as an official document from MYL via Jim Uglow (who is her representative) with the request to 'publish' it - it will go to the magazines possibly with an accompanying article from me. I put it on here and my own forum as I felt it was also worthy of discussion on the internet and take responsibility for the posting as 'press officer'. There's no mention of any disciple's names I presume because they are talking about the relationship of the positions in a lineage - not any particular person, but I did visit the late Master Ip when i was in HK at the request of MYL and found that their relationship was good, Mabel Ip, his daughter is still a close friend of MYL, I received a phone call from her when they had read the writings of Richard Dunn on here, which was why I also posted then.
I know Bob, I met him in HK when he was with John Conroy, please give him my regards when you see him. If you go to John Conroy's website you will see my article on the YMLSA here http://www.ritaichi.com/wmlsart.asp
Thanks Steve, i think it's a good thing. And helps to clear some mud from the waters. Jim Uglow is around my area, but Alex is around at the minute and you know what i say.. It's best not to drink from too many pots.. (at once!) Regards & happy training
Ps. i heard Bob Boyd would be coming to Europe to teach some Seminars. Any info on that anyone ? His web page has good info too about the system. Cheers
Joanna Zorya's Alternative Statement Hi people. I'd just like to say that I can understand the main families trying to get some money back for the art, but I think Taijiquan has been spread too widely for a monopoly to work - it's kind of "all a bit late" especially as most people are happy to practice "Tai Chi" as a leisure activity and don't even really concern themselves with how good they get at it. I don't worry too much about lineage, simply because I've met people who have it who are less good than other people who don't. A good fighter can do a lot with a little and a poor fighter (someone who's heart is not in it) can fail to make use of, or even corrupt, a lot. I've seen prominent teachers make mistakes too - no one is perfect and no one can rest on their laurels. I don't want to go into too much detail as I know there will be people who'll want to use this statement as a reason to discredit my knowledge, but I think that at least some of the hyped-up "inner secrets" serve more of a ritual than a practical purpose. I've learned some things very privately that offered no more benefit than a Yoga session and I've learned other things very publicly that were worth their weight in gold (such as the tian gan exercises of the Taiwanese Gao Yisheng Bagua branch of Luo Dexiu). There'll be those, no doubt, who say that I say this because I don't really understand the deeper aspects of the art, or because it somehow serves my own commercial purpose, but I'm not in this art for the money - I consistently dissuade a lot more students than I take on, by insisting on contact practice. It is far easier to earn a living teaching Taijiquan as a health art than as a pure combat art. I think any martial art ultimately needs to be tested on its fighting efficacy. Only that will reveal whether or not an "authentic transmission" is all it is cracked up to be. If anyone wishes to try and impose a monopoly based on family name alone, they are going to have to prove the value of the brand by consistently winning in fighting tournaments against seasoned fighters from an array of different fighting styles. As a final note I wish to say on record, that I am not trying to win any personal kudos or make any claims about my own fighting credentials. I know my fighting abilities are relatively good and I can teach what I know to my students. My statement is not intended to cause offense, only to challenge what I see as an attempt at monopolisation. Any brand in the commercially competitive world has to earn its stripes and go on earning them against ongoing competition.
Nice of you to issue a 'statement' Joanna, but it's about as relevant here as a wind up toy at a computer exhibition. No one wants or needs to discredit you, like all of us on here, you're not that important. Can I suggest your 'statement' go on a seperate thread? BTW this statement is certainly not about money but the Yeung Family YSC lineage perception of what their tai chi is. An interesting part of the statement I thought in the light of recent discussion on here was :
Steve, as an official representative of the Yeung Family, how do you feel about the idea that non-family disciples are second tier students and less representative of the art than family members? Maybe it's just me but that statement reads as though they do not make the full art available to their students, regardless of the commitment the students are prepared to show.
Steve Rowe posted: I'll keep it quick then. I said what I said because forums are public places and people sometimes like to seize on other people's comments, that's all. I thought about a separate thread, but assumed that your original posting was an invitation to public comment by virtue of the fact that it was made on a public forum. I notice on your own site you mention that you are neither a Yang style inner door student or a disciple yourself, so, speaking as a Zheng style practitioner who underwent the bai shi, and thereby presumably being recognised within that lineage (actually I've never checked), I hoped to reassure others that lineage is not necessarily terribly important. As the title of Wolfe Lowenthal's first book on Zheng Manqing's method says "There Are No Secrets." On the: I think there probably are parallels.
"Yeung style Tai Chi Chuan is both an extraordinary defensive art as well as an unparalleled health maintenance exercise" Unparalleled? Hmmmm.... I'm not so sure TBH cheers Rob
I'm not an official representative, simply the messenger, someone who has trained with them and is a writer. My opinion FWIW is that you can lock some people up in a dark room and they will come out a master and others can study under all the great Masters and never be any good. I find the statement interesting because it's rare that any information is forthcoming direct from the family.
Shame you didn't read (or understand the etiquette of?) the bottom line of that post. The whole point of 'lineage' or 'fighting ability' is that when it's proclaimed it's usually an excuse for the practitioners poor quality - and invariably you won't see them out there on a national or international basis teaching because a) they are afraid of challenges and b) no one wants to train with them.
Well - I rarely understand when people talk in riddles. Maybe you should just say what you mean in plain speak - I prefer the direct approach. I don't think much of insinuation or suggestion, even if it is disguised as etiquette. Anyway, back to the original statement. Are you saying that the main point of the statement is to discredit people who claim to teach things like the "original Yang Luchan form" or "Early Yang Chengfu" form? Maybe even those who claim Yang Jianhou or Yang Banhou lineage? Or does it solely refer to Yang Shou Zong (Yang Sau Chung) and people claiming to have lineage connected to him, perhaps even based on seeing the Youtube video clip and then making characteristic changes to their form based on it? Secondly, there is the "unparalleled health" point, which I assume is not such an important aspect of the original posting, but which you've picked up on for my benefit, to make a specific point about Taijiquan being not just a martial art. Please understand that the original statement does seem to say several things at once, so please let me know what you think the main point of it is, if you have a clear opinion.
Steve, Bob has mentioned your name on a few occasions. The article on Conroy's site was an interesting read Last I heard, Bob was planning on travelling to do some teaching, but I won't be back at his school until April, so I'm out of touch on the specifics. I'll post something if I hear any news.
