Reeling silk or pulling silk (chan si huo chou si 缠丝或抽丝), according to Shen Jiazhen (1963, p.18) there is no difference and the Taijiquan manual (Wu Yuxiang 武禹襄) said mobilise tension like pulling silk (yun jing ru chou si 运劲如抽丝). Some people argue that Chan style practitioners equate reeling silk as spiral force only while the Yang style practitioners emphasised on continuity (no static posture) as well as rotational movements.
I have given two published references, and the Chansi and Chousi argument has been going on for a long time in China. I googled ‘太极拳 缠丝 抽丝’ and has 40,000 results. There is an article by Hong Junsheng written in the 60's which might be of interest, but I am not sure it was published.
Ok, but you've just dumped this random statement down in the forum... Why? What are YOUR PERSONAL thoughts on this? Why should we join in this debate that is, apparently, going on in China?
I've come across this difference in interpretation. Some go far as to say that they are different concepts. In all likelihood in different hands a single concept has morphed into 2 differing ones on the surface. When you explore a wide range of Yang style practice and look at the Chen style practice I think you can see the common root and idea. I think the difference became one of emphasis. Certain people in the styles preferring way of practice and therefore emphasizing the aspects of the idea that moulded and fit with their method.
I personally do not see the difference as the concept of spiral (chan) has been around for a long time. Maybe some people see it difference, for example an article entitled 'silk pulling and silk reeling by Dr Arnold Lee of www.wuweitaichi.com.' The emphasis on continuity is applicable to any style of Taichiquan as well.
Indeed. But if you observed a style like CMC for example you see little to none in the way of overt chan si jin (spiralling) than you would in Chen style by comparison. It seems likely then that the concept around the silk metaphor was altered, in the process changing the idea to fit a differing way of practicing tai chi. I think it's clearly a difference if you observe the styles performed, whilst I agree that the original is the silk reeling idea which is synonymous with spiral movement and the older martial concept. That is not to say though that the pulling silk concept has no value to those using it.
Shen Jiazhen learnt from Yang Jianhou, and then Yang Chengfu before he learnt from Chen Fake. I do not think there is a difference between the teaching of Yang Jianhou and Yang Chengfu, as Yang Chengfu also mentioned mobilise forces or tension like puling silk in No 9 of his 10 theses. In pulling silk, one has to reel or spiralling continuously.
In principle the teaching should not be different. However I have seen some Yang Jianhou taiji that had very observable chansi wheras the YCF form doesn't have it the same way at all. You have heard the old story of YCF standardizing his family TCC. I think he took the obvious chansi out of the standard Yang long form. this is Yang Jian Hou [ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fCBTDZZWdDo"]Volume 55 - Yang Jianhou Style Taijiquan - Part 1 - YouTube[/ame] This is YCF [ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zIpKW6AnKYw"]Fu Zhongwen Yang-style Form Part 1 - YouTube[/ame] You can see the difference in this regard I think.
Thank you cloudz, and I am sure that is not authentic Taijiquan in any case. I do support people make variations on what they learnt but at least they should make some references to what they did.
Well unless you have good reason/ proof or evidence it is made up then it is more of a personal opinion. However, it's not that important what you think of that particular form, because you can observe the overt chansi in Chen style to which you cannot say are fake. So when you compare those, from which the Yangs learnt TCC to the YCF standardized form, you can still say someone in the Yang family at some point smoothed out the styles movements. Most people agree that YCF modified his families TCC. Seeing as I have seen the same/ very similar Yang Jian Hou middle frame form practiced by Tian Zhaolin lineage maybe your assertion of the above not being authentic is misjudged.
??? Why? On what basis do you feel that is not "authentic"? You feel it's not from Cheng-fu's elders?Or you feel it's simply been changed as regards the external look? (Which is quite common in the Yang/Wu (Ng) systems). Then you don't know much history.The differences are more than just stuff like the subject of "reeling or pulling?". The overall curriculum changed.Somewhat radically. Since you think there is no difference can you explain how you reached this conclusion which is contrary to that of CMA historians.
I do not think adding a bit of Bagua and Chen Taiji techniques to Yang Taiji make it authentic that is all. Anyway, go to the authentic Taijiaquan? thread you might learn something. If you got any reference to reeling or pulling please post it. Shen Jiazhen stated that there is no difference and it is interesting to review the other arguments or your reference to CMA historians.
Why do I feel you spend more time reading about taiji and debating it's history than getting on with the actual practice,lol
To be fair, a quick search for "Yang Jianhou Taijiquan" gives us this: [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g9iZIVQHFSI]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g9iZIVQHFSI[/ame] Now that looks pretty much like Yang Chengfu stuff to me! None of the overt silk-reeling from the clip Cloudz posted. This is not to say that someone can't put overt silk-reeling into their Yang form and that would render it inauthentic, after all runcai did say Personally, I am of the opinion that Yang Chengfu is given a lot more credit for "modifying the Yang form" than he really deserves, something commonly done by students out of respect and veneration for their masters. Looking at "alternative" lineages (such as the Yang Jianhou stuff) and the very-closely linked Wu style which branched from the Yang long before Yang Chengfu came along, it is interesting to see all the same "revisions" he allegedly made in those too!
It does, as do quite a few. When YCF became the GM of the style his large frame was widely adopted, and not by just his own students and disciples. As I understand it lineages that didn't fall under YCF faced being written off or out of the Yang lineage. I think this happened more with the Yang Shao Hou lines who didn't want to do this: they were written out of the lineage. I think this is a fair and reasonable account for the prevalence of YCF influenced forms you see, given the dictates of Chinese (martial) culture at the time. Tian Zhaolin was more of a senior to YCF than anyone else, spent time with Jian Hou and later YCF, which might explain why the middle frame in that lineage has retained more of its own identity.. and that they also practice YCF large frame alongside it. Their middle frame below, is quite different to YCF large frame and very much more like the Jian Hou performance I posted earlier. [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uXE8HqTSN3A&list=PL505BB8F3108D69F2"]The Middle Frame of Yang Family - YouTube[/ame]
Wu Chien Chuan is credited with the creation of "Wu style" as we know it. He did the same as YCF did and at around about the same time and for the same reasons. He modified and standerdized his family TCC. The Wu style also had the prior influence of Yang Ban Hou whose style was differentiated to his brothers Jian Hou middle frame by being called "small frame". The main differences in the standard Wu and Yang reflect these influences somewhat, I think.
Silk Reeling Much of the literature available in English about the topic of silk reeling is of the puff piece sort, leaving one with the impression that silk reeling is important but failing to provide much in the way of concrete, down-to-earth information. I came across an excellent and important article inChen Style Tai Chi Chuan, a 1963 book by Shen Jiazhen and Gu Liuxin. What follows is a translation of the silk reeling section of the first chapter of that book (this part was written by Shen Jiazhen). I think that practitioners of all styles will find this quite interesting. This translation is something of a work in progress. I would enjoy hearing your comments and corrections. Silk reeling is a subject rarely talked about in Yang family taiji. Though you don't hear much discussion of the topic under this name, actually Yang style also does contain most of the same elements elaborated as silk reeling in other styles (though the shape of the hands in Yang Chengfu style - fingers slightly curved, palms slightly extended - is different from that shown in figure 1 below). Jerry, 2002-08-26 http://www.yangfamilytaichi.com/about/articles/rep/2002-08-26
Runcai, maybe I missed this posted elsewhere. But are you only researching TCC or do you actually practice it? If you don't practice it, why are you researching it? Actually, even if you are practicing it, why are you researching it? And how much time do you practice vs research? There is only so much you are going to understand with research. Besides practice is much more fun!
I think Runcai is a Google robot or something Back to the discussion at hand, I am still of the opinion that the overt silk-reeling motion is something added to some lineages rather than removed from the bulk of them. While I can accept some collaboration occurred between the various masters around Yang Chengfu's time, the main family styles (Yang, Wu, Wu/Hao) all retained their signature characteristics. From what I can gather from various sources, all Yang Chengfu and his contemporaries did was 'smooth' out the pacing of their forms, opting not to 'snap' out certain techniques (thus demonstrating martial fa jing) in an attempt to widen the appeal of taijiquan. In fact, Yang Chengfu in particular made his style 'larger' and more expansive, with more overt movements than the rest. My thought is that if the overt silk reeling was being practiced in the forms of the Yang, Wu and Wu/Hao families at that time it would have been preserved by at least one of them, perhaps even exaggerated by the Yang family, given that it neither disrupts the pace of the form, looks overtly martial nor is 'difficult'. Yes, it could be argued that there was a very widespread consensus regarding how to 'modernise' Taijiquan for a more mainstream audience, but if the changes were so radical, why do we still have so many variations from that time? It just seems more plausible to me that the changes were not so radical and were as simple as is often stated. Especially when we look at other minority styles such as Guangping Yang style, Yang Michuan, Erle Montague's "old" Yang etc. which all basically resemble mainstream Taijiquan styles more than they differ. Not that any of that really matters. If reely silky movements are your thing, that's all fine and well. People nowadays are rather caught up in questions of lineage and authenticity rather than taking good teachers for what they are.
