I couldn't agree more about his posting manner! It is arrogant, condescending and ultra-defensive. But I'm not going to assume that his Taiji is bad just because his posting style is rude and because the Taiji 'style' he practises tells lies about it's history. To make the same ill-informed digs at him as he makes about other people would be to sink to his level, and I'd rather not do that.* * Unless this thread is still going on my next birthday, in which case I might be really rude to him just as a birthday treat.
Well Mr. Johnno, I took offense to your statement: That seemed pretty high and mighty of you to say. Impling some level of naivety. Had you not drawn your sword first, I would not have drawn mine.
I believe he posted a video of himself doing TC - or at least another practitioner of his style. You can draw your conlusions (either way) from that. I did. Actually, I looked over an old thread you were in. I am afraid you were the one who drew "your sword first" with the very judgemental attitude. Dropping the attitude would make conversation much more constructive.
This may give an insight into our 'friend' http://www.martialartsplanet.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1239581&postcount=73 He/she is here for no reason other than to stir up hassle and cause arguements. Best to leave him/her alone.
Dan, That was 6 years ago. I am much more measured now. No one has responded to my assertion about Chen Man-ch'ing keeping company with Master Liao. Does anyone think Chen Man-ch'ing was fake?
Not sure what Chen Man Ching has to do with anything. Either way, I doubt any one here has ever met him, hence any claims to his skill or what not are pure assumption for most part. Though sure, he may have been very good or not, I don't know and I doubt many others, yourself included, can say anything definite on this issue, hearsay is much more likely. Anyhow, do you train directly under Waysun Liao? Or one of his students? I heard Waysun Liao was more of a trembling/shaking crane practitioner, or initially anyway. From what I have read/heard of Temple style, it seems to me that at least some part of the practice, if not a large part, comes from the crane chigung/neigung.
Which is the old time way.Except that it would be longer than just some months before you began to connect all the postures into a form. Yes,Liao has some goods,he turned out at least one individual who has not been averse to crossing hands with people to convince them T'ai Chi works.Is he training any people in this manner these days? What? Temple Style has a monopoly on sung (shoong) ? What branch of TC doesn't have sung? It's "about" meditative movements? There's a preponderance in the classical writings about this? Or in the canon from which much of T'ai Chi was drawn? I don't think most of the nei gungs are any more about meditative movement than bench pressing is. I think correct = better,as anything other than correct is incorrect,correct? So at heart you're saying the 5 families and their lineage branches are wrong as regards TC. Oh,do I have question for you... Well,he was a TC practitioner executing multitasking awareness and complex mechanics.Too complex attention/physical processes to qualify as meditation,really. I'm glad your ten years have given you such a real understanding as opposed to Johnno. You sure about that? Of course,I'd feel totally confident in saying the same to you. So when you'd been already practicing for 4 years you said "its fun to pretend that your some type of internalist (whatever the hell that means) and talk about all the fa jing crap." Odd,isn't that?Among other things you said in that thread.So is that really you in the vid? Could people please spell Professor's name correctly? It's Cheng. What does Professor hanging out with WL have to do with anything? Oh,wait,it does.... Wouldst thou care to draw steel agin' me? For 'tis a bonny endea'or upon the blasted plains o' history. If you believe claims such as TC is "about" meditative movements then yes,you must have been told them.You sure didn't independently verify them from a familiarity with known history and writings-at least not without cherry picking.So actually,it seems that it is you who truly are "like most people". So here's that question I mentioned I had,which also relates to WL and Professor Cheng's association. Or wavelength,if you prefer. Why does the barehand sequence (form) of Temple Style look so very,very,very,very similar to Professor Cheng's? I look forward to the explanation.
I don't think CMC is all that great, to be honest... I think, in the videos that exist of him, there is too much 'student reverence' in making Cheng look 'masterful'.
Add me to that list too. I have never seen a list of name that CMC had defeated in his life time. When you get old, if "push" is the only thing that you care about, there is something wrong there. If "meditation" is the only reason that you train Taiji, there is something wrong there too.
OK, first let me reiterate that I do not parrot the so oft heard line from Cheng's American line that he was Cheng-fu's greatest disciple,no one could beat him, etc etc blah, blah.I know better and am not into worship nor the awe factor,nor is it unknown for me to level criticisms at the line of CMC.Among others. For those not familiar with my background as regards Yang systems I've studied with people from 4 different lines. What I kept as worthwhile are the methods of Tung,Ying-ch'ieh and Cheng,Man-ch'ing. My personal approach to TC is simply as a functional martial system so there are very pragmatic reasons I kept those two. I have to disagree,I owned those films long before they were available to the public and knew who most of those people were and have felt a couple of them.Excluding films of applications which are meant to be just demos I don't see/find anything odd about in the films as regards his catching people and as I've stated before on MAP the guys in those films were simply out of their league skillwise, plus as they are all people he did hands on stuff with he "knew" them all well.I mean,whose game is it their playing?Couple a much higher skill level with familiarity of how the opponent "feels" (in the context of doing ph) pretty much makes it so he already owns them there.And can make them look downright silly.Of course let's not forget that if able in the moment a person will ride the force,even unconsciously,for self preservation.Which can make a push look heavier than it was. Not always tho- My 2nd teacher had previously wrestled,studied Hung and SPM,and had then been with Wm. Chen for a couple years before becoming Cheng's student.He said the first time he touched Cheng "It was like a blink." They touched and he was immediately airborne and rocketing backwards at a high rate of speed.He didn't even have time to feel the push. He was just outta there-and out of his league. The only one which looks like what you intimate is on Taiwan where Wm. Chen runs backwards for so far.Nevertheless,as far as getting caught and rocketed Wm. didn't have a chance either. When I first saw the films I'd already experienced both the receiving and giving of much of the same stuff so to me the things in the ph films were---ordinary? If someone catches you they don't have to do a lot to get a big looking effect,esp when utilizing long power and you sure don't have to be compliant.If they're mucho better than you.... Cheng in ph vs. Wang,Yen-nien-I wish we had films of their playtimes! OK.Particular critiques? I'm open.But here's food for thought. In the US his line often dominates in ph comps. While my view is the ph comps are meaningless and that when TC folks compete they should just fight like everybody else I would think that so many CMC folks doing well in that venue would mean something to you. On another note I can direct you to a branch of Cheng's in SE Asia which has been very active in challenge matches and fighting tourneys since the 1950s. Can you likewise direct me to such a TC (not CLF) line coming from Hu/Wu, your headmaster's (Wong's) teacher prior to the advent of ph comps ?He was a student of Cheng-fu. He defeated Yue,Shue-t'ing for one.He who established the line in SE Asia I wrote of above. When Cheng took the platform he advertised he would only use pushing to defeat his opponents but the repertoire of Cheng's TC is standard Yang including the strikes, downings,etc. While he spoke much of health the only actual meditation I know of that he spoke of was the quiet sitting. ---------------------- In closing another long winded post- Look gang, it's a matter of record that that most of his disciples in the East were intellectuals and upper class folks who were hardly fighter material.Nor do I feel that most of the students in the US got that much. I think the view of Cheng's TC is skewed due to what the Taiwan and American branches in general became.(Leaving Wm. Chen's branch out). Cheng bears the responsibility for that but I don't see where his TC branch is any more guilty of a dearth of functional practitioners than any other and it has had more presence in ph and fighting comps than most,both in the US and Asia. As to Cheng's personal skills even my teacher who was Tung's disciple said he was very good. A comment which transcended the awful TC politics and personal frictions of the 20th century.
I have trouble answering the first question because I don't like criticizing other schools or lineages. So, let me try and word this in a way that is respectful. I also don't run around with the superiority complex of the one guy on here who started this sub thread. So I have my preferences based on my teaching, but I respect those who study differently. I am also not good at describing stuff on the Internet that I could easily show you in person. I should also mention that our TCC lineage comes from Yang Cheng Fu through Hu Yuen Chou. Hu Yuen Chou also learned from a couple of other people though. Chen, Wei- Ming and Dong, Ying-Jie - also known as Tung Ying-Chieh. I haven't studied CMC a lot, but what little I have seen shows the very limp style of doing forms. A lot of retreating in the moves. A lot of limpness in the hands and body moves. That is very different than how I am taught. Learning with a lot of limpness equals a lack of intention in the moves, It is called spaghetti style or tofu type moves in my school and we are taught to be relaxed but have more intention and extension in the moves. The limpness equates to too much arm movements disconnected from the rest of the body. The retreating is just an open opportunity to knock someone off balance and down. I am just discussing how my school works. And I am not saying my way is the way other schools should think of things. I mean no disrespect. But I am trying to answer your question honestly. As for your second question, I don't get how the whole Hu/ Wu thing is involved. So I am a bit confused. I study Yang style. I don't get into the whole challenge matches thing and I am not trying to knock others. My GM's history is out there for anyone to see. It sounds like you are already familiar with it, but I can provide a link of you aren't and want more information. If it isn't something you like, well you are as entitled to that opinion as I am of CMC. I feel my GM has a lot to offer. You feel CMC offers you a lot. It's all good and I respect how you feel. Someone here said they don't like Cheng Fu. I am not offended by that. He can feel how he likes. We all have our opinions. I feel no need to get into some historical tit for tat of "my GM did this -can your GM match that?" Going back into a "my lineage won this challenge match in the 1950's" seems sort of pointless to me as I am not trying to get in a tit for tat or challenge of lineages. Precisely speaking, GM Wong is not my Headmaster, so to speak. The headmaster of my school system is Master Nathan Fisher. His teacher is GM Wong, and my schools belong to his Federation.
Interesting stuff, thanks for sharing [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fSYPOhSgiis"]Cheng Man Ching -Push hands play - YouTube[/ame] I'll be honest and state, I haven't practiced CMC Taijiquan, so my opinion is based on the video footage available, and from talking to other CMC practitioners. As I said before, my main issue is the way the students 'over play' the falling/running backwards after Cheng has pushed them. I think Cheng is certainly using excellent body movement principles, but the 'beauty' of what he is doing is somewhat spoiled by these reactions.. I may be completely wrong - Cheng may have been able to launch people into such uncontrollable falls, and I'll never know for sure now. Although I'm not a fan this method of form-practice; I don't think it necessary equals a lack of intention. I think it may look like it lacks a solid structure, but without having a feel of a Cheng practitioners structure, I don't think it could be said for sure.
Yep, which is why I try and stay away from grand statements of saying it in a critical way. I say "this is how I am taught, so in that context this is what I see." I am a student of my lineage, we are taught that style is a lack of intention. This is my frame of reference. I fully accept other schools teach differently. So, while I have my own opinions, I respect others feel their schools have their own opinions that may differ and I respect that. So, I am not a fan personally, but I don't make grand statements like the one guy saying other people are learning wrong or the other member saying others style ruin TCC. I'll just say that style is not how I am taught and here are the reasons I am taught.
I have not seen a single CMC clip that he used his fist to punch on his opponent's face, or used his foot to kick on his opponent's body. His Taiji just make people to think that Taiji = push. What CMC's teaching is completely the opposite of what I believe in. I don't agree with him in the following areas: I believe: 1. one should give before taking. He believes one should wait for his opponent to make the 1st move. 2. a punch to the head. He believes a push to the chest. 3. if I push with my arm, I should pull with my leg at the same time. He believes "single contact point" pushing. 4. fast speed training. He believes slow speed training. 5. one move should be equal to either one inhale or one exhale. He believes one move can be more than one breathing. 6. in "double pulling", one should have one Yin hand and one Yang hand. He believes that both hands can be Yin hands. 7. when one shift weight back to his back foot, his leading foot should be on the ground all the time. He believes that when one shifts weight to the back foot, his leading foot toes should come off the ground. 8. "well fed tiger back to mountain". He believes "carry tiger back to mountain". 9. "shoulder extend to the arm". He believes "moving arm like fan". 10. Taiji should be 1/2 hard and 1/2 soft. He believes Taiji is all soft.
I would say offhand that it is interesting that you see an either/ or in those examples, I think in most (not all) of these examples I see both can have value depending on the cirumstances. Sometimes a punch to the face is appropriate, but so also is a push to the chest. Practicing at several speeds is a good thing - both slow and fast. Sometimes you want to make the first move, but sometimes waiting for the opponent to make the first move can work too. ...........etc. You get the idea.
When I taught Taiji in YWCA, we did "double pushing" drill. I used both palms to push on my female student's shoulders. The girl had some previous Taiji training before. She said, "Why don't you just push on my chest? I don't mind." Sometime to push on the chest is just "not proper". I don't know about others but I would never even push on a guy's chest. If I have to push, I would push on: - forehead, - face, - chin, - neck, - shoulder, - upper arm.
Again, for the sake of discussion, no disrespect meant. I am sorry, but I am not impressed by this video. I am not making any statements past looking at this video specifically, so please don't read more into it than that. And again, I am judging this from the perspective of fundamentals as I am taught as my frame of reference. CMC is pushing people who are showing poor fundaments to begin with. I see people heels coming up (0:31. 2;08), peoples who's stances are starting off with WAY too much weight distributed too far back to begin with (1:38.3:19, 3:35), And, people who are getting pushed back because they are starting off with their arms really collapsed( 1:16, 1;38, 3:27 4:47). The guy at 3:19 isn't holding his head with good principles either.) There is so much fundamentally wrong with 4:01, I can only say it all of what I mention above and then poor hip position and head position all together. It isn't that CMC is pushing them into it, he is taking advantage of those beginner fundamental mistakes. Yeah, I could do that too and I am far from a master. The guy at 3:07 is pushing CMC with arms completely collapsed, while CMC's arm has an extended rounded good energy. Of course that isn't going to work. It is poor principles against a strong one. Those opponents don't seem well rooted to begin with. How about letting them get a chance to get rooted as they RUN up and hurry to a poor position? After all, this is a practice session with push hands rules. They aren't running up with an attack, but just to touch arms and get pushed again before even getting set. Either let them run up and CMC can fend off an actual attack OR let them get set and begin competing under PH rules. Again, not knocking CMC. But if he had masterful push hands (and he might have), this video is simply not a good example. I could beat up on a bunch of beginners showing a ton of poor fundamentals and look brilliant too. I would be much more impressed seeing him compete against people who are more advanced and show good fundamentals. You know, a match of two people showing they both know the basics? The people in this video (not meant disrespectfully) don't look like more than very beginning students being fodder to show off the masters skills.
You guys should check out this place: http://www.taoist.org.uk/. I don't know them this is just based on a search. Its for health more than martial as they say on their website, however it wouldn't hurt to see what they're doing and how it differs from your own practice if any. It's good to have a practice with or at least talk to different tai chi practitioners. If you get a chance talk to some of the more advanced students, push hands with them. Nothing loss really.
