Taiji teaching methodology (Split from Oh My GOD!!!!!!!!!! )

p.s.

suggests that martial skill also needs to be in place - it's like "martial skill plus"

"Health alone" would not be "more than a martial skill" it would be "health in place of martial skill"

Anyway, it's all academic because from my experience, Taiji classes often contain a high proportion of rather unfit people who could not really be described as shining examples of athleticism or vitality. You know it's true.

Well, Chen style students are often a bit more robust because the forms are a lot more challenging in themselves. You can't really do it if you are unfit - not well anyway.

 

(Very nice buttons they are too... )
Hey - I'm just throwing stuff into the mix to keep it interesting, least I got you to come back tho eh?
I agree with the martial/health mix pov, but I also know many would turn away from the art forever if pushed that way too soon. Interestingly when people have been with me a few years they tend to trust me when I take that in that direction... (some still leave tho :cry: )
Steve Rowe has his own school, we know each other through our mutual love of pies, and he kindly hosted the last MAP ima meet-up. None of us are his formal students as far as I know. (although all good taiji people are students of each other imho) I know zendog through helping his organising of the first MAP ima meet-up. Visage trains with me sometimes but is basically his own person rather than my student persay.
Inthespirit and zendog I believe train together somewhere in London(?) (or possibly Transylvania in Inthespirit's case :yeleyes: )
(humor warning... humor warning... humor warning... humor warning... humor warning... humor warning... )
Chang San Feng is an Immortal, why does it surprise you him being able to appear in two places separated by hundreds of years? Immortals are renowned for doing stuff like that...
He also has his own thread here on MAP so you can ask him personally whether he exists or not... http://www.martialartsplanet.com/forums/showthread.php?t=47111

On a serious note tho, Tian Yin Jia (son of Tian Zhaolin) who visited the UK a few years back stated that Taiji originated with Chang San Feng. My own view is, it does if you want it to...
Ime/o the Chen's seem to have a major axe to grind on the 'ownership' of Taiji origins, again this is more connected to the PRC's use of Chen style for political reasons than anything else, (the Yang family were nationalists and opposed to the communists and therefore needed discrediting). For a long time only the Chen style was permitted to be practised as martial art in China, all others were restricted to health only by the authorities.
Tian Yin Jia - a direct lineage descendant of YLC - is still not permitted to teach in the PRC. Politics eh?
Prior to the PRC the Yangs and Chens always enjoyed good relations.
I find it strange that the modern claims of the Chen family (and others) were not sorted out with the Yangs when they were training together. It should have been easy to challenge the 'Chang San Feng view' at the time and say "nah, we invented it all" surely? So why didn't they?
Ultimately tho, I agree with you jkz. What matters is what we do now and whether we can make it work... I continue to work towards that always.
I'm also happy to take all the sick and weak folk on board and watch them slowly improve over time - which they do.
I'm glad we aren't all the same, it's much more interesting this way. Let's work always towards understanding and co-operation...
:Angel:

 

Thanks for the humour warning - I laughed the louder because of the suspense - nice comic timing

I think that there has just been an unfortunate tendency in Chinese martial history to have little respect for innovation. Everything has to be traced back ancestrally, or perhaps to some golden age. Similar things happened in Baguazhang - Gao Yisheng is often thought to have created the linear forms of the system himself, but of course the orthodox story at the time had to be that he learned them from "a wandering Daoist."

I guess if you practiced a form of gongfu and someone asked where you got it, you wouldn't get much kudos if you said "oh my dad made it up." At any rate - no one exists in a vaccuum so most things are probably based to some degree on what has gone before.

Baguazhang is usually thought to have been invented by Dong Haiquan. Apparently Yang Luchan and Dong Haiquan knew each other. Some of the characteristic differences between Chen and Yang Taiji have made me think that if someone said "oh - Yang Luchan took the Chen style he was taught and fused it with ideas from Bagua that he got while swapping notes with Dong," I wouldn't be surprised. It's a crackpot theory - but it might make sense. It isn't like it matters - I love my Zheng Manqing-esque version of the Yang style and it works great for combat.

Anyway - I won't comment on the political stuff because I think the situation is rather complex and some of my views might raise a few hackles and, like you, I'd rather work towards understanding and co-operation. So in that spirit I won't comment on the other stuff either. It isn't like you don't know my views already.

I still don't know why there is an alien smiley. :Alien:

 

Just for info...
Tian Yin Jia claims to practice YLC's 'small frame' - a very circular, undulating and twisting form that has 64 movements...He demonstrated a small section, and when I asked "bagua?" he nodded vigorously... :Alien:
hmmm.... the plot thickens
The alien smiley is for when you grok something :Alien:
Grok? :Alien:
:Angel:

 

Hi jdzorya,

Yea i've met and trained with quite a few people from MAP and everyone has been great. Not a student of Steves, but I have loads of respect for him and would probably have trained with him if not for the distance for sure. It was nice meeting him at the last MAP meet.

I live locally to 'spirit...................... he's a numpty

 

Hmmm... the Guangping / Kuang P'ing people do a 64 movement form sequence too. Their lineage is apparently from Banhou / Pan Hou - you can download two 30 min TV programmes (you particularly want the first one) at:

http://www.chinahand.com/

Maybe you could watch their Tai Chi form and tell me if it looks at all similar to the one you saw.

I looked up the terms Grok and Numpty... see - I can get hip with the kids!

 

Good lord... I thought about looking over this thread, but gave up. You people either need to be more concise or start looking for a publisher... I know I'm guilty of writing huge posts occasionally, but y'all have got me beat by a mile...

 

you know us tai chi people like to get deeep sometimes

 

OK onyomi ... here's a quick summary of the story so far.

regular forum folk: we've looked at your website and think you're horrid and bossy because you say Taiji is only for fighting.

jkzorya: it is.

regular forum folk: no it's not - it's for health.

jkzorya: no - it's for fighting. you have a nice dog though.

regular forum folk: well then, it's for fighting and for health.

jkzorya: no - just fighting.

regular forum folk: but joanna, what about the old people?

jkzorya: nyah - who cares?

regular forum folk: you're just mean

jkzorya: so are you - I'm off for a sulk

tjbutterfly: - if you come back, I'll say something crazy...

jkzorya: oh - ok then

everyone together: hooray - we're all friends.

oh and there was some fairly inconsequential stuff about martial arts along the way, but basically that's it.

 

I spend two days in Transylvania and look what happens.. people start getting along… hmmm… must have been some bad blood.. oh well… nice to see nonetheless!

 

But you now have 50 posts.

This makes you part of regular forum folk and gives me the opportunity to go :Alien: :Alien: :Alien:

Anyway, it really went:

Them:
Look at this person who I am fairly sure has no comeback on me and to whom I can safely score points from.


You:
Hey that's me....I'm great me


Them:
Um.......yes......yes you are .....please don't hurt me or write anymore intelligent posts with actual points addressed within.

 

The Wu/Li line originally stated the Chang origin,not the Yangs.Twenty years after he first presented Chang as originator,Li wrote "I do not know who created T'ai Chi Ch'uan."If the individual who first put forth the writings recants,doesn't this say something?No disrespect to various individuals who believe what their teachers told them,who believed what their teachers told them, and so on back through the years including some of my teachers,but there comes a time to look at what evidence we have.

Or, for my friends in the UK,if one gets beyond what one is taught in elementary school here in the US about the reasons for the American rebellion against the Crown,the real history isn't always quite so noble regarding our side..Probably more in line with what is written in your history books.But maybe I should just acknowledge only the idealistic version,we were totally justified,and England totally wrong.It may taste better,but I can't do that.

Evidently there was an oral tradition in Chen village in regards to Chiang Fa bringing something,which has still been mentioned over the years.More recently, Wile discusses both how this was hushed up by a Chen author as well as the reasons in the cultural context at the time why Chang was put forth as originator by the Wu/Li line.As jkzorya stated,Tang Hao discredited the Chang story years ago,but who wants history when we have mystical origins?Most people in China didn't want to listen to him,or the others that have researched since him.Same with the Shaolin "mystique".

The Yangs,who took the writings from the Wus,and the Chens probably didn't care about sorting out the two stories in later years.Both stories served their purpose for the spreading of the different lines,so they were probably winking at each other.If Lu-ch'an's teacher told him where/how it was developed,I'm sure his descendants knew.

btw,one of Kuo,Lin-ying's inheritors told one of my teachers that he had found out that Kuo had made major changes to his form,and he wasn't very happy about it.So another Ban-hou line might look quite different,more than the usual variations one sees.I say might.

so shoot me,onyomi

 

Thanks for that knowledgeable contribution, and nicely put too.

 

No resemblance whatsoever. :Alien: What they are showing is 'large frame' Taiji, presumably a Yang variant. I saw no evidence of even 'middle frame' energy work - but that doesn't mean it wasn't there tho...
Lots of people claim banhou lineage or to do YLC's 'old frame'. (Presumably because both are seen as the historical 'badasses' of Taiji lol ) Taking nothing away from any of them - they all seem pretty effective and certainly more practical than typical YCF taiji ime - but they mostly just resemble YCF taiji only with more teeth. I practice a small section of an 'old frame' myself - I have no idea how 'authentic' it is, but I love it...
Tian Yin Jia's small frame bore no external resemblance to YCF taiji - it was something quite different.
BTW The bit missing from the thread precis was:
Then Liokault turned up with an old and well-used brown-stained spoon....
:Angel:

 

Ohh - please don't use phrases like "energy work" - that's the point where I always switch off. And incidentally I think that Liokault's comment reveals that he is evidently a very astute and discerning gentleman , so PLEASE try to avoid forum bitchiness - then we can all keep getting along.

 

Hey tb i think i saw a clip recently you might like a wee bit.. now let me have a rummage...

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Bb1sflLuSQ"]YouTube[/ame]

This is a slowed down clip.. nice huh?

i think this is passed down from Wu Tu Nan student of Yang Shao Hou. it's different from the Wu small frame/fast form if i remember (he also studied under Wu Chien Chuan).

 

Profound wisdom never fails to shine like a beacon bright - shedding illumination as it goes..

He is my hero!

 

I think you're confusing stirring chai tea with stirring tai chi.

 

cottlestone pie

Hey - it's a sad day when we lose our sense of humour tho...
Fair enuff tho. (Nice comment Jekyl btw lol)

Let me clarify... When you wrote the above, you used energy. The way you did it is particular to you, and that is the energy of your action - if you trained to type differently your energy work would be different. The same is true in Taiji. In Taiji we call the energy work jin but it's really nothing mystical - BUT it ain't just meat and bones either! (That's called waijia) Physics says all matter is fundamentally energy vibrating at different rates and in quantum theory the intent of the experimenter affects the outcome of the experiment. Not mysticism, science.
If I punch someone with aggression in a boxer styleee, it will use a particular kind of energy and produce a particular effect at the point of contact.
If I change my intent and generate the power of the punch from the ground rotating my waist, the outcome will be different at the point of contact - that's the difference in the "energy work" - the way you train and the way you apply...
Would "power" be a more comfortable word for you? It's all the same to me tbh

 

Its not the scientific facts that are mystical it's the conclusions people draw from them- not to mention it is not the 'intent' of the experimenter but the actual act of measuring that affects the outcome. The difficulties of measuring quantum sized things has no relevance to the way you throw a punch and as a rule quantum theories do not apply to things beyond the quanta scale.

Your point about generating differen't kinds of power seems pretty valid as it stands (if you mean throwing a punch in a different way will create a different impact) but it's still got nothing to do with quantum physics.