Which Taiji system has the most martial?

Robertmap a great post... totoally spot on... I chose to start with Chen style taiji as its the one that appealed to me... I would also like to start Yang sometime in the future...

 

Hi,

Thanks.

I've only ever done Yang long form (sometime in the past when Dinosaurs rulled the Earth) Lee style (a little bit - and YES I know all about the argument that it's not 'authentic' but it's OK in my opinion) and in recent years the 24 - Oh and since early last year Graham Bryant's 8 move form - which I think is GREAT ...

I'd love to do Chen style but I know EXACTLY what I want from a Chen style teacher and I haven't found anyone who is near enough for me to visit regularly who can offer that <SIGH>

All the best.

Robert.

 

If you are willing to travel a bit (read quite a bit) then there is a couple of classes I attend in Camden town and Kentish town that are very good... (I travel there every sunday from Greenwich)...

 

got links to these places?

 

Hi

Thanks for the info - links or other details would be great.

All the best.

Robert.

 

I only have a link to one Shifu... the other had been told I was looking and thier "head" student got in touch with me.. this one is my main class as I go to him for Lao Jia but he also does the 18 form too.. http://www.wanghaijun.com/ if you send an email to Aarvo (he is the chap to mail in the UK on the site) then he will let you know all the details... the other person teaches in St Pauls church hall in Camden Square.... I can give you a number to call... just pm me... (he also teaches in Islington at the Islington Chinese Association during the week from 6-10 with various classes... typically classes last an hour and usually transition one into the next...)... the link is more martially orientated while the sunday class at st pauls is more health orientated and both Shifus are extremely good... to watch them is to watch Taijiquan... if you know what I mean... I wont be at either for the next few weeks as I am off overseas (yay) but am more than happy to chat about coming along...

 

I don't feel any acrimony in this conversation.

 

Apparently a student of Yang Cheng Fu went to Chen Fa KE and asked Chen Fa Ke why he couldn't do what his teacher did on him all the time. CHen Fa KE explained Yang Cheng Fu was doing Cannon fist techniques. ANd apparently when YCF was younger he was spotted once doing some Cannon fist techniques. So, my teacher says the conclusion is that Yang Lu Chan did Chen style, he didn't do Yang style. And NO other styles I am aware of, not YCF style, not CMC, not " Old Yang" style, not Guang Ping style, not Wu style, none but Chen has cannon fist, so that means the Yang's kept it for themselves.

 

Any anecdote about Taiji that begins with "Apparently" should have about as much credence as sightings of UFOs creating crop circles.

People lie about lineages to make their own seem better.

Evidence, not anecdotes...

 

My teacher did alot of research and study into Taijiquan before becoming a disciple of the grandmaster Ma Hong. I generally tend to beleive what he says due to his research and indoor knowledge. The only other explanation I can think of would be that YLC simply never learned Cannon fist. BUt that doesn't make any sense since the Yangs were known for their high skill, Taijiquan is a comprehensive system, so I'd tend to think the Yang's learned Chen style, they did Chen style, they didn't do Yang style.

 

No matter how many street fights you've been in, if you don't know how to escape a joint lock, you're not going to be able to. If you don't know about Shuai Jiao, you're gonna be thrown. Come on, MA is for fighting, it is fighting. Taiji is an old battlefileld martial art, and is meant to be used in combat, on the battlefield, captured, or in civilian scenarios. Taiji not for fighting? But can be? Makes no sense. How can you learn to be good in MA's if your teacher isn't. Hard to understand.

ALso, remeber, YLC did Chen style, not Yang, and Chen style bears the same characteristics of the "Taiji" diagram , or even more so, than the Yang style.

IME and from what I'm taught, Chen style has 4 moves in a technique, for every 1 move in many other styles. Other Taiji styles I think can be good though, and have their own unique sort of "flavor" to them

 

Hey serious harm

.

YLC learnt Chen style from the chens - yes. He was, however already a learned and accomplished Martial artist, and conceivably and quite likely added to his martial arts after he left chen village. What YLC 'did' then I would contend is his own style : YANG STYLE. I am not a historian but I would imagine that quite some time had passed between YLC leaving chen village and passing his art to his sons. Lots of time to take all he'd learnt and blend it into his own style and way of fighting - thats what tends to happen with taichi - any taichi - over time it becomes yours. What did he exactly add/change. Why? - I don't know - but there's plenty of thoeries around out there. As for your comment in regards the 'taiji' diagram - its a bit biased, dont'cha think? Any style takes on the character of 'Taiji'. Its not the style it's who and how they perform their taiji that makes it so.

Thanks for that its nice to know that my style can be good.
That 4 moves thing though -really? Did you mean applications? Whatever you meant I don't think you are right - most styles have any number of applications for a move - I'd say its pretty equal really

Again YLC learnt chen style, but what he passed on to his sons was SIGNIFICANTLY different. Did he pass on 'cannon fist' unchanged as a component of his style - yes he probably did, but his taiji form cannot be described as chen style. If you don't beleive me go and watch both styles and then come back and tell me that they are the same.

.

Yes they may well have kept cannon fist as a component of their art, but to base your assumption that they practiced chen style on this is stretching things a bit to say the least.
Chen style is not yang style and yang style is not chen style - they are styles in their own right as is Wu,CMC,Sun,ZaoBao etc. and for good reason - they are all different. Not better or worse just different - whether you like it or not.

Do you practice chen style by any chance?

All the best

regards
geo

 

Hi. All I can say is I have not seen anything new added in another style, I myself have done, or seen before. Now yes, that's limited experience for sure, but Taijiquan is fairly well known, and categorized, in the 5 major known styles, and a few legit branches that aren't among the 5. Now if you look at all the styles, they are all from the chen. A good example would be the Guang Ping Yang style, from what I've seen of it on videos and from learning Chen style, I'd say the Guang Ping style is pretty much straight from Chen, but where is the cannon fist? I myslef, which admittedly is limited experience, I see no cannon fist anywhere else. My teacher thinks the Yangs kept it for themselves. I suspect this is because chen style has so much in it already, I don't know what else there could be at my level of understanding. I don't think there is like, any blatant Xingyi added into any Yang Taijiquan style. But also, the first set is supposed to be more important, and what should be worked on most at first. It could be that simply no one left in the line in modern times had cannon fist cause they didn't get to that level, except that Chen masters teach it publically now to students after a few years sometimes.

I should apologize if I made it sound like this was my own revelation. I was shown this by my teacher, he also knows other Taiji styles. Yang style is Chen style, but with less moves within each "move", like the grasp bird's tail is the same in Chen, but it is not called grasp bird's tail, it consists of Buddha's warrior attendant pounds mortar, and lazy about tying coat which have more moves than grasp bird's tail. I don't think it can be denied that it is the same form. But the sweeps and stomps, etc, seem absent, as well as many other variations of like shoulder, elbow, push, etc. He also showed in a demonstration of push hands how each style of Taiji would fa jing differently, with a different style. He said other styles are good, but Chen is what he thinks is best. He said don't trade Chen Taijiquan for another style. As for applications, they are almost infinite for each move, and each move builds of each other.

Well, all I can say is that I totally disagree as far as the styles I have done, which is mainly CMC Yang style, and Chen zhou Kui style. Even CMC style which is probably a form that has been changed a good amount from Chen, I can see is cleary the same form as Chen style first form, clearly, and I'm no expert. But it is also my CHen teachers opinion which he teaches in class, that Yang and other styles are Chen style. And he demonstrates it.

Yes, and before that Yang style. I'll tell you something, I have seen some Yang stylists who really tuck their tailbones, as an important requirement for practice. This is wrong, tucking the tailbone is wrong in Taijiquan, or MA, or qigong even I think, it should be in a natural neutral position I'm pretty sure. If the tailbone has a use, it's not that, and I think it's beyond my level to explain clearly, we don't worry about it at all. I'm not saying they all are wrong, but some. And then I've seen the videos on the net of the "Old Yang fighting" Yang stylists going totally relaxed and limp, collapsing their own posture, I mean how can you fight in a collapsed but open and vulnerable posture, also wrong. Taijiquan means unified tension and unified movement. Unified tension is what we are reminded of a fair bit in practice. I think the joints must move freely but together. I'm mainly interested in Chen than other styles now, but maybe a certain teacher or art is just not for you, then another style might be better for you even if the art and fighting skill isn't, so I don't know, there is also the fact that there are now "short" forms and "long" forms, in some styles now, sometimes designed for rich royal people, and the long form for martial artists, so if you get a "short" form you might be ****ed. My Chen teacher scoffs at short forms, we don't do them ever. But then, it seems alot of long forms suck ass these days, and are basically non-martial despite claims otherwise.

 

The tucked in tailbone I feel gets over done. What we do not want is to stick our ass out. There is an optimal point; not necessarily the same for everybody, where the tailbone 'drops'. This does not mean tucked under. For me this gives a much better connection with the ground.

Tension? I must have missed that particular explanation somewhere. We want to get rid of tension. We'll still use muscles, but we do not want to be tense. We want to be fluid and alive, loose and relaxed; note I'm not advocating collapsing or floppyness. Tension blocks the flow.

I think you have it in regards to the long and the short of taiji forms, although anything longer than 13 could be considered a long form as that's where it all came from!

The question is a balance of quality and quantity. Are all the extra postures making you a better taiji player? Are short forms missing 'something'?

It should not matter how many postures you know, but how well you can do them. How well you can examine the principles of the art. Are you perfect in every posture? I know I'm not, but I'm working on it. In the past you were only allowed to learn a new posture one the previous one had been 'perfected'. This meant that it could take years to learn 10 postures! Thank goodness that doesn't happen any more!

Just because your form contains 24, 37, 74, 98, 108 postures will not automatically make you a taijifighter (TM). It's your ability to understand the principles of the art that will make you that.

Which style is the most martial?
It's obviously (CENSORED TO PREVENT GIVING THE GAME AWAY!!!). It rocks!!

As for who practiced what? was it Yang or Chen? Why does it matter? It's now that matters, not what happened over a century ago. Everybody tries to say how there style is the 'secret inner door not taught to the likes of you' style that was thought to be lost etc. Just ditch that and get on with it. Let your practice prove that your style has meat to it.

 

That sounds like what I learned. We absolutely do not tuck it though.

Not tension as in strength of like "dynamic" tension, but a stretched but lose way I guess, hard to explain, and even fully get. But unified tension is correct, maybe it's like a balloon filled with air, the surface is stretched, and the balloon gets looser. That might not be totally correct. BUt we develop alot of strength in out bodies, with spiralling, and rotating with unified tension.

My Yang teacher told me his teacher taught a short form and long form, but he told serious students to forget the short form, it's just for rich people who don't want to practice fighting

I think some might be, although they have the important energies still.

I agree definitely. ONe move you can use is better than 10 you can't use. However there is something valuable in having all the options, all the qinna, all the kicks etc. if you meet someone high level it's gonna take more than the basics, one little thing could make the difference between victory and defeat I'd think.

Lol. I don't know, I say stick to the original forms, because that's how I learn, the form is the accumultive knowledge of the past masters fighting experience, plus it's well balanced I think. Every move builds off the last one and contains aspects of the ones before it. Yes, they say how well you do Buddha's Warrior attendant pounds Mortar is how well you do all moves, but I don't think you'd want only practice that move. Standing, qigong, etc, while important,( you certainly need sung and structure, peng etc.) are not the foundation of Taijiquan skill, the form is, especially first set. You wouldn't play chess, only doing one move over and over, not every fight will go like how you want it too.

Yes, I think that is generally correct, and there is always someone whose line is closer to the source than yours anyways. I'm just saying I don't at all beleive the other styles are different or have a "Wudang" part added in and such. Not to say I totally discount Zhang San Feng, just that he is not at all relevant since he lived in 1200, and all Taijiquan as we know it, is from Chen village 1600s. If there is Wudang in Taijiquan, I think it is from before YLC ever learned it. Spiral power, Yin Yang? Taiji? SPiral? hen haa breathing? Wudang? Shaolin? Battlefield MAs? Who knows. Actually in Chen, I was taught today that it consists of some Shaolin, and is an old battlefield art. THere is a saying, 100 battles, 100 victories. It means in battle you should know what you are doing, plan things out, and not take wild or blind chances.

 

ok, but do you drop it?

Sounds like fullness to me. I think I see what you are on about. It's just that the use of 'tension' to describe it could lead to confusion.

This clearly depends entirely on the teacher, as there are some who'll teach a long form as a health exercise too, so that they can keep the students for longer. We cannot automatically assume that just because the form is longer that we will be a better fighter.

Another thing is that although the hand form I do may be considered short, I also practice the jian and dao and more recently started examining the jo (from aikido). All of which feed back into each other to improve the principles that come into play.

The problem comes when you cannot decide which move to use before you face gets hit
Whatever we do it has to be instinctive. If you have to think about what you are going to do, you're too late.

Clearly the martial-ness is not style dependant, but more teacher dependant. A fellow student's mother recently started learning Sun style, a style that uses a short stance as Sun Lu-Tang believed that this was better and closer to a correct fighting stance. All well and good. A martial sounding style, but the teacher thought that the style was named after the sun in the sky!! deary me!

plan things out? ok for a set battle, but a random attack? too slow.

I am in general agreement with most of what you are saying though. I guess I just use different words.

 

Hi Vampyre_rat great posts, I couldn't agree more Techniques just don't work in the street, thats why "techniques" it not always a good word to use. My teacher does not use the word, unless he can help it. He prefers to use the words "drills" or "training methods" each of which teaches you some aspect of the fighting art.
Sometimes we do drills that are very complex, but these teach you to do the easy thing on a subconscious level when the time comes.
Unfortunately like a lot of stuff in Chinese Martial Arts techniques are not meant to be taken literally or taught as such.

 

They rely on principles and that's where good technique come from. If you want spontanious techniques, you have to be familiar with the principles of what you are doing. Work from there.

You can't really seperate the words in the context of martial application. techniques denote the "external forms" that can be applied which can be many. To apply them well and to be able to apply them spontaniously you need to understand the principle that make them work and of course practice applying them in various settings. in that way you can identify common principles to different techniques.

Techniques are just what happen when you apply principle. As long as you recognise what they are guided and driven by, i don't personally see any reason to abandon the word.. Yes indeed it is appearance and in that sense you could say techniques are umm sorry i've forgotton the word..

I mean a headbutt is a technique - the better the right priciples you apply the better your headbuttin technique.. Bit of a word game i know. But there you go.

Applying them well will include the more general principles of, not forcing them (eg. throws), timing, opportunity, etc.

And umm thanks i guess for the thread necromancy.. Reading my last post here I guess i was speaking about appearance of styles, forms. Of course I think the principles of all styles of tcc should be pretty much same.

I don't think it was much after that I met a teacher that inparted the following outstanding wisdom to me.

"tai chi is tai chi"*

disclaimer: *unless Earl is doing it - then its a tai chi /kuntao/ wing chun/ wudangshan hybrid

 

Hi cloudhandz good explanation thank you

As for abandoning the word that is not what I wanted to express, but so many people get hung up on the word and take it literally.

Please can you explain what your teacher meant by "Tai Chi is Tai Chi" as I don't want to take this literally ?

I train Erle Montague's System with one of his instructors in Leicester and with Erle at his workshops, I think you really need to train it before you can determine where all the bits come from.

For instance bits of the Wu Dang Chi disruption forms, tie in with Yang Lu Chan’s form and are older than Yang Lu Chan's form.
Also one of the Wu Dang hand weapon forms is similar to a Wing Chun drill ,but this short form dates back far further than Wing Chun.

Erle certainly does not teach Wing Chun or Kuntao and only teaches the internal stuff all of which is uses to learn Fa-jing in the same way.

Have a look at his latest Magazine on his website there's an articles by Paul Breacher about research he did in China on what Erle teaches.

regards

 

Hey cool those last comments were more tongue in cheek than anything else..

It's pretty difficult to discuss Erle and his system in any definitive way really.. i think he has studied with a lot of different source. Are all the things he believes to be true or what he says about arts really true. Is not for me to say either way, but there is much that is debatable!

I learnt that same form from other people and a similar style of application.. people that had no connection to Earl, but did learn from both CKH and another non Western teacher.. in London!

What Earl teaches as 'old Yang' is quite different to anything else being taught. And it's not like there aren't verifiable YSH lineages out there to compare to.. But i don't know it may be exactly as he says - but it seems this stuff exists in some sort of vacuum in a way.. Compared to the Yang stuff that is out there.

My best guess is that it is some kind of combination form/ style. I don't know where it comes from other than a few possible ideas, but it is a stretch to believe Erles backstory for it. it really is - and not just for me.

I'll definately check that out at Breachers site. as i have some interest in that style. I don't train it so much these days. But i trained it pretty hard for going on 5 years ..I'd love to know how it really came about, if only to satisfy my curiosity. But i've heard too much conflicting info to be in any way sure. Though it's possible it came out Taiwan with a Chen Pan Ling involvment or maybe had something to do with CPLs' involvment with the Nanking commitee.

To me it has a lot of the pre dominant flavour of a tai chi - bagua combination .. With a few other bits and peices thrown in.

Regards