People tend to do what they like these days, but it's worth mentioning that the fan is not a traditional TCC weapon. Whatever form it is, it is non traditional and does not come passed down from an authentic TCC lineage. It's a modern invention, and has no added value in terms of traditional tai chi weapon forms training whatsoever. That probably means very little to some. But you know, have fun anyway. Put on the silk jammies, start the relaxing background music and off you go
You seem to be mixing up the idea of old and authentic. If someone is highly qualified in a legitimate lineage, then they have the right to add to the style and it becomes a part of that authentic lineage which then makes it authentic. Even if it is new. Arts should be alive, which means they grow and current masters add to what old masters have done. I practice two traditional arts. but I am not a fan of thinking something has value only if it is "x" number of years old. So no, the fan is not old or traditional in TCC, but to say it is not authentic is incorrect. As for the value, You really have not contributed anything constructive to the discussion of that. I have put out tangible reasons why I find fan training useful from a martial fighting viewpoint. You have done nothing to dispute the practical arguments I put forth regarding the fighting applications and practicality of the weapon. You just decided to get insulting with the old tired "jammies" statement. Which isn't contributing to a constructive discussion of the topic at hand. And really had no relevance to the topic, again except to be insulting. No one said it was old and no one claimed it was traditional. But one can find fan forms in many TCC schools of various lineages. So apparently it has value to a lot of people, even if it isn't your thing. BTW, how many years does something have to be in an art before it becomes traditional? If fan forms are in various lineages of TCC for 50 years? 60? 70? What year is the magic number? Just curious.
I think maybe you just need to lighten up a bit - the last bit was meant as a light hearted joke.. But seeing as you want to split hairs, fine.. You may have an authentic lineage in Yang TCC but that form is not part of that. The things learnt from that source are the only things that should be considered authentic Yang style TCC. If it's not part of the major styles then I would not consider it "authentic". It does not have it's origin in TCC therefore is not real or genuine TCC - that is a legit meaning of the word authentic FYI http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/authentic. If your teacher made it up, that's great, but he does not represent the major styles with it, he has just added it to what he teaches. What he learned from whatever Yang lineage would be considered authentic TCC in my view, what forms he added is not. That doesn't mean it's "not taichi", but it is not an "authentic" form. I'm fairly certain that the Yang lineage(s) themselves do not have it and have not added it. I am using it in the sense that it is not a real and genuine tai chi chuan form as passed down in any recognised family style or system. I don't think I am abusing the meaning of the word authentic here. What is original, real or genuine and what is a made up modern add on matters to some - if it does not matter to you that is absolutely fine too. This is a place to share opinions about the subjects posted. I have given mine, and it doesn't really matter if you like it or not - it's my opinion, and within the TOS as far as I am aware. People are free to enjoy and practice whatever they like but we can still share an honest opinion about it, Let's be clear this is a modern add on as you accept and not a part of any of the family styles and none of them I believe have added this to their systems of practice. I believe it has nothing of added value to offer above and beyond the weapons training that exists which are authentic ie. originally practiced by that lineage, again just my opinion. That some CLF guy or Wushu people that have done Yang style have created these forms in modern times and added it to what they teach is neither here nor there. It is not part of original/ authentic TCC. Anyone can do pretty much anything these days and call it tai chi, just look at youtube for the proof. What and from whom they learnt from doesn't really matter if they change it to something else or mix something else into it. It does not mean we should treat it all equally as being authentic in the traditional sense. The Jian form for example would be considered an authentic TCC form. In effect tcc and fan form (I know nothing about where fan forms originated from) have been used, copied and synthesised into one, creating something new and different in the process. There comes a point that if you change something it can no more be considered authentic. If I took the Jian form and mixed in Japanese sword then how could I call it authentic TCC - it just wouldn't be that. Someone could add anything to what they teach eg. boxing, that would not in turn make boxing authentic TCC - wouldn't you agree ? There are tai chi teachers that do that eg. William CC Chen - who competed in boxing in Taiwan. But no one should be confused that it comes from TCC and not boxing. he has synthesised them which I think is great and useful and adds value, but the end product cannot be considered authentic (original, real, genuine) TCC eitherway. It's a new hybrid, and there's nothing wrong with that in of itself. But it's still important and worthwhile to recognise and know the difference, in my view. Fan comes from other KF and Wushu as far as I can tell - not TCC.
There is a difference between messing with something that exists and adding something completely different. Comparing messing with a traditional old form to adding a new form is simply not an accurate representation of the same thing. They are two different things. A new form added should follow the principles of TCC. As long as it does, and as long as no one misrepresents the origins, there is nothing wrong with adding to the style. I suppose you think anyone doing shorter forms is not authentic either. If you are one of those people that thinks the only forms that count are the ones developed by the founder of Yang style, so be it. We will just have to disagree on that matter. I would rather see TCC as a living breathing style. Again, as long as anyone adding to it keeps to the principles. That is the key. To me, a master of a style is fully qualified to contribute to a style of any MA. When a legitimate qualified Sifu from a legitimate lineage contributes to a style then it is is "undisputed origin -genuine." Which is more in line iwith the definition I was using of authentic. As for pulling up youtube, well, one can find shoddy clips of traditional forms too. That really proves nothing. Oh, and I have found plenty of shoddy Gim forms too. Doesn't discount the Gim, does it? Although one does see that, like it or not, fans are becoming a widespread part of TCC. I think we are both accurate in what we say now that i have looked up the various definitions of the word authentic. You were referring to the definition of "being done in the traditional way" or "original" while I was referring to the definitions of undisputed origins" or "not being fraudulent". (anyone can google the word to see........)
I never suggested your form is "fraudulent" - in that they are palmed off as something they are not. Because frankly no one who really knows the style and it's history in TCC accepts them as being from a family style of TCC in the first place. Everyone pretty much knows they are a modern incarnation. The reason for their incarnation is debatable as is the added value they bring to tai chi chuan training - given the weapons training already existent. The value they bring to personal training and individual enjoyment is just that - personal. It's all very well adding to something or inventing something or mixing something, but you should be as clear as possible what it is, how it came about and where it is from. That has happened here from what I can tell, so I am not complaining about anything, I am just making clear that these are not original, real or "genuine" as far as TCC goes. Or at least the kind I practice. I wouldn't touch a fan form if you paid me!! For a start I am way too macho These forms no matter the quality achieved are not from tai chi chuan - no recognised GM or head of a branch of the family styles of Wu, Yang, Chen, Sun, Wu Hao and Zhao Bao has ever created one or taught one to my knowledge. I practice a hybrid empty hand form by choice incidentally from Chen Pan Ling, so I am not being hypocritical here. I have nothing against hybrids or new incarnations in of themselves. I just would want to know the history and teachers behind them. That form comes from a mix of Chen, Wu and Yang TCC. Neither am I against mixing arts and styles as seen fit - I do that too. But I would maintain that Tai chi has never had fan form, ever and it adds nothing of value that is not there - unless you actually plan to fight with these fans. Again a personal choice and opinion. Only a grandmaster of a CMA style can shape or change the system under them - the head of the style. In terms of Yang family, that would be people like Yang Cheng Fu, Yang Sau Cheung, Yang Jian Hou etc. The Yang family taught plenty of people and they in turn taught others - none of them really has a right to add something or change something to Yang style and still call that thing Yang style. Why do you think Wu style for example is called Wu style and not Yang style ? The Wu's learnt from the Yangs but they achieved enough to be the masters of their own style. It would not be seen as right to teach something recognisably different and call it Yang style. The form I practice is called Chen Pan Ling style, for the reason that it is not any of the styles it came from any longer. The disciples and students cannot go around adding things and palm them off as authentic Yang material. It will become known and pointed out. It's its own form of quality control at the end of the day. If people are happy with what they are getting they can choose to accept it or not - that's the choice in the end of the day. If the origin is obscured or confused, in the end anything can be accepted as authentic x style TCC. If you are making something new - it's your style. There may be Fan forms carrying the name Yang style, but none of them are really Yang style at all - they are "fake" in that respect. Because the whole business of teaching, wushu and performance has become so big, anyone of many qualified people can create a form based on Yang style. That doesn't mean it is Yang style. But seriously, if you see something called Yang style fan form on You-tube (and they are there) - even if you think it is great it is a fraud in the sense it is not really true Yang style anything. It is really only based on Yang style movements copied and modified from other true Yang style forms.
Arhh,G-Lad! Give em the cold steel,now!irate: The reason TC fan forms arose isn't debatable at all-it was quite obvious at the time. In the 1980s the modern Wu Shu folks started making fan forms popular-not unlike the "drunken" fad from the 80s(-another residue of cool we're still living with). Everybody on the tourney scene started doing (and making up) fan forms-even some of the Kenpo people. So some TC people started making up fan forms. Most of which have little to no real world function. Basically,candy for children.No TC fans around before that period. Fans mainly function as what FMA refers to as pocket sticks. However,no one made a TC pocket stick form,as while it might be functional it would have no flashy/cool factor. Also- Actually the reason is because when people put out their shingle it was like "Wu's TC"--sorta like "Jones' Garage". Eventually people just referred to the branch of teachers as Wu,Yang,etc. This goes back to what Ma,Yueh-liang once said,that when he was studying they just called it T'ai Chi,not Yang,or Wu. Plus as there was so much back and forth between the practitioners studying with both Yangs and Wus,(including the Yangs and Wus themselves), it's hard to draw any real lines.I mean,8 years w/Wu,C-c,and then 4 years w/Yang,Shou-chung made Wu,Tu-nan a practitioner of ....what? Wu is really just "a" method of Yang.
I'm a fan of how this discussion is progressing This is the idea that I was getting at - the function of a fan in combat (whether traditional/genuine or modern/interpretive) would be akin to this, rather than a longer stick/cane. Yep, it's all the 13 principles. All the styles are just generalised interpretations, descending from each other generation to generation. Yang style? Is Yang Chengfu's Yang style the same as Yang Luchan's? Or did Luchan actually do Chen style? It's all good - as long as it applies to the principles. In a way - I mean, the shorter forms are not 'traditional' forms, but 'inspired by' the traditional forms. The principles and individual movements may be 'authentic', but the sequence in which they are performed is not 'authentic' to the styles tradition. Kind of like packaging a Big Mac in a Burger King wrapper - it may be processed meat in a bun, but it's not a Burger King product.
Me, I don't care about the sequence. The sequence isn't what is important. The way the moves are done- the applications and the principles behind the moves, that is what is key. The analogy to me is I would think of it as ordering different kind of burgers from the same place, one may be smaller, one may have more toppings, but they are all burgers from (insert bad fast food name here.) The principles are the meat and bun, the rest is just dressing. If I follow the principles of "Fair lady works the shuttle" I can do it empty handed in the 24, the 40 or the 108 and it is still the same thing. It is also similar and very close to do this move with the adaption of poking the throat with a fan. There is the authenticity. There is the same burger, regardless of the toppings IMO. If you don't agree with that, then your idea of what the meat and core of TCC is different than mine. I care far more about seeing the principles in a move. Those principles are what makes one a good or poor practitioner, not what sequence they memorize. Which is what I think Dan Bian means when he says............... So I find it weird to be so hung up on sequences and their authenticity and calling it this burger or that authentic.
Both Big Macs and XL Bacon-Doubles are tasty, but I prefer the XL-BD Tai Chi Fan may be Tai Chi in that it adheres to the principles (I expect, I don't know, having never really looked into it). But that doesn't make it 'Traditional' tai chi... And, if we are talking about authentic lineage, it certainly isn't "authentic" in that it isn't a traditional part of the family style syllabus' - as passed down by the families to the current day. But, it's still tai chi. As long as it sticks the to the principles. Yin and Yang, Yin within Yang Yang within Yin Tai Chi
I think I would simply describe them as derivative. As I said before I wouldn't say they are "not tai chi" necessarily. You can't make a "fake" of something that never existed in the first place, so I wouldn't really call them that either. If the teacher who invented it has your stamp of approval as to their proficiency and knowledge of TCC and it's movement principles you would not really have a problem to practice something they came up with, if that's what you wanted to practice.
I hadn't expected this topic to be so controversial regarding the authenticity of Tai Chi lineages. I thought that, at the end of the day you were free to practice what you wanted, within reason.
You only have to think about the authenticity of Taiji lineages to start an argument here. You don't even have to post it... just think it.
You are free to practice whatever you want - but that doesnât mean you can call what you practice whatever you want, if that name already has defined characteridtics/components.. Or, it doesnt matter at all...
