Why some Yang TaiChi schools might look external

Yang Taijiquan Today


http://www.hkbu.edu.hk/~pesubj/brown/e_wushu/wu_dev1.htm

It is from Yang Taijiquan that the majority of styles of Taijiquan have developed. Yang Taijiquan continues to be the major style of Taijiquan to be practiced in the world. Sadly, however, many have come to regard it as diluted and devoid of its original martial content. Wang Zhen Nan, a great Internal Boxing expert, once lamented that Internal Boxing was dying out because it did not look strong and some of its practitioners were infusing external techniques into it to make it appear more credible. Fortunately, Taijiquan has had great masters to show that is credible both as a martial art and as a health art.

Yang Taijiquan has not changed all that much since its foundation by Yang Lu Chan, only minor changes have been made to the way its been practiced and its main practice set. Its syllabus is still practiced and still bringing benefits to all who practice it. The Yang family still continues to promote their art vigourously and new generations of teachers are being trained to carry on this glorious tradition.

 

OK agree.

Then switch to a more Daoist approach as depicted in this website:

http://www.wudang.com/English/MartialArts/taijiquan_en.html


You must realise that Daoism has been corrupted by Shaolin and the natural evolution of Chinese society.

 

I'd argue that Yang style has changed plenty since YLC - esp. with the adaption of moves to suit the dress style in the Imperial Court and also from Cheng Fu adapting the form to make it a. easier and more accessible for less healthy/fit people, and b. because he became overweight and had to adapt his style to suit his larger frame.

Also, how do you prove it hasn't changed since YLC? Does anyone have some old footage of him sparring/practicing? (!)

I agree that the biggest danger is people infusing tai chi with external principles to "toughen it up". This is almost always due to lack of knowledge of how tcc actually is.

Nowadays the threat comes from different angles:

1. (possibly) the Chinese government trying to standardise forms, which stops the individual exploration and organic development which is crucial for any martial art.
2. lack of awareness of tai chi principles, esp. in the west. In particular, external/kung fu teachers with a limited knowledge of tai chi, offering a tai chi class for the money in addition to their core curriculum. Simply turns into karate/external kung fu done slowly.
3. people who feel tai chi "doesn't need to be learned martially" (especially in the west). this is their own perogative of course, but it means that if they subsequently start teaching, they won't be able to teach the "chuan" to a student who is interested. Problem is that rather than admit to a lack of knowledge, these teachers assume the martial tai chi is simply sections of the form directly translated to the str33t, so they dilute the art even further (look at many of the western "silk pyjama tai chi for health" books out there and flick to the back to the 2 pages they devote to their idea of the martial side.


One more point - I think it's the teacher rather than the style. Yang is definitely more guilty of dilution, but that's probably simply its popularity compared to the other styles and the fact that the kind of people who would dilute the art are turned away from the more martial appearance of Chen style, going instead toward the more "gentle" looking Yang.

 

I would also suggest that Yang style has changed... didnt YCF change it then pompously (or not) announce that to change it any further yadda yadda...

 

Yang Cheng Fu changed the form because of clothing and a weight problem? Is that where the Large Frame came from? LOL

How about he changed the way he did things, because his understanding of the principles changed?

 

I will add that, IMHO, there are some people out there so desparate for martial taiji, that they lose sight of the principles and just pile in doing tai wan shu or some other rubbish.

 

Maybe thats what I need to start doing... (gym starts monday... or tuesday...lol)

 

To be honest you can have this arguement in any style of martial art as it goes down the years. Every one who teaches a form or kata will have their own agenda on how it should be taught and how it should be explained. As this goes down the line kata or form will change who can say if its being diluted or actually made better. I suspect most forms in martial arts look nothing like they use to in the past.As has all ready been said it can not be compared to the originators of these styles as they are all dead and buried. Also for martial arts to improve they must evolve. Maybe Tai Chi is evolving into different styles again. A non martial form, a mix of internal and external and the original way. As long as people enjoy what they do and understand what they are doing its not a great problem. The problem arises if they do not know what they are actually learning. I personally like what i am taught and have no fuss with other people just learning the form for health. Though i do have problem if they then tell me they are doing a martial art. Its not martial unless they include martial training.Karate has the same thing with the same style splitting into different associations doing different things such as non contact, semi contact and full contact. Then one association saying the kata s should be done in a higher stance. We might not like it but there is little we can do about it.

 

Hi Soggy - two questions: 1.) Why is this thread in Internal Martial Arts and not Tai Chi? 2.) OO ARE YER? Many of us would find it very useful to know your Tjq background and experience so we can understand your point of view... please feel free to post here: http://www.martialartsplanet.com/forums/showthread.php?t=31380
Also, I have to say Chen Tjq is the (historically provable) root style, which led to Yang etc etc "Yang is currently the strongest influence on modern Tjq" might be a more accurate statement perhaps?

Sorry to do this to you (again) but that is complete and utter rubbish. lol
Please follow the attached link, then go to Tai Chi samples and download the 'small frame clip. This is a clip of the 64 move small frame as practised by Yang Lu Chan (according to Tian Yin Jia who is in the clip, Yang family member, son of Tian Zhaolin, adopted son of Yang Jian Hou [pre Yang Cheng Fu, in other words] Please also read the Tian history on the site the link leads to.) What you are seeing in this clip is pre YCF Tai Chi. If that shows only 'minor changes' into YCF Tjq then I am a dutch monkey's uncle!
http://www.art-of-energetics.com/frameset.htm
The Yang family is famously chaotic and dispersed with several people vying for the position of family 'head' - some of the stuff I saw at the Tian seminar is completely unknown in the west and so different from the YCF Tjq the majority of Yang practitioners now practice. You have to try it out to understand this point btw
You urgently need to remove your head from the clouds asap soggy glorious tradition??? you have got to be kidding
Peace to you and yours
:Angel:

 

Soggycat bu cunzai le

Why don't we all just pretend soggycat doesn't exist? He clearly doesn't know what he's talking about and also seems uninterested in learning anything from others. Therefore, we could just ignore his posts and not respond to his threads. I know it sounds mean, but debating with him is an exercise in futility and at best a minor amusement. No one even really learns anything by responding to his posts because completely debunking them is always so easy.

 

Every forum needs a jester. But it would help if we knew where he was coming from.....................

 

I love Soggy's posts! :love:
They cheer me up when I feel gloomy...
I would find it impossible to ignore him personally, I just wish he'd post his history in "OO are yer?" so we can understand where he's coming from....
:Angel:

 

I second that...

OO ARE YER??!!

..............

To clarify my earlier post -

I'm talking about lack of correct transmission. Some people say the "small frame" comes from the Yang family adapting the form to suit the restrictive clothing of the Imperial court. I think most people here would disagree (I'm skeptical as well), but whether it's about clothing or years of dedication to refine your moves the effect is the same. Students see a tai chi master performing small frame and they copy those moves without full understanding of the internal component, then teach this fabricated knowledge to their own students later.

Also, YCF adapted his own postures to suit his "large frame" (ha ha!) but this just means his students start looking like middle-aged overweight men, when they may potentially be able to perform the moves correctly.

Same with people who only learn tai chi for the health benefits. That may be ok for their own needs, but it means they shouldn't assume they're competent transmitting the full art of tai chi to their students if they begin to teach later on. By all means teach, but make it clear that your classes include the "tai chi" but not the "chuan".

It's the tai chi equivalent of tae bo. It's healthy and ok if you're into that, but don't run a tae bo class and say you're teaching boxing.

This is a good link which outlines how much Yang tai chi has actually changed since YLC:

http://64.233.179.104/search?q=cach...tory.pdf+"yang+style"+clothing+imperial&hl=en

 

It's amazing you are in law school and yet make remarks based on wrong information. You assumed my post sprung from my thoughts.
Wrong.

My original post that started this thread is a direct quotation from someone else's site...not my words at all. ( the link was provided if you had bothered to check). I merely introduced it here to support my viewpoint that TaiChi today is quite different ( diluted) form the the TaiChi of early 1900s .....which means I agree with NZRIC.

How does one know what the "old' Yang Tai Chi is like ?....the best way is to learn from very old men ( in their 80's ) and ask them if the Yang TaiChi they learnt, had been modified by them or their teachers ....to the best of their knowledge.

My teacher's teacher is still in Beijing and in his 90's and his view is that original Yang Tai Chi had only a few simple moves.....in fact all the moves can be learnt in 1 day the rest was Qigong, practice and refinement that took many years to perfect.

The " forms" as we know it today were introduced later in 1920s when Yang Tai Chi became popular and some teachers saw a commercial opportunity and introduced increasingly more complicated forms. The original became the "new' , which then became the " New Improved" .
This was the start of "product diversification" and " brand packaging" .
Class sizes would run into the 100's and held in large halls.
You'd know if you had a chat with these old men who are still alive and can testify to this....oops sorry they don't speak any English nor do they have websites. But does that mean they are incorrect?

Commercial teachers had to keep "adding" stuff to the syllabus to keep the students coming back to class.
The concept of McDojo didn't start in USA , Europe or Australia.
It started in Shanghai 1920's.

 

1. Errr, because Tai Chi is also an Internal Martial Art?
2. Speak proper English please, I can't decipher gibberish

 

Hello,

While I certainly don't agree with Soggycat with regards to certain aspects of Daoism/Buddhism, in this case I back him up 100%. Why? Simply because Taijiquan is in essence (and was designed as such) a Daoist-Shaman art for speeding up internal alchemy and not a martial art.

I repeat again TAIJIQUAN IS NOT A MARTIAL ART.

This doesn't mean that it can be used as such, and if done so it's deadly.

I rather approach Taiji from its traditional purpose, way before Chen and yang came up.


Have peace,





P.S.: Same can be said about Baguazhang. Xingyi on the other hand was devised as a martial art for combat purposes (soldiers in war).

Let me quote here Soggycat: Someone on this forum approaches Daoism with half-baked ideas. I must add up that there is a bunch of them not just one. Reason being is because they need to sit down and meditate daily.

 

Soggy,

Could you please either empty you PM box or provide me with an email address?

It can be annoying at times trying to contact you

Gerard.


P.S.:BTW, Try to read post number 5 in that thread. This guy is saying something that I have been saying in this forum for quite a while now but I have discovered nothing at all. Internal alchemy and no need for physical exercise when qi development reaches a high stage has been proclaimed for the last 5,000 years. Still today people don't understand. Man when I say humans are as blind as bats :bang:

Ah, I see now that NZRIC has moved this thread from the Tai Chi forum to this one. Disregard that PM. Cheers.

Take care,

 

gerard though you do have some great points in alot of posts i do think the idea of Tai Chi not being a martial art is out with the fairies. I am not even going to try and persuade you otherwise as you obviously have your own agenda. Maybe we are just reading different books i think you had this chat with Khatami some while back. I am sure he went through the arguements i will try and find it later. Have a nice day :bang:

 

Gerard this is for your consideration please,
I have borrwed these lines
From Hua Hu Ching

As you are so fond of Tao, let me remind you that the rest of us can also interpret it. I make the following attachments for no better reason that I can and on this occasion wish to.

On TJQ consider:

If i can do one movement or thirteen, I can do a thousand - get over it!!
Yin/yang. Harming/healing. Health/Sickness.Civil/Martial.Harmony/War. This is manifestation of Tao. You wish to emphasise one over the other - your lookout. Let me remind you that taiji quan taoist history goes back to the figurehead of Chang Sang Feng who was also accredited to have discovered accupuncture, he was also a martial artist who killed people.

IMHO to understand Tao we need to let go of thinking in dualities - one side better than the other, this path better than that etc. etc..

On meditation consider:

quotes from panlatrevo.com

 

Hello,

Don't panic. I knew that I was going to stir the pot.

You must believe me. Taiji and Bagua were not initially designed as martial arts. It doesn't mean that they are martial arts. Indeed these two are the best.

Geo,

Chan San Feng did not kill people. Do you think he would have been able to achieve the level he did if he lowered his Karma to the point of getting ready to spend time in the sin-bin? (Hell). Divine powers are not given to people who kill. No way.