Hi guys, This is my first post so go easy on me! I've been training t'ai chi for about 10yrs now started out with chen man ching 37 form but after a while i kind of lost faith in what i was doing mainly because my teacher at the time seemed like he was full of ****. With his remarks like do not teach your future students everything so you look more magical to them. What a prat! Anyway i went looking for another teacher and found a great guy who's knowledge was deep, and he corrected my form which is still getting better day by day. I was soon teaching beginners and i was gatteing more involved in the art. One day my teacher said why do'nt you go and see my old teacher and see if he'll take you on. So i did This guys name is Tony Henrys and he shared the same teacher as Erle Montigue they are good friends and there are simularities between the two of them. Tony teaches Yang Chen Fu's 108 form and everything that goes with it plus a little extra. Basicaly what i'm saying is good teachers do not need to advertise. The ones that do some times are only interested in making money and to me thats sad.
..... OK! Welcome along, glad you've found a teacher you get along with! BT PS - Why's the thread called "Yang Long Form"?
whiteboy...I have a question for you as I learnt the chen man ching form first, followed by long form. Would you recommend a newcommer to Taiji to learn long form first??? Carys.
No, I saw that bit... I just don't see why the title was named as it is, when this is more of a personal intro thread?
Seems like a little of both. I got the impression that whiteboy (great name!) was implying that the Yang long form is superior to the Cheng Man Ching short form. I find that a lot of people take issue with Cheng Man Ching's style, in particular because of that secrecy aspect he likes to incorporate, as well as some of his methods. I think a 100+ move form is overwhelming for a newcomer to anything, let alone taijiquan. When you think about it, a 108 move form is really 216 moves (because you have to train both sides), which is an awful lot for somebody with no grounding in taiji. I recommend a 48 move form to all beginners, it's a nice medium number and still contains all the basics.
Hmmm... I simply focused on the first section of the Yang 108 for the first few years (and still do to some degree) before moving on to learn the second and third sections. Also, I'm not to taken on CMC. I don't know why, but something doesn't sit right about it.
Hi Sandus, I agree with what you are saying about about the 108 move form being hard for newcomers, however the Yang Chen fu form should be taught in thirds, each of which can be performed on its own. The Reason it is repeated on the left is because Yang Chen Fu did not balance his form unlike his Grandfather who's form does not have this problem. So basically we can assume that any form that has been derived from Chen Fu should be performed on both sides. (sorry thought I'd chuck that in I've seen it asked somewhere on this forum)
Don't fall for Earles waffle. Or you could explain why it doesn't have that problem? For example what moves in this form are done mirrored or what movements do you think balance it (and how) that aren't evident in YCF. The most important moves are those repeated, which of them ? None, that's exactly how many. eg. grasp sparrows tail is done to the same side in both as is single whip, repulse monkey is done both sides, cloud hands is done left and right, so is brush knee in both forms. What about fair lady or slant flying ? i still practice that form and these comments just smack of putting something else down, to elavate something else on what are completely false grounds. The forms follow a very similar pattern! This is much like Earles criticism that YCF (yang family tai chi) has no fajin training. It's a fallacy he's constructed to promote his stuff over others..
it's only my opinion that YCF form is better the CMC. Each to their own and all that. I just CMC form constricted and unatural where YCF form i Feel more grounded and stronger in the postures.
I think 108 form but take it steady and do not rush we are all still learning this art of ours. There are no deadlines to which we must meet.
Hi CH, I just wanted to say that I have come across a lot of Yang style people who have stated that releasing power is in itself contrary to Tai Chi principles, so I don't think Erle's comment is entirely unfounded. The prevalent idea I got from Yang and CMC stylists over a number of years was that form should always be slow, smooth and unbroken with no changes in tempo or hardness "or the silk thread would snap." I consider this to be a misunderstanding of the reeling silk concept. They also said that it was unhealthy to release power as it would shorten your life! Sure things are changing nowadays, but that is at least partly due to people like Erle Montaigue, Dan Docherty & Nigel Sutton saying "actually...."
there are a lot of "Yang style people" who have no connection whatever to genuine lines from YCF. judging by statements like that above i wouldn't cross the road for those kind of peoples opinion on tai chi chuan or any thing connected to martial arts. he refers to YCF. He learnt from CKH in London and visited YSC in HK i think.. (not 100% on that) so I have to take it he refers to Yang family tai chi - what YCF taught to his direct disciples and students. He's wrong - plain and simple. You can't compare what is passed off as Yang style in most towns and village in the UK to the genuine article. Of course there is fajin training in genuine Yang style training. Most of his comments refer to the lack of fajin in the YCF form. I don't suppose he's seen the long boxing has he? Sure a lot of info and knowledge has appeared that wasn't around when Earl was making his way. Which is why it may have passed then, but there's not much excuse for it today. And this is fine and does has no bearing on fajin training. Just because a particular form has a few fast bits ? Come on.. I think the whole issue of fajin is overblown and a bit misleading even. i think some of that may well be down to you know who. Maybe, i don't know about that. That is a little extreme on their part perhaps. Again, I wouldn't cross the road. I like both Dan and Nigel, and their approach to training . Earl was described to me by one of his former and foremost UK instructors as a "snake oil salesman".. Maybe that is going to far.. Needless to say i didn't bother to put up much of an argument. The guy had plenty of direct experience with Earl. I'm surprised you have this affinity for someone who sells it a lot on the chi and this is the special/real stuff angle. I'm not saying he's no good and doesn't have good stuff in there, just there's too much unecessary BS that come with it.
Hi CH, I think each of Erle's statements should be taken at face value. There is a lot of personal attacking that goes on and I see that Erle is on the receiving end quite a bit, often unfairly. I disagree with things he says and does, but that doesn't mean he can't be right too. Something I would say though is that you don't really know that this "long boxing" you refer to is authentic either. People make stuff up and they do it all the time and it is still going on. It is sad when they then say "this is the REAL or this is the ORIGINAL" but in a way you can sometimes get what some of them are saying, sometimes. Put it this way - Chen Xiaowang invents a double sabre form and that's seen as great because of his STATUS. You could invent a boxing routine that was fantastic and broke new ground in Taijiquan, greatly improving the art in ways no one had ever before realised. But if you told them it was "cloudhandz style" or "authentic cloudhandz training" it wouldn't be valued as much as if you said it was "Yang style training" knowing that you had developed it, even with the permission and approval of your teachers, from authentic Yang style principles you were given. I think it is sometimes quite authentic to take something and run with it - develop it - change it - improve it - all are possible. I teach hitting hands drills that I've developed myself. I teach standardised reeling silk routines that I've standardised myself for the arts I practice and teach. They're mine. They're good. Are they authentic? Are they Taiji? Opinions will differ on that, but I won't claim it is any style but mine.
what do you mean exactly? He's entitled to his opinions, But if something stated as being so is plain wrong at worst or misinformation at best it should be noted or pointed out where possible. Fair comment. I agree, especially with the last bit. I like Dan Docherty for example but disagree with some of the things he says. Same applies with Earl. For me it's not a question of authenticity of a given form or a particular form in of itself. The 'long boxing' is just one example that comes to mind. It isn't the only one that could be used to counter Earles assertion that YCF removed all remnants of fajin from Yang style. Any form long, short, single etc. can be done with a bit of fajin or none at all. I know this and you know this. But am i supposed to believe that YCF didn't relate such thing - a pretty obvious and simple thing at that - to his own immediate family and disciples ? there are clips of Fu Zhongwen (sp) line doing dianlan training(single forms) with fajin . comes from YCF. But what, we should believe Earls version of events and suppose the Yang family and their disciples students all added this stuff in after the 'real stuff' was accidently unearthed in Australia by a stroke of luck.. here is an example http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ToUy...ptyflower.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=2591
Hi CH - what did I mean? Nothing much - I just didn't want it to turn into another "this person is bad" kinda thread...
Hi cloudyhands, maybe my words were not chosen well, but then I'm one amongst many I am not falling for anything, after waisting 3 years learning pot noodles Kung Fu to learn it had no self defense value what so ever I view everything with suspicion. Yes I will answer although when I used the word Problem I was referring to the comments of friends who have learned the form and then had to start again on the other side. Hum.. I have a fair idea to whom your referring, if it is that person they did not part on good terms. I don't know what the sqabble was about, bt needless to say Erle kicked him out. Now why would someone who trained for many many years sudenly decide his teacher was a "snake oil salesman" do I detect a hint of bitterness? From the time I have trained with Erle I have always found him to be straight. He's an Australian, and having known a few, they all have some commonalities they say it how they find it, they stand up for their beliefs and they're not afraid to stick their necks out. All of which can add up to be bloody annoying for the other party. If you ask him a question he will always give you an answer, with out any mumbo jumbo or <removed>. I would like to ask what BS your referring too ? Some where in the classics it says you must flow like a great river, it is funny how people think it means slow and flowing. What river flows at the same speed? As for linage I couldn't give a monkey's there were many crap kings and queens despite their lineage. The wrapping is not as important as whats inside no silk suit required. Now your just making it up that's news of the world stuff. Erle is holding a workshop in Leicester in April why don't you come along and see what he teaches before belittling the guy, or if you want a direct answer about something email him.
