Yang115 frame?

mrnaples · Post by **mrnaples** » Sun Jan 06, 2008 8:12 pm

Hello M,

<An old version is " *hold* tiger, return to the mountain".

Embrace is what was tried in the zoo.

leroy>
Hey Leroy,

you know me
I believe that there is room for everybody
I leave the literary stuff to you good folks.
got my plate full with TheEnglish!

))
so i keep my feet squarely on the functionality side of the street..

)

cheers

Louis Swaim · Post by **Louis Swaim** » Sun Jan 06, 2008 9:13 pm

Greetings LeRoy,

Thank you for the additional background and clarification. You note that “my reference to bottom line was intended to refer to Li's idea of the use of force against force, hard, external blocks & actions, rather than going along with or taking a neutralizing action,” and further that taijiquan “uses a method other than force against force. . .” I am in complete accord with you on this point. “The foundation is to yield to the initiative of the other.” (ben shi sheji congren)

I also agree that few reach this level of skill; that it is little-understood and often misrepresented. I can say that my skill is meager, but witnessing and experiencing high-level masters’ use of this method is a wonderful thing. What is still unclear to me is how the description of Embrace Tiger Return to Mountain in Taijiquan tiyong quanshu violates this principle or where it advocates force against force.

Moreover, I could point out a number of cases in Taijiquan tiyong quanshu that do clearly prescribe yielding to and using the opponent’s force, but in every case it is done so with very subtle wording. I did my best to draw attention to these cases in my book translation. I would just note that the kind of skill that you reference is very difficult to illustrate verbally, and I doubt Yang Chengfu intended the book to fulfill that objective to begin with. As the narrative in the push hands section puts it, “These free-flowing changes. . .can hardly be described in brush and ink. One must get the guidance of oral instructions, and then you will be able to plumb the transitions.” (p. 110)

By the way, I often make notes in the margins of books. Often they are points I want to follow up on, or for which I want to develop my thoughts. Probably no one but me would understand them.

Take care,
Louis

T · Post by T » Mon Jan 07, 2008 3:49 pm

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by wokkie:
dr.0

I now know a little bit more. I noticed another youtube video where some of the moves are similar, particularly the transition from raise hands to white crane.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=TCXuzE-bnxs

This turns out to be Dong Form. So what I practice is possibly derived from that.

Thank you for your assistance.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Just needed to say

Ahh no

There is not a single form I have seen here that is a form from Tung Ying Jie and the fact that it is said to be from Dong Ying Jie is incorrect as well.

My teacher was a student of Tung Ying Jie and I do the forms that Tung Ying Jie taught him. There is no slow form from Tung Ying Jie that is all that different that the Yang form. And I believe Tung Ying Jie's oldest son Tung Hu Ling counted it as 81 postures in the long form (he did not count repeats) and Tung Ying Jie called it the Long form.

There are 2 fasts forms from Tung Ying Jie, one that was supposedly based on conversations with his teacher Yang Chengfu and another that is a combination of Yang and Hao. And the video supplied is neither of those either.

Also note Tung Ying Jie never used the terminology "Tung Style" he always taught Yang style. Tung style came later and the name Dong came later as well. His sons and daughter used Tung. I am not sure of what his grandchildren used but I do know his great grandson Alex uses Dong.

[This message has been edited by T (edited 01-07-2008).]

Louis Swaim · Post by **Louis Swaim** » Mon Jan 07, 2008 4:52 pm

Greetings T,

Re: "Tung style came later and the name Dong came later as well."

The name is the same; it's just the transliteration that changed. Tung is Wade-Giles, Dong is pinyin.

--Louis

dr.zero · Post by **dr.zero** » Mon Jan 07, 2008 5:58 pm

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by clarkleroy:
 [...]
As you may note, it is increasingly difficult here (US) to even discuss certain topics without incurring the wrath of those who place symbol above substance, relativism above reality, business model above tradition. Surely those who (like you & others) seek teaching from the traditional and those of high skills & knowledge have much substance to gain. Congratulations and good fortune.

leroy

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I hear you, no question about it.

But far from the 'embrace'-'leopard' brawl I found one thing to be more interesting in his commentary:

He (Cheng Man-ching) said the embrace followed by 3 movements from Grasp The Sparrow's Tail-Rollback, Press and Push, but where's Ward-off?
Obviously he doesn't know what the Ward-off is.

A question pops in mind, how come that isn't discussed anywhere?

Another question about the old-new YCF frame: are the increased repetitions (3 in the old frame vs 5 in the new one, ie repulse monkey, cloud hands and wild horse's mane) and the simplified transitions/smaller frame only due to the fact YCF was gaining large amounts of weight as he was getting old? He indeed was overweight above (chinese) average, even for today's standards.

JerryKarin · Post by **JerryKarin** » Mon Jan 07, 2008 6:42 pm

The later YCF form uses 3 reps for cloud hands etc. If anything, YCF's later form was even bigger than his earlier one.

Louis Swaim · Post by **Louis Swaim** » Mon Jan 07, 2008 6:47 pm

Greetings dr. zero,

Re:
~~~
But far from the 'embrace'-'leopard' brawl I found one thing to be more interesting in his commentary:
He (Cheng Man-ching) said the embrace followed by 3 movements from Grasp The Sparrow's Tail-Rollback, Press and Push, but where's Ward-off?
Obviously he doesn't know what the Ward-off is.
A question pops in mind, how come that isn't discussed anywhere?
~~~

This is another element in Li’s marginalia that makes little sense to me. Is he referring to the gesture Ward Off, or to the jin of Ward Off?

Do you know of any interpretation of Embrace Tiger Return to Mountain that explicitly refers to Ward Off? If it is not explicitly named, does that mean that it’s not there? Isn’t peng implicit throughout Cross Hands, as well as in the “brush” of the luo xi ao bu component of the bao hu gui shan? Isn’t there peng in Roll Back? I just don’t get what he was driving at.

Take care,
Louis

mrnaples · Post by **mrnaples** » Mon Jan 07, 2008 7:06 pm

"He (Cheng Man-ching) said the embrace followed by 3 movements from Grasp The Sparrow's Tail-Rollback, Press and Push, but where's Ward-off? Obviously he doesn't know what the Ward-off is."
A question pops in mind, how come that isn't discussed anywhere?

the answer is so simple and clear!
and it would be to silly to enter it, in a discussion

i have a question..
why are people so obsessed with criticizing YCF,book, via; CMC?
Now, mind you, I have no problem with folks, disagreeing and or criticizing.....
free speech and all. after all, is what makes the world go around, that and taxes.
but, why not do it directly?
it's his (ycf) book.. no?

M.

Louis Swaim · Post by **Louis Swaim** » Mon Jan 07, 2008 7:14 pm

Greetings Mario,

Maybe it has something to do with cold rainy days.

Take care,
Louis

shugdenla · Post by **shugdenla** » Mon Jan 07, 2008 7:30 pm

The straw that broke Huang's camel's back was the behavior of the "distant relative". Guess who this was

Was this Fu Zhongwen? He had the most to gain to keep his rice bowl so the best strategy is to break someone's else bowl and be seen as a saviour! Zhao Bin appeared to have kept a wider birth and Fu was always in close proximity to Yang Chengfu

yielding · Post by **yielding** » Mon Jan 07, 2008 7:49 pm

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by clarkleroy:
Reader, should you have the opportunity to meet students of Manqing or Yang Shouchung, please greet them for me. Today (1993), my situation again becomes a bit better."
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Is Shouchung the same as Yang Sau Chung? I assume it is. I would love to learn more about YCF's oldest son Sau chung if anyone has anything they would like to share. It would be very interesting to hear about the relationships between YSC and some of his father's students. For example, I heard there was some kind of riff between Dong and YSC, as well as with CMC. I know it's not that important, but it's interesting anyway.

dr.zero · Post by **dr.zero** » Mon Jan 07, 2008 7:55 pm

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by mrnaples:
the answer is so simple and clear!
and it would be to silly to enter it, in a discussion<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Greetings M.

Please explain.

clarkleroy · Post by **clarkleroy** » Mon Jan 07, 2008 8:16 pm

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by dr.zero:


But far from the 'embrace'-'leopard' brawl I found one thing to be more interesting in his commentary:

He (Cheng Man-ching) said the embrace followed by 3 movements from Grasp The Sparrow's Tail-Rollback, Press and Push, but where's Ward-off?
Obviously he doesn't know what the Ward-off is.

A question pops in mind, how come that isn't discussed anywhere?

Another question about the old-new YCF frame: are the increased repetitions (3 in the old frame vs 5 in the new one, ie repulse monkey, cloud hands and wild horse's mane) and the simplified transitions/smaller frame only due to the fact YCF was gaining large amounts of weight as he was getting old? He indeed was overweight above (chinese) average, even for today's standards.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

First - And, a good question. Not sure except few in the west have seen the full text. The essence of the critique was not the names of the gestures, rather, it was using nontcc tactics. Even when Qu tried to rebuttal, he did not provide any detail except to describe some general, yet very interesting, things in during those days.

Re the repititions within the form - no, it had nothing to do with YCF's weight. Neither did the large frame that many here (west) attribute to his size. Body size had nothing to do with it. In his 1948 book, "TCC Explained", Tung described Master Yang Chengfu's set as being good for beginners. Interesting stuff

Recently an older kf bro met Jasmine Tung & had a nice visit discussing some interesting material.

The current family mostly uses 3 reps. FZW 5. Tung 3. It matters not, as you know, at least Fu & Tung advised, as long as one is consistent in using 3 or 5 or 7 or ... throughout the set. I have a personal video of YZD using 5 at a demo at the u in Xi'an during the mid 1980's at the local tcc club. He demo'd along with FSY then & there - their large sets, sword, saber, & ph. The mattress on the wall was definitely needed. The club's best p.h. fellow was tossed around like water thrown from a fan.

As you know re the wardoff, it actually is implied throughout, same w/lu,lie, peng, etc., everywhere, always.

Best Regards,
leroy

clarkleroy · Post by **clarkleroy** » Mon Jan 07, 2008 8:30 pm

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by shugdenla:
Was this Fu Zhongwen? He had the most to gain to keep his rice bowl so the best strategy is to break someone's else bowl and be seen as a saviour! Zhao Bin appeared to have kept a wider birth and Fu was always in close proximity to Yang Chengfu<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Difficult to say and I cannot here.

Zhao Bin was a high ranking military officer, having attended the college at Chengfu's pressing. Chengfu advised him regularly to not go into m.a. tcc. The best days of tcc were behind them. So, he was not so involved with tcc aspects on a daily basis. But, I do not think he would have done such a deed. In fact, because of his high rank, he once was called upon to save the life of a well known master sentenced to the firing squad for an indiscretion. Zhao Bin sent his best student, Zha Xi, to FZW for more advanced work. My former applications practice buddy worked with all of them.

Notably, shortly after Zhao's passing, his student son, ZYB, & another writer student came out with the so-called Banhou style from rural Yongnian County. It created quite the uproar. I seriously doubt whether those two would have done such a thing had uncle ZB still alive.

Best Wishes,
leroy

mrnaples · Post by **mrnaples** » Mon Jan 07, 2008 8:40 pm

Greetings M.
Please explain.

here, i'll copy and paste for you..

can't say u, don't owe me now!

(Louis)
"Isn't peng implicit throughout Cross Hands, as well as in the “brush” of the luo xi ao bu component of the bao hu gui shan? Isn’t there peng in Roll Back? I just don’t get what he was driving at."

(Leroy)
As you know re the wardoff, it actually is implied throughout, same w/lu,lie, peng, etc., everywhere, always.

Louis, rightly adds...
" Is he (Li) referring to the gesture Ward Off,?"

(Me) if he was..........
to to keep it simple,
the form, has an 'ebb and flow' to it.
it's made that way on purpose...
to stick the gesture "Ward Off" there, on that particular spot...
would break the free, flowing of the form. (think of it like, a false note on the piano)
so you see why, this particle discussion, of Li, remarks on ycf, book, does not merit much thought!

M