I keep coming across this on the web "Yangjia Michuan Taijiquan" and it is referred to as the Yang Family Hidden Tradition Taiji from Yang Luchan.
I have done Yang style for almost 15 years, although it comes via Tung Ying-cheih and I have not heard of "Yangjia Michuan Taijiquan” before, however that does not mean much really.
I was wondering if anyone could shed some light on this Yangjia Michuan Taijiquan?
Yangjia Michuan Taijiquan
-
Linda Heenan
- Posts: 11
- Joined: Sat Aug 26, 2006 6:01 am
- Location: Blue Mountains, NSW, Australia
- Contact:
-
Linda Heenan
- Posts: 11
- Joined: Sat Aug 26, 2006 6:01 am
- Location: Blue Mountains, NSW, Australia
- Contact:
I'm going to try and post a link to an article from my school's site. This explains the history of the Michuan style better than I could. http://www.grtc.org/articles/michuan.html
I suppose if you were comparing it, the most obvious difference would be that the Public style employs a lot of bow posture, while the Michuan is back weighted.
Yangjia Michuan Taijiquan is a complete system with basic exercises, an hour long empty hand form, tui shou, san shou, weapons, internal work, etc.
I suppose if you were comparing it, the most obvious difference would be that the Public style employs a lot of bow posture, while the Michuan is back weighted.
Yangjia Michuan Taijiquan is a complete system with basic exercises, an hour long empty hand form, tui shou, san shou, weapons, internal work, etc.
ta1chi,
I am not answering for Linda but just stating what I know from present sources!
My objective yuanqi is working here but since no Yang lineage uses the word 'Michuan" it is safe to say it is not part of present Yang style.
The usage of Laojia and Xinjia is usually dictated from family and not 'outsiders'.
The classification of Michuan has to be considered new and it seems to be useful.
I am not answering for Linda but just stating what I know from present sources!
My objective yuanqi is working here but since no Yang lineage uses the word 'Michuan" it is safe to say it is not part of present Yang style.
The usage of Laojia and Xinjia is usually dictated from family and not 'outsiders'.
The classification of Michuan has to be considered new and it seems to be useful.
-
Linda Heenan
- Posts: 11
- Joined: Sat Aug 26, 2006 6:01 am
- Location: Blue Mountains, NSW, Australia
- Contact:
Hi,
I think the claim is that Michuan came directly from YLC; and that it is distinguished from YCF by being what was taught privately within the family.
I guess I was asking because, as we know, members of the family are still alive. I was wondering what they said.
Secondly, I was interested in the use of "Lao" and "Xin" in relation to TCC, generally. If it was an "inside" designation, it's a bit confusing. It doesn't conform to the "old" terminology. For example, "Old Six Roads" was apparently an old name for some practices.
Anyway, again, does the family use this terminology currently? It's fairly out in the open. Does it have a history/
regards,
Steve J
I think the claim is that Michuan came directly from YLC; and that it is distinguished from YCF by being what was taught privately within the family.
I guess I was asking because, as we know, members of the family are still alive. I was wondering what they said.
Secondly, I was interested in the use of "Lao" and "Xin" in relation to TCC, generally. If it was an "inside" designation, it's a bit confusing. It doesn't conform to the "old" terminology. For example, "Old Six Roads" was apparently an old name for some practices.
Anyway, again, does the family use this terminology currently? It's fairly out in the open. Does it have a history/
regards,
Steve J
hero taichi,
If the terminology of "Michuan" is out in open, how come present lineage does not use it? If it is so secret then we would not have heard about it because only insiders would know about it. say what!!
If it was taught within the family, then it defeats the word secret!
I made sure to go to the site that Linda mentioned and it seems to be an outside (meaning non-lineage) insight of the teacher who named it such.
Wang Yen-nien studied with Zhang Qinlin for 4 years and that insight was the creation of Michuan Taijiquan. Whether Zhang used the word Michuan may be unknown but it definately came from Wang, and not a secret style. Then we now have Yang Family vs Yang style dynamic!
All taijijiquan is good. Each one choose his best teacher or viceversa.
If the terminology of "Michuan" is out in open, how come present lineage does not use it? If it is so secret then we would not have heard about it because only insiders would know about it. say what!!
If it was taught within the family, then it defeats the word secret!
I made sure to go to the site that Linda mentioned and it seems to be an outside (meaning non-lineage) insight of the teacher who named it such.
Wang Yen-nien studied with Zhang Qinlin for 4 years and that insight was the creation of Michuan Taijiquan. Whether Zhang used the word Michuan may be unknown but it definately came from Wang, and not a secret style. Then we now have Yang Family vs Yang style dynamic!
All taijijiquan is good. Each one choose his best teacher or viceversa.
Hi,
well, yeah, if it's out in the open, then it's not secret. If it was secret within the family, then the family should still have it.
As you say, it seems like a branch coming through Zhang and Wang. There's nothing wrong with that; nor does it lessen the value of the art or the skill of the practitioners. There would be nothing untoward about calling it Wang style.
I have a couple of minor points of disagreement with the article. For example, imo, YCF is more famous as a martial artist than YLC. It was YCF's, afaik, that made Yang style famous world-wide. The article suggests that YLC is famous because of the number of current practitioners. But, the majority of them practice YCF's style, or a derivative of it.
(Certainly, there may have been better practitioners and even better styles. But, that's a different issue.)
Maybe Jerry could help out; but, I'm not sure that there is agreement that YCF 'invented' the large frame form or that it did not exist prior to him. I don't know.
regards,
Steve J
well, yeah, if it's out in the open, then it's not secret. If it was secret within the family, then the family should still have it.
As you say, it seems like a branch coming through Zhang and Wang. There's nothing wrong with that; nor does it lessen the value of the art or the skill of the practitioners. There would be nothing untoward about calling it Wang style.
I have a couple of minor points of disagreement with the article. For example, imo, YCF is more famous as a martial artist than YLC. It was YCF's, afaik, that made Yang style famous world-wide. The article suggests that YLC is famous because of the number of current practitioners. But, the majority of them practice YCF's style, or a derivative of it.
(Certainly, there may have been better practitioners and even better styles. But, that's a different issue.)
Maybe Jerry could help out; but, I'm not sure that there is agreement that YCF 'invented' the large frame form or that it did not exist prior to him. I don't know.
regards,
Steve J
-
Bob Ashmore
- Posts: 754
- Joined: Wed Aug 31, 2005 6:01 am
- Location: Frankfort, KY, USA
I'm not an expert, but I do know a tad about the Yang family history.
YCF did standardize the form we use today but I don't know that you could claim he "invented" it. I've always seen the word "standardized" used when people are discussing how YCF modified the large frame form.
The large frame form clearly existed prior to his standarization of it. The way I understand it YCF evened out the pace, prior to his standardization the form was done at varying speeds, both fast and slow at different times, he made the pace all one even tempo. He also removed the leaping and stamping movements from the form, practices that can cause physical damage to a practicioner if they are not done correctly. I have heard it said that he also removed the outward expression of fa-jing from the form, opting instead for a smoother, more rounded and continuous set of movements.
All of this information is fairly easily available on the web by Googling Yang Cheng Fu and reading the pertinent articles.
History clearly tells us that the Yang large frame form is what the Yang family taught to the general public for two generations prior to YCF's existence as a teacher. It was the frame that Yang Ban Hou first taught to Wu Chuan Yu before Yang Lu Chan then taught him the small frame, so we know it existed as far back as Yang Ban Hou, at least. Since Yang Lu Chan took over classes for Yang Ban Hou, which is where he met WCY and taught him the small frame, one would have to imagine he was well versed in the Large Frame in order to do so. From that alone I would say we can trace the Yang family large frame form right back to the founder of the Yang style.
I have knowledge of and at one time actually practiced a version of a large frarmed form that is verifiably tracable back to Wu Chuan Yu, and it was very similar to the Yang Cheng Fu form. The only differences are in the timing, both fast and slow movements are practiced. All the leaps, the stamping movements and fa-jing expression are intact.
Other than those changes, there is very little difference between them however.
Just my observations and research on the subject. As I said, I'm not an expert on Yang family history just a guy with some small amount of knowledge on the subject hoping to clarify the issue.
Others will have other opinions, and that is fine as well. It's not the style that matters, or its history, it's the art.
Bob
YCF did standardize the form we use today but I don't know that you could claim he "invented" it. I've always seen the word "standardized" used when people are discussing how YCF modified the large frame form.
The large frame form clearly existed prior to his standarization of it. The way I understand it YCF evened out the pace, prior to his standardization the form was done at varying speeds, both fast and slow at different times, he made the pace all one even tempo. He also removed the leaping and stamping movements from the form, practices that can cause physical damage to a practicioner if they are not done correctly. I have heard it said that he also removed the outward expression of fa-jing from the form, opting instead for a smoother, more rounded and continuous set of movements.
All of this information is fairly easily available on the web by Googling Yang Cheng Fu and reading the pertinent articles.
History clearly tells us that the Yang large frame form is what the Yang family taught to the general public for two generations prior to YCF's existence as a teacher. It was the frame that Yang Ban Hou first taught to Wu Chuan Yu before Yang Lu Chan then taught him the small frame, so we know it existed as far back as Yang Ban Hou, at least. Since Yang Lu Chan took over classes for Yang Ban Hou, which is where he met WCY and taught him the small frame, one would have to imagine he was well versed in the Large Frame in order to do so. From that alone I would say we can trace the Yang family large frame form right back to the founder of the Yang style.
I have knowledge of and at one time actually practiced a version of a large frarmed form that is verifiably tracable back to Wu Chuan Yu, and it was very similar to the Yang Cheng Fu form. The only differences are in the timing, both fast and slow movements are practiced. All the leaps, the stamping movements and fa-jing expression are intact.
Other than those changes, there is very little difference between them however.
Just my observations and research on the subject. As I said, I'm not an expert on Yang family history just a guy with some small amount of knowledge on the subject hoping to clarify the issue.
Others will have other opinions, and that is fine as well. It's not the style that matters, or its history, it's the art.
Bob
-
JerryKarin
- Posts: 1067
- Joined: Wed Jan 24, 2001 7:01 am
- Contact:
We discussed this style briefly a few years ago: http://www.yangfamilytaichi.com/ubb/For ... 00039.html
-
Linda Heenan
- Posts: 11
- Joined: Sat Aug 26, 2006 6:01 am
- Location: Blue Mountains, NSW, Australia
- Contact:
Wang Yen-nien is my Shiye. He is still alive but very old now. It was interesting to read a thread about him. I haven't yet worked out how to read older threads than the ones that presently appear on the board.
I hope this thread doesn't turn into some sort of political debate. I joined the forum because I stumbled across some of Louis Swaime's excellent explanations of the classics and wanted to read more. I hadn't intended to post, just read, but the Michuan is so familiar and much loved. I love the way every tiny movement, even a simple turn, has martial applications that are very effective. It's fun learning them and practising with others.
What I love most is the Michuan sword form. It has 8 sections and we use the cuts and applications written into it as the basis for free swordplay. It is a challenge to keep to taijiquan principles in free swordplay and it is a lot of fun.
I agree with Shugdelna - each to his own. There is not a lot of point in comparing. Enjoy your preferred style of taijiquan. Who can tell with 100% certainty, what came from where, what was added and who adjusted what. If they are dead, you can't ask them. There is fairly good circumstantial evidence to support what has been written about Michuan in that article but it isn't really my place to share it. Perhaps Shiye wouldn't mind discussing it if someone was really interested in it. You'd have to speak Mandarin though.
I hope this thread doesn't turn into some sort of political debate. I joined the forum because I stumbled across some of Louis Swaime's excellent explanations of the classics and wanted to read more. I hadn't intended to post, just read, but the Michuan is so familiar and much loved. I love the way every tiny movement, even a simple turn, has martial applications that are very effective. It's fun learning them and practising with others.
What I love most is the Michuan sword form. It has 8 sections and we use the cuts and applications written into it as the basis for free swordplay. It is a challenge to keep to taijiquan principles in free swordplay and it is a lot of fun.
I agree with Shugdelna - each to his own. There is not a lot of point in comparing. Enjoy your preferred style of taijiquan. Who can tell with 100% certainty, what came from where, what was added and who adjusted what. If they are dead, you can't ask them. There is fairly good circumstantial evidence to support what has been written about Michuan in that article but it isn't really my place to share it. Perhaps Shiye wouldn't mind discussing it if someone was really interested in it. You'd have to speak Mandarin though.