I have been doing some research and if I had just asked my Sifu in the first place I would have saved a lot of time. I have a question.
There is a form called the Yang Fast form that comes from Tung Ying Chieh (not to be confused with the Tung Fast form, that is different)> After talking with my Sifu he was saying that Yang Chengfu had discussed a great length with Tung Ying Chieh the need for a Yang style fast form. They had pretty much had it figured out and started working on it when Yang Chengfu died. Tung finished the form and since it was from the mind of Yang Chengfu he called it the Yang style fast form. He later did design his own fast form.
I am wondering what the thoughts of the Yang family are on this Yang fast form as it comes from Tung Ying Chieh?
Fast form
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by T:
<B>I have been doing some research ...
... he was saying that Yang Chengfu had discussed a great length with Tung Ying Chieh the need for a Yang style fast form. They had pretty much had it figured out and started working on it when Yang Chengfu died. Tung finished the form and since it was from the mind of Yang Chengfu he called it the Yang style fast form.
I am wondering what the thoughts of the Yang family are on this Yang fast form as it comes from Tung Ying Chieh?</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Hello T,
You sound new at this.
Of course I can not speak for the Yang family.
However, I know personally what distant family members thought - Zhao Bin, Fu Zhongwen & son Fu Shengyuan.
Plus, you should know that while Tung was a good student, he was not among the top tier, senior students. He was second tier.
Plus, YCF taught only the large frame. Read Tung's 1948 work and you will see this corroborated. Plus, you will see why Tung did not work with YCF on ANY fast set.
More importantly, YCF did not need to create a new fast set. He already had the transmission.
Hope this helps,
leroy
<B>I have been doing some research ...
... he was saying that Yang Chengfu had discussed a great length with Tung Ying Chieh the need for a Yang style fast form. They had pretty much had it figured out and started working on it when Yang Chengfu died. Tung finished the form and since it was from the mind of Yang Chengfu he called it the Yang style fast form.
I am wondering what the thoughts of the Yang family are on this Yang fast form as it comes from Tung Ying Chieh?</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Hello T,
You sound new at this.
Of course I can not speak for the Yang family.
However, I know personally what distant family members thought - Zhao Bin, Fu Zhongwen & son Fu Shengyuan.
Plus, you should know that while Tung was a good student, he was not among the top tier, senior students. He was second tier.
Plus, YCF taught only the large frame. Read Tung's 1948 work and you will see this corroborated. Plus, you will see why Tung did not work with YCF on ANY fast set.
More importantly, YCF did not need to create a new fast set. He already had the transmission.
Hope this helps,
leroy
Zhongwen and Chengfu have stated that there is no Fast Form in Yang shi taijiquan. What does exist are people who have developed a Fast Form, as a "modern embellishment" to supplement their own training rules!
Here is a test: If you ask people to indicate where this Fast Form idea comes from, one will never get a consensus!
Here is a test: If you ask people to indicate where this Fast Form idea comes from, one will never get a consensus!
Nope, not new at this (12 years), sadly I did get the response I expected though.
Have to disagree with the Tung not top tier student remark but I am not here to argue.
Here is another test look at the various fast forms and you will see they are different this is why you do not get a consensus.
I am asking ONLY about Tung and what the family thought, sorry if I offend.
But as I said I am not here to argue and I will just forget it, I have received my answer and also as I said sadly it was what I expected.
Thanks
[This message has been edited by T (edited 02-05-2007).]
Have to disagree with the Tung not top tier student remark but I am not here to argue.
Here is another test look at the various fast forms and you will see they are different this is why you do not get a consensus.
I am asking ONLY about Tung and what the family thought, sorry if I offend.
But as I said I am not here to argue and I will just forget it, I have received my answer and also as I said sadly it was what I expected.
Thanks
[This message has been edited by T (edited 02-05-2007).]
-
Bob Ashmore
- Posts: 754
- Joined: Wed Aug 31, 2005 6:01 am
- Location: Frankfort, KY, USA
Historically, disciples and students of the Yang family have been training and teaching a fast form since the beginning of the lineage and they freely attribute that form to the founder and his son. Some variations exist, but that is normal for a form as it evolves over time in any system. The basic principles of these forms are the same, so minor variations in external performance are expected and even necessary.
Since there are fast forms in lineages coming down from as far back as Yang Lu Chan and Yang Ban Hou's students (Wu Chuan Yu lineages fast form, which is attributed by that family to both Yang Lu Chan and Yang Ban Hou, comes to mind here) I would doubt highly that Yang Cheng Fu would have had a need to "create" one. It was already there and had been for three generations.
That's not to say he wouldn't have put his stamp on a fast form, but there certainly was no need at that time to create one de novo.
I guess it all just depends on who you believe. If you believe that other families got their fast forms from the founder or his eldest son, or both, and are not lying about where they got it or simply created their own, than you have to believe there was a fast form existent at the time of Yang Cheng Fu.
If you believe they created it on their own and for some esoteric reason simply attribute it to the founder, then this story of how the Tung lineage fast form was created may have some validity.
The truth may lie somewhere in the middle, perhaps Yang Cheng Fu did work on the fast form with Tung and that is where Tung got his ideas for his own fast form.
The point is, no one alive now knows.
In the end it doesn't make a blind bit of difference anyway. Train what your Master teaches you to train, that will serve you better than searching for something you can never find.
I'm quite sure the Tung fast form adheres to the principles of TCC. That's all that matters.
Bob
Since there are fast forms in lineages coming down from as far back as Yang Lu Chan and Yang Ban Hou's students (Wu Chuan Yu lineages fast form, which is attributed by that family to both Yang Lu Chan and Yang Ban Hou, comes to mind here) I would doubt highly that Yang Cheng Fu would have had a need to "create" one. It was already there and had been for three generations.
That's not to say he wouldn't have put his stamp on a fast form, but there certainly was no need at that time to create one de novo.
I guess it all just depends on who you believe. If you believe that other families got their fast forms from the founder or his eldest son, or both, and are not lying about where they got it or simply created their own, than you have to believe there was a fast form existent at the time of Yang Cheng Fu.
If you believe they created it on their own and for some esoteric reason simply attribute it to the founder, then this story of how the Tung lineage fast form was created may have some validity.
The truth may lie somewhere in the middle, perhaps Yang Cheng Fu did work on the fast form with Tung and that is where Tung got his ideas for his own fast form.
The point is, no one alive now knows.
In the end it doesn't make a blind bit of difference anyway. Train what your Master teaches you to train, that will serve you better than searching for something you can never find.
I'm quite sure the Tung fast form adheres to the principles of TCC. That's all that matters.
Bob
Hi to everyone
Check this out:
http://www.yangfamilytaichi.com/about/faq/
"..3. Yang Lu chan, Yang Shaohou and Yang Chengfu are said to have demonstrated some fast taiji solo form. Can you tell us about the fast Yang taiji and the two person sparring set?
Originally Yang family members engaged in paired practice on individual moves only; they did not have a continuous two-man form per se. A student of Yang Chengfu named Chen2 yan4 ling2 created a two-man form by connecting up some of the single move elements that Yang Chengfu showed. The same thing with the fast form. The Yangs themselves did not have a fast form; some of Yang Chengfu's students created these fast forms..."
César
Check this out:
http://www.yangfamilytaichi.com/about/faq/
"..3. Yang Lu chan, Yang Shaohou and Yang Chengfu are said to have demonstrated some fast taiji solo form. Can you tell us about the fast Yang taiji and the two person sparring set?
Originally Yang family members engaged in paired practice on individual moves only; they did not have a continuous two-man form per se. A student of Yang Chengfu named Chen2 yan4 ling2 created a two-man form by connecting up some of the single move elements that Yang Chengfu showed. The same thing with the fast form. The Yangs themselves did not have a fast form; some of Yang Chengfu's students created these fast forms..."
César
-
Bob Ashmore
- Posts: 754
- Joined: Wed Aug 31, 2005 6:01 am
- Location: Frankfort, KY, USA
Thanks
I tend to believe my Sifu who is alive, well and a student of Tung Ying Chieh, just to address that issue. And I will stop there on that point.
Also as a point of clarification there are 2 fast forms from Tung. The one I asked about that is called Yang fast form and a second called the Tung fast form, they are decidedly different
Next I do train and enjoy training what I do and I was simply curious as to the Yang family standing. Whether or not they approve or disapprove means little I was just curious that is all.
And there is a 2 person form as well as it comes from Tung
And in an attempt to be diplomatic I will stop here.
Must dash
bye
I tend to believe my Sifu who is alive, well and a student of Tung Ying Chieh, just to address that issue. And I will stop there on that point.
Also as a point of clarification there are 2 fast forms from Tung. The one I asked about that is called Yang fast form and a second called the Tung fast form, they are decidedly different
Next I do train and enjoy training what I do and I was simply curious as to the Yang family standing. Whether or not they approve or disapprove means little I was just curious that is all.
And there is a 2 person form as well as it comes from Tung
And in an attempt to be diplomatic I will stop here.
Must dash
bye
-
tccstudent_usa
- Posts: 36
- Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 6:01 am
- Location: Boston, MA, USA
- Contact:
I wouldn't worry too much about it T. We have a fast set, as well as a two-man set, and our line is from the Sau Chung side. No big deal really, it's all good! In the end, it's the principles, intention, energy, and body method that matters most; the multi-various-forms that different branches practice are all just containers to practice the above.
[This message has been edited by tccstudent_usa (edited 02-07-2007).]
[This message has been edited by tccstudent_usa (edited 02-07-2007).]
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by shugdenla:
<B>Zhongwen and Chengfu have stated that there is no Fast Form in Yang shi taijiquan. What does exist are people who have developed a Fast Form, as a "modern embellishment" to supplement their own training rules!
Here is a test: If you ask people to indicate where this Fast Form idea comes from, one will never get a consensus!</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I am puzzled by this because there is a fast form passed down from the Yang Shao Hou lineage. The form consist of 76 strokes ( as I can remember it ) and aim to complete within 2 minutes. The form also conform to the Taichi principle. It is more often regarded as the use frame.
Wu Tu Nan was one of the few who has learned the fast form from Yang Shao Hou, he in turn passed it down to 4 more disciples. I recall 2 names, one is known as Ma You Qing, the other Sim Pooh Ho.
It is strange that Yang Cheng Fu has not inherited this form from Yang Jian Hou since Yang Jian Hou also knew about this form.
<B>Zhongwen and Chengfu have stated that there is no Fast Form in Yang shi taijiquan. What does exist are people who have developed a Fast Form, as a "modern embellishment" to supplement their own training rules!
Here is a test: If you ask people to indicate where this Fast Form idea comes from, one will never get a consensus!</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I am puzzled by this because there is a fast form passed down from the Yang Shao Hou lineage. The form consist of 76 strokes ( as I can remember it ) and aim to complete within 2 minutes. The form also conform to the Taichi principle. It is more often regarded as the use frame.
Wu Tu Nan was one of the few who has learned the fast form from Yang Shao Hou, he in turn passed it down to 4 more disciples. I recall 2 names, one is known as Ma You Qing, the other Sim Pooh Ho.
It is strange that Yang Cheng Fu has not inherited this form from Yang Jian Hou since Yang Jian Hou also knew about this form.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by denzuko1:
<B> I am puzzled by this because there is a fast form passed down from the Yang Shao Hou lineage. The form consist of 76 strokes ( as I can remember it ) and aim to complete within 2 minutes. The form also conform to the Taichi principle. It is more often regarded as the use frame.
Wu Tu Nan was one of the few who has learned the fast form from Yang Shao Hou, he in turn passed it down to 4 more disciples. I recall 2 names, one is known as Ma You Qing, the other Sim Pooh Ho.
It is strange that Yang Cheng Fu has not inherited this form from Yang Jian Hou since Yang Jian Hou also knew about this form.
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
You are right in that the Yang Shaohu line did pass on a fast form!
If you survey the fast form, you will probably get a different fast form for each person who says he know one but how does one tell which is the real fast form?
<B> I am puzzled by this because there is a fast form passed down from the Yang Shao Hou lineage. The form consist of 76 strokes ( as I can remember it ) and aim to complete within 2 minutes. The form also conform to the Taichi principle. It is more often regarded as the use frame.
Wu Tu Nan was one of the few who has learned the fast form from Yang Shao Hou, he in turn passed it down to 4 more disciples. I recall 2 names, one is known as Ma You Qing, the other Sim Pooh Ho.
It is strange that Yang Cheng Fu has not inherited this form from Yang Jian Hou since Yang Jian Hou also knew about this form.
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
You are right in that the Yang Shaohu line did pass on a fast form!
If you survey the fast form, you will probably get a different fast form for each person who says he know one but how does one tell which is the real fast form?
This would be my own opinion. I have only learned Taichi for 2 years and I am too amazed with how diverse is Taichi. Even with the standardization of the martial arts into 5 major group, there are even variation when it is taught by different teachers.
My take is to consider a few factors to decide on its authenticity:
(1) Lineage
For instance, Yang Shao Hou was famous for his fast or small/medium form, those descend from his lineage are likely to inherit that form.
(2) Application
The form should derived as a result of practicality. For Martial Art, its basic purpose is for fighting and self-defense, while health is only secondary. For instance, Yang Lu Chan never promoted his Taiji for health, his taiji is well known because of its effectiveness in subduing his opponents. Has Tung created the fast form because he found the form effective in its application?
(3) Documentation
Even when I began my lesson with my Taiji teacher, I researched into the history of Taiji, this also include reading up on the works of past Taiji masters.Of course what you need here is your own judgement of authenticity of their works. My take is that earlier documentation would be more authentic as there are closer to the source.
My first intention of learning Taichi was in 1997 when I worked in China. I have bought a VCD on Taiji lesson due to limited resource. The VCD was narrated by a person called Li De Yin. I have not watched the video until 2005 after I really picked up Taiji with my Teacher.
The form was meant for competition and I believe it was demonstrated by a champion of the competition. The stroke was beautifully played out. However, a question came to my mind, can it be used? The more I watch the video the more it convinced me that it is more decorative than practical.
My Taiji follows the lineage of Yang Shao Hou who passed his skill to Wu Tu Nan. Wu's occupation was a scientist while part time teaching Taiji, he has very few students, in one of his books he regarded Ma You Ching as his only deciple.
He has also documented his moves in the sixties via help of a movie camera. Someone has placed the clip on Youtube and I am allowed to witnessed how it was played out. So when my teacher teaches me the skill, I can reference this to his records.
This is just my share, I understand that you may have your method of judgement. End of the day it all depends what you are looking for in learning Taiji.
My take is to consider a few factors to decide on its authenticity:
(1) Lineage
For instance, Yang Shao Hou was famous for his fast or small/medium form, those descend from his lineage are likely to inherit that form.
(2) Application
The form should derived as a result of practicality. For Martial Art, its basic purpose is for fighting and self-defense, while health is only secondary. For instance, Yang Lu Chan never promoted his Taiji for health, his taiji is well known because of its effectiveness in subduing his opponents. Has Tung created the fast form because he found the form effective in its application?
(3) Documentation
Even when I began my lesson with my Taiji teacher, I researched into the history of Taiji, this also include reading up on the works of past Taiji masters.Of course what you need here is your own judgement of authenticity of their works. My take is that earlier documentation would be more authentic as there are closer to the source.
My first intention of learning Taichi was in 1997 when I worked in China. I have bought a VCD on Taiji lesson due to limited resource. The VCD was narrated by a person called Li De Yin. I have not watched the video until 2005 after I really picked up Taiji with my Teacher.
The form was meant for competition and I believe it was demonstrated by a champion of the competition. The stroke was beautifully played out. However, a question came to my mind, can it be used? The more I watch the video the more it convinced me that it is more decorative than practical.
My Taiji follows the lineage of Yang Shao Hou who passed his skill to Wu Tu Nan. Wu's occupation was a scientist while part time teaching Taiji, he has very few students, in one of his books he regarded Ma You Ching as his only deciple.
He has also documented his moves in the sixties via help of a movie camera. Someone has placed the clip on Youtube and I am allowed to witnessed how it was played out. So when my teacher teaches me the skill, I can reference this to his records.
This is just my share, I understand that you may have your method of judgement. End of the day it all depends what you are looking for in learning Taiji.
-
global village idiot
- Posts: 142
- Joined: Fri Apr 15, 2016 9:31 pm
Re: Fast form
One of the "senior students" (now best thought of as "cadre leader") at my school knows and teaches this form:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q0xQNwYBuO4
I've followed along when he shared it but never took it up in anything like earnest.
Now that our former instructor has retired and I'm a part of the "cadre," I feel obliged to ask if this is worth learning on my own.
Specifically, I would be grateful to know if becoming proficient in this form or one like it enhances teaching the standard set in a meaningful way.
I have no intentions of teaching this set - I'm content to let the "cadre leader" do that - but if it'll make me a better teacher of the standard 108-posture set, I owe it to my students to learn it or anything else that will make me a better teacher.
gvi
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q0xQNwYBuO4
I've followed along when he shared it but never took it up in anything like earnest.
Now that our former instructor has retired and I'm a part of the "cadre," I feel obliged to ask if this is worth learning on my own.
Specifically, I would be grateful to know if becoming proficient in this form or one like it enhances teaching the standard set in a meaningful way.
I have no intentions of teaching this set - I'm content to let the "cadre leader" do that - but if it'll make me a better teacher of the standard 108-posture set, I owe it to my students to learn it or anything else that will make me a better teacher.
gvi
The important things are always simple.
The simple things are always hard.
The easy way is always mined.
- from Murphy's Laws of Combat
The simple things are always hard.
The easy way is always mined.
- from Murphy's Laws of Combat
Re: Fast form
Greetings gvi,
Studying other styles or substyles is encouraged by the Association under the appropriate circumstances. Don’t miss out on a chance of learning something good out of misplaced loyalty to our version of Tai Chi. You would almost certainly learn things from this form about Tai Chi as whole that the Association does not emphasize, and it could also give you a better perspective even on some of the specifics that the Association does emphasize.
My guess is that learning this form would be most advantages to those who learn and practice the corresponding slow form; however, even if you don’t, I would guess that you could learn something and maybe even learn a lot. It depends more on the teacher than the form itself. Someone who actually practices the form could give you the best answer to that.
My two caveats are that you should not learn this form out of a sense that something key is missing from the Association’s curriculum or that the details of this form are instantly and automatically translatable to how we train. Someone doing either would probably not have a good understanding on how exactly we are supposed to train. To paraphrase one of my students, I could say that even good teaching can have undesirable side effects.
Take care,
Audi
I would say, “Absolutely it’s worth learning.” It looks like good, interesting, and fun Tai Chi. Why not learn it if you have a competent teacher?Now that our former instructor has retired and I'm a part of the "cadre," I feel obliged to ask if this is worth learning on my own.
This is a much harder question to answer fully. This form is not part of the Association standard and so would not really advance you much along the Association’s curriculum. From what I have seen, the main form the Dong/Tong family teaches is quite close to ours. I recognize every posture in the form and almost every move in every transition. On the other hand, I see small differences in just about every move and would recognize differences in all but two or three postures even in a still picture.Specifically, I would be grateful to know if becoming proficient in this form or one like it enhances teaching the standard set in a meaningful way.
Studying other styles or substyles is encouraged by the Association under the appropriate circumstances. Don’t miss out on a chance of learning something good out of misplaced loyalty to our version of Tai Chi. You would almost certainly learn things from this form about Tai Chi as whole that the Association does not emphasize, and it could also give you a better perspective even on some of the specifics that the Association does emphasize.
My guess is that learning this form would be most advantages to those who learn and practice the corresponding slow form; however, even if you don’t, I would guess that you could learn something and maybe even learn a lot. It depends more on the teacher than the form itself. Someone who actually practices the form could give you the best answer to that.
My two caveats are that you should not learn this form out of a sense that something key is missing from the Association’s curriculum or that the details of this form are instantly and automatically translatable to how we train. Someone doing either would probably not have a good understanding on how exactly we are supposed to train. To paraphrase one of my students, I could say that even good teaching can have undesirable side effects.
Take care,
Audi