Turning the Head in Repulse Monkey

[ChiDragon]

The Yang style 24 form Tai Chi sometimes was referred as the Beijing 24 yang style. It's because the Chinese government in Beijing had called the Tai Ji masters together to develop a simple form so everyone can be benefited. Indeed, they had adapted the basic practical moves from the Yang style; and developed the 24 form. However, students came all over the world to Beijing to learn the form and return to their countries to teach it to their own people. The 24 form was used in the international competitions. Nowadays, the 24 form is well known as an international standard. Therefore, my question is: would anyone consider that all the movements in this form as a standard to be followed in your future practice? Especially, turning the head in the "repulse monkey".

Beijing 24 form Tai Ji:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qV6PjN55Lb4

[Audi]

Hi ChiDragon,

My recollection is that the 24 form was not created by the Yang family, but by an individual with good training in and knowledge of Tai Chi who was able to develop a wonderful national form out of the Yang family material he had learned. If memory serves me correctly, he was invited to co-present at the gathering ten years or more ago in Thunder Bay, Ontario, Canada, along with representatives of the five main family styles, to promote Tai Chi in general through presentations of the individual styles.

I was not at the Thunder Bay gathering, but heard from people who were that it was a successful and harmonious gathering. It set the stage for the two subsequent Tai Chi symposiums that took place in Nashville, Tennessee, and Louisville, Kentucky. I did attend those.

The modern styles represented by the 24 form are just one more flavor of Tai Chi with a large following. Which flavor an individual prefers will depend on their own tastes, needs, and personal circumstances. Good Tai Chi is not limited to any one style or any one lineage, not even to the five families and their standard bearers. Even so, that does not mean we have to agree on all details of training methods and approaches and can still preserve and benefit from our particular distinctiveness.

Take care,
Audi

[ChiDragon]

Hi, Audi

He is my source for the 24-form tai chi chuan history in English:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/24-form_tai_chi_chuan

The source in Chinese:
https://zh.wikipedia.org/zh-hant/%E4%BA ... 1%E6%8B%B3

[T]

In the Beijing 24 form (Yang 24) some of the postures are similar to that of traditional Yang, but they are not same as traditional Yang style. Also unless you are following the 24 form that is from the PRC then there is a lot of variation within 24 form as well.

However with that said, done properly it is a nice little form to practice. It was the first thing I learned from my first Shifu, however when I do it today it looks very different due to my years in traditional Yang as it came from Tung Ying Chieh. Now my 24 looks like a short traditional form since all the postures are traditional ones. And to be entirely honest my 24 form these days is more like 26 form since I have added some I felt needed to be there.

Also as Audi and your link have said, it does not come from the Yang family and these days I believe much of what you see done to PRC standard comes form Li Deyin

[ChiDragon]

T;
Please read the links in the above post.

The form was the result of an effort by the Chinese Sports Committee, which, in 1956, brought together four Taiji teachers - Chu Guiting(褚桂亭), Cai Longyun(蔡龍雲), Fu Zhongwen(傅鈡文), and Zhang Yu(張宇) - to create a simplified form of Taiji as exercise for the masses. The creators truncated the traditional family style Taiji forms to 24 postures; taking about six minutes to perform and to give the beginner an introduction to the essential elements of Taijiquan, yet retain the traditional flavor of traditional longer hand forms (in general, 88-108 postures). Henceforth, this form was avidly promoted by the People's Republic of China for general exercise, and was also taught to internees in Communist "re-education" camps. Due to this official promotion, the 24-form is most likely the Taiji form with the most practitioners in China and the world over (though no surveys have been performed).

二十四式太極拳也稱簡化太極拳，是1956年國家體委為去除傳統套路以門派、家族為本之色彩，減低傳統太極的技擊色彩，在北京組織太極拳老師（褚桂亭，傅鈡文，蔡龍雲和張宇）以楊式太極拳為基礎，去繁取精而創立。使之更適合可作為一種全民體育活動簡化以利普及、推廣，整套約為六分鐘。

[T]

ChiDragon

I did read the link, but I knew that before I read it. Another person that played a part in the making of 24 form was Li Tianji (uncle to Li Deyin) who for some reason is not listed in the Wiki article you linked. But that does not change the fact that it did not come from the Yang family. It is a product if the PRC. And it does not change the fact that it is a nice short form

[ChiDragon]

T
I don't think anyone had said it was from the Yang family. In Chinese article, it was clearly stated that the 24 form was the duplications of the Yang style. In fact, anyone who is familiar with the forms will be recognized immediately that they are the Yang style indeed. Do you recognize are there any other styles within the 24 form but the Yang style?

[T]

ChiDragon

Yes, if you are familiar with traditional Yang you will recognize Beijing 24 as a Yang style, if you are very familiar with traditional Yang you will see it is not the same, it is not a duplicate, it is similar, some postures are a little different in 24, see 白鹤凉翅 White Crane Spreads its Wings for example (to name just 1). The way it is taught in 24 is not the same as traditional Yang, it is similar, but not the same.

As for other styles with "24"
Hunyuan Taijiquan (Feng Zhiqiang) has a 24 form
Zhaobao Taijiquan also has a 24 form

[ChiDragon]

T
Hunyuan Taijiquan (Feng Zhiqiang) has a 24 form which the Chen style.
Zhaobao Taijiquan also has a 24 form which is the Wudang style.

Even though you see a little difference in the Beijing 24 forms, but the forms are still originated from the Yang style. The forms in the Yang style are very unique and distinguishable from its original creator. It was well known to the world and used in international competitions.

[T]

Hunyuan Taijiquan although has its origins in Chen (Feng Zhiqiang was a student of Chen Fake), even the Chen family does not claim it as Chen style. As for calling Zhabao taijiquan Wudang, I would not tell that to a Zhaobao person

There are many competition styles used in international competitions, Wu and Chen both have competition routines too, as do Zhaobao and Sun.

I guess I am missing the point here, what is the point you are trying to make?

[ChiDragon]

Some place along the line, we had an argument about the "repulse monkey" form, Yang style. Some do it with the head turn once to the left and once to the right. However, some do it without having the head turned at all. People do not wish to commit which form is correct; and don't like to use the word "correct" to classify one form or the other. IMO The form which is most effective should be considered as correct or proper. I am trying to advocate that by turning the head is the way to go.

[ChiDragon]

ChiDragon

I did read the link, but I knew that before I read it. Another person that played a part in the making of 24 form was Li Tianji (uncle to Li Deyin) who for some reason is not listed in the Wiki article you linked. But that does not change the fact that it did not come from the Yang family. It is a product if the PRC. And it does not change the fact that it is a nice short form

I was puzzled by your comment about the mention that Li Tianji was participated in the Beijing 24 form . From viewing the video below, the individual forms are the original Yang style. However, the sequence of the movements are different from the Beijing 24 form. My conclusion is that he has his own unique 24 form which has nothing to do with the Beijing form. Hence, that's why he was not list as part of the four of the Beijing group.

The 24 form of Li Tianji and the Beijing 24 form are differ:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3_-4Iw9jWr4

[T]

Some place along the line, we had an argument about the "repulse monkey" form, Yang style. Some do it with the head turn once to the left and once to the right. However, some do it without having the head turned at all. People do not wish to commit which form is correct; and don't like to use the word "correct" to classify one form or the other. IMO The form which is most effective should be considered as correct or proper. I am trying to advocate that by turning the head is the way to go.

Li Tianji aside, I disagree, turning the head is not the way to go if you are thinking about an opponent while doing the form or in application. However if you ever have the misfortune to have to use it in application and someone grabbed your hand from behind then you would have to turn your head. But in the actual application your opponent is in front of you, therefore you would not turn your head. However if you are doing taiji for form only I suppose it doesn't matter

And I know the Beijing from, I learned it 25 years ago, and the postures I am talking about as different are in the Beijing 24 form. The postures in the traditional form compared to some in the 24 form, are not exactly the same that is fact. I am not saying good, bad or otherwise, only they are not exactly the same, they are similar, but not the same

[ChiDragon]

[
Li Tianji aside, I disagree, turning the head is not the way to go if you are thinking about an opponent while doing the form or in application. However if you ever have the misfortune to have to use it in application and someone grabbed your hand from behind then you would have to turn your head. But in the actual application your opponent is in front of you, therefore you would not turn your head. However if you are doing taiji for form only I suppose it doesn't matter

Nowadays, most people are thinking that practicing Tai Chi is to become a good fighter. It seems to me somebody is jumping the gun. Why do you think practitioner do the basic forms hour by hour and day by day? The purpose is to condition all the muscles in the body to become twitching muscles. Turning the head in any movement is like toning up the neck muscles for the next advanced level, like applications. If one wants a stiff neck and tight muscles around the neck for applications, then turning the head in the basic training maybe omitted and good luck.

The problem with one thinking that some of the moves in basic training are not necessary for combat and decided to skip them is a big fallacy. In the same token, the moves are quick reflexes in combat, then why even bother to do the movement slowly in the basic training. Unfortunately, the philosophy doesn't make any sense to me at all. Let's hope that no one has the thinking to perform the moves as slow as in the basic training. Do you see the idiotic dilemma in this thinking?


Let nature take its course!

[T]

I am not exactly sure how to take that post, but I will respond with this

I have been training Traditional Yang in a Tung Ying Chieh lineage for over 20 years, Trained Chen for a few years too; So I hardly call that jumping the gun.

I have trained taiji for health and martial arts because that is how my shifu (student of Tung Ying Chieh) taught it. You always start out with the long form, done slowly and it is done for long periods of time, but the forms and postures need to be done correctly in order to condition the body properly, learn how to coordinate upper and lower to get the body to work as a unit and not individual parts and in some of those postures the head is turned and the neck is used, However looking behind you in repulse monkey is doing the form incorrectly and training your body incorrectly.

The neck is not held stiffly in any form or posture, it does turn and it is part of the body therefore it is part of that unit you need to learn how to use properly, but training yourself to look behind you while a potential opponent is in front of you is simply wrong.

You seem to be responding to things I never said. I never even implied that basic training was not necessary. I never mentioned that it had to be skipped. And moving slowly to begin with is to train the body to work as a unit. They do eventually work at speed and there are two fast forms in my lineage that are considered advanced forms that one must know the long form first before ever learning them.

And the philosophy you are talking about does not make sense to me either, however I never said or even implied any of it so I do not know where that is coming from. But as to thinking of preforming moves slowly as basic training, that is exactly what they are and have been since the days of Chen Wangting and later Yang Luchan. But it is basic training in body unification and alignment as well as proper postures for later use in application and I see nothing idiotic about that at all.

Taijiquan has been a marital art since the 1600s and you will find qinna in the postures as well. But beginning with the PRC change to competition forms and later its arrival to the west that it has become a moving meditation and nothing else and many who train it as such get offended when they are told otherwise become aware of the actual history of the art. I have no problem with people doing taijiquan as a moving meditation but understand it was, and in some cases, still is a marital art. But it takes a lot of time to learn how to apply it properly and that I why you do long forms slowly for so long along with many other things that are part of taijiquan as well. And all this is done before you get to proper application. But a very important part of that, if that is where you are going with it, is doing the postures properly. However if that is not your goal then it is not quite as important.

However I seriously doubt I have changed your view on any of this and you will not change mine, been at this to long, sorry. So it may be best at this juncture to simply agree to disagree