Yang style differences
Yang style differences
What are the differences between the Tai Chi that was passed down by Yang Cheng-fu and the Tai Chi that was practiced by Yang Pan-Hou and Yang Shou-hou?
dd,
It seems to depend on who is teaching the form, their age and how they internalize its principles. Sorry for being vague in this regard.
I learnt Chengfu/Zhenduo frame and have done so for over 25 years. One of my teachers (Prof. Hou Chi Kwang) who studied with Shao-hou had a different expression and the outward movements were "less definite" when compared to Chengfu/Zhenduo frame. The movements (Shou hou's form as manifested by the Prof) generally utilized more raising of knee in posture transitions while Chengfu transitions the knee tended to be closer as hugging the ground. Over the years I have come to realize that body size does affect how the form will be 'externally manifested' thought the degree of chanssujin will help the 'internal manifestation'.
Bottom line if no chanssujin is manifested (externally or internally) then the form, regardless of expression will be 'dead', as it were.
A good thing to do is check representatives of the various stated teachers and see how they differ. This is a good teaching and reference tool.
Check out students of Li Zheng, Panhou, Zhenduo/Chengfu and Zhao Bin and see how they express the form. You will see that nost of the postures are there but expressed individually per the student. SOme are notweorthy! Do some research on Zhao Bin (one of the best Yang style pracitiioners) and Li Zheng observe the form's manifestation.
It seems to depend on who is teaching the form, their age and how they internalize its principles. Sorry for being vague in this regard.
I learnt Chengfu/Zhenduo frame and have done so for over 25 years. One of my teachers (Prof. Hou Chi Kwang) who studied with Shao-hou had a different expression and the outward movements were "less definite" when compared to Chengfu/Zhenduo frame. The movements (Shou hou's form as manifested by the Prof) generally utilized more raising of knee in posture transitions while Chengfu transitions the knee tended to be closer as hugging the ground. Over the years I have come to realize that body size does affect how the form will be 'externally manifested' thought the degree of chanssujin will help the 'internal manifestation'.
Bottom line if no chanssujin is manifested (externally or internally) then the form, regardless of expression will be 'dead', as it were.
A good thing to do is check representatives of the various stated teachers and see how they differ. This is a good teaching and reference tool.
Check out students of Li Zheng, Panhou, Zhenduo/Chengfu and Zhao Bin and see how they express the form. You will see that nost of the postures are there but expressed individually per the student. SOme are notweorthy! Do some research on Zhao Bin (one of the best Yang style pracitiioners) and Li Zheng observe the form's manifestation.
Hi there,
I have come across this piece of literature on Yang Shao Hou Small Frame. There are very few books and public demonstrations on this small frame Taiji.
http://www.itcca.it/peterlim/yshsmfr.htm
Wu Tunan was a disciple (I think he was the last disciple) of YSH. WTN in turn had one disciple on record (or so this disciple claimed), and a few students (notice the difference between disciple and student). I understand that the small frame is still practised by these students and the disciple of WTN.
But again, China is a really big place and many highly skilled masters may appear as normal folks to us; they practised in secret. I will not be surprised that many of the old teachings will be lost over time. Sad.
cheers,
twc
I have come across this piece of literature on Yang Shao Hou Small Frame. There are very few books and public demonstrations on this small frame Taiji.
http://www.itcca.it/peterlim/yshsmfr.htm
Wu Tunan was a disciple (I think he was the last disciple) of YSH. WTN in turn had one disciple on record (or so this disciple claimed), and a few students (notice the difference between disciple and student). I understand that the small frame is still practised by these students and the disciple of WTN.
But again, China is a really big place and many highly skilled masters may appear as normal folks to us; they practised in secret. I will not be surprised that many of the old teachings will be lost over time. Sad.
cheers,
twc
-
Bob Ashmore
- Posts: 754
- Joined: Wed Aug 31, 2005 6:01 am
- Location: Frankfort, KY, USA
It seems to me that the words, "common elements", "combined elements of both large and small frame", "Principles are the same" come up a lot any time you read an article on "older, more advanced frames".
If the principles are the same, the elements are common to one another, the training methods are nearly identical...
If the principles are the same, the elements are common to one another, the training methods are nearly identical...
Thank You for the responses.
I've been doing some research since I posted this question as well as checking the site suggested and what I am finding is that Yang Cheng Fu changed the form by removing much of the fajing and Qinna applications. He apparently developed the Yang Family fast form after that, but that would seem to say there is a big difference between The Yang Tai Chi of Yang Cheng fu and is brother Yang Shou hou and uncle Yang ban hou.
One web article says Yang Cheng Fu created a kinder, gentler Tai Chi by leaving out all of the fast movements and leaps, and concentrated on teaching the grateful masses the slow, long form, and push hands.
This is not to say that Yang Cheng fu was lacking, on the contrary he was highly skilled and from what I am finding he was never defeated. But it appears that there may be big differences.
I've been doing some research since I posted this question as well as checking the site suggested and what I am finding is that Yang Cheng Fu changed the form by removing much of the fajing and Qinna applications. He apparently developed the Yang Family fast form after that, but that would seem to say there is a big difference between The Yang Tai Chi of Yang Cheng fu and is brother Yang Shou hou and uncle Yang ban hou.
One web article says Yang Cheng Fu created a kinder, gentler Tai Chi by leaving out all of the fast movements and leaps, and concentrated on teaching the grateful masses the slow, long form, and push hands.
This is not to say that Yang Cheng fu was lacking, on the contrary he was highly skilled and from what I am finding he was never defeated. But it appears that there may be big differences.
-
Bob Ashmore
- Posts: 754
- Joined: Wed Aug 31, 2005 6:01 am
- Location: Frankfort, KY, USA
Depdogg,
I really don't think your statement about YCF removing Chin Na from the Yang form has any basis.
Have you ever been trained in Chin Na? While my experience training in Yang style Chin Na is, admittedly, breif, I can tell you that it's all in the form, plain to see if you know what it is you're looking for. The person who taught me the little I do know of Yang style Chin Na taught me straight from the Yang Cheng Fu form.
I found it to be VERY effective.
I have certainly learned more about Chin Na, and I can see more of it, in the Yang forms than from other styles it has been my priveledge to train.
What else would you call what happens to the opponent in a proper execution of a form such as Roll Back? You have seized and locked your opponent. This is what Chin Na means (Chin, seize or trap. Na, lock or break.)
And while overt, outward shows of fajin are no longer shown in the form of Yang Cheng Fu, it is still very much in there as well. Just because you're not stamping the floor, leaping into the air and snapping your sleeves doesn't mean you're not performing fajin.
Popular misconceptions, but misconceptions nontheless.
At least they are in my personal humble opinion.
Bob
I really don't think your statement about YCF removing Chin Na from the Yang form has any basis.
Have you ever been trained in Chin Na? While my experience training in Yang style Chin Na is, admittedly, breif, I can tell you that it's all in the form, plain to see if you know what it is you're looking for. The person who taught me the little I do know of Yang style Chin Na taught me straight from the Yang Cheng Fu form.
I found it to be VERY effective.
I have certainly learned more about Chin Na, and I can see more of it, in the Yang forms than from other styles it has been my priveledge to train.
What else would you call what happens to the opponent in a proper execution of a form such as Roll Back? You have seized and locked your opponent. This is what Chin Na means (Chin, seize or trap. Na, lock or break.)
And while overt, outward shows of fajin are no longer shown in the form of Yang Cheng Fu, it is still very much in there as well. Just because you're not stamping the floor, leaping into the air and snapping your sleeves doesn't mean you're not performing fajin.
Popular misconceptions, but misconceptions nontheless.
At least they are in my personal humble opinion.
Bob
Bob Ashmore
I am not saying that all of the fajing and Qinna were removed, but a lot of it was removed. Or at least that is what I am finding. Which would have a basis in finding out if the forms are different.
I have been shown Qinna, quite a lot actually and applied Qinna and used fajing as well both in push hands and real life (I once had a job that required it from time to time). But I cannot say that I am doing the same exact form applications as Yang Cheng Fu. My teacher’s teacher was not Yang Cheng-fu, he was Tung Ying Chieh. And I know that Sifu Tung added additional fast forms (entire forms not additions to current Yang forms). However the traditional Yang form (108, depending on how you count) that I do is almost identical to the current Yang style form taught by Sifu Yang Zhendou. So I am not sure, as far as the traditional form goes, what Sifu Tung added as far as Qinna goes.
And let me clarify, I am in no way saying anything against Yang Cheng fu, he was incredibly skilled. I am just finding in my research that he removed some of the Qinna and fajing, and supposedly made the forms easier, in some places, as compared to his brother and uncle. So this says to me that there may be big differences in some places in the Yang family forms from these Yang family members. The stance, I believe, of Yang Cheng fu are lower than his brother and Uncle.
On the other hand I am also finding that his brother and uncle although highly skilled were very hard people to learn from and could be a bit cruel in their training methods, where Yang Cheng Fu was a great teacher.
As for other styles and Qinna, Chen style has one heck of a lot of Qinna in it as does Zhao Bao He. Also a whole lot of visible fajing. And from my experience much more than Yang style. But as my teacher says, “they are to low”, meaning their stance is to low to be as effective as Yang style. You will get an entirely different answer from Cheng Zhenglei however.
I am not saying that all of the fajing and Qinna were removed, but a lot of it was removed. Or at least that is what I am finding. Which would have a basis in finding out if the forms are different.
I have been shown Qinna, quite a lot actually and applied Qinna and used fajing as well both in push hands and real life (I once had a job that required it from time to time). But I cannot say that I am doing the same exact form applications as Yang Cheng Fu. My teacher’s teacher was not Yang Cheng-fu, he was Tung Ying Chieh. And I know that Sifu Tung added additional fast forms (entire forms not additions to current Yang forms). However the traditional Yang form (108, depending on how you count) that I do is almost identical to the current Yang style form taught by Sifu Yang Zhendou. So I am not sure, as far as the traditional form goes, what Sifu Tung added as far as Qinna goes.
And let me clarify, I am in no way saying anything against Yang Cheng fu, he was incredibly skilled. I am just finding in my research that he removed some of the Qinna and fajing, and supposedly made the forms easier, in some places, as compared to his brother and uncle. So this says to me that there may be big differences in some places in the Yang family forms from these Yang family members. The stance, I believe, of Yang Cheng fu are lower than his brother and Uncle.
On the other hand I am also finding that his brother and uncle although highly skilled were very hard people to learn from and could be a bit cruel in their training methods, where Yang Cheng Fu was a great teacher.
As for other styles and Qinna, Chen style has one heck of a lot of Qinna in it as does Zhao Bao He. Also a whole lot of visible fajing. And from my experience much more than Yang style. But as my teacher says, “they are to low”, meaning their stance is to low to be as effective as Yang style. You will get an entirely different answer from Cheng Zhenglei however.
Hello to everyone!
I think this will be helpfull
http://www.yangfamilytaichi.com/ubb/For ... 00041.html
take care
César
I think this will be helpfull
http://www.yangfamilytaichi.com/ubb/For ... 00041.html
take care
César
-
Bob Ashmore
- Posts: 754
- Joined: Wed Aug 31, 2005 6:01 am
- Location: Frankfort, KY, USA
Depdogg,
I have previously, and rather extensively, studied a form of TCC that was nearly completely stripped of all outward expressions of Chin Na, so I guess my perspective is slightly different.
That particular branch holds the fingertips of one arm to the wrist of the other in most of their form movements, which almost precluded coming to an understanding of actual application from studying their form alone. You had to find a qualified teacher of that style just to give you any kind of idea even what a forms martial intent would be.
Since such teachers were few and far between, not many people got much more than the form in that style.
Try to figure out Chin Na from that type of movement sometime and then we'll talk about how much Chin Na YCF removed from his form.
As for it being too low...
The Yang family used to have their students practice their forms under a bread rolling table. They believed that was necessary in order to give their students legs the requisite strength for the application of TCC.
I don't know how much lower than that you can go.
I, for one, am greatful they don't require that anymore, as I'm quite certain I couldn't do it.
Things change. TCC is a developing, dynamic art. It seems to me that the longer the art goes on, the more Masters put their input into how it should be done, how it should be taught, what is taught, to better the art will get.
Because of that, I tend to lean toward thinking the modern forms from legitimate Masters of the art, such as Yang Zhen Duo, Yang Zhen Ji, Yang Zhen Guo, Yang Jun, will be at least as good, if not better, than anything you would have been taught long ago.
It's had longer to develop, be tested, tried, taught over and over again. There is now more data to go on as to what way is best to teach the art. It's been standardized somewhat since the time of Yang Lu Chan and Yang Ban Hou. I don't know that that is a bad thing. I actually tend to think of it as a good thing.
What doesn't work will be left behind in favor of what does work.
I truly do not undertand the concept of "just beause it's older, it must be better".
I don't think you're going to find any Master of a particular form that is going to agree that someone elses forms are "better" or more "martial".
How martial a form is will depend entirely on who is doing the fighting and how well they have learned their art, not on which form they have studied.
Learn the form you choose to practice to the best of your ability. That will be far more productive than trying to compare or contrast the different styles or the forms of different Masters over time.
If you are convinced your Master has the right stuff, then practice as he dictates without deviation and you do very well.
My real point is that most of the "differences" you will find in between the styles, and even in between the forms of different members of the same style or family, are mostly differrences of external manifestation, not internal principles.
As long as the internals are maintained and properly taught and practiced, the rest is simply window dressing and differences of opinions between various Masters of the art as how best to externally display those internal principles.
I don't know that comparing or contrasting different Masters forms will really tell you very much, except that different Masters have differences of opinions on things.
In my opinion, for what that's worth, it would be better to concentrate on whatever it is your chosen Master is teaching you. Unless you're writing a book about the differences in between different Masters forms, I don't know that the effort will really produce any meaningful results.
I spent a lot of time researching such things in the past. While it has always proved a delightful way to kill time, I can't help but feel in hindsight that my time would have been better served actually practicing my form rather than comparing and contrasting apples to oranges.
It was always clear to me that you were not disparaging Yang Cheng Fu. I hope I did not convey a different feeling. If I did, I apologize.
Bob
I have previously, and rather extensively, studied a form of TCC that was nearly completely stripped of all outward expressions of Chin Na, so I guess my perspective is slightly different.
That particular branch holds the fingertips of one arm to the wrist of the other in most of their form movements, which almost precluded coming to an understanding of actual application from studying their form alone. You had to find a qualified teacher of that style just to give you any kind of idea even what a forms martial intent would be.
Since such teachers were few and far between, not many people got much more than the form in that style.
Try to figure out Chin Na from that type of movement sometime and then we'll talk about how much Chin Na YCF removed from his form.
As for it being too low...
The Yang family used to have their students practice their forms under a bread rolling table. They believed that was necessary in order to give their students legs the requisite strength for the application of TCC.
I don't know how much lower than that you can go.
I, for one, am greatful they don't require that anymore, as I'm quite certain I couldn't do it.
Things change. TCC is a developing, dynamic art. It seems to me that the longer the art goes on, the more Masters put their input into how it should be done, how it should be taught, what is taught, to better the art will get.
Because of that, I tend to lean toward thinking the modern forms from legitimate Masters of the art, such as Yang Zhen Duo, Yang Zhen Ji, Yang Zhen Guo, Yang Jun, will be at least as good, if not better, than anything you would have been taught long ago.
It's had longer to develop, be tested, tried, taught over and over again. There is now more data to go on as to what way is best to teach the art. It's been standardized somewhat since the time of Yang Lu Chan and Yang Ban Hou. I don't know that that is a bad thing. I actually tend to think of it as a good thing.
What doesn't work will be left behind in favor of what does work.
I truly do not undertand the concept of "just beause it's older, it must be better".
I don't think you're going to find any Master of a particular form that is going to agree that someone elses forms are "better" or more "martial".
How martial a form is will depend entirely on who is doing the fighting and how well they have learned their art, not on which form they have studied.
Learn the form you choose to practice to the best of your ability. That will be far more productive than trying to compare or contrast the different styles or the forms of different Masters over time.
If you are convinced your Master has the right stuff, then practice as he dictates without deviation and you do very well.
My real point is that most of the "differences" you will find in between the styles, and even in between the forms of different members of the same style or family, are mostly differrences of external manifestation, not internal principles.
As long as the internals are maintained and properly taught and practiced, the rest is simply window dressing and differences of opinions between various Masters of the art as how best to externally display those internal principles.
I don't know that comparing or contrasting different Masters forms will really tell you very much, except that different Masters have differences of opinions on things.
In my opinion, for what that's worth, it would be better to concentrate on whatever it is your chosen Master is teaching you. Unless you're writing a book about the differences in between different Masters forms, I don't know that the effort will really produce any meaningful results.
I spent a lot of time researching such things in the past. While it has always proved a delightful way to kill time, I can't help but feel in hindsight that my time would have been better served actually practicing my form rather than comparing and contrasting apples to oranges.
It was always clear to me that you were not disparaging Yang Cheng Fu. I hope I did not convey a different feeling. If I did, I apologize.
Bob
-
Bob Ashmore
- Posts: 754
- Joined: Wed Aug 31, 2005 6:01 am
- Location: Frankfort, KY, USA
Bob Ashmore
I have never said that one was better than the other, I was just trying to find the differences, and I am not comparing good or bad. I am curios, and who knows, I may write a book about it someday.
I have been practicing Yang style that comes from Yang Cheng Fu for a long time, not as long as some I have talked to but almost 15 years. And there apparently are a few people training, pre Yang Cheng fu forms. But there are much fewer than Yang Cheng fu Yang style, as I said, he was a kinder gentler, and better teacher.
As for lower, I apparently was not clear. My teacher teaches Yang Style and he was saying Chen and Zhao Bao were to low.
As for my training, I train quite a lot thank you and I will continue to do so. But there is nothing wrong with learning the history of your given art; it can only help you understand. Heck I have even started studying Taoism a bit because that is where it is all suppose to have come from. And believe it or not that too has helped.
I have never said that one was better than the other, I was just trying to find the differences, and I am not comparing good or bad. I am curios, and who knows, I may write a book about it someday.
I have been practicing Yang style that comes from Yang Cheng Fu for a long time, not as long as some I have talked to but almost 15 years. And there apparently are a few people training, pre Yang Cheng fu forms. But there are much fewer than Yang Cheng fu Yang style, as I said, he was a kinder gentler, and better teacher.
As for lower, I apparently was not clear. My teacher teaches Yang Style and he was saying Chen and Zhao Bao were to low.
As for my training, I train quite a lot thank you and I will continue to do so. But there is nothing wrong with learning the history of your given art; it can only help you understand. Heck I have even started studying Taoism a bit because that is where it is all suppose to have come from. And believe it or not that too has helped.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by César:
<B>Hello to everyone!
I think this will be helpfull
http://www.yangfamilytaichi.com/ubb/For ... 00041.html
take care
César</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Thank You for the link.
<B>Hello to everyone!
I think this will be helpfull
http://www.yangfamilytaichi.com/ubb/For ... 00041.html
take care
César</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Thank You for the link.