Hi Michael,
There is no harm in turning the upper torso as long as the turning stays in its proper range of motion.
The upper torso rotation is designed for walking, it is well lubricated except for those with bursitis in shoulder joints.
There is no risk if upper torso rotation is used for what it was designed.
If it is turned past its range of motion there is not mere risk of injury whether done slowly or fast, there IS injury.
It's called microtrauma, it's innocuous, and culmulative.
This didn't come to me in a dream.
You can at will reject this, and tailor your practice accordingly.
The red flag was run up on the basis of two initital sources. Louis's first excerpt and another site recommending that this upper torso movement be done explosively.
So, my first post said, hold on. Let's see what's happening in the spine.
As it turns out the second excerpt Louis posted has YZJ's caution about excess lest you choke your qi.
I guess the other site didn't get to that part yet, and hopefully are doing it safely while doing it explosively.
The second issue has to do with looking at upper torso rotation in terms of the classics.
Specific interpretations clearly allow it.
It isn't prohibited explicitly.
NOR DO THEY EXPLICITLY PRESCRIBE IT!
And sure enough we get your belief that
"Know that all you say about the hips is true as far as power etc. BUt sometimes that will not do it alone, one needs more. Maybe from the spine, top to bottom. If you think not, you are kidding yourself, or you are a very, very advanced practioner."
No, I'm not kidding myself, and I am by no means a very, very advanced practioner.
Just advanced, I still have to use my hips to change direction since attacks are difficult to limit from the front only.
I no longer need to use my shoulder to
twist my upper body. I did that once in a real attack. No doubt I didn't take care, or have sufficient training at that time, and given the urgency of the situation I did it all wrong.
You write:
"I don't know where you have learned your set, but Single whip is not done as you describe by anyone I know, including teachers. No "turning", "revolving" of the thoracic spine? The completed turn to the left is not what I call "symbolic". So your movement to left stops when your right toe/foot does?
Single whip is not done like that by anyone you know. Exactly.
It is the arm movement to the right, the one YZJ talked about, that I called "symbolic".
When you have some spare time have a look at Wu Chian's pictures in the link above.
My foot positions are different, and I always keep my elbows down, like a shy maiden, but at the end my torso has turned on the hips only.
From the push posture footing, turn right foot inwards, turn torso 90 degrees while palm striking to the left and right. Double peng. In the form the right hand becomes a hook hand. It's symbolic, but that's for advanced students to deal with. You can, if you wish, find neat application for that, pecking eyes out, flourishing chin strikes, etc.
In your version of Roll back which is really PULL DOWN you can achieve all you wish without turning the upper torso.
(The real ROLL BACK, LU, is the complement to WARD OFF. LU is what the other hand does while one hand does PENG.)
But in your Rollback, once having pulled your opponent downwards, you lock his arm using PRESS (SQUEEZE), you turn your front foot inwards, turn your torso to the left and do what you will with his arm after that.
The Yang's liked to break them. That's why PRESS is left in the form as a sort of reminder of what happens when two palms SQEEZE something in between them.
No need to turn your upper torso for extra oomph. How much oomph do you want?
Why use more when you can do with less?
I leave it in your hands. T'ai chi is full of upper torso twisting moves. Chen style has lots of it, they may have a safe way to do it explosively.
As for me, it's going to be more hips, no shoulder twisting, and more palms.
No vote is called for, it's not a trial.
Louis asked for comments, and got some.
Take care,
Ron
[This message has been edited by RonKreshmar (edited 05-19-2003).]
[This message has been edited by RonKreshmar (edited 05-19-2003).]
Single weightedness?
I stand corrected.
I used Wu Chien Chuan's name when I intended to say Chuan Yau in my previous post.
My apologies.
What can I say? These (doctor prescribed) drugs are pretty good.
There can be no question that the Wu family practices Small Circle TCC. To say otherwise is, simply, ludicrous.
That Wu Chien Chuan and Yang Cheng Fu have similar forms is nothing to be amazed at nor is it any kind of mystery, nor does it prove anything about the current relationship about YCF style vs. WCC style TCC, in any way shape or form.
They had the same teachers, they originally learned the identical form.
It's as simple as that.
They even ran a school together for some time.
It wasn't until later in life that Wu Chien Chuan modified his form and created Wu style TCC. His earlier forms WERE Yang family forms, with no modifications as he taught them at that time. Looking at pictures of Wu Chien Chuan doing the Yang family forms will, of course, show that previous to modifying and practicing his own forms, his forms were remarkably similar to Yang Cheng Fu, Yang Ban Hou, Yang Lu Chan, Yang Jian Hou, Quan Yu...
You name them, they all practiced and taught the exact same forms until much later in Wu Chien Chuan and Yang Cheng Fu's lives.
I have been shown pictures that the Wu family have of Wu Chien Chuan practicing his modified forms. These photo's are also remarkably similar to Yang family stylists of that eras forms. Then you get to the next generation of Wu family TCC, Wu Kung Cho and Wu Kung Yi, and their forms are still remarkably similar in appearance to Yang Lu Chan's forms. There are slight modifications, but the forms still look very similar.
Master Wu Tai Kwei then modified his forms, known as the third generation of WCC forms, further and this is when things really start to look different.
Every generation of the Wu family, and they are now up to the sixth generation, has modified their forms slightly. Each generation has gotten more small circle, each has come up a bit higher, not nearly as low of a form anymore as the first generation.
So, let's compare apples to apples, not oranges. You cannot compare Wu Chien Chuan doing the Yang family forms to Wu Kwong Yu doing fifth generational Wu family forms. They are, at this point, different forms with different theories and applications.
I will stay out of the fray on the entire upper torso turning being harmful or not. I simply don't know enough about this area of medicine to have even an uneducated opinion on the subject.
I know what works for me and I find it difficult to believe that if this type of movement caused lasting harm that the Yang family would not be aware of it after the amount of time they have practiced this way. That doesn't mean I don't think it's possible, I just feel it would almost have had to have manifested some cases we could look at and see the damage. There are, after all, people in their 80's and 90's who have been practicing this way for seventy or eighty years.
Do they have any conditions related to the tearing and continual breakdown of thier lumbar spine region? Is this a common ailment or complaint among elderly, long term YZJ style practicioners? Does the Yang family have a history of bad backs?
The answers to these questions would go a long way to settling any kind of question arising from this kind of movement.
Does anyone know?
I used Wu Chien Chuan's name when I intended to say Chuan Yau in my previous post.
My apologies.
What can I say? These (doctor prescribed) drugs are pretty good.
There can be no question that the Wu family practices Small Circle TCC. To say otherwise is, simply, ludicrous.
That Wu Chien Chuan and Yang Cheng Fu have similar forms is nothing to be amazed at nor is it any kind of mystery, nor does it prove anything about the current relationship about YCF style vs. WCC style TCC, in any way shape or form.
They had the same teachers, they originally learned the identical form.
It's as simple as that.
They even ran a school together for some time.
It wasn't until later in life that Wu Chien Chuan modified his form and created Wu style TCC. His earlier forms WERE Yang family forms, with no modifications as he taught them at that time. Looking at pictures of Wu Chien Chuan doing the Yang family forms will, of course, show that previous to modifying and practicing his own forms, his forms were remarkably similar to Yang Cheng Fu, Yang Ban Hou, Yang Lu Chan, Yang Jian Hou, Quan Yu...
You name them, they all practiced and taught the exact same forms until much later in Wu Chien Chuan and Yang Cheng Fu's lives.
I have been shown pictures that the Wu family have of Wu Chien Chuan practicing his modified forms. These photo's are also remarkably similar to Yang family stylists of that eras forms. Then you get to the next generation of Wu family TCC, Wu Kung Cho and Wu Kung Yi, and their forms are still remarkably similar in appearance to Yang Lu Chan's forms. There are slight modifications, but the forms still look very similar.
Master Wu Tai Kwei then modified his forms, known as the third generation of WCC forms, further and this is when things really start to look different.
Every generation of the Wu family, and they are now up to the sixth generation, has modified their forms slightly. Each generation has gotten more small circle, each has come up a bit higher, not nearly as low of a form anymore as the first generation.
So, let's compare apples to apples, not oranges. You cannot compare Wu Chien Chuan doing the Yang family forms to Wu Kwong Yu doing fifth generational Wu family forms. They are, at this point, different forms with different theories and applications.
I will stay out of the fray on the entire upper torso turning being harmful or not. I simply don't know enough about this area of medicine to have even an uneducated opinion on the subject.
I know what works for me and I find it difficult to believe that if this type of movement caused lasting harm that the Yang family would not be aware of it after the amount of time they have practiced this way. That doesn't mean I don't think it's possible, I just feel it would almost have had to have manifested some cases we could look at and see the damage. There are, after all, people in their 80's and 90's who have been practicing this way for seventy or eighty years.
Do they have any conditions related to the tearing and continual breakdown of thier lumbar spine region? Is this a common ailment or complaint among elderly, long term YZJ style practicioners? Does the Yang family have a history of bad backs?
The answers to these questions would go a long way to settling any kind of question arising from this kind of movement.
Does anyone know?
Ron,
You misunderstood a few things (as I did). The fault was probably mine with regards to the clarity of my thoughts. Most of it I will just let drop.
"oomph"? Only as much as needed. I didn't recommend using "more".
Notice that I agreed with you. Within "safe limits". I don't mean forcing things beyond "safe limits" and I doubt that YZJ or anyone else does either. Again these "limits" are not concrete degrees. For some that 11 degrees may be 13, for some 9. If one practices long enough one tends to know his/her own limits. Microtrauma, sure. Like anything else, one must pay attention and be careful.
Actually in "my" rollback I am just guiding the opponents movement from his lost root around and down. I/he may make a complete circle before "encountering" the ground, my knee possibly on his back. The "real" rollback can become anything at any time. That is how it is supposed to work.
Thanks for clarifing the Single whip example. I would still disagree concerning it being "symbolic". This is a particuliar technique. First the hands return (from the leftward motion) pushing down. Using the "hips" only as I rotate on the ball of my left foot, two things happen. The forming of the hook is turning the "captured" hand of the opponent over and away. The left hand/forearm turns over palm toward you, back of the hand making contact with the elbow moving in a an upward direction and away from you. This can either be a "block" (a ward off,....) protecting one from the elbow or a lock, a break, or whatever. All hip rotation. NOW that is in a "perfect" world. Angles can change everything. One might need some "waist". If circumstances were such that one might is about to use "ballistic" movement and go beyond those "safe" limits, my guess is that one would use another technique. To continue would be forcing it. It would no longer be appropriate. I think in the more experienced person this would become quickly realized.
Wushuer,
My "guess" is that back problems in Yang style practioners is much less than factory workers, poeple on loading docks and construction workers. Bending and/or twisting, bearing extra weight would be where most of the "microtrauma" will have it's toll. Didn't come to me in a dream either, but before college I have been a construction worker (short lived), worked on a loading dock, and a stint in a factory---I have felt the "truth" of this. Note: I am not saying I am "right" here. Just experience. I should have my PT get in on this, she might have a lot to say---she does taiji also.
Good practice to you all!
Michael
You misunderstood a few things (as I did). The fault was probably mine with regards to the clarity of my thoughts. Most of it I will just let drop.
"oomph"? Only as much as needed. I didn't recommend using "more".
Notice that I agreed with you. Within "safe limits". I don't mean forcing things beyond "safe limits" and I doubt that YZJ or anyone else does either. Again these "limits" are not concrete degrees. For some that 11 degrees may be 13, for some 9. If one practices long enough one tends to know his/her own limits. Microtrauma, sure. Like anything else, one must pay attention and be careful.
Actually in "my" rollback I am just guiding the opponents movement from his lost root around and down. I/he may make a complete circle before "encountering" the ground, my knee possibly on his back. The "real" rollback can become anything at any time. That is how it is supposed to work.
Thanks for clarifing the Single whip example. I would still disagree concerning it being "symbolic". This is a particuliar technique. First the hands return (from the leftward motion) pushing down. Using the "hips" only as I rotate on the ball of my left foot, two things happen. The forming of the hook is turning the "captured" hand of the opponent over and away. The left hand/forearm turns over palm toward you, back of the hand making contact with the elbow moving in a an upward direction and away from you. This can either be a "block" (a ward off,....) protecting one from the elbow or a lock, a break, or whatever. All hip rotation. NOW that is in a "perfect" world. Angles can change everything. One might need some "waist". If circumstances were such that one might is about to use "ballistic" movement and go beyond those "safe" limits, my guess is that one would use another technique. To continue would be forcing it. It would no longer be appropriate. I think in the more experienced person this would become quickly realized.
Wushuer,
My "guess" is that back problems in Yang style practioners is much less than factory workers, poeple on loading docks and construction workers. Bending and/or twisting, bearing extra weight would be where most of the "microtrauma" will have it's toll. Didn't come to me in a dream either, but before college I have been a construction worker (short lived), worked on a loading dock, and a stint in a factory---I have felt the "truth" of this. Note: I am not saying I am "right" here. Just experience. I should have my PT get in on this, she might have a lot to say---she does taiji also.
Good practice to you all!
Michael
-
RonKreshmar
- Posts: 41
- Joined: Sat May 10, 2003 6:01 am
- Location: Nanaimo, B.C.
Greetings,
Wushuer,
Relax. Maybe re-read my message to you.
Wu Chian style has all kinds of forms.
Ma Yueh-Liang's via eg. Sophia Delza is large frame.
It is known that Wu Kong Yi changed the form.
When Wu Chian was doing it as shown in the pictures he was doing a large frame version.
That is, if you consider it to be large frame.
That's why I asked you to look at the pictures. Have a look, is it large or medium or small frame to you?
Michael,
One more time, when a person moves a joint within its normal range of movement, his personal range of movement, all is OK, even if he did it ballistically in that range.
The trouble only starts when he exceeds his range of movement. ROM is a limit, in general, and then personal with respect to personal anatomy. That's why general figures are just guidelines, and personal ROM has to be determined.
ROM is a technical term, it states a limit that is not to be gone beyond.
If the range of movement is exceeded there is force applied to areas that those areas are not meant to take.
If you exceed the ROM, your personal ROM for joints, then if you exceed it a little you will cause little damage, if a lot, then a lot.
What I said was symbolic is not symbolic to you because you don't know what it is symbolic of. There is no hook hand in T'ai Chi. The hook hand is a gesture to something integral to Tai Chi.
But, you can make an application of it, if you want. Even catch passing mosquitoes with it.
Take care,
Ron
Wushuer,
Relax. Maybe re-read my message to you.
Wu Chian style has all kinds of forms.
Ma Yueh-Liang's via eg. Sophia Delza is large frame.
It is known that Wu Kong Yi changed the form.
When Wu Chian was doing it as shown in the pictures he was doing a large frame version.
That is, if you consider it to be large frame.
That's why I asked you to look at the pictures. Have a look, is it large or medium or small frame to you?
Michael,
One more time, when a person moves a joint within its normal range of movement, his personal range of movement, all is OK, even if he did it ballistically in that range.
The trouble only starts when he exceeds his range of movement. ROM is a limit, in general, and then personal with respect to personal anatomy. That's why general figures are just guidelines, and personal ROM has to be determined.
ROM is a technical term, it states a limit that is not to be gone beyond.
If the range of movement is exceeded there is force applied to areas that those areas are not meant to take.
If you exceed the ROM, your personal ROM for joints, then if you exceed it a little you will cause little damage, if a lot, then a lot.
What I said was symbolic is not symbolic to you because you don't know what it is symbolic of. There is no hook hand in T'ai Chi. The hook hand is a gesture to something integral to Tai Chi.
But, you can make an application of it, if you want. Even catch passing mosquitoes with it.
Take care,
Ron
I'm so relaxed I'm nearly asleep. Can't help but be on these pills I'm taking. Never was upset about anything and sorry if I came across that way.
The pictures you have listed here are showing a larger framed form than what I am used to seeing as Wu style, to me these pictures look large frame and always have. I believe I have said that, and why I believe this is so.
It was when I asked Wu Kwong Yu (Sifu Eddie) why the forms Wu Chien Chuan were pictured doing in this series looked so different from what we were learning that I was given the explanation of things getting smaller in each generation as they searched for the epitome of small circle TCC through their forms.
This is not my take on this, this is what the Wu family says. On their website is a history of their family. They say very much what I have said here about the large to small circle styles they learned from Ban Hou (who taught them large circle) and Lu Chan (who taught them small circle) and how and why they consider the small circle styles to be superior. Clearer, better stated, but the same general thing.
If you watch the pictures (the Wu family website has these photo's run together so they look like a movie, by the way, on the front page of their website you will see this movie as an introduction, it really does look like the Yang forms when viewed in this way) you will see that Wu Chien Chuan is still rounding his right arm up over his head in WCSW's and going up on his left toe as well. In the fifth generation of Wu family TCC the right arm is held straight up from a seated elbow no higher than the top of your forehead and your legs are next to each other, with the weight in a 50/50 distribution across both legs, you also make a forward "bow" from the waist in the fifth generation form of WCSW's that is totally missing in the Yang forms, also you turn to your left during this bow, taking your arms with you as you go, then turn back to center as you straighten up.
So, yes, I would say the forms have changed just a tad since Wu Chien Chuan was photographed in this series.
Wu Kong Yi indeed changed his forms. Wu Tai Kwei changed them more. They are contantly evolving. In fact, Wu Tai Sin has just taught a "larger circle" broadsword form to the disciples of the Wu family at one of his academies. I have not seen this form, but I have received some very excited e-mails from some of these people telling me how much fun it is.
The broadsword form I learned was very small circle and what I learned was fourth generation as I learned it from Wu Tai Sin and Wu Yan Hsia at a seminar. Apparently Wu Tai Sin has decided to develop a broadsword from with larger circles, I have no idea why since the focus has been on getting smaller with each generation.
The Wu family has what they call a Larger Circle hand form as well, which is very middle frame when compared to the YCF forms. I learned this form quite some time ago from one of their Disciples and am only now beginning to realise the meaning to it.
If I knew then what I know now about TCC, I would have paid more attention to these kinds of details in class.
When I think of the opportunities I had at my fingertips back then and didn't even know it....
The pictures you have listed here are showing a larger framed form than what I am used to seeing as Wu style, to me these pictures look large frame and always have. I believe I have said that, and why I believe this is so.
It was when I asked Wu Kwong Yu (Sifu Eddie) why the forms Wu Chien Chuan were pictured doing in this series looked so different from what we were learning that I was given the explanation of things getting smaller in each generation as they searched for the epitome of small circle TCC through their forms.
This is not my take on this, this is what the Wu family says. On their website is a history of their family. They say very much what I have said here about the large to small circle styles they learned from Ban Hou (who taught them large circle) and Lu Chan (who taught them small circle) and how and why they consider the small circle styles to be superior. Clearer, better stated, but the same general thing.
If you watch the pictures (the Wu family website has these photo's run together so they look like a movie, by the way, on the front page of their website you will see this movie as an introduction, it really does look like the Yang forms when viewed in this way) you will see that Wu Chien Chuan is still rounding his right arm up over his head in WCSW's and going up on his left toe as well. In the fifth generation of Wu family TCC the right arm is held straight up from a seated elbow no higher than the top of your forehead and your legs are next to each other, with the weight in a 50/50 distribution across both legs, you also make a forward "bow" from the waist in the fifth generation form of WCSW's that is totally missing in the Yang forms, also you turn to your left during this bow, taking your arms with you as you go, then turn back to center as you straighten up.
So, yes, I would say the forms have changed just a tad since Wu Chien Chuan was photographed in this series.
Wu Kong Yi indeed changed his forms. Wu Tai Kwei changed them more. They are contantly evolving. In fact, Wu Tai Sin has just taught a "larger circle" broadsword form to the disciples of the Wu family at one of his academies. I have not seen this form, but I have received some very excited e-mails from some of these people telling me how much fun it is.
The broadsword form I learned was very small circle and what I learned was fourth generation as I learned it from Wu Tai Sin and Wu Yan Hsia at a seminar. Apparently Wu Tai Sin has decided to develop a broadsword from with larger circles, I have no idea why since the focus has been on getting smaller with each generation.
The Wu family has what they call a Larger Circle hand form as well, which is very middle frame when compared to the YCF forms. I learned this form quite some time ago from one of their Disciples and am only now beginning to realise the meaning to it.
If I knew then what I know now about TCC, I would have paid more attention to these kinds of details in class.
When I think of the opportunities I had at my fingertips back then and didn't even know it....
-
RonKreshmar
- Posts: 41
- Joined: Sat May 10, 2003 6:01 am
- Location: Nanaimo, B.C.
Hi Wushuer,
You said:
"It was when I asked Wu Kwong Yu (Sifu Eddie) why the forms Wu Chien Chuan were pictured doing in this series looked so different from what we were learning that I was given the explanation of things getting smaller in each generation as they searched for the epitome of small circle TCC through their forms."
Here's the rub, if Wu Quan, Chian' father, learnt a small frame application from Yang Luchan then why would they be looking for it over the generations. Did they lose it?
Other versions have it that Wu Quan bowed to Ban Hou, that Ban Hou was Wu Quan's teacher.
A while back someone by the name of Bart Saris had a website for, I believe, Eddie's brother in Europe.
When someone asked that Wu why the pictures showed large frame instead of the 'small frame' it was blamed on the photographer.
Really.
Best,
Ron
You said:
"It was when I asked Wu Kwong Yu (Sifu Eddie) why the forms Wu Chien Chuan were pictured doing in this series looked so different from what we were learning that I was given the explanation of things getting smaller in each generation as they searched for the epitome of small circle TCC through their forms."
Here's the rub, if Wu Quan, Chian' father, learnt a small frame application from Yang Luchan then why would they be looking for it over the generations. Did they lose it?
Other versions have it that Wu Quan bowed to Ban Hou, that Ban Hou was Wu Quan's teacher.
A while back someone by the name of Bart Saris had a website for, I believe, Eddie's brother in Europe.
When someone asked that Wu why the pictures showed large frame instead of the 'small frame' it was blamed on the photographer.
Really.
Best,
Ron
Hi Ron,
Several things cause sciatica. Did you damage a disk doing something else, and then continue doing form? Did you check on the muscles that can put pressure on the sciatic nerve, and did you rule out infection?
I believe that you are mistaken about waste turns.
I think that the answers to your questions lay, as I believe Steve J and Michael suggested, in the difference between use and abuse.
Using the I Ching as a guide you will find Modesty - increasing that which is too little and decreasing that which is too much - and several exhortations concerning thoroughness.
Tai Chi Chuan exercises all the muscles and joints in the body. As you may recall Tai Chi Chuan is based around *whole body* movement. If you do not use the muscles around your spine, by not turning your waist at all, you aren't fulfilling thes requirements.
David J
Several things cause sciatica. Did you damage a disk doing something else, and then continue doing form? Did you check on the muscles that can put pressure on the sciatic nerve, and did you rule out infection?
I believe that you are mistaken about waste turns.
I think that the answers to your questions lay, as I believe Steve J and Michael suggested, in the difference between use and abuse.
Using the I Ching as a guide you will find Modesty - increasing that which is too little and decreasing that which is too much - and several exhortations concerning thoroughness.
Tai Chi Chuan exercises all the muscles and joints in the body. As you may recall Tai Chi Chuan is based around *whole body* movement. If you do not use the muscles around your spine, by not turning your waist at all, you aren't fulfilling thes requirements.
David J
-
RonKreshmar
- Posts: 41
- Joined: Sat May 10, 2003 6:01 am
- Location: Nanaimo, B.C.
Hi David,
Yes sciatica has different causes.
Important to T'ai chi, besides the spine, is that the sciatic nerve passes through the piriformis muscle. This muscle is an external hip rotator muscle which can impinge on the nerve during moves like Sweep lotus.
Dancers often end up with sciatica from moving the pirisformis muscle beyond its ROM.
And where do you put the waist when you turn?
Take care,
Ron
Yes sciatica has different causes.
Important to T'ai chi, besides the spine, is that the sciatic nerve passes through the piriformis muscle. This muscle is an external hip rotator muscle which can impinge on the nerve during moves like Sweep lotus.
Dancers often end up with sciatica from moving the pirisformis muscle beyond its ROM.
And where do you put the waist when you turn?
Take care,
Ron
Ron,
And ONE MORE TIME (last time)..I guess you still don't understand that I agree with you on "most" of what you are saying. My writing isn't that good, but not that bad for you not to see that. But I guess you feel there is something still to win.
The application in Single whip was taught to me. Didn't make it up. One can find it in other Yang forms as well--at least a variation of it. A "Hook" is just a grasp in one situation. In practice it can be as you say...or something else. You are mistaken if you believe that any posture, or "piece" of structure doesn't have application value, training value in internal and external energy,..... Hey I don't know everything, none of us do...I might be wrong about that.... DArn, there goes a mosquito! Missed him! Maybe a palm strike will do better. Should I use the "Cranes beak" or the back side of my hand? Maybe I should emit "chi" from my fingertips and fry the little sucker in mid air! A little stretch across the palm and I can do the same with it! Such a delema.
Just having fun,
Enjoy,
Michael
[This message has been edited by Michael (edited 05-21-2003).]
And ONE MORE TIME (last time)..I guess you still don't understand that I agree with you on "most" of what you are saying. My writing isn't that good, but not that bad for you not to see that. But I guess you feel there is something still to win.
The application in Single whip was taught to me. Didn't make it up. One can find it in other Yang forms as well--at least a variation of it. A "Hook" is just a grasp in one situation. In practice it can be as you say...or something else. You are mistaken if you believe that any posture, or "piece" of structure doesn't have application value, training value in internal and external energy,..... Hey I don't know everything, none of us do...I might be wrong about that.... DArn, there goes a mosquito! Missed him! Maybe a palm strike will do better. Should I use the "Cranes beak" or the back side of my hand? Maybe I should emit "chi" from my fingertips and fry the little sucker in mid air! A little stretch across the palm and I can do the same with it! Such a delema.
Just having fun,
Enjoy,
Michael
[This message has been edited by Michael (edited 05-21-2003).]
Ron,
Do you forget that Wu Chien Chuan and Yang Cheng Fu opened a school and taught Yang family TCC together?
What style of TCC do you suppose that they taught at this school?
Do you think Wu Chien Chuan would have disrespected his own father and his fathers teachers, much less Yang Cheng Fu and his ancestors, in such a way as to teach his own, new, untried style in a school that was opened to teach Yang family TCC to students?
I do not.
I do not know, obviously, but it seems obvious to me that he would have taught Large Frame Yang family TCC to the students of that academy, just like Yang Cheng Fu was teaching at the time.
The Yangs taught primarily Large Frame at this time and it looked and primarily was Chen style if you want to get real nit picky about what forms they were practicing. If you hold up pictures of Chen family members doing their form next to the pictures of Wu Chien Chuan, Yang Cheng Fu, Yang Ban Hou, Yang Lu Chan, Yang Jian Hou, Chuan Yau, any of the old masters, doing the forms they originally learned what do you see?
I see Chen style, large frame TCC being taught and practiced.
The Small Frame (circle, whatever) styles were taught only to family members, trusted students (disciples?) and royalty. Period.
Chuan Yau was a longtime student of Yang Ban Hou, Ban Hou did not teach even Chuan Yau his small circle style of TCC. Yang Lu Chan taught this style to Chuan Yau when Ban Hou went away and left his students under the tutelage of his father for a time, or he would not have learned that form at all.
Do you suppose that Chuan Yau taught this small frame form to just anyone, disrespecting the wishes of Yang Lu Chan and Yang Ban Hou?
I would imagine he taught his son both forms and his son taught the public only the Yang large frame until he invented his own form and opened a school specifically for his new forms, which he then taught to everyone from then on.
Even Yang Cheng Fu taught the same forms as the rest of the Yang family, until late in his life when he "modified" his families traditional forms and began to teach Yang Cheng Fu style TCC.
What? Do you think these guys leapt out of the womb teaching their own forms?
I, personally, have a ream of photos of myself doing the "traditional" Yang family 108 form I learned a long time ago. This is not either of the forms I practice or teach now. If I ever become a legend in TCC history (hey, it could happen) do you suppose that seventy five years from now people are going to hold up these photos and try to say my forms were all and only Large Frame and because these photos exist of me performing this form I never learned a small frame form? Or that I forgot it?
The truth would be that these were photos taken during an exhibition I performed for my school at a TCC seminar. The photos are of me doing a form I can no longer even remember, so the truth of the matter would be I forgot the Large Frame form I learned and to use these photos to try and define my performance of TCC throughout my lifetime would be ridiculous.
I do not know what Sifu Wu Hsia Fung said, I have never met Sifu so would not presume to speak for them. However, I find the idea that Sifu would have said something like that to be just a bit.... far fetched.
I also have a photo of myself standing in a group right next to Sifa Wu Tai Sin and Sifu Wu Kwong Yu (Eddie), at the front of a large group of Academy students at a seminar in 1989. For some reason I am right in front, between the two. Sifu Britt was next to me, one person away from the Masters.
Would this photo prove I was the favorite of the Wu family at this academy?
It proves that I happened to be standing in between the Masters, that's all.
So to try to pin anything concrete on some photos of Wu Chien Chuan that we don't know exactly where or when, or why, or what form he was doing, or what the purpose of the photos was...
Again. Far fetched.
Do you forget that Wu Chien Chuan and Yang Cheng Fu opened a school and taught Yang family TCC together?
What style of TCC do you suppose that they taught at this school?
Do you think Wu Chien Chuan would have disrespected his own father and his fathers teachers, much less Yang Cheng Fu and his ancestors, in such a way as to teach his own, new, untried style in a school that was opened to teach Yang family TCC to students?
I do not.
I do not know, obviously, but it seems obvious to me that he would have taught Large Frame Yang family TCC to the students of that academy, just like Yang Cheng Fu was teaching at the time.
The Yangs taught primarily Large Frame at this time and it looked and primarily was Chen style if you want to get real nit picky about what forms they were practicing. If you hold up pictures of Chen family members doing their form next to the pictures of Wu Chien Chuan, Yang Cheng Fu, Yang Ban Hou, Yang Lu Chan, Yang Jian Hou, Chuan Yau, any of the old masters, doing the forms they originally learned what do you see?
I see Chen style, large frame TCC being taught and practiced.
The Small Frame (circle, whatever) styles were taught only to family members, trusted students (disciples?) and royalty. Period.
Chuan Yau was a longtime student of Yang Ban Hou, Ban Hou did not teach even Chuan Yau his small circle style of TCC. Yang Lu Chan taught this style to Chuan Yau when Ban Hou went away and left his students under the tutelage of his father for a time, or he would not have learned that form at all.
Do you suppose that Chuan Yau taught this small frame form to just anyone, disrespecting the wishes of Yang Lu Chan and Yang Ban Hou?
I would imagine he taught his son both forms and his son taught the public only the Yang large frame until he invented his own form and opened a school specifically for his new forms, which he then taught to everyone from then on.
Even Yang Cheng Fu taught the same forms as the rest of the Yang family, until late in his life when he "modified" his families traditional forms and began to teach Yang Cheng Fu style TCC.
What? Do you think these guys leapt out of the womb teaching their own forms?
I, personally, have a ream of photos of myself doing the "traditional" Yang family 108 form I learned a long time ago. This is not either of the forms I practice or teach now. If I ever become a legend in TCC history (hey, it could happen) do you suppose that seventy five years from now people are going to hold up these photos and try to say my forms were all and only Large Frame and because these photos exist of me performing this form I never learned a small frame form? Or that I forgot it?
The truth would be that these were photos taken during an exhibition I performed for my school at a TCC seminar. The photos are of me doing a form I can no longer even remember, so the truth of the matter would be I forgot the Large Frame form I learned and to use these photos to try and define my performance of TCC throughout my lifetime would be ridiculous.
I do not know what Sifu Wu Hsia Fung said, I have never met Sifu so would not presume to speak for them. However, I find the idea that Sifu would have said something like that to be just a bit.... far fetched.
I also have a photo of myself standing in a group right next to Sifa Wu Tai Sin and Sifu Wu Kwong Yu (Eddie), at the front of a large group of Academy students at a seminar in 1989. For some reason I am right in front, between the two. Sifu Britt was next to me, one person away from the Masters.
Would this photo prove I was the favorite of the Wu family at this academy?
It proves that I happened to be standing in between the Masters, that's all.
So to try to pin anything concrete on some photos of Wu Chien Chuan that we don't know exactly where or when, or why, or what form he was doing, or what the purpose of the photos was...
Again. Far fetched.
-
RonKreshmar
- Posts: 41
- Joined: Sat May 10, 2003 6:01 am
- Location: Nanaimo, B.C.
Hi Wushuer,
I like pictures.
Here are some of Chen Fake.
http://www.chinafrominside.com/ma/taiji/chenfake1.html
What do you see?
Forget about the Wu Chian pictures for a minute.
When you said "I was given the explanation of things getting smaller in each generation as they searched for the epitome of small circle TCC through their forms."
Why would they be searching for what they already have?
Why would things be getting smaller each generation if they already have the small form? Or is the small form getting smaller heading towards the ultimate formlessness?
I hope you're not saying that the Yang family is holding something back, since they don't teach a small frame form.
Please tell Michael, if you see him, that it's only rock'n roll, or twist and shout.
Best,
Ron
[This message has been edited by RonKreshmar (edited 05-21-2003).]
I like pictures.
Here are some of Chen Fake.
http://www.chinafrominside.com/ma/taiji/chenfake1.html
What do you see?
Forget about the Wu Chian pictures for a minute.
When you said "I was given the explanation of things getting smaller in each generation as they searched for the epitome of small circle TCC through their forms."
Why would they be searching for what they already have?
Why would things be getting smaller each generation if they already have the small form? Or is the small form getting smaller heading towards the ultimate formlessness?
I hope you're not saying that the Yang family is holding something back, since they don't teach a small frame form.
Please tell Michael, if you see him, that it's only rock'n roll, or twist and shout.
Best,
Ron
[This message has been edited by RonKreshmar (edited 05-21-2003).]
In 1914, Wu Chien-ch'uan was asked by Yang Shao-hou and Yang Ch'eng-fu, through an intermediary, Hsu Yu-sheng , if he would care to teach at the school they were setting up under the auspices of the new Nationalist govt. in Beijing. Wu Chien-ch'uan accepted, and Sun Lu-t'ang also joined the faculty. The first beginner's class were "graduated" in 1916, I believe. In that class, studying under the Yangs, Wu Chien-ch'uan and Sun Lu-t'ang, were Wu Chien-ch'uan's teenage sons, Wu Kung-yi and Wu Kung-tsao.
So the members of the different families were all training together. The tradition as I have been told it is that they didn't then consider what the different teachers were teaching to be different "styles," but that it was all just T'ai Chi Ch'uan, but that later students started saying that there were different styles to distinguish between the different teachers. It wasn't until the T'ai Chi teachers themselves had standardized their individual forms and taught them to large numbers of people that the idea of "styles" really started to take root.
Wu Kung-yi spent a considerable amount of time studying under Yang Shao-hou, and that is why his form differs somewhat from his father's. As well, most of the practitioners from those days, and even today, even within the same "style," have basic forms which can differ considerably from each other. Sometimes it has to do with body type, other times because of which applications the practitioner may want to emphasize.
My point is, if it is good T'ai Chi Ch'uan, clearly manifesting 8 gates and 5 steps and done with looseness, agility and coordination, then the idiosyncratic manifestation of the individual forms won't affect quality. Good T'ai Chi is good T'ai Chi.
Regards,
P.
[This message has been edited by Polaris (edited 05-21-2003).]
[This message has been edited by Polaris (edited 05-21-2003).]
So the members of the different families were all training together. The tradition as I have been told it is that they didn't then consider what the different teachers were teaching to be different "styles," but that it was all just T'ai Chi Ch'uan, but that later students started saying that there were different styles to distinguish between the different teachers. It wasn't until the T'ai Chi teachers themselves had standardized their individual forms and taught them to large numbers of people that the idea of "styles" really started to take root.
Wu Kung-yi spent a considerable amount of time studying under Yang Shao-hou, and that is why his form differs somewhat from his father's. As well, most of the practitioners from those days, and even today, even within the same "style," have basic forms which can differ considerably from each other. Sometimes it has to do with body type, other times because of which applications the practitioner may want to emphasize.
My point is, if it is good T'ai Chi Ch'uan, clearly manifesting 8 gates and 5 steps and done with looseness, agility and coordination, then the idiosyncratic manifestation of the individual forms won't affect quality. Good T'ai Chi is good T'ai Chi.
Regards,
P.
[This message has been edited by Polaris (edited 05-21-2003).]
[This message has been edited by Polaris (edited 05-21-2003).]
-
RonKreshmar
- Posts: 41
- Joined: Sat May 10, 2003 6:01 am
- Location: Nanaimo, B.C.
Hi Wushuer,
Wrong master, right story. Only a story, if you wish to get in touch with Bart Saris, one of the first promoters of Wu style to straighten this out, feel free.
Bart Saris:
"What happened is that sometime in the Thirties Wu Chian-Chuan had photographs being taken of his postures. The resulting series of pictures has been published several times over the years, the last time in Wu Ying-Hwa and Ma Yueh-Liang's book on Wu style t.c.c., that deals with forms, concepts and applications of the original Wu style, (S.H. Book Co., Hong Kong 1988). Both grandmasters are the parents of Ma Jiang-Bao, who has been my teacher for a number of years now.
On one occasion I pointed out to him that some of the postures in these photographs seem to deviate from what he taught us and that some of the details even seem to contradict certain important principles that run through the entire solo form. On hearing my comment he laughed heartily. The story behind it, as he told me, is that those pictures where taken in a studio. The photographer, an obstinate man, had his own definite view on picture making. So he had demands that did not always comply with Wu's wishes.
He wanted for example that Wu Chian-Chuan's face be visible at most times, not partially covered by hands or arms and he wanted him to look straight into the camera as often as possible. Also some pictures were taken at the wrong moment within the movements. The inaccuracies that some of the pictures show are the direct consequences of these proceedings. Therefore they should not be taken too seriously. Nevertheless a number of these same details became amplified, as is clearly reflected in some Wu style students, not lucky enough to receive the proper instruction and information."
The last sentence is a gem in itself.
Saris, by the way, has his versions of the small frame. There are two, the fast form, which hardly any Yang people know, though some, the Tung's may have made one up, and the Wu small frame which is smaller than the YCF frame because the arms are tucked in.
Take care,
Ron
Wrong master, right story. Only a story, if you wish to get in touch with Bart Saris, one of the first promoters of Wu style to straighten this out, feel free.
Bart Saris:
"What happened is that sometime in the Thirties Wu Chian-Chuan had photographs being taken of his postures. The resulting series of pictures has been published several times over the years, the last time in Wu Ying-Hwa and Ma Yueh-Liang's book on Wu style t.c.c., that deals with forms, concepts and applications of the original Wu style, (S.H. Book Co., Hong Kong 1988). Both grandmasters are the parents of Ma Jiang-Bao, who has been my teacher for a number of years now.
On one occasion I pointed out to him that some of the postures in these photographs seem to deviate from what he taught us and that some of the details even seem to contradict certain important principles that run through the entire solo form. On hearing my comment he laughed heartily. The story behind it, as he told me, is that those pictures where taken in a studio. The photographer, an obstinate man, had his own definite view on picture making. So he had demands that did not always comply with Wu's wishes.
He wanted for example that Wu Chian-Chuan's face be visible at most times, not partially covered by hands or arms and he wanted him to look straight into the camera as often as possible. Also some pictures were taken at the wrong moment within the movements. The inaccuracies that some of the pictures show are the direct consequences of these proceedings. Therefore they should not be taken too seriously. Nevertheless a number of these same details became amplified, as is clearly reflected in some Wu style students, not lucky enough to receive the proper instruction and information."
The last sentence is a gem in itself.
Saris, by the way, has his versions of the small frame. There are two, the fast form, which hardly any Yang people know, though some, the Tung's may have made one up, and the Wu small frame which is smaller than the YCF frame because the arms are tucked in.
Take care,
Ron
Ron,
Are you serious? I have to ask.
Do you honestly believe that the Wu family felt they had found the ultimate form of small circle TCC on the first shot, or that they have yet or ever really will find perfection? That Wu Chien Chuan was so perfect, so absolutely infallible that he hit the peak of small circle TCC right off the bat with absolutely no room for improvement?
Not even I believe that, and I honor my teachers ancestors as much as humanly possible.
As much as I feel the Wu family has some excellent, excellent TCC they are most certainly not perfect. While I have the deepest, honest respect for the Wu family and their art I would not in a million years ever claim, or believe anyone who claimed, that they had yet reached the pinnacle of small circle movement beyond which there was no room for improvement.
Sifu was fond of telling us: "There is only one T'ai Chi Ch'uan, there are however many roads to get there".
As it was Sifu Wu Kong Yu who pointed me in the direction of YCF style TCC after I was unable to attend his Academy any longer due to my job moving me too far away, with his full endorsement of the style and the admonition that it was better to study a legitimate style that would continue my road to that ever elusive TCC than to stop training simply because I couldn't study his family style, leads me to extend that respect to YZD and his teachings.
I feel it would be dishonoring Sifu to dishonor this style or any of its practicioners.
What you seem to be asking us to do is to dishonor this style (YCF) of TCC and it's theories of movement and instead agree with yours. You put forth statements by this Bart Saris, a name by the way I have never heard, and ask me to listen to him rather than what Sifu Wu Kwong Yu, Sifa Wu Tai Sin, the late Sifa Wu Yan Hsia, their disciples and all their ancestors have promoted over the last hundred years AND the knowledge they have given me directly. You also appear to be asking the board to believe you over the teachings of Yang Zhenji, Yang Zhen Duo, Yang Jun and their ancestors.
I hope you realise that there is no one on this site who is going to do that.
Least of all me.
I will send off some em-mails to several disciples of the Wu family with whom I have a close relationship (some are family members) asking for information on Bart Saris and his relevance to Wu style TCC. I'm sure he's an important player in the game, or you would not have quoted him, however to feel for even a moment that anyone here would take his explanation of an event he was not at and that happened before he was born over those of the descendants of the people in question who passed thier knowledge down to us directly through these descendants...
I hope you can see where I'm going with this?
Again, I mean you no disrespect and welcome your comments and insights, as well as bowing to your obviously superior knowledge of anatomy. I am simply pointing out that if you think I'm going to stop believing things I have been told directly by the descendants of Wu Chien Chuan with which you do not agree simply on the words of a person who I have never heard of and have not met, you are mistaken.
I am glad to see another believer in single weighted forms and especially as your knowledge of the anatomy of this is much grater than mine. I practice them every day, without fail, and find them more comfortable to my body shape, my personal preferences and from familiarity. However, I have much to learn from Yang Cheng Fu style TCC and am enjoying the experience. The theories are in some cases so disparate as to seem like a completely foreign style, but in learning these things I have also found new depths to Wu style that I had never imagined existed.
The two styles compliment each other, they do not rule each other out. To have even a working knowledge of both elevates me to new heights in my understanding of TCC and my personal love for the art.
But I will not put myself against Yang Zhenji, whose knowledge of TCC was gained at the feet of his father, or Yang Zhen Duo who also learned from the same source as well as others, or Wu Kwong Yu who is the direct lineage holder of Wu style TCC and from whom I was priveledged to gain some small amount of direct tutelage.
Are you serious? I have to ask.
Do you honestly believe that the Wu family felt they had found the ultimate form of small circle TCC on the first shot, or that they have yet or ever really will find perfection? That Wu Chien Chuan was so perfect, so absolutely infallible that he hit the peak of small circle TCC right off the bat with absolutely no room for improvement?
Not even I believe that, and I honor my teachers ancestors as much as humanly possible.
As much as I feel the Wu family has some excellent, excellent TCC they are most certainly not perfect. While I have the deepest, honest respect for the Wu family and their art I would not in a million years ever claim, or believe anyone who claimed, that they had yet reached the pinnacle of small circle movement beyond which there was no room for improvement.
Sifu was fond of telling us: "There is only one T'ai Chi Ch'uan, there are however many roads to get there".
As it was Sifu Wu Kong Yu who pointed me in the direction of YCF style TCC after I was unable to attend his Academy any longer due to my job moving me too far away, with his full endorsement of the style and the admonition that it was better to study a legitimate style that would continue my road to that ever elusive TCC than to stop training simply because I couldn't study his family style, leads me to extend that respect to YZD and his teachings.
I feel it would be dishonoring Sifu to dishonor this style or any of its practicioners.
What you seem to be asking us to do is to dishonor this style (YCF) of TCC and it's theories of movement and instead agree with yours. You put forth statements by this Bart Saris, a name by the way I have never heard, and ask me to listen to him rather than what Sifu Wu Kwong Yu, Sifa Wu Tai Sin, the late Sifa Wu Yan Hsia, their disciples and all their ancestors have promoted over the last hundred years AND the knowledge they have given me directly. You also appear to be asking the board to believe you over the teachings of Yang Zhenji, Yang Zhen Duo, Yang Jun and their ancestors.
I hope you realise that there is no one on this site who is going to do that.
Least of all me.
I will send off some em-mails to several disciples of the Wu family with whom I have a close relationship (some are family members) asking for information on Bart Saris and his relevance to Wu style TCC. I'm sure he's an important player in the game, or you would not have quoted him, however to feel for even a moment that anyone here would take his explanation of an event he was not at and that happened before he was born over those of the descendants of the people in question who passed thier knowledge down to us directly through these descendants...
I hope you can see where I'm going with this?
Again, I mean you no disrespect and welcome your comments and insights, as well as bowing to your obviously superior knowledge of anatomy. I am simply pointing out that if you think I'm going to stop believing things I have been told directly by the descendants of Wu Chien Chuan with which you do not agree simply on the words of a person who I have never heard of and have not met, you are mistaken.
I am glad to see another believer in single weighted forms and especially as your knowledge of the anatomy of this is much grater than mine. I practice them every day, without fail, and find them more comfortable to my body shape, my personal preferences and from familiarity. However, I have much to learn from Yang Cheng Fu style TCC and am enjoying the experience. The theories are in some cases so disparate as to seem like a completely foreign style, but in learning these things I have also found new depths to Wu style that I had never imagined existed.
The two styles compliment each other, they do not rule each other out. To have even a working knowledge of both elevates me to new heights in my understanding of TCC and my personal love for the art.
But I will not put myself against Yang Zhenji, whose knowledge of TCC was gained at the feet of his father, or Yang Zhen Duo who also learned from the same source as well as others, or Wu Kwong Yu who is the direct lineage holder of Wu style TCC and from whom I was priveledged to gain some small amount of direct tutelage.
Ron,
Just got word back from the last disciple of the Wu family I asked about this, as well as most of the others.
Bart Saris is not listed as a disciple of the Wu family, nor is he listed as a Wu family approved teacher of their style in any of the family records. His name was not familiar to any of the disciples I asked.
The question of this persons bona fides will go to Sifu Eddie, I have been assured. As soon as I receive his answer, I will let you know.
Just got word back from the last disciple of the Wu family I asked about this, as well as most of the others.
Bart Saris is not listed as a disciple of the Wu family, nor is he listed as a Wu family approved teacher of their style in any of the family records. His name was not familiar to any of the disciples I asked.
The question of this persons bona fides will go to Sifu Eddie, I have been assured. As soon as I receive his answer, I will let you know.