Yslim,
I knew I forgot something.
"Cannot add, cannot take away" and why I say "if it doesn't work for anyone else...".
Again, I have studied two style of TCC with some depth, a third just on the surface.
Having had the experience of changing styles I have found that not everyone agrees on what "Tai Chi Chuan" actually is.
Even amongst students of the top Grand Masters of the same style there is no agreement on what Tai Chi Chuan is.
Add in another style and you've now not just got a disagreement, you have a battle royal.
When I first made the change between Wu Chien Chuan and Yang Cheng Fu Tai Chi Chuan, as I mentioned before, I found myself floundering in a vacuum of my own ignorance.
After over ten years of daily practice of one style and feeling pretty cock-sure of myself that I knew quite a bit about Tai Chi Chuan, I suddenly found myself in the position of realizing that while I understood one flavor of the art passing well I was totally ignorant of any other flavors.
I got into endless debates with students of other schools over what is "right" and what is "wrong".
I would say, "What on earth do you move back weight for when pivoting your foot? Why don't you just pivot it with the weight still on it like we do in WCC style? What's the use of moving back the weight? It slows you down. You're 'retreating' and that's wrong."
The replies would be wildly varied, sometimes full of anger (You don't have any idea what you're talking about!), sometimes condescending (You don't have any idea what you're talking about.) but always there was disagreement.
I'm a bit older now and this is no longer my first rodeo.
Rather than state absolutes (DO NOT EXTEND YOUR ELBOW PAST YOUR TOE) I speak more broadly (In my opinion, you should not extent your elbow past your toe, and here's why...).
I have also had the time and put in the effort to understand both of the styles I have studied to a much greater depth.
I now understand that there are many similarities and no actual differences.
To me, moving into transitions using weighted pivots and unweighted pivots are now the exact same idea.
Sure, you do them differently but they're still the same principle.
One is simply a much larger version of the other.
Once I began to say, "Oh... That's the same thing. Duh!" I began to realize that not everyone is at the level to understand that yet.
Hence, the arguments.
Understanding changes over time. If someone hasn't learned that yet they can't see the bigger picture the way I do now.
I now understand that what I see as being "correct" and part of the exact same principle applied slightly differently will be viewed as entirely incorrect by those who do not yet comprehend this idea.
So rather than make absolute statements and invite those types of arguments, I simply say, "No one else has to do it this way. If it doesn't work for you, that's fine too."
Take, for example, my understanding of "fulcrums and levers" and how to make every part of my body into a series of fulcrums and levers in order to break and redirect the energy of my opponent.
I see every joint as a fulcrum, every bone as a lever. I use them this way.
I learned it from going to Eddie Wu's seminars, where he teaches this.
I know it's legitimate Tai Chi Chuan because it came directly from my Si Kung. I don't have to wonder, I know this.
But others don't. They have never heard of this before and so to them I'm wrong.
I've never heard Master Yang Jun use the words "fulcrums and levers" when he describes this same principle, but I have seen him do the exact same thing as Eddie over and over again.
He uses entirely different words but he teaches the exact same thing.
Here, for example, is one of his explanations of the concept:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TEhuw4Wc ... plpp_video
At one point he mentions "leverage" but he never uses the word "fulcrum".
So there will be those, who have never viewed the concept as using "fulcrums and levers", who will scream, "You have no idea what you're talking about!" when I start to talk about using the fulcrums and levers in my body to do something.
So, to answer the question, I am not "adding" nor am I "taking away".
I'm simply saying that I don't want to get into any more arguments with someone who hasn't learned yet that there are endless ways to do or explain the same principles.
I was that guy previously and, believe me, when someone questions your closely held beliefs you start telling them they don't know what they're talking.
Reading over that, I see that it may come off as a bit condescending.
It's not intended that way, to be sure.
However, I can't figure out a way to make it sound any better and still retain the essence.
So I'll let it stand as is as I'm out of time for the day.
Cheers,
Bob
