Yang Family Tai Chi Discussion Board

Posted: **Mon Jan 07, 2008 8:46 pm**

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by yielding:
Is Shouchung the same as Yang Sau Chung? I assume it is. I would love to learn more about YCF's oldest son Sau chung if anyone has anything they would like to share. It would be very interesting to hear about the relationships between YSC and some of his father's students. For example, I heard there was some kind of riff between Dong and YSC, as well as with CMC. I know it's not that important, but it's interesting anyway.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The same. Spellings are always a challenge here. Better, Yang Zhenming. There definitely were issues between those two. YSC should have requested the material his father loaned to TYC but he could not. It's still there because he could not tell or ask him to return it. It was a big loss. When his father passed away # 1 was a far distance away teaching. After the death, this widow took her 3 young sons and returned home to Yongnian. She fully understood the inheritance issue. She was a serious task master & really pushed her little boys to learn their father's art. She even practiced ph with them to keep their noses to the grindstone. The # 1 son and # 2 son worked quite a bit together. The elder was from YCF's first wife, the later sons were from his second. Notably, Zhang Qinlin was a nephew of YCF by his second marriage. He was YCF's student & infrequent chauffer. The claim that Jianhou gave him a secret set is hilarious. Same with the claim that Du Xinwu fought Jianhou to a draw - pretty funny stuff. They were good friends.

This is precisely some of the problem re history - there is a real tendency to believe whomever makes the first claim - consider Chen Yenlin. He was never a student of Chengfu, never even met him. Zhang Qinlin was really never taught a secret set by Jianhou. I think Tung YC said it best, paraphrasing from "TCC Explained"- " ... Tcc makes big business with small capital."

What a sense of humor.

Best Wishes,
leroy

Posted: **Mon Jan 07, 2008 8:48 pm**

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by clarkleroy:
 First - And, a good question. Not sure except few in the west have seen the full text. The essence of the critique was not the names of the gestures, rather, it was using nontcc tactics. Even when Qu tried to rebuttal, he did not provide any detail except to describe some general, yet very interesting, things in during those days.

Re the repititions within the form - no, it had nothing to do with YCF's weight. Neither did the large frame that many here (west) attribute to his size. Body size had nothing to do with it. In his 1948 book, "TCC Explained", Tung described Master Yang Chengfu's set as being good for beginners. Interesting stuff

Recently an older kf bro met Jasmine Tung & had a nice visit discussing some interesting material.

The current family mostly uses 3 reps. FZW 5. Tung 3. It matters not, as you know, at least Fu & Tung advised, as long as one is consistent in using 3 or 5 or 7 or ... throughout the set. I have a personal video of YZD using 5 at a demo at the u in Xi'an during the mid 1980's at the local tcc club. He demo'd along with FSY then & there - their large sets, sword, saber, & ph. The mattress on the wall was definitely needed. The club's best p.h. fellow was tossed around like water thrown from a fan.

As you know re the wardoff, it actually is implied throughout, same w/lu,lie, peng, etc., everywhere, always.

Best Regards,
leroy

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Hi Leroy.

I am well aware of the implication of ward-off applications throughout the whole frame but here I get the feeling LYX was commenting on CMC's detailed description of application of the embrace/leopard movement.

Re the repetitions, it wasn't my critique on YCF, it was just a thought that he added them because of shorter foot stances as he got older. Another "obvious" (and popular) matter would be that he eliminated fajins from his father's frame for the same reasons.

Again, note the "" around obvious.

Be well,
dr.0

Posted: **Mon Jan 07, 2008 8:59 pm**

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by mrnaples:
here, i'll copy and paste for you..

can't say u, don't owe me now!

[...]
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Either my english isn't very good, or your missing the point of my question. Well, probably it's both.

Seeing some video footage of both my teacher and his teacher, i gather there is a difference in performing the movement. His teacher, LYX's student, does really curve the left hand prior to lu, with a movement very similar to ward off, again without breaking the flow of the frame (which IMO is a bit overrated, especially when beginners, but that's another discussion). His student, on the other hand, performes the movement more similar to FZW but with larger stances and form.

Hope I explained myself better.

Be well,
dr.0

[This message has been edited by dr.zero (edited 01-07-2008).]

Posted: **Mon Jan 07, 2008 9:20 pm**

dear o,

"LYX's student, does really curve the left hand prior to lu, with a movement very similar to ward off,"

it has alredy been explained to you, that ther is "ward off" in roll back.(Lu)

"no need to repeat, i'm rolling back, (Lu) while not forgetting to peng with my left hand," sounds ridiculous no?

"again without breaking the flow of theframe"

again I added that in, just in case, Li, meant the gesture "word off right".

Posted: **Mon Jan 07, 2008 9:25 pm**

leroy said

Zhang Qinlin was a nephew of YCF by his second marriage

and this was the first time I heard this.

"Now I see" said the blind man!
I say this because prior to this whenever Zhang QInlin was mentioned or I read something about him, the individuals concerned never stated the familial relationship, or they never know, or if they did that detail was purposefully left out.
Interestingly, Fu Zhongwen and Zhao Bin were always mentioned by most 9as family) so I can see why the rice bowl needs to be kept small!

Thank you

Posted: **Mon Jan 07, 2008 9:43 pm**

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by clarkleroy:
Better, Yang Zhenming. There definitely were issues between those two. YSC should have requested the material his father loaned to TYC but he could not. It's still there because he could not tell or ask him to return it. It was a big loss. When his father passed away # 1 was a far distance away teaching. After the death, this widow took her 3 young sons and returned home to Yongnian. She fully understood the inheritance issue. She was a serious task master & really pushed her little boys to learn their father's art. She even practiced ph with them to keep their noses to the grindstone. The # 1 son and # 2 son worked quite a bit together. The elder was from YCF's first wife, the later sons were from his second.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks for the reply sir. Very interesting. I also heard there was a "rice bowl" issue when Zhenming relocated to Hong Kong. I suppose that and the unreturned documents must have created some bad blood. After all, Zhenming did have THE name.

It appears all hell broke loose after the death of YCF! Speaking of historical inaccuracies, is it true that a lot of people who claimed to have studied with big daddy YCF actually got all their instruction from the son Zhenming? I also heard something about YZM not being very happy with CMC when he came to the US - something about not acknowledging the Yang family practices correctly or something like that. Does anyone know if Zhenming and CMC ever studied together, or were in the same place at the same time?

Also, what is all this snake, tiger, crane business associated with Zhenming?

[This message has been edited by yielding (edited 01-07-2008).]

Posted: **Mon Jan 07, 2008 10:05 pm**

Re: "This is precisely some of the problem re history - there is a real tendency to believe whomever makes the first claim . . ."

Not to mention the hazard of confusing history with name-dropping and gossip!

--Louis

Posted: **Mon Jan 07, 2008 10:15 pm**

LeRoy,

Re: 'I think Tung YC said it best, paraphrasing from "TCC Explained"- " ... Tcc makes big business with small capital."

What a sense of humor.'

I've often said that the best characteristic of taijiquan is its high-interest yield.

--Louis

Posted: **Tue Jan 08, 2008 1:24 am**

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Louis Swaim:
Greetings T,

Re: "Tung style came later and the name Dong came later as well."

The name is the same; it's just the transliteration that changed. Tung is Wade-Giles, Dong is pinyin.

--Louis<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Exactly which also says Tung was first and Dong came later. Wade-Giles was used here first by most.

Tung Hu Ling and his son Tung Kai Ying both use the Tung spelling of their family name however I just saw on one of the Tung family websites Tung Hu Ling's younger son Dong Zeng Chen is using Dong as is his son Alex. And it is the Tung spelling my sifu uses for his teacher Tung Ying Chieh (Which I believe is Wade Giles where Jie is pinyin)

However that being the lesser part of my post the video supplied of the form and labeled being from Dong Ying Jie...isn't

[This message has been edited by T (edited 01-07-2008).]

Posted: **Tue Jan 08, 2008 4:08 am**

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by mrnaples:
Greetings M.
Please explain.

here, i'll copy and paste for you..

can't say u, don't owe me now!

(Louis)
"Isn't peng implicit throughout Cross Hands, as well as in the “brush” of the luo xi ao bu component of the bao hu gui shan? Isn’t there peng in Roll Back? I just don’t get what he was driving at."

(Leroy)
As you know re the wardoff, it actually is implied throughout, same w/lu,lie, peng, etc., everywhere, always.

Louis, rightly adds...
" Is he (Li) referring to the gesture Ward Off,?"

(Me) if he was..........
to to keep it simple,
the form, has an 'ebb and flow' to it.
it's made that way on purpose...
to stick the gesture "Ward Off" there, on that particular spot...
would break the free, flowing of the form. (think of it like, a false note on the piano)
so you see why, this particle discussion, of Li, remarks on ycf, book, does not merit much thought!

M<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Lu, an, lie, peng are implicit throughout the set regardless of ebb/flow. My little assertion matters even less but some of the principals have taught this.

Regarding the value of a critique of YCF's or anyone's book, it certainly does have merit to some. It doesn't have merit to all. All that is cool and should be perfectly acceptable.

None of us wish to live at the bottom of a well. At least this hopeless case doesn't.

leroy

Posted: **Tue Jan 08, 2008 4:10 am**

[/b][/QUOTE]
Hi Leroy.

I am well aware of the implication of ward-off applications throughout the whole frame but here I get the feeling LYX was commenting on CMC's detailed description of application of the embrace/leopard movement.

Re the repetitions, it wasn't my critique on YCF, it was just a thought that he added them because of shorter foot stances as he got older. Another "obvious" (and popular) matter would be that he eliminated fajins from his father's frame for the same reasons.

Again, note the "" around obvious.

Be well,
dr.0[/B][/QUOTE]

Doc Zero,

Ok, understood. I apologize.

Understand re " ". Yes. Excellent.

Best Wishes,

leroy

Posted: **Tue Jan 08, 2008 4:19 am**

Zhang Qinlin was a nephew of YCF by his second marriage

... because prior to this whenever Zhang QInlin was mentioned or I read something about him, the individuals concerned never stated the familial relationship, or they never know, or if they did that detail was purposefully left out.
Interestingly, Fu Zhongwen and Zhao Bin were always mentioned by most as family) so I can see why the rice bowl needs to be kept small!
[/B][/QUOTE]

Good Evening S,

Yes re rice bowls. But really, that term should be assigned to a previous time & place wherein those teaching masters earned their bread & butter via teaching. Maybe times & the culture have changed sufficiently so that now, in a time of business models and plans, tax right-offs and tax credits, government support, whomever hangs their shingle out professing sufficient knowledge and skill to teach others, should not be assigned the same value to that term. I don't know, maybe it still counts. It's not the same as when the great master YCF made that admonishment to his students. Or, is it?

Best Wishes,

leroy

Posted: **Tue Jan 08, 2008 4:20 am**

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Louis Swaim:
LeRoy,

Re: 'I think Tung YC said it best, paraphrasing from "TCC Explained"- " ... Tcc makes big business with small capital."

What a sense of humor.'

I've often said that the best characteristic of taijiquan is its high-interest yield.

--Louis<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nice point Louis. Same idea as the great master.

Best Wishes,

leroy

Posted: **Tue Jan 08, 2008 4:30 am**

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by T:
 ....

However that being the lesser part of my post the video supplied of the form and labeled being from Dong Ying Jie...isn't

[This message has been edited by T (edited 01-07-2008).]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hello T,

Very interesting. Good information. Thank you.

Kinda reminds me of a fellow from down-under several years ago selling videos of the supposed Tung fast set. Hungry to see it and for knowledge, I quickly purchased a copy. Comically, it was demo'ed in a shallow, small stream of water - not sure what the intent of showing that way was. Years later, after visiting Master TKY's school, did it become fully clear that that claim was completely false, a fraud. But, I guess there are plenty who believe that is ok judging by reference to name dropping & gossip. Without some small & amateurish attempt to ascertain something closer to the truth in history, we lessers are doomed to be misled our whole lives by these types.

Therein lies a small reason to want to get the information from the horses mouth rather from the other end.

Best Wishes,

leroy

Posted: **Tue Jan 08, 2008 4:43 am**

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by yielding:
 ... I also heard there was a "rice bowl" issue when Zhenming relocated to Hong Kong. I suppose that and the unreturned documents must have created some bad blood. After all, Zhenming did have THE name.

It appears all hell broke loose after the death of YCF! Speaking of historical inaccuracies, is it true that a lot of people who claimed to have studied with big daddy YCF actually got all their instruction from the son Zhenming? I also heard something about YZM not being very happy with CMC when he came to the US - something about not acknowledging the Yang family practices correctly or something like that. Does anyone know if Zhenming and CMC ever studied together, or were in the same place at the same time?

Also, what is all this snake, tiger, crane business associated with Zhenming?

[This message has been edited by yielding (edited 01-07-2008).]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hi Yielding,

Yes, people who were there affirm that. Ye Dami did as well. Actually, descendents of T also have described some of that. Actually, Master TYC was a super name in tcc at that time. Plus, he was close to 20 years older than his teacher's son. Plus, even worse, people who were there, senior Wu people and others already mentioned have described problems prior to this issue, problems related to the earlier generation. It's pretty sensitive & I cannot say much here.

Sorry, I don't know much about YZM & CMC. Few mainlanders discuss either very much.

I have never heard of these animal terms to describe tcc from any of the people I have had the opportunity to speak with or visit. Fu, Zhao, Xi, Cui, YZD in Shanghai prior to going public when he visited FZW, Nui's descendent in HK, Tian, none ever mentioned any of that. So I simply do not know. Sorry.

Best Wishes,

leroy

Yang Family Tai Chi Discussion Board

Yang115 frame?