What exactly does "energetics" mean? This word is new to meI do know that his main criticism against Chen style is that it lacks "energetics" and thus should not be called Taijiquan.
What exactly does "energetics" mean? This word is new to meI do know that his main criticism against Chen style is that it lacks "energetics" and thus should not be called Taijiquan.
It would seem to indicate primarliy empty force work. I believe it is described as using the "yi" to control anothers "chi".
www.systemauk.com
"Remember it's not a move, it's just a movement" Vasiliev
Chen style is too hard for the masses. Yang Chen Fu did a great thing making tai chi soft so that old people, children, and anyone with limited abilities could easily play along.
"dumbed down" Tai Chi wet noodle, started by CMC? will
grow whether we like it or not, but we must never lose the original art
I always read statements like these on the net and really have to wonder weather people really know this to be true by exprince or just what is said.
I learned Yang style from a teacher in HI who studied under Tung Kai Ying; I also learned CMC style from 2 teachers that studied under CMC. I now practice a variation of the yang style as taught by my teacher’s master in Beijing.
Something that looks soft is not so easy to do. I have found it to be more physically demanding then many of the other CMA arts I played before finding taiji.
I have also read the common historical development of taiji. Depending on who you follow, some might consider the Yang styles an improvement over the chen. Or even that the Yang style is closer to the original idea introduced to the chen boxing before it became known as chen taiji, I really don’t think it matters to much.
There are good exponents of all the major schools, they all have one thing in common, lots and lots of hard work making it work for them.
I just wonder for those that make statements about the yang styles and the variations, how they reached their conclusions.
Last edited by bamboo_ leaf; 10-31-2003 at 09:53 AM.
enjoy life
Well bamboo, my statement is from my own experience and observation. My teachers Yang style comes from Wu Ti-Pang and Yang Bao-Chien and his Chen style from Du Yu-Tse. I practice both. In addition, I have also learned extensively the 24 PRC version which is the most widely known of all of them. While I also learned some Sun style and tasted some Wu style, my assesment was based on Chen style which is accepted to pre date Yang Lu Chan. My observation was based on the popularity of one and the fact that the training in Chen style is too difficult for most people. It is obvious by the higher postures and slow practice that this was changed to make it user friendly to more people. It was not a condemnation of Yang style at all. Only what was popularized by Yang Chen Fu. On the other hand, that has become the style most people recognize as Yang style. I only said I thought in my own opinion that should be called something else. It was not to say it was bad or not useable. Read what I said again and without your personal bias. I think I can back up each statement I made as either fact or personal opinion.Originally posted by bamboo_ leaf
Chen style is too hard for the masses. Yang Chen Fu did a great thing making tai chi soft so that old people, children, and anyone with limited abilities could easily play along.
"dumbed down" Tai Chi wet noodle, started by CMC? will
grow whether we like it or not, but we must never lose the original art
I always read statements like these on the net and really have to wonder weather people really know this to be true by exprince or just what is said.
I learned Yang style from a teacher in HI who studied under Tung Kai Ying; I also learned CMC style from 2 teachers that studied under CMC. I now practice a variation of the yang style as taught by my teacher’s master in Beijing.
Something that looks soft is not so easy to do. I have found it to be more physically demanding then many of the other CMA arts I played before finding taiji.
I have also read the common historical development of taiji. Depending on who you follow, some might consider the Yang styles an improvement over the chen. Or even that the Yang style is closer to the original idea introduced to the chen boxing befoer it became known as chen taiji, I really don’t think it matters to much.
There are good exponents of all the major schools, they all have one thing in common, lots and lots of hard work making it work for them.
I just wonder for those that make statements about the yang styles and the variations, how they reached their conclusions.
I would also comment the same of Chen style. I have seen Chen style played with higher postures and softer in an attempt to popularize it.
Hi Count,
I used the comments to be illustrative of things that I have seen posted many times on the net, not to change or be against anyone’s ideas or beliefs directly.
Yep I guess I have to check my bias at the door, I have met a couple of chen guys, and have seen many demos of it. Cant say that I really care for it.
Just wondered as my own experience seems to be so different with the yang styles that people refer to, even with the CMC style many seek to use this as an example of something that was (watered down) instead of something that is condensed. …..Ben Lo, a noted CMC player had some tough classes if memory serves me. i wouldn't call it waterd down by anymeans.
As I said before, in the end it doesn’t really matter, just some thinking out loud.
Happy Halloween
enjoy life
I have met serious Yang stylists, especially Kuang Ping lineage, who were serious fighters and hardcore pracitioners too. It's just that I have never met any Yang stylist that didn't practice other martial arts. I have met Chen folks who claim to have never practiced anything else and could kick some serious ass. Just my own observations as were the ones on the website in question. I just thought the comments on the website were out of line. Maybe mine are too.
Happy Halloween back at ya!
BOO!!
Chen style lacking energetics? WTF????
My understanding was that Yang Lu Chan actually studied Shaolin before learning Taiji. The stances in Yang styles seem to have a stronger influence from Shaolin arts then those from Chen Style.
I'll tell you guys what I think the major difference between Chen and Yang style is. In Chen the spiral movement is more obvious. In Yang it is more hidden.
At a high level in Chen the spiral movement becomes more hidden.
But in my opinion Chen is actually easier to learn, and learn correctly because the spiral movement is more obvious. This is a boon for begginners.
In Yang it is hidden and so many who study Yang miss it and it become the infamous "wet noodle."
I think that the postures taught to Du Yu Zhi (Ze) as taught to him by Chen Fake's father, Chen Yan Xi have a very strong affinity with longfist.
In this version, the dan bian is a clearcut bow stance, with complete waist rotation to the right and this can be found in many places. The chan si jing has a different appearance and flavor relative to many of the versions seen today. Take a look at Chen Fake's dan bian and other deep postures (I also have seen Yang Cheng Fu lineage holders execute the same postures with deep stances).
http://www.chinafrominside.com/ma/taiji/chenfake1.html
I think it may be well worth reading or rereading one of Jarek's posts:
http://www.chinafrominside.com/ma/taiji.html
Without going through the whole thing again, here is a previous post which has Master Du performing lao jia at age 79. The tempo he plays at is exactly the first level we teach students to play at and surprises them when they learn our Yang's version (the similiarity is striking for many).
http://ezine.kungfumagazine.com/foru...threadid=23715
The first two clips no longer yield a performance but Master Du's clip is there.
"Its better to build bridges rather than dig holes but occasionally you have to dig a few holes to build the foundation of a strong bridge."
"Traditional Northern Chinese Martial Arts are all Sons of the Same Mother," Liu Yun Qiao
Bob10 wrote:Does Sifu Ding use that term? Richard Dunn claims that the energetics they do is not empty force (see quote below)The John Ding school stresses a lot of empty force work (hence Richard's "energetics").
Brad wrotebob10 also wrote:What exactly does "energetics" mean? This word is new to meHere are more quotes from Richard on this subject...It would seem to indicate primarliy empty force work. I believe it is described as using the "yi" to control anothers "chi".
"
Mostly
this work is in contact it just happens that sometimes that contact is
stretched beyond the physical and is felt and used energetically, this in
not "empty force"."
Ling Kong Jin and Kong Jin have for some reason become the
accepted definitions in the west of this work but that is more associated
with working on the upper energy centre, this work is more to do with the
lower energy centre and is known as "sticky" and was the main change that
was added to the physical elements of Chen Style that caused the name
Tai-Chi Chuan to be applied to the Yang family art in the mid 19th century." NOTE: His student Nick Schifer wrote this one.
Li-Yi-Chi or
Yi-Chi-Li or ultimately in Tai-Chi Chuan Chi-Yi-Li most don't get past the
first stage.
For a beginner the mind says I want to do this, the Chi
carries the instruction, the body does the work and muscle has to be used.
We then learn the physical principles to remove the need for tense or hard
muscle and at that stage the Chi will start to emerge from behind them and
you will become aware of it, but the body will still be leading it. At this
point we must, with visualisation, try to take the body as much out of the
equation as possible and then as you discover how to be fully Song and
develop Zhong Ding and the Chi will then start to lead the body, at this
stage you must try and suppress conscious desire of action and make it more
unconscious, or intent (Yi) led.
AT THAT POINT IT STARTS TO BECOME AN INTERNAL ART.
The next stage is
when the Yi or intent of mind no longer directs the Chi but leads it, at
that point the involvement of the body becomes less and less until the first
time you shift someone without touching them. Just because you have done it
once with one person doesn't mean you can do it again, everybody you work
with will be different and it is not just your ability that dictates how you
proceed in any contact (chi or physical) work. The contact point is an
interface of Yi, Chi, and physical strength, your way to work depends on
your opponent or training partner, first probe energetically, if blocked
apply the body. The process is to take their centre energetically or if that
fails then physically. Some people have a more natural usage ability and
also natural defences, some are brick walls and some are jelly and all point
in between, any preconceived plan of action is useless and the energy path,
how ever exploited, should be instantaneous which is why of all the forms of
training involved in developing this area sensitivity training is by far the
most important, without the ability to read you cannot act or react
effectively.
The suck and blow I was referring to is gentle and as soon as you get some
movement you reverse it, creating an oscillation. But they can be used full
out as well, I suppose you can think of suck as yin and blow as yang but
there is more to it than that and you can make some strange variations as
you can Yang physically but suck (yin) energetically, it becomes a bit like
throwing a limp sack ). it comes from the training technique known as
Dynamic Pushing Hands. Below is a simplistic explanation of how this
technique works energetically in training. I will do more posts explaining
other aspects of it. It is done by visualisation. It is technique that was
only taught to Yang Family accepted students or lineage holders (disciples
or family), but since the death of Zhen Ming the disciple lines are making
it more available.. If you go to Chu Gin Soon's website there are (or were)
some video clips of it.
The idea is to get your student to commit themselves completely to pushing
into your root with as much physical strength as they can muster, you can
then alternate between "suck and blow" to feel for their energy (Chi) which
will emerge from behind the physical push. Once you locate it you can tap
into it with your Chi (if you are able to control it) Chi has an affinity
for other Chi and because your student wont have the means to control it you
can then play with it, but with most students you have to get them to commit
their mind to the game in order to keep their Chi out (once you get a
reaction that reaction is normally fascinating enough for the student to
keep them focused). Once their Chi is "out" you can use "blow" to compress
it into their hands to lock them together, or "suck" which tends to make it
flap around. The hook for the student is that they cannot release the Chi as
long as they stay focused on it. Some students are so fascinated by it that
they can't release it themselves even when you break the link with your own
Chi, so you have to do it for them, others break the energy link very
quickly either because they don't like it, are worried about it or it
generates fear. If you try it with someone who hasn't developed the basic
Tai-Chi skills (invest in loss) or a physical root and hasn't done the
apprenticeship, then you are mostly playing with shadows. Though inversely
you will occasionally find someone where it just pours out!!
When you "get" that then you can use those techniques to tap into
others and show them etc etc etc. The only person trained in these specific
techniques in the USA is Chu Gin Soon, which I am sure he has passed to his
sons and disciple, but I am sure others must be able to show it or have
developed other methods to bring it out. Every action must involve Chi, but
"normal" action involves muscle which is
activated by the Chi but from that point on it is just a mechanical process.
Relax (unstress the structure), but keep the structure linked and aligned
through to the root, put you Yi in gear (focus and direct the unconscious
mind) and the Chi will flow past the muscle and do the work required.
SO- He says that what he does is NOT empty force, and that Yi leading another's chi is only mid level to the highest goal in Yang style. His claim that only Yang Disciples get this training, but that it is now becoming more available (thru HIM, of course)
What I am wondering about is that Gin Soon And John Ding refer to this stuff as "Empty Force", while Richards crew denies that.
AND- He claims that despite there being many Yang Disciples in the US, that Gin Soon is the only one of them that has this training.
Hmm.
Last edited by QuaiJohnCain; 10-31-2003 at 02:08 PM.
Compare:
Shaolin master performing Chen taiji:
http://www.shaolintempel.at/shiyanming_austriaedit1.mov
(This is a pretty big file, the taiji is at the end of the clip.
Chen family member performing Chen taiji:
(you'll need Real Player)
http://jiaozuo.chinese.com/Avseq01.rm
I dunno, it's really hard to do silk reeling correctly. I find (with my very limited experience with yang) that Yang style is a little easier. This is because you can focuse more on the "linear" type jin than trying to add on the silk reeling aspects of it. Of course, it don't really matter if the person don't have a clue on what to do. Not to mention most ppl force the spiraling (instead of letting it happen naturally by how the muscles are laid out) and even though that may add more power, it isn't correct.Originally posted by Fu-Pow
Chen style lacking energetics? WTF????
But in my opinion Chen is actually easier to learn, and learn correctly because the spiral movement is more obvious. This is a boon for begginners.
In Yang it is hidden and so many who study Yang miss it and it become the infamous "wet noodle."
Having learned a Yang based system first and now doing Chen I must say that I personally find Chen harder.
This sentiment is echoed among previous Yang students in my class.
Well, I've seen so many of these type of slandering that I pretty much lose respect of anyone as *a person* who engage in this activities no matter how accomplished they are in their chosen style.Originally posted by Tak
What do you think about Sifu Lawrence's implication (if not outright statement) that Chen isn't a "real" style of Taiji?
http://www.xianghua.com/articles/taijiquan.asp
http://www.xianghua.com/questions/questions008.asp
This is no different from Chen stylist slandering Yang style for lacking in martial aspect because it is *too* soft.
These people are exercising "Principles of promotion of martial arts", especially number 5.
http://www.palmchange.com/V3/promotion.php5. Don't be shy
Like the existence of secret techniques, the shortcomings of other styles should be loudly and publicly announced.
It is not so much that other styles have to be directly badmouthed (though that can be fun), more that they are subtly compared to the sublime intricacies of your chosen art and found wanting.
Last edited by Vapour; 11-05-2003 at 02:11 PM.
Engrish does not mine strong point.
Greetings..
Having studies both Yang and Chen styles, having been fortunate enough to be awarded gold medals in both styles at international competitions.. having studied with some of the most recognized names in the Arts.. it is my humble opinion that both styles, when practiced correctly, represent good Tai Chi principles.. as i have stated previously, i look for the principles not the choreography.. appearing too soft or too hard are qualities of preference.. hard or soft can express good principles, particularly when "hard/soft" are merely appearances.. i have seen people appear soft, but are resistant to the touch.. likewise i have tried to block a hard punch that disappeared like water.. what we think we see is not always the case.. evaluate principles, not styles..
Be well...
TaiChiBob.. "the teacher that is not also a student is neither"