Wudang
Jeff Lindqvist
style? Predecessor of all internal arts or what? I'm getting confused
and want some "facts".
Jeff Lindqvist
Yuhao Lin
Taiji is indeed a part of the Wudang style. Zhang Sanfeng founded
Wudang and practiced taiji there. However, internal chi has been
practiced before the foundation of Wudang.
El Queso
> Jeff Lindqvist wrote:
>
>> What's the story about Wudang? Part of Taiji? If so, related to Wu
>> style? Predecessor of all internal arts or what? I'm getting confused
>> and want some "facts".
>>
>> Jeff Lindqvist
>>
> (don't take my word as hard facts)
>
> Taiji is indeed a part of the Wudang style.
Insert "According to legend" here.
Queso
foo hawkes
Tai Chi is indeed a part of the Wu Tang style. Chang San Feng founded
Wu Tang and practiced Tai Chi there. However internal chi began
with the birth of the mother tao.
Erik Squires
The Wudang Tai Chi style's long form seems to be a close proximity of the
Yang style Tai Chi. I think however that there are other styles which are
uniquely theirs, and have no correlation in Tai Chi. Wudang sword for
instance. If there are Wudang sword practitioners online who can compare it
to Tai Chi forms, I'd enjoy learning about it.
There are two main beleifs of the origins of Tai Chi. The one that are least
supported by facts are:
A Taoist monk, Zhang San Feng, developing it at various different times in
the history of China, and then either the Chen family learned it and changed
it, or the Chen family learning something else, taught that somethign else
it to the Yang family, and then the Yang family somehow got a hold of the
secret Wudang texts, so they got the real thing... etc.. While there is
historical evidence of the existence of Zhang, there is no such datable
evidence to support that he was a martial artist. Additionally, many
stories place him with Jiang Fa, but at different points in time.
All of the current heads of the major styles adhere to the second theory,
and that is that all the Tai Chi styles have derived from the Chen family
style. Chen Tai Chi itself came from another precursor art, who's name
escapes me but which originated in Shanxi village, the same town as Pa Kua
and Hsing Yi. This makes sense as Pa Kua and Hsing Yi are considered
"sister arts" in that they, with Tai Chi, form the three major internal arts
of China. It is most likely that some one at Wudang mountain learned Yang
family Tai Chi and took it to the mountain.
Before getting too caught up in this, as one of my teachers recently told
me, discussing and arguing over the origins of Tai Chi is not very
productive, it is more productive to practice.
Regards,
Erik
"Jeff Lindqvist" <jeff_li...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3DEA90D...@hotmail.com...
nanchuan-king
Taichi founded by Zhang SanFeng is totally just a legend. There is no
strong prove about the legend.
Actually the theories used in taichi founded long ago before wudang.
"Use soft to against hard", circular striking, "use slow to against
fast" and the use of chi in striking had been applied in many of the
kungfu style long ago before foundation of Wudang.
John
> All of the current heads of the major styles adhere to the second theory,
> and that is that all the Tai Chi styles have derived from the Chen family
> style. Chen Tai Chi itself came from another precursor art, who's name
> escapes me but which originated in Shanxi village, the same town as Pa Kua
> and Hsing Yi.
You are probably thinking of Xin Yi (Xin Yi=Heart Mind, Xing Yi=Form
Mind).
Jarek's site, www.chinafrominside.com, has an article on Dai style Xin
Yi.
While there's no guarantee that Dai style is THE Xin Yi of old, it's
probably as good an assumption as any in CMA history.
Tomas Drgon
> It is really not a hard fact
> Taichi founded by Zhang SanFeng is totally just a legend. There is no
> strong prove about the legend.
>
> Actually the theories used in taichi founded long ago before wudang.
> "Use soft to against hard", circular striking, "use slow to against
> fast" and the use of chi in striking had been applied in many of the
> kungfu style long ago before foundation of Wudang.
>
I would really like to see this people that go slow against fast and do not get hit.
Tomas
nanchuan-king
taichi.
In fact, in real fight, taichi fighter will not move slow. The
circular striking movement make it look "slower" than ordinary
straight-line striking technique. But in fact, it is not slow at all.
Have you ever see how people "fa-jing" in taichi? It looks slower than
ordinary
hardcore-striking. But in fact it is much more faster than striking by
bulging your muscle.
Danny Bummah
Then it is a *soft* fact
> Taichi founded by Zhang SanFeng is totally just a legend. There is no
> strong prove about the legend.
Totally just a legend or softly a fact
> Actually the theories used in taichi founded long ago before wudang.
> "Use soft to against hard", circular striking, "use slow to against
> fast" and the use of chi in striking had been applied in many of the
> kungfu style long ago before foundation of Wudang.
Wing Chun (Wing Tsun/Ving Tsun) is not far from taichi principle,
perhaps it's the softest of the hardest, yet there is hard taichi,
possibly Chen.
Erik Squires
I've recently met a Wing Chun instructor, who had private lessons with Chen
Zhenglei, he stated that everything was the opposite of how he was taught.
For instance, where Win Chun braced the legs, Tai Chi keeps them soft.
Perhaps it depends on which lineage of Win Chun we're discussing.
No, Chen is not any "harder" than Yang style, if both are properly done.
The claims that chen is "hard" comes from the fact that Chen first frame
still has strikes visible in the form. The principles of stricking however
are quite soft. Without this, there can not be fa-jing.
Regards,
Erik
"Danny Bummah" <da...@emailaccount.com> wrote in message
news:f5da2227.02121...@posting.google.com...
Tomas Drgon
> taichi.
> In fact, in real fight, taichi fighter will not move slow. The
> circular striking movement make it look "slower" than ordinary
> straight-line striking technique. But in fact, it is not slow at all.
>
> Have you ever see how people "fa-jing" in taichi? It looks slower than
> ordinary
> hardcore-striking. But in fact it is much more faster than striking by
> bulging your muscle.
>
Well, if by "slow" you mean "fast", then there's no argument.
And, yes, I have seen people doing fa-jing. It looks slow, and it "is"
slow. Not one of them was able to hit me unless I was purposefully
cooperating and standing still. Then yes, you can generate a lot of
power, but what's the point if you cant catch your opponent.
Tomas
Erik Squires
proper guidance until the mechanics are understood, and ingrained in the
motion. After that, with practice, they should be lightining fast. Not
just the fa itself, but the opening and aproach into an oponent.
Regards,
Erik
"Tomas Drgon" <Tomas...@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:e2f8684.02121...@posting.google.com...
Danny Bummah
> Danny:
>
> I've recently met a Wing Chun instructor, who had private lessons with Chen
> Zhenglei, he stated that everything was the opposite of how he was taught.
> For instance, where Win Chun braced the legs, Tai Chi keeps them soft.
>
> Perhaps it depends on which lineage of Win Chun we're discussing.
Perhaps.
> No, Chen is not any "harder" than Yang style, if both are properly done.
> The claims that chen is "hard" comes from the fact that Chen first frame
> still has strikes visible in the form. The principles of stricking however
> are quite soft. Without this, there can not be fa-jing.
I know at least one Chen move. It is a downward strike with the fist onto
the palm, done harder than Yang. I must disagree, sorry.
Erik Squires
You are speaking of "Buddha's Warrior Attendant Pounds the Mortar. As I
said, Chen still keeps the strikes. However, they are not "hard."
Violent, sudden, powerful, but not hard. If they were hard, by my
definition, the power would be cut off at the point of stiffening. This is
why I say, Chen is not hard.
If by "hard" you mean that there are strikes, yes, Chen has visible, overt
strikes.
Best Wishes,
Erik
"Danny Bummah" <da...@emailaccount.com> wrote in message
news:f5da2227.02121...@posting.google.com...
The Fink
> chan...@hotmail.com (nanchuan-king) wrote in message news:<a71887e1.02120...@posting.google.com>...
> > You are like one of them who misunderstood the meaning of "slow" in
> > taichi.
> > In fact, in real fight, taichi fighter will not move slow. The
> > circular striking movement make it look "slower" than ordinary
> > straight-line striking technique. But in fact, it is not slow at all.
> >
> > Have you ever see how people "fa-jing" in taichi? It looks slower than
> > ordinary
> > hardcore-striking. But in fact it is much more faster than striking by
> > bulging your muscle.
> >
>
> Well, if by "slow" you mean "fast", then there's no argument.
> And, yes, I have seen people doing fa-jing. It looks slow, and it "is"
> slow. Not one of them was able to hit me unless I was purposefully
> cooperating and standing still. Then yes, you can generate a lot of
> power, but what's the point if you cant catch your opponent.
>
> Tomas
You're kidding, right? No, wait! Your real name is Yoda?
The Fink
> chan...@hotmail.com (nanchuan-king) wrote in message news:<a71887e1.02120...@posting.google.com>...
> > It is really not a hard fact
>
> Then it is a *soft* fact
>
> > Taichi founded by Zhang SanFeng is totally just a legend. There is no
> > strong prove about the legend.
>
> Totally just a legend or softly a fact
Or you could just say 'Screw it. Noone knows so lets agree to
disagree'.
> > Actually the theories used in taichi founded long ago before wudang.
> > "Use soft to against hard", circular striking, "use slow to against
> > fast" and the use of chi in striking had been applied in many of the
> > kungfu style long ago before foundation of Wudang.
>
> Wing Chun (Wing Tsun/Ving Tsun) is not far from taichi principle,
> perhaps it's the softest of the hardest, yet there is hard taichi,
> possibly Chen.
Well this seems to be the making of a Wudan thread, so what about
Wudan Weng Shun? Perhaps Grandmaster Rien in the Netherlands would
like to give us a view from his side of the fence?
Danny Bummah
>
> Or you could just say 'Screw it. Noone knows so lets agree to
> disagree'.
Since I have a background in both Wing Chun AND Taiji, I'm sticking to
my guns.
Danny Bummah
> Danny:
>
> You are speaking of "Buddha's Warrior Attendant Pounds the Mortar. As I
> said, Chen still keeps the strikes. However, they are not "hard."
> Violent, sudden, powerful, but not hard. If they were hard, by my
> definition, the power would be cut off at the point of stiffening. This is
> why I say, Chen is not hard.
Hard but not as hard as a hard style, yes?
Erik Squires
If hard means stiff, local muscles being used, then absolutely not.
So, no, not at all like a hard style.
Erik
"Danny Bummah" <da...@emailaccount.com> wrote in message
news:f5da2227.0212...@posting.google.com...
YoJimbo
>
>Danny:
>I've recently met a Wing Chun instructor, who had private lessons with Chen
>Zhenglei, he stated that everything was the opposite of how he was taught.
>For instance, where Win Chun braced the legs, Tai Chi keeps them soft.
>
>Perhaps it depends on which lineage of Win Chun we're discussing.
Well, not really. It's very common for the wing chun crowd in general
to assert they have a "soft" (i.e., supposedly "similar to taiji") aspect
to their art, and their chi-sao is roughly "equivilent" to taiji's
push-hands. It's what they've been taught.
Then somebody meets up with a high-level taijiquan instructor (like
Chen Zhenglei), and they find out they aren't doing actual taijiquan
mechanics (principles) very well at all, certainly not like they
thought they were. It's completely different.
Unfortuntately, the belief that everybody's own art has a "soft"
aspect "at the higher levels" (tm) leads to this erroneous
conclusion. You'll hear the wing chun, white crane and mantis
folks sometimes claim this, but it certainly doesn't end with the
southern shaolin crowd. The goju-ryu karate folks, for instance,
are taught they have a "hard-soft" art, and no doubt some think they
are pretty clever sticking some "taiji" into their karate :-))).
The corresponding error people make here is that the Chen style looks
"hard" to them. I.e., it's somehow more "external" than other taijiquan
styles. They see the fast fajins (and hear the noise) and they make
assumptions that it's "another shaolin style", presumably, because
it "looks" a bit like external forms to the untrained eye.
>No, Chen is not any "harder" than Yang style, if both are properly done.
>The claims that chen is "hard" comes from the fact that Chen first frame
>still has strikes visible in the form. The principles of stricking however
>are quite soft. Without this, there can not be fa-jing.
That touches on the qualitative differences.
Regards,
JS
The Fink
AHA! I have found these guns you are sticking to, and I totally agree.
I remember before I had an internet break I got roasted here for
daring to suggest that the Chen's didn't invent Taiji not that I
minded. I like the warm weather. And as for Wing Chun principles
(principles I tell you) they are the SAME more or less. Very similar
if not.
But then again I come from the bastardised crazy hippie school of Erle
Montaigue's Yang style which apparently is really just 'Silat' because
it fights and actually works unlike most of the 'Tai Chi' you find
these days so what would I know (even though I studied Silat and
Kuntao for years before settling on Taiji - you'd think I'd have
noticed the similarity. I still haven't).
But hey, we all base our beliefs around our training and we can't
change each others minds. So screw it. Flame away.
Erik Squires
"The Fink" <finke...@start.com.au> wrote in message
news:3691be0b.02121...@posting.google.com...
> da...@emailaccount.com (Danny Bummah) wrote in message
news:<f5da2227.02121...@posting.google.com>...
> > chan...@hotmail.com (nanchuan-king) wrote in message
news:<a71887e1.02120...@posting.google.com>...
> > > It is really not a hard fact
> >
> > Then it is a *soft* fact
> >
> > > Taichi founded by Zhang SanFeng is totally just a legend. There is no
> > > strong prove about the legend.
> >
> > Totally just a legend or softly a fact
> >
> > > Actually the theories used in taichi founded long ago before wudang.
> > > "Use soft to against hard", circular striking, "use slow to against
> > > fast" and the use of chi in striking had been applied in many of the
> > > kungfu style long ago before foundation of Wudang.
> >
> > Wing Chun (Wing Tsun/Ving Tsun) is not far from taichi principle,
> > perhaps it's the softest of the hardest, yet there is hard taichi,
> > possibly Chen.
>
>
> AHA! I have found these guns you are sticking to, and I totally agree.
> I remember before I had an internet break I got roasted here for
> daring to suggest that the Chen's didn't invent Taiji not that I
You can suggest it, but the 5 or 8 theories that say otherwise dont' hold
much water. If you wish, please find ask the Wu of Yang families directly.
That will end the discussion.
> minded. I like the warm weather. And as for Wing Chun principles
> (principles I tell you) they are the SAME more or less. Very similar
> if not.
>
Which principles would this be?
> But then again I come from the bastardised crazy hippie school of Erle
> Montaigue's Yang style which apparently is really just 'Silat' because
> it fights and actually works unlike most of the 'Tai Chi' you find
> these days so what would I know (even though I studied Silat and
> Kuntao for years before settling on Taiji - you'd think I'd have
> noticed the similarity. I still haven't).
Ah, so you don't really know what traditional Chen, Wu or Yang tai chi, and
yet you are commenting on how similar Tai Chi is to Wing Chun? Do you not
know Wing Chun either?
Regards,
Erik
Jeff Lindqvist
> agree. I remember before I had an internet break I got roasted here
> for daring to suggest that the Chen's didn't invent Taiji not that I
> minded. I like the warm weather.
Me too! I merely referred to what Erle had written, and got pretty
"roasted"...:)
> And as for Wing Chun principles (principles I tell you) they are the
> SAME more or less. Very similar if not.
I agree. I've even heard Taiji people agree on that.
> But then again I come from the bastardised crazy hippie school of
> Erle Montaigue's Yang style which apparently is really just 'Silat'
> because it fights and actually works unlike most of the 'Tai Chi' you
> find these days so what would I know (even though I studied Silat and
> Kuntao for years before settling on Taiji - you'd think I'd have
> noticed the similarity. I still haven't).
I read somewhere that Erle has wrapped his fighting system in "Taiji
clothing", but I didn't take that too seriously;)
Jeff Lindqvist (Wing Chun)
Mike Sigman
>
> AHA! I have found these guns you are sticking to, and I totally agree.
> I remember before I had an internet break I got roasted here for
> daring to suggest that the Chen's didn't invent Taiji not that I
> minded. I like the warm weather. And as for Wing Chun principles
> (principles I tell you) they are the SAME more or less. Very similar
> if not.
How would you know that if you don't know anything about Taiji?
>
> But then again I come from the bastardised crazy hippie school of Erle
> Montaigue's Yang style which apparently is really just 'Silat' because
> it fights and actually works unlike most of the 'Tai Chi' you find
> these days so what would I know (even though I studied Silat and
> Kuntao for years before settling on Taiji - you'd think I'd have
> noticed the similarity. I still haven't).
Heck, I could fight pretty well before I started trying to learn Taiji.
Even if I didn't learn Taiji but I was "effective" and called what I did
"Taiji"... would that make it Taiji? Generally speaking, when someone
comes up with a theory contradicting the existing facts (e.g., the current
Yang family states that the Yang style is directly derived from Chen-style
Taiji, but Erle and a few others say it ain't so and yet they claim to do
Yang style as if the current Yang family is not as well educated as they
are), then the burden of proof rests on the person making the strange
claims. Why not approach it that way, instead of just making it a "both
views could be valid"? Better yet, since you and Erle both live in
Australia and Chen Xiao Wang lives in West Ryde outside of Sidney, why don't
you pay CXW a visit and put him on the spot? After all, it's CXW's family
name that you're playing with, so you'd think that people of honor would
want to go face-to-face on something like this. Whaddya say? CXW isn't
very shy, so I'm sure you'd be welcomed.
FWIW
Mike
YoJimbo
finke...@start.com.au says...
>But then again I come from the bastardised crazy hippie school of Erle
>Montaigue's Yang style which apparently is really just 'Silat' because
>it fights and actually works unlike most of the 'Tai Chi' you find
>these days so what would I know (even though I studied Silat and
>Kuntao for years before settling on Taiji - you'd think I'd have
>noticed the similarity. I still haven't).
I didn't know Erle was a bagua expert but lo and behold, I just waded through
a copy of Erle's "Deceptive Hands of Pa Kua" at the bookstore the other day,
and sure enough, he isn't. So we've got to add to the list bastardized
crazy hippie bagua.
JS
The Fink
> > AHA! I have found these guns you are sticking to, and I totally
> > agree. I remember before I had an internet break I got roasted here
> > for daring to suggest that the Chen's didn't invent Taiji not that I
> > minded. I like the warm weather.
>
> Me too! I merely referred to what Erle had written, and got pretty
> "roasted"...:)
Phhht! Let them wallow in their loose 'facts'. The real truth is there
are no facts.
> > But then again I come from the bastardised crazy hippie school of
> > Erle Montaigue's Yang style which apparently is really just 'Silat'
> > because it fights and actually works unlike most of the 'Tai Chi' you
> > find these days so what would I know (even though I studied Silat and
> > Kuntao for years before settling on Taiji - you'd think I'd have
> > noticed the similarity. I still haven't).
>
> I read somewhere that Erle has wrapped his fighting system in "Taiji
> clothing", but I didn't take that too seriously;)
Jeff, I don't even bother to refer to it as Yang style anymore because
of the 'roasters'. It's an efficient style so I don't care what
'clothing' it's in.
Erik Squires
news:<3DFF5683...@hotmail.com>...
> > > AHA! I have found these guns you are sticking to, and I totally
> > > agree. I remember before I had an internet break I got roasted here
> > > for daring to suggest that the Chen's didn't invent Taiji not that I
> > > minded. I like the warm weather.
> >
> > Me too! I merely referred to what Erle had written, and got pretty
> > "roasted"...:)
>
> Phhht! Let them wallow in their loose 'facts'. The real truth is there
> are no facts.
So, since there are no facts, does this mean taht Tai Chi is whatever you
wish to call it? Anyone can come along and call what they do Tai Chi?
That would make it easy for many indeed.
>
> > > But then again I come from the bastardised crazy hippie school of
> > > Erle Montaigue's Yang style which apparently is really just 'Silat'
> > > because it fights and actually works unlike most of the 'Tai Chi' you
> > > find these days so what would I know (even though I studied Silat and
> > > Kuntao for years before settling on Taiji - you'd think I'd have
> > > noticed the similarity. I still haven't).
> >
> > I read somewhere that Erle has wrapped his fighting system in "Taiji
> > clothing", but I didn't take that too seriously;)
>
> Jeff, I don't even bother to refer to it as Yang style anymore because
> of the 'roasters'. It's an efficient style so I don't care what
> 'clothing' it's in.
Not calling what you do Yang Tai Chi may indeed be a good thing, but Yang
family Tai Chi is not open for debate. If you wish to know, go ask a family
member. They'd be happy to explain it to you. Same for Chen and Wu style.
If you wish to take the "oh, it doesn't matter what you call it, I like it"
aproach, that's fine. But if you wish to know what the families are
teaching, this is not beyond the grasp of most mortals, especially not if
you're in Australia, Japan or the US.
Regards,
Erik
The Fink
> "The Fink" <finke...@start.com.au> wrote in message
> news:3691be0b.02121...@posting.google.com...
>
> >
> > AHA! I have found these guns you are sticking to, and I totally agree.
> > I remember before I had an internet break I got roasted here for
> > daring to suggest that the Chen's didn't invent Taiji not that I
> > minded. I like the warm weather. And as for Wing Chun principles
> > (principles I tell you) they are the SAME more or less. Very similar
> > if not.
>
> How would you know that if you don't know anything about Taiji?
I study Taiji and Baguazhang. Why would I know nothing about Taiji? I
suppose being an arrogant American then you're the only person allowed
to know the facts?
> > But then again I come from the bastardised crazy hippie school of Erle
> > Montaigue's Yang style which apparently is really just 'Silat' because
> > it fights and actually works unlike most of the 'Tai Chi' you find
> > these days so what would I know (even though I studied Silat and
> > Kuntao for years before settling on Taiji - you'd think I'd have
> > noticed the similarity. I still haven't).
>
> Heck, I could fight pretty well before I started trying to learn Taiji.
> Even if I didn't learn Taiji but I was "effective" and called what I did
> "Taiji"... would that make it Taiji? Or Tai Chi?
That's one of the stupidest retorts I've ever seen. What if you did
learn Taiji and it was effective. Would you call it Taiji then, Mike?
> Generally speaking, when someone
> comes up with a theory contradicting the existing facts (e.g., the current
> Yang family states that the Yang style is directly derived from Chen-style
> Taiji, but Erle and a few others say it ain't so and yet they claim to do
> Yang style as if the current Yang family is not as well educated as they
> are), then the burden of proof rests on the person making the strange
> claims.
That's what you said last time. And I said (and say again) why? Are
you jealous of his talents? If not, do your own thing. That and the
claims make sense. They are not strange. Yang style is nothing like
Chen.
> Why not approach it that way, instead of just making it a "both
> views could be valid"? Better yet, since you and Erle both live in
> Australia and Chen Xiao Wang lives in West Ryde outside of Sidney, why don't
> you pay CXW a visit and put him on the spot?
Now you're making sense. I'd love to meet Chen Xiao Wang. Sydney is
far away, but I have a brother there so next time I visit.
> After all, it's CXW's family
> name that you're playing with, so you'd think that people of honor would
> want to go face-to-face on something like this. Whaddya say? CXW isn't
> very shy, so I'm sure you'd be welcomed.
That would be excellent I must say. Could I bring my Sifu along? I'd
love to see what ensues. It would be an interesting conversation and
match. There would have to be a match, for the proof isn't in your
long winded histories. It is in the pudding. (What a Zen comment for
this time of day. Hmmm.)
Oh, and I'm not playing with his family name. A large portion of the
Taiji community are doing it. Should he smite us all? Does being an
excellent martial artist make his family the founders? No Mike. Keep
stabbing.
The Fink
> In article <3df7a824$1...@nopics.sjc>, erik_s...@hotFILTERmail.com says...
> >
> >Danny:
> >I've recently met a Wing Chun instructor, who had private lessons with Chen
> >Zhenglei, he stated that everything was the opposite of how he was taught.
> >For instance, where Win Chun braced the legs, Tai Chi keeps them soft.
> >
> >Perhaps it depends on which lineage of Win Chun we're discussing.
>
> Well, not really. It's very common for the wing chun crowd in general
> to assert they have a "soft" (i.e., supposedly "similar to taiji") aspect
> to their art, and their chi-sao is roughly "equivilent" to taiji's
> push-hands. It's what they've been taught.
>
> Then somebody meets up with a high-level taijiquan instructor (like
> Chen Zhenglei), and they find out they aren't doing actual taijiquan
> mechanics (principles) very well at all, certainly not like they
> thought they were. It's completely different.
You are so full of shit it's not funny. Let me ask you this. How did
you become so arrogant, or are you just a troll?
The Fink
> > > Wing Chun (Wing Tsun/Ving Tsun) is not far from taichi principle,
> > > perhaps it's the softest of the hardest, yet there is hard taichi,
> > > possibly Chen.
> >
> >
> > AHA! I have found these guns you are sticking to, and I totally agree.
> > I remember before I had an internet break I got roasted here for
> > daring to suggest that the Chen's didn't invent Taiji not that I
>
> You can suggest it, but the 5 or 8 theories that say otherwise dont' hold
> much water. If you wish, please find ask the Wu of Yang families directly.
> That will end the discussion.
> > But then again I come from the bastardised crazy hippie school of Erle
> > Montaigue's Yang style which apparently is really just 'Silat' because
> > it fights and actually works unlike most of the 'Tai Chi' you find
> > these days so what would I know (even though I studied Silat and
> > Kuntao for years before settling on Taiji - you'd think I'd have
> > noticed the similarity. I still haven't).
>
> Ah, so you don't really know what traditional Chen, Wu or Yang tai chi, and
> yet you are commenting on how similar Tai Chi is to Wing Chun? Do you not
> know Wing Chun either?
You seem to think you know alot about me. I know Wing Chun. And I know
EM Yang and Wu Taiji. You assume too much.
The Fink
You read a book on Bagua and you can tell? You must be a highly
'ranked' Bagua expert Jimbo. Expose your credentials why don't you? I
thought so.
Erik Squires
"The Fink" <finke...@start.com.au> wrote in message
news:3691be0b.02121...@posting.google.com...
> > > >
I haven't assumed anything. I asked a question. Besides EM, who else have
you studied Tai Chi with? What things do you see, exactly, in Wing Chun
that you think makes it so like Tai Chi?
Regards,
Erik
Mike Sigman
"The Fink" <finke...@start.com.au> wrote in message
news:3691be0b.02121...@posting.google.com...
> > >
> > > AHA! I have found these guns you are sticking to, and I totally agree.
> > > I remember before I had an internet break I got roasted here for
> > > daring to suggest that the Chen's didn't invent Taiji not that I
> > > minded. I like the warm weather. And as for Wing Chun principles
> > > (principles I tell you) they are the SAME more or less. Very similar
> > > if not.
> >
> > How would you know that if you don't know anything about Taiji?
>
> I study Taiji and Baguazhang. Why would I know nothing about Taiji? I
> suppose being an arrogant American then you're the only person allowed
> to know the facts?
What I know is not the question or what you're posting about. You're
posting like you know Taiji, but you appear to know nothing, from what
you're posting.
>
> > > But then again I come from the bastardised crazy hippie school of Erle
> > > Montaigue's Yang style which apparently is really just 'Silat' because
> > > it fights and actually works unlike most of the 'Tai Chi' you find
> > > these days so what would I know (even though I studied Silat and
> > > Kuntao for years before settling on Taiji - you'd think I'd have
> > > noticed the similarity. I still haven't).
> >
> > Heck, I could fight pretty well before I started trying to learn Taiji.
> > Even if I didn't learn Taiji but I was "effective" and called what I did
> > "Taiji"... would that make it Taiji? Or Tai Chi?
>
> That's one of the stupidest retorts I've ever seen. What if you did
> learn Taiji and it was effective. Would you call it Taiji then, Mike?
You call *my* question stupid? Why don't you try and answer it? Because
something "works", you think that makes it Taiji?
>
> > Generally speaking, when someone
> > comes up with a theory contradicting the existing facts (e.g., the
current
> > Yang family states that the Yang style is directly derived from
Chen-style
> > Taiji, but Erle and a few others say it ain't so and yet they claim to
do
> > Yang style as if the current Yang family is not as well educated as they
> > are), then the burden of proof rests on the person making the strange
> > claims.
>
> That's what you said last time. And I said (and say again) why? Are
> you jealous of his talents? If not, do your own thing. That and the
> claims make sense. They are not strange. Yang style is nothing like
> Chen.
Gee.... all those expert Chinese experts I've met are wrong and some Wing
Chun boffo from Australia knows the real truth. How odd.
>
> > Why not approach it that way, instead of just making it a "both
> > views could be valid"? Better yet, since you and Erle both live in
> > Australia and Chen Xiao Wang lives in West Ryde outside of Sidney, why
don't
> > you pay CXW a visit and put him on the spot?
>
> Now you're making sense. I'd love to meet Chen Xiao Wang. Sydney is
> far away, but I have a brother there so next time I visit.
Go for it.
>
> > After all, it's CXW's family
> > name that you're playing with, so you'd think that people of honor would
> > want to go face-to-face on something like this. Whaddya say? CXW isn't
> > very shy, so I'm sure you'd be welcomed.
>
> That would be excellent I must say. Could I bring my Sifu along? I'd
> love to see what ensues. It would be an interesting conversation and
> match. There would have to be a match, for the proof isn't in your
> long winded histories. It is in the pudding. (What a Zen comment for
> this time of day. Hmmm.)
Bring your sifu. Bring an ambulance, too. Now you're just bullshitting.
>
> Oh, and I'm not playing with his family name. A large portion of the
> Taiji community are doing it. Should he smite us all? Does being an
> excellent martial artist make his family the founders? No Mike. Keep
> stabbing.
You did drugs as a child, right?
Mike
Brian C. Allen
>
> You read a book on Bagua and you can tell? You must be a highly
> 'ranked' Bagua expert Jimbo. Expose your credentials why don't you? I
> thought so.
Someone does not have to be an expert at something to be able to
tell whether or not it is wrong.
For instance: a person may not know anything about differential
equations (not an expert at math), but they can watch someone who
claims to be an expert at math and if that so called expert adds
2+2 and comes up with 5, then the non-expert will know that the
so-called expert is just plain wrong.
And so it is with martial arts of any system. If I learn the basics
of a system, I do not have to be an expert in order to see someone
screw up the basics.
That being said, I have not seen the Bagua book in question. I
just had to correct your flawed path of argumentation.
BCA
Jeff Lindqvist
> are no facts.
Considering the the time gone since Taiji was "invented", I suppose
*any* source is debatable...
> Jeff, I don't even bother to refer to it as Yang style anymore because
> of the 'roasters'. It's an efficient style so I don't care what
> 'clothing' it's in.
So, have you practiced for long? From what I've read about Erle, he
seems pretty serious, whatever the origin for his style is:)
Jeff Lindqvist
Badger Jones
wrote:
>AHA! I have found these guns you are sticking to, and I totally agree.
>I remember before I had an internet break I got roasted here for
>daring to suggest that the Chen's didn't invent Taiji not that I
>minded. I like the warm weather. And as for Wing Chun principles
>(principles I tell you) they are the SAME more or less. Very similar
>if not.
So... which principles are these? Care to share?
Badger Jones
www.cyberus.ca/~badger
"God is on the side not of the heavy battalions,
but of the best shots." - Voltaire
Mike Sigman
"Badger Jones" <young_...@hotmail.REEEMOVEcom> wrote in message
news:3e008993....@news21.bellnet.ca...
> On 16 Dec 2002 16:30:34 -0800, finke...@start.com.au (The Fink)
> wrote:
>
> >AHA! I have found these guns you are sticking to, and I totally agree.
> >I remember before I had an internet break I got roasted here for
> >daring to suggest that the Chen's didn't invent Taiji not that I
> >minded. I like the warm weather. And as for Wing Chun principles
> >(principles I tell you) they are the SAME more or less. Very similar
> >if not.
>
> So... which principles are these? Care to share?
>
Get ready for a tap dance, Badger.
Erik Squires
Thanks!
Erik
"Mike Sigman" <mikes...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:uvvtlt8...@corp.supernews.com...
YoJimbo
Heh
How do you know I'm inaccurate here?
That would mean you're able to tell yourself.
Actually, that book is very appropriately titled.
Erle's bagua is deceptive, no doubt about it.
Cheers from topside,
JS
The Fink
You said, you don't really know traditional Taiji. I actually put
myself out to learn Wu (and Chen) although I don't like to talk about
either. They were in a word, shocking. Exposing those 'Masters' and
yes they did like to be called 'Master' would be a community service,
yet I cannot bring myself to do it. They are old men. Leave them to
their old tricks.
And I will admit I am no expert on Wing Chun personally (I did it for
about 6 months before I had to move in a work transfer), however one
of my best friends is a Wing Chun guy, and his Kung Fu is excellent.
We train and freefight all the time and it is there that we have found
all the similarities.
But now let me question you. You seem to enjoy bashing Erle Montaigue.
Not once but twice here you have unfairly mocked the man. What do you
have against him, or is it petty jelousy because it's not the same
Taiji as yours?
The Fink
> "The Fink" <finke...@start.com.au> wrote in message
> news:3691be0b.02121...@posting.google.com...
> > > >
> > > > AHA! I have found these guns you are sticking to, and I totally agree.
> > > > I remember before I had an internet break I got roasted here for
> > > > daring to suggest that the Chen's didn't invent Taiji not that I
> > > > minded. I like the warm weather. And as for Wing Chun principles
> > > > (principles I tell you) they are the SAME more or less. Very similar
> > > > if not.
> > >
> > > How would you know that if you don't know anything about Taiji?
> >
> > I study Taiji and Baguazhang. Why would I know nothing about Taiji? I
> > suppose being an arrogant American then you're the only person allowed
> > to know the facts?
>
> What I know is not the question or what you're posting about. You're
> posting like you know Taiji, but you appear to know nothing, from what
> you're posting.
different to my style, you devil. You know nothing!' I've heard it all
before. In fact I think last time it was you! You seem to take me as
being another EM type master. I'm still a student. But I have
opinions.
And tell me another thing, Mike? What is it that shows I know nothing
about Taiji? That fact that (I admit) I like a laugh and am a bit of a
joker? Or is it that we fight and punch pads as well as Push Hands
among other things? Or maybe I don't immediately refer to reeling silk
whenever someone mentions the word 'Taiji', just what is it? Tell
Uncle Fink, Mike. What's pissing you off?
> > > > But then again I come from the bastardised crazy hippie school of Erle
> > > > Montaigue's Yang style which apparently is really just 'Silat' because
> > > > it fights and actually works unlike most of the 'Tai Chi' you find
> > > > these days so what would I know (even though I studied Silat and
> > > > Kuntao for years before settling on Taiji - you'd think I'd have
> > > > noticed the similarity. I still haven't).
> > >
> > > Heck, I could fight pretty well before I started trying to learn Taiji.
> > > Even if I didn't learn Taiji but I was "effective" and called what I did
> > > "Taiji"... would that make it Taiji? Or Tai Chi?
> >
> > That's one of the stupidest retorts I've ever seen. What if you did
> > learn Taiji and it was effective. Would you call it Taiji then, Mike?
>
> You call *my* question stupid? Why don't you try and answer it? Because
> something "works", you think that makes it Taiji?
No, you answer. You're the master on the cover of the video tapes. I
am but the student. What does it make it Mike? It can't be a sham,
because it works. My freefighting in the space of about 10 months has
improved from what it was 10 fold, so it can't be nothing. What would
you call it? We do the forms, we do the drills, we do the qigong. What
do you call it Mike? Why can't it be Taiji? Perhaps the question
should be, why can't you get over it?
Answer - it's different so it's bad. Pathetic.
> > > Generally speaking, when someone
> > > comes up with a theory contradicting the existing facts (e.g., the
> current
> > > Yang family states that the Yang style is directly derived from
> Chen-style
> > > Taiji, but Erle and a few others say it ain't so and yet they claim to
> do
> > > Yang style as if the current Yang family is not as well educated as they
> > > are), then the burden of proof rests on the person making the strange
> > > claims.
> >
> > That's what you said last time. And I said (and say again) why? Are
> > you jealous of his talents? If not, do your own thing. That and the
> > claims make sense. They are not strange. Yang style is nothing like
> > Chen.
>
> Gee.... all those expert Chinese experts I've met are wrong and some Wing
> Chun boffo from Australia knows the real truth. How odd.
Who's the Wing Chun boffo? Erle? Or me? Don't drag me into this. My
opinions only come from my training. I don't ask anyone to believe
them or take them as a truth. Chen style is rooted in Shaolin Quan.
Yang is not. A child can see it. I'm sick of this argument. Believe
what you believe. I really don't care what you do as long as it makes
you happy. I mean, I argue with Gi the most on this damn NG and he's a
BJJ practitioner. We bitch and bitch and bitch, but at the end of the
day we're all happy with our training and we have a bit of a giggle
about it. If everyone were the same it would be boring.
> > > Why not approach it that way, instead of just making it a "both
> > > views could be valid"? Better yet, since you and Erle both live in
> > > Australia and Chen Xiao Wang lives in West Ryde outside of Sidney, why
> don't
> > > you pay CXW a visit and put him on the spot?
> >
> > Now you're making sense. I'd love to meet Chen Xiao Wang. Sydney is
> > far away, but I have a brother there so next time I visit.
>
> Go for it.
I will.
> > > After all, it's CXW's family
> > > name that you're playing with, so you'd think that people of honor would
> > > want to go face-to-face on something like this. Whaddya say? CXW isn't
> > > very shy, so I'm sure you'd be welcomed.
> >
> > That would be excellent I must say. Could I bring my Sifu along? I'd
> > love to see what ensues. It would be an interesting conversation and
> > match. There would have to be a match, for the proof isn't in your
> > long winded histories. It is in the pudding. (What a Zen comment for
> > this time of day. Hmmm.)
>
>
> Bring your sifu. Bring an ambulance, too. Now you're just bullshitting.
I don't think so. ;)
> > Oh, and I'm not playing with his family name. A large portion of the
> > Taiji community are doing it. Should he smite us all? Does being an
> > excellent martial artist make his family the founders? No Mike. Keep
> > stabbing.
>
> You did drugs as a child, right?
Fair enough. I did drugs as a child, Mike. In fact, I ate paintchips
instead of cereal. Bugger it, that's enough sarcasm for one day.
Seeya.
The Fink
Chik...achik..achikkachikkachikka...Ta Daaa!!!!
I think my tap dancing is pretty good. It's Chen style.
Anyway, Badge, one that springs to mind is Wing Chun's Lap Sao(not
sure of spelling) drills. They are very much like Erle's double push
hands in principle. And when put into fighting principles they're
virtually the same.
You see, I'm not saying the two arts are the same. I say when you
break them down into fighting principles they are. It's said (in one
of the latest KF/QG magazines) that Ip Man had a famous fight with a
Mantis fighter at a theater in Fotshan, where he defeated him with a
push that sent the man in the air, off the stage and into a tea table
breaking three ribs. That to me doesn't sound like a very Wing Chun
thing to do in a fight. But I'm not saying Ip Man did Taiji. He
obviously didn't. But do the two arts have similarities. When it comes
to fighting I believe so.
I can't believe everyone is so defensive about this. It's only
opinion. I'm not saying it's a sacred truth or anything. It's just
what I think. Feel free to prove me wrong.
The Fink
> >You read a book on Bagua and you can tell? You must be a highly
> >'ranked' Bagua expert Jimbo. Expose your credentials why don't you? I
> >thought so.
>
> Heh
> How do you know I'm inaccurate here?
> That would mean you're able to tell yourself.
I think you're pulling the piss. I also think you're inacurate.
The Fink
> The Fink wrote:
> >
> > You read a book on Bagua and you can tell? You must be a highly
> > 'ranked' Bagua expert Jimbo. Expose your credentials why don't you? I
> > thought so.
>
> Someone does not have to be an expert at something to be able to
> tell whether or not it is wrong.
Correct. However I think it is a good book, and that he has unfairly
attacked it. Thus I defend.
> For instance: a person may not know anything about differential
> equations (not an expert at math), but they can watch someone who
> claims to be an expert at math and if that so called expert adds
> 2+2 and comes up with 5, then the non-expert will know that the
> so-called expert is just plain wrong.
But that is not the case here. I reckon Jimbo thinks 2+2 = 5 and he's
read a book that says 2+2 = 4. Therefore I'm trying to help him out.
Although I have a sneaking suspicion that he's too far gone.
> And so it is with martial arts of any system. If I learn the basics
> of a system, I do not have to be an expert in order to see someone
> screw up the basics.
>
> That being said, I have not seen the Bagua book in question. I
> just had to correct your flawed path of argumentation.
Then what are you saying then? How is my path flawed? Perhaps one
should mind their own business?
Erik Squires
I've never said that. I've said I don't know traditional Wing Chun, and
I've asked other's who were making statements about Yang Tai Chi and it's
similarities to Wing Chun to explain their reference points, as well as be
specific.
> I actually put
> myself out to learn Wu (and Chen) although I don't like to talk about
> either. They were in a word, shocking. Exposing those 'Masters' and
> yes they did like to be called 'Master' would be a community service,
> yet I cannot bring myself to do it. They are old men. Leave them to
> their old tricks.
>
As I've said elsewhere, there are false teachers of all styles. Who did you
learn Wu and Chen from, exactly?
> And I will admit I am no expert on Wing Chun personally (I did it for
> about 6 months before I had to move in a work transfer), however one
> of my best friends is a Wing Chun guy, and his Kung Fu is excellent.
> We train and freefight all the time and it is there that we have found
> all the similarities.
>
State exactly what similarities are, please. Could you please post a list
of techniques you find that are so similar?
> But now let me question you. You seem to enjoy bashing Erle Montaigue.
> Not once but twice here you have unfairly mocked the man.
What have I said that was unfair? Unfair by definition would be to say
something that wasn't true, or that did not apply a reasonable argument to
dispute his own. Unfair does not mean using logic to dispute his claims.
> What do you
> have against him, or is it petty jelousy because it's not the same
> Taiji as yours?
Is it Tai Ji? Seriously. If it doesn't match what I read from the Yang
family, and it doesn't match what the Chen's teach I have to ask this
question. If Erle is claiming that Fa-Jing is this chi Quisinart (TM), why
is he the only one talking about it, and yet the Yang's and Chen's are
talking about it completely differently? Just who taught him the
definitions he uses today?
What I think got us down this path was the statements that Yang Tai Ji is
completely different from Chen, and much closer to Wing Chun. It is my
argument that good Yang style and good Chen style have many core
bio-mechanical principles, and that they do not share them with Wing Chun at
all. I think many of us are waiting for your authoritative list of how Wing
Chun and Yand style Tai Ji are similar.
Regards,
Erik
Erik Squires
> "Mike Sigman" <mikes...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:<uvvtlt8...@corp.supernews.com>...
> > "The Fink" <finke...@start.com.au> wrote in message
> > news:3691be0b.02121...@posting.google.com...
> > > > >
Wing
> > Chun boffo from Australia knows the real truth. How odd.
>
> Who's the Wing Chun boffo? Erle? Or me? Don't drag me into this. My
> opinions only come from my training. I don't ask anyone to believe
> them or take them as a truth. Chen style is rooted in Shaolin Quan.
Exactly WHO did you learn this from? And exactly how much evidense would
you need before you changed your mind?
Regards,
Erik
Mike Sigman
>>
> This is why I tire of posting here. 'Your opinion / training is
> different to my style, you devil. You know nothing!' I've heard it all
> before. In fact I think last time it was you! You seem to take me as
> being another EM type master. I'm still a student. But I have
> opinions.
Indeed you do. And you don't mind posting them as assertions. :^)
>
> And tell me another thing, Mike? What is it that shows I know nothing
> about Taiji? That fact that (I admit) I like a laugh and am a bit of a
> joker? Or is it that we fight and punch pads as well as Push Hands
> among other things? Or maybe I don't immediately refer to reeling silk
> whenever someone mentions the word 'Taiji', just what is it? Tell
> Uncle Fink, Mike. What's pissing you off?
Nothing pisses me off.... it's just fun to watch you spokesmanning for Erle.
:^)
>
> No, you answer. You're the master on the cover of the video tapes. I
> am but the student. What does it make it Mike? It can't be a sham,
> because it works. My freefighting in the space of about 10 months has
> improved from what it was 10 fold, so it can't be nothing. What would
> you call it? We do the forms, we do the drills, we do the qigong. What
> do you call it Mike? Why can't it be Taiji? Perhaps the question
> should be, why can't you get over it?
Why can't it be something else other than Taiji? You haven't answered with
a single fact that supports your idea of "if it works it must be Taiji".
> > Chen style is rooted in Shaolin Quan.
> Yang is not. A child can see it.
Well then, the Yang family is wrong for publicly saying and writing that
Yang style is derived from the Chen style. If a child such as you can "see
it", then it either must be true or you don't have any idea what you're
talking about. Which is it?
Mike
Jeff Lindqvist
> Who's the Wing Chun boffo? Erle? Or me? Don't drag me into this. My
> opinions only come from my training. I don't ask anyone to believe
> them or take them as a truth. Chen style is rooted in Shaolin Quan.
I really would like to see proof on this statement, mainly because I
myself pointed out the same stuff about a month ago (having read one of
EM's books). Mike Sigman replied and said I was wrong. Well, as I said
then, I'm not that knowledgeable in Taiji (I barely know the first third
of the Yang Cheng Fu form!). However, my question - if EM is lying, why
don't the Yang family (who "obviously" agree on that Chen was "first")
somehow exclude EM, withdraw his Master's Degree (or whatever he was
given), publish these sources about the origin of Taiji et.c.? I
remember one of EMs comparisons, being that Chen was similar to a
Shaolin style, possibly Long Fist (i.e. the style, not *any* "long fist"
form as Mike Sigman interpreted it).
>>Go for it.
>
> I will.
Have fun. Make sure to bring a tape recorder, a video recorder or
whatever in order to document his views on the matter.
Jeff Lindqvist
Erik Squires
to teach to begin with, besides Erle I mean?
Erik
"Jeff Lindqvist" <jeff_li...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3E03CD8B...@hotmail.com...
Brian C. Allen
>
> > The Fink wrote:
> > >
> > > You read a book on Bagua and you can tell? You must be a highly
> > > 'ranked' Bagua expert Jimbo. Expose your credentials why don't you? I
> > > thought so.
> >
> > Someone does not have to be an expert at something to be able to
> > tell whether or not it is wrong.
>
> should mind their own business?
Re-read it again if you must. You claimed that Jimbo must be a
highly 'ranked' Bagua expert because of comments he made based on
what he saw in a book. I am saying that he does not have to be
highly 'ranked' expert. Did you read my post? How much simpler
did I have to make it.
As far as minding one's business, this is just as much my business
as anyone else's in this PUBLIC forum. If you want privacy, this is
the wrong place.
BCA
The Fink
> You're getting ahead of us Jeff. Has anyone said Erle had any sort of right
> to teach to begin with, besides Erle I mean?
Apart from the Masters who tested him in China?
Also, you'd be interested to know that he was reportedly asked once to
become the Yang family representitive in Australia, however the
Families price was too high. But if he didn't have the stuff, why
would they ask him? Hmmm...
The Fink
> "The Fink" <finke...@start.com.au> wrote in message
> news:3691be0b.02122...@posting.google.com...
> > "Mike Sigman" <mikes...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:<uvvtlt8...@corp.supernews.com>...
> > > "The Fink" <finke...@start.com.au> wrote in message
> > > news:3691be0b.02121...@posting.google.com...
> > > > > >
> > > Gee.... all those expert Chinese experts I've met are wrong and some
> Wing
> > > Chun boffo from Australia knows the real truth. How odd.
> >
> > Who's the Wing Chun boffo? Erle? Or me? Don't drag me into this. My
> > opinions only come from my training. I don't ask anyone to believe
> > them or take them as a truth. Chen style is rooted in Shaolin Quan.
>
> Exactly WHO did you learn this from? And exactly how much evidense would
> you need before you changed your mind?
I'm sorry. You must be blind. I didn't know.
It would take a fair bit of evidence because of all the Longfist
/Shaolin derived moves there are in Chen style. I don't think this is
an unfair observation. And besides that I don't care what you believe.
The Fink
> "The Fink" <finke...@start.com.au> wrote in message
> news:3691be0b.02122...@posting.google.com...
> >>
> > This is why I tire of posting here. 'Your opinion / training is
> > different to my style, you devil. You know nothing!' I've heard it all
> > before. In fact I think last time it was you! You seem to take me as
> > being another EM type master. I'm still a student. But I have
> > opinions.
>
> Indeed you do. And you don't mind posting them as assertions. :^)
Phhht! They aren't assertions. Seriously Mike. I like you. Don't think
I don't. I like having a bit of a giggle and I'm not trying blatently
to offend you in any way with my opinions (I think my sense of humour
will do that for ya). But really, that's all they are. Feel free to
enlighten me when you can, but I'm not taking things on face value or
chinese whisper. Examples would be good sometimes.
> > And tell me another thing, Mike? What is it that shows I know nothing
> > about Taiji? That fact that (I admit) I like a laugh and am a bit of a
> > joker? Or is it that we fight and punch pads as well as Push Hands
> > among other things? Or maybe I don't immediately refer to reeling silk
> > whenever someone mentions the word 'Taiji', just what is it? Tell
> > Uncle Fink, Mike. What's pissing you off?
>
> Nothing pisses me off.... it's just fun to watch you spokesmanning for Erle.
> :^)
Have you ever thought that perhaps my spokesmanning means I think the
guy's valid (another opinion). You seem to think he's full of shit.
Why exactly?
> > No, you answer. You're the master on the cover of the video tapes. I
> > am but the student. What does it make it Mike? It can't be a sham,
> > because it works. My freefighting in the space of about 10 months has
> > improved from what it was 10 fold, so it can't be nothing. What would
> > you call it? We do the forms, we do the drills, we do the qigong. What
> > do you call it Mike? Why can't it be Taiji? Perhaps the question
> > should be, why can't you get over it?
>
> Why can't it be something else other than Taiji? You haven't answered with
> a single fact that supports your idea of "if it works it must be Taiji".
But that's the question. What is it if not? Why can't it just be
another style? As I said. We do the forms. The qigong. The drills. If
it were called Monty Boxing would you still bag it?
> > > Chen style is rooted in Shaolin Quan.
> > Yang is not. A child can see it.
>
> Well then, the Yang family is wrong for publicly saying and writing that
> Yang style is derived from the Chen style. If a child such as you can "see
> it", then it either must be true or you don't have any idea what you're
> talking about. Which is it?
You keep going on with what the Yang family say. It's just a political
way of letting the baby have it's bottle.
The Fink
> The Fink wrote:
> >
> > > The Fink wrote:
> > > >
> > > > You read a book on Bagua and you can tell? You must be a highly
> > > > 'ranked' Bagua expert Jimbo. Expose your credentials why don't you? I
> > > > thought so.
> > >
> > > Someone does not have to be an expert at something to be able to
> > > tell whether or not it is wrong.
> >
> > Then what are you saying then? How is my path flawed? Perhaps one
> > should mind their own business?
>
>
> Re-read it again if you must. You claimed that Jimbo must be a
> highly 'ranked' Bagua expert because of comments he made based on
> what he saw in a book. I am saying that he does not have to be
> highly 'ranked' expert. Did you read my post? How much simpler
> did I have to make it.
My point is he's not an expert. It is sarcasm. Back in your coffin.
> As far as minding one's business, this is just as much my business
> as anyone else's in this PUBLIC forum. If you want privacy, this is
> the wrong place.
Whatever.
Jeff Lindqvist
> Re-read it again if you must. You claimed that Jimbo must be a
> highly 'ranked' Bagua expert because of comments he made based on
> what he saw in a book. I am saying that he does not have to be
> highly 'ranked' expert. Did you read my post? How much simpler
> did I have to make it.
By the same reasoning, Erle doesn't have to a higly ranked expert on
Chen or Shaolin to have a possibly correct opinion (not that you've said
anything about it, but I had to squeeze it in somewhere).
Peace.
Jeff Lindqvist
Jeff Lindqvist
> "Erik Squires" wrote:
>
>>You're getting ahead of us Jeff. Has anyone said Erle had any sort of right
>>to teach to begin with, besides Erle I mean?
>
> Apart from the Masters who tested him in China?
>
> Also, you'd be interested to know that he was reportedly asked once to
> become the Yang family representitive in Australia, however the
> Families price was too high. But if he didn't have the stuff, why
> would they ask him? Hmmm...
Thanks for the "support", Fink. I suppoese it's really easy to verify
EM's (or any other's) skill, by gathering all the head masters of the
various styles. BTW, wasn't there a Taiji "meeting" some years ago,
which nobody from Chen was invited to? I know this is a great leap from
the actual thread, but all this "mystery" stuff comes up as I read the
posts...
Jeff Lindqvist
Erik Squires
movements?
Erik
Erik Squires
he knew anything at all about Yang tai chi, or Chen tai chi, besides the
external apearance I suspect he wouldn't be calling Chen warmed up Shaolin.
Erik
"Jeff Lindqvist" <jeff_li...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3E0445C0...@hotmail.com...
Jeff Lindqvist
> No, Erle doesn't have to be a highly ranked expert on anything, however, if
> he knew anything at all about Yang tai chi, or Chen tai chi, besides the
> external apearance I suspect he wouldn't be calling Chen warmed up Shaolin.
I just heard that the semi-internal art Baji had a huge influence on
Chen style. Any thoughts?
Jeff Lindqvist
Erik Squires
I wish some one would ask Wang Hai Jun, in the UK, he said that his wife
teaches Baji, so the two of them probably have a great understanding of the
history of each style and just how similar the biomechanical components are.
Perhaps I will get to see him in January and if I am still thinking about it
I will ask. No Chen teacher I know of has mentioned Baji, but they do
mention another art from Shanxi village, that was the precursor art, which
the Chen family took with them when they had to leave. I wish I remembered
the name.
Regards,
Erik
"Jeff Lindqvist" <jeff_li...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3E049FE6...@hotmail.com...
Brian C. Allen
> My point is he's not an expert. It is sarcasm. Back in your coffin.
One need not be an expert to know whether or not someone is doing
a system correctly. I am not an expert at taiji, but I have been
practicing for quite some time now, and I have a good grasp of the
basics. I have also met and/or observed many top practioners of
taiji. I have watched some of EM's dimmak tapes, on which he
demonstrates what he calls "fajing." Even though I am not an
expert, I know that what he does on the tape is not the fajing of
taiji. It is indeed a power release, but not like in taiji.
> > As far as minding one's business, this is just as much my business
> > as anyone else's in this PUBLIC forum. If you want privacy, this is
> > the wrong place.
>
> Whatever.
Exactly.
BCA
Brian C. Allen
That is correct. He can have a correct opinion, but that does not
mean his skills are correct taiji. I have plenty of correct
opinions and knowledge about taiji. Though I do what I do well
when practicing taiji, my skill level does not match what I know
through observation/witnessing/experiencing from others.
BCA
Chas
> ......I know that what he does on the tape is not the fajing of
> taiji. It is indeed a power release, but not like in taiji.
Erle looks a lot like silat/kuntao- it seems very similar, reflecting
only on what I've seen on tape and read in his books. I've not had the
personal pleasure of meeting him.
I've had the discussion/demonstration with Sigman, and what he does is
as crisp and defined as anybody I've ever seen. The skill is very
'isolated' and refined; very powerful.
I've also been hit by silat players that were doing something too. Our
system speaks of six energy structures; short, long, explosive,
bouncing, whiplash and spiral. I don't know how ancient the skills
are, but they are found in the oldest martial art of which I'm aware;
'kembaggan' (phonetic sp), and are instantly demonstrable by people
who have cultivated it.
Of course, the choreography and much of the technic can be done
without cultivating the skill also, and there are a *lot* of
charlatans, both in Indonesia and elsewhere- the real deal is
unmistakable though.
I also think there may be something in the differences between
'nei-jia' and 'nei-gung'- the training to stay in the grounded
condition at all times, and training to assume the grounded posture
when applicable.
Mikey's a treasure though- his stuff is just as pure as snow; very
clean, very crisp, very distinct. It allows the skill to be isolated
from the choreography/stylistic movement and refined for analysis.
Everybody ought to let him hit them at least once <g>
--
Chas Clements
casemaker 303-364-0403
www.chasclements.com
http://www.kuntaosilat.com
don_n...@hotmail.com
truth. Mike is right......Yang taiji is descended from Chen taiji.
The question of whether the Chen taiji forms are descended from
Shaolin is another topic, and one might well ask, why concoct new
forms when we can put taiji (whether it's as Mike seems to assert
"pengjin" or the Cheng followers "5 principles, four ounces, blah blah
blah) into a form we already know?
Danny Bummah
> da...@emailaccount.com (Danny Bummah) wrote in message news:<f5da2227.02121...@posting.google.com>...
> > chan...@hotmail.com (nanchuan-king) wrote in message news:<a71887e1.02120...@posting.google.com>...
> > > It is really not a hard fact
> >
> > Then it is a *soft* fact
> >
> > > Taichi founded by Zhang SanFeng is totally just a legend. There is no
> > > strong prove about the legend.
> >
> > Totally just a legend or softly a fact
> >
> > > Actually the theories used in taichi founded long ago before wudang.
> > > "Use soft to against hard", circular striking, "use slow to against
> > > fast" and the use of chi in striking had been applied in many of the
> > > kungfu style long ago before foundation of Wudang.
> >
> > Wing Chun (Wing Tsun/Ving Tsun) is not far from taichi principle,
> > perhaps it's the softest of the hardest, yet there is hard taichi,
> > possibly Chen.
>
>
> AHA! I have found these guns you are sticking to, and I totally agree.
> I remember before I had an internet break I got roasted here for
> daring to suggest that the Chen's didn't invent Taiji not that I
> (principles I tell you) they are the SAME more or less. Very similar
> if not.
>
> Montaigue's Yang style which apparently is really just 'Silat' because
> it fights and actually works unlike most of the 'Tai Chi' you find
> these days so what would I know (even though I studied Silat and
> Kuntao for years before settling on Taiji - you'd think I'd have
> noticed the similarity. I still haven't).
>
> change each others minds. So screw it. Flame away.
Right-o. Everyone's martial arts training is unique. (Since I have Hung Gar,
Wing Chun and Arnis backgrounds, I can approach Taiji anyway I want to.
Bruce Lee would have been proud!)
Danny Bummah
> >
> > AHA! I have found these guns you are sticking to, and I totally agree.
> > I remember before I had an internet break I got roasted here for
> > daring to suggest that the Chen's didn't invent Taiji not that I
>
> You can suggest it, but the 5 or 8 theories that say otherwise dont' hold
> much water. If you wish, please find ask the Wu of Yang families directly.
> That will end the discussion.
Don't worry whether someone else doesn't understand u. It's their
problem, not yours.
> Ah, so you don't really know what traditional Chen, Wu or Yang tai chi, and
> yet you are commenting on how similar Tai Chi is to Wing Chun? Do you not
> know Wing Chun either?
The party might know what u are saying and say something just to
rile u
or the party might not and still wants to rile u
In any case my other reply was to Fink, not u, Erik. Those who take
traditional Taiji long enough have a base in which they can also
approach other arts and still not allow their Taiji to be any less
Danny Bummah
>
> If by "hard" you mean that there are strikes, yes, Chen has visible, overt
> strikes.
Yes, I am aware of that.
Danny Bummah
> In article <3df7a824$1...@nopics.sjc>, erik_s...@hotFILTERmail.com says...
> >
> >Danny:
> >I've recently met a Wing Chun instructor, who had private lessons with Chen
> >Zhenglei, he stated that everything was the opposite of how he was taught.
> >For instance, where Win Chun braced the legs, Tai Chi keeps them soft.
> >
> >Perhaps it depends on which lineage of Win Chun we're discussing.
>
> Well, not really. It's very common for the wing chun crowd in general
> to assert they have a "soft" (i.e., supposedly "similar to taiji") aspect
> to their art, and their chi-sao is roughly "equivilent" to taiji's
> push-hands. It's what they've been taught.
Wing Chun is softer than Hung Gar but harder than Taiji
> Unfortuntately, the belief that everybody's own art has a "soft"
> aspect "at the higher levels" (tm) leads to this erroneous
> conclusion. You'll hear the wing chun, white crane and mantis
> folks sometimes claim this, but it certainly doesn't end with the
> southern shaolin crowd. The goju-ryu karate folks, for instance,
> are taught they have a "hard-soft" art, and no doubt some think they
> are pretty clever sticking some "taiji" into their karate :-))).
Taiji cannot be successfully incorporated into karate, ever, though, yes,
I've seen karateka teach Taiji. (This is one such person in my area, he
was a tourneyboy who did bo and empty hand forms and then opened a
karate school. In recent years he has offered Tai Chi at his school
and even went to China) Since this is the USA, no one's laughing at his
foolish approach. It would be better if he totally turned his back on
karate (Isshinryu) and only stuck to teaching and doing Taiji, or
quit Taiji and just do Isshinryu. After all, he ain't no Kung Fu man.
Erik Squires
the hardness of Chen to Karate or related styles. I think that's a loaded
question, so when I answer, I rephrase it.
There's a story of Chen Fa Ke going to Beijing, and being evaluated by a Wu
teacher, and his students. The students all said it was not Tai Chi,
because of Chen Fa Ke's tremendous strikes, but their teacher saw how Chen
Fa Ke was doing his strikes, and noticed that they were not hard, but very
forceful, but he stayed relaxed, and supple throughout, so eventually they
asked Chen Fa Ke to teach them. This story illustrates the difficulty I
have in answering your question on your terms.
If you explained your definition of "hard" in terms of a martial art, I'd be
better able to answer on your terms.
Regards,
Erik
"Danny Bummah" <da...@emailaccount.com> wrote in message
news:f5da2227.02122...@posting.google.com...
monkey68
> Fink wrote:
However, my question - if EM is lying, why
> don't the Yang family (who "obviously" agree on that Chen was "first")
> somehow exclude EM, withdraw his Master's Degree (or whatever he was
> given), publish these sources about the origin of Taiji et.c.? I
> remember one of EMs comparisons, being that Chen was similar to a
> Shaolin style, possibly Long Fist (i.e. the style, not *any* "long fist"
> form as Mike Sigman interpreted it).
Because EM didn't get a masters degree from the Yang family, he got one from
goign to China where they want to draw in a load of silly white guys to pay
good bucks to learn at Chen village, Shaolin temple,etc.
The Yang family has its own strands of thought, depending on whether they
are Goverment Approved Yang family (TM) or the various other branches.
monkey68
> "Erik Squires" <erik_s...@hotFILTERmail.com> wrote in message
news:<3e03ce1d$1...@nopics.sjc>...
> > You're getting ahead of us Jeff. Has anyone said Erle had any sort of
right
> > to teach to begin with, besides Erle I mean?
>
> Apart from the Masters who tested him in China?
>
> Also, you'd be interested to know that he was reportedly asked once to
> become the Yang family representitive in Australia, however the
> Families price was too high. But if he didn't have the stuff, why
> would they ask him? Hmmm...
>
Chu King Hung rep. And it was pure business.
monkey68
"Chas" <gryp...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:3E04B8B7...@attbi.com...
> "Brian C. Allen" wrote:
>> Mikey's a treasure though- his stuff is just as pure as snow; very
> clean, very crisp, very distinct. It allows the skill to be isolated
> from the choreography/stylistic movement and refined for analysis.
> Everybody ought to let him hit them at least once <g>
And totally impractical FWIW. Still it keeps the taiji girls happy.
Chas
>
> And totally impractical FWIW. Still it keeps the taiji girls happy.
All you have to do is stand up; it will all become suddenly clear to
you.
Badger Jones
wrote:
>> Get ready for a tap dance, Badger.
>
>Chik...achik..achikkachikkachikka...Ta Daaa!!!!
>
>I think my tap dancing is pretty good. It's Chen style.
It's very nice. Don't often get to see the Chen-style tap dancing
around here.
>Anyway, Badge, one that springs to mind is Wing Chun's Lap Sao(not
>sure of spelling) drills. They are very much like Erle's double push
>hands in principle. And when put into fighting principles they're
>virtually the same.
Ummmm.... Isn't lop sau a pull, not a push? If you are referring
strictly to sensitivity exercises, that isn't the best place to start,
since most CMA have them in one form or another. Perhaps you would be
better off working from the angles of weight distribution, stepping,
power generation, linking hands and feet - a few topics of discussion
of the top of my head.
>You see, I'm not saying the two arts are the same. I say when you
>break them down into fighting principles they are. It's said (in one
>of the latest KF/QG magazines) that Ip Man had a famous fight with a
>Mantis fighter at a theater in Fotshan, where he defeated him with a
>push that sent the man in the air, off the stage and into a tea table
>breaking three ribs. That to me doesn't sound like a very Wing Chun
>thing to do in a fight. But I'm not saying Ip Man did Taiji. He
>obviously didn't. But do the two arts have similarities. When it comes
>to fighting I believe so.
Let's quibble. In the wooden dummy form, one sees plenty of two
handed pushes.
>I can't believe everyone is so defensive about this. It's only
>opinion. I'm not saying it's a sacred truth or anything. It's just
>what I think. Feel free to prove me wrong.
I've got nothing vested in either style - I just want to know what
principles you regard as being the same.
Badger Jones
www.cyberus.ca/~badger
"God is on the side not of the heavy battalions,
but of the best shots." - Voltaire
Jeff Lindqvist
> Ummmm.... Isn't lop sau a pull, not a push?
Yes, definitely a pull. I believe Fink was referring to the Lop Da
drills, Fon Sau switches et.c.
> If you are referring strictly to sensitivity exercises, that isn't
> the best place to start, since most CMA have them in one form or
> another. Perhaps you would be better off working from the angles of
> weight distribution, stepping, power generation, linking hands and
> feet - a few topics of discussion of the top of my head.
Nevertheless I'm with Fink or whoever it was saying that Taiji and WC
share some stuff. I've even heard Taiji people say that. But as you say,
sensitivity drills is nothing particular to WC, nor Taiji.
> Let's quibble. In the wooden dummy form, one sees plenty of two
> handed pushes.
True. Regular palms, as well as "fireball"-palms (sorry, I couldn't come
up with a better name, but I think you get the idea... ;))
Jeff Lindqvist
Mike Sigman
>
> Nevertheless I'm with Fink or whoever it was saying that Taiji and WC
> share some stuff. I've even heard Taiji people say that. But as you say,
> sensitivity drills is nothing particular to WC, nor Taiji.
Well, if you take out the parts about both parties standing on 2 legs,
breathe oxygen, and the rest of the obvious stuff, I don't see anymore
that's common in Wing Chun and Taiji than I do in Karate and Taiji, etc. I
think the old "Wing Chun is internal" hurrah started on RMA back around the
early 1990's and it seems to always resolve itself to "internal" being
applied to Wing Chun by Wing Chunners and that's about all. I used to ask
various martial artists from China, etc., just to check, but it's a waste of
time... it's an external art. Within the Wing Chun group, the statements
seem to be sort of along these lines:
1. No on from mainland China knows Wing Chun well enough to know that it's
internal.
2. The obvious external Wing Chun all of us see is simply not the True Wing
Chun (tm) as practiced by Blah, Blah, Blah.
3. "No, I've never heard of six harmonies, but if it's 'internal' I assure
you that Wing Chun has it".
FWIW
Mike "Not interested in the same old flame-war" Sigman
YoJimbo
da...@emailaccount.com says...
>
>Seagul...@LowBudget.com (YoJimbo) wrote in message
news:<atlh1q$ok1$1...@Crestone.UCHSC.edu>...
>> In article <3df7a824$1...@nopics.sjc>, erik_s...@hotFILTERmail.com says...
>> >
>> >Danny:
>> >I've recently met a Wing Chun instructor, who had private lessons with Chen
>> >Zhenglei, he stated that everything was the opposite of how he was taught.
>> >For instance, where Win Chun braced the legs, Tai Chi keeps them soft.
>> >
>> >Perhaps it depends on which lineage of Win Chun we're discussing.
>>
>> Well, not really. It's very common for the wing chun crowd in general
>> to assert they have a "soft" (i.e., supposedly "similar to taiji") aspect
>> to their art, and their chi-sao is roughly "equivilent" to taiji's
>> push-hands. It's what they've been taught.
>
> Wing Chun is softer than Hung Gar but harder than Taiji
"Soft" and "hard" mean nothing, they're merely buzz words.
These descriptions spring up in everybody's art and are used
far too inconsistantly (and inaccurately) to be reliable terms.
>> Unfortuntately, the belief that everybody's own art has a "soft"
>> aspect "at the higher levels" (tm) leads to this erroneous
>> conclusion. You'll hear the wing chun, white crane and mantis
>> folks sometimes claim this, but it certainly doesn't end with the
>> southern shaolin crowd. The goju-ryu karate folks, for instance,
>> are taught they have a "hard-soft" art, and no doubt some think they
>> are pretty clever sticking some "taiji" into their karate :-))).
>
> Taiji cannot be successfully incorporated into karate, ever, though, yes,
> I've seen karateka teach Taiji. (This is one such person in my area, he
> was a tourneyboy who did bo and empty hand forms and then opened a
> karate school. In recent years he has offered Tai Chi at his school
> and even went to China) Since this is the USA, no one's laughing at his
> foolish approach. It would be better if he totally turned his back on
> karate (Isshinryu) and only stuck to teaching and doing Taiji, or
> quit Taiji and just do Isshinryu. After all, he ain't no Kung Fu man.
Good observation, seems to be happening more and more.
The karate guys trying to offer "tai chi", however, are a small group
compared to the number of "kung fu" instructors who put it on their
menu- these guys are like sand on the seashore.
Heck, you see the confusion right here on RMA, the wing chun dudes
don't understand why chi sao shouldn't be considered "taiji".
So it seems a lot of kung-foo schools are starting to get on the taiji
bandwagon and offering their version in their schools.
Since the average martial artist can't tell you what's wrong with
this picture (any doubt? read the posts here), we can't expect the
general public to understand.
One exception, however. I do think the external dudes can get some benefit
out of the genuine article (I'm not talking about the "kungfu" version
here). Most martial artists don't realize how stiff they really are.
It takes something qualitatively different to get them to realize how
stilted their style has made them :-), even if they're to the point
where they're moving through their techniques pretty fluidly. They see
what real body relaxation (maybe I should say, "linking-via-relaxation")
means in the context of getting the body coordinated from the ground up,
and it's helpful. It might kick out a lot of the stiffness they approach
their own techniques with.
I think it's one thing that guys like Kanazawa Hirokazu found when he
started doing taiji. Already world-famous as one of the great karate
technicians of the 20th century, he realized how stiff the external
stuff was only after seeing an alternative.
I don't think his taijiquan is very high-level, but at least he found
that much. He also doesn't advocate trying to mix taijiquan and karate
like some people do; they're obviously mutually exclusive.
But you won't see that recognition often on a group like RMA.
People that promote things like "wing chun and taiji have a lot
in common" are really a dead give-away, and alas, so is the
quality of their instruction. Famous teacher or no.
JS
Erik Squires
up would actually be counter productive for a while?
Erik
"YoJimbo" <Seagul...@LowBudget.com> wrote in message
news:au7iuq$aag$1...@Crestone.UCHSC.edu...
YoJimbo
>
>Now that's interesting. You don't think that a Karate guy trying to loosen
>up would actually be counter productive for a while?
>
>Erik
I'm not sure I understand your question, but I think you're asking
if there is the same degree of confusion going from internal-to-
external as vice versa.
IMO, not really. The external arts *do* try to approximate some of
this relaxation- it's commonly sought in both shaolin and karate.
They just go about it in a too-localized manner, generally.
So the alternative teaches them to relax a little deeper and
begin to coordinate larger "sets" of musculature into a given
technique. It helps them. Their punches start originating more in
the legs instead of the upper torso, and so on.
I'm assuming somebody is fairly accomplished in the basics already
and can benefit from such supplemental
training, of course.
Of course, the manner of delivery being so different, the benefits
are limited. Karateka, wing chunners, shaolin boxers, etc.,
do not strike with the various joints unhinging
slightly like a relaxed whip.
The whole yi-qi-jin thing (Mike alluded to the
"six harmonies" earlier, same thing) the internal arts focus
on is foreign to how externalists do their own thing. It's like
comparing oranges to bacon.
But it does provide some supplemental help to externalists to
go through these procedures, however inadequately, yes.
The better the teacher, the more benefit can be derived.
I think you'll hit harder, yes.
Just my own observation,
JS
The Fink
> wrote:
> >Anyway, Badge, one that springs to mind is Wing Chun's Lap Sao(not
> >sure of spelling) drills. They are very much like Erle's double push
> >hands in principle. And when put into fighting principles they're
> >virtually the same.
>
> Ummmm.... Isn't lop sau a pull, not a push?
The drill, Badge, the drill!
> If you are referring
> strictly to sensitivity exercises, that isn't the best place to start,
> since most CMA have them in one form or another. Perhaps you would be
> better off working from the angles of weight distribution, stepping,
> power generation, linking hands and feet - a few topics of discussion
> of the top of my head.
I'm not talking sensitivity at all. I believe Chi Sau is better there.
But Erle's Peng Hinge push hands and the LS drill have the similar
stances, same hands (mechanically) only WC doesn't use the waist like
we do. The power in PH seems much better.
> >You see, I'm not saying the two arts are the same. I say when you
> >break them down into fighting principles they are. It's said (in one
> >of the latest KF/QG magazines) that Ip Man had a famous fight with a
> >Mantis fighter at a theater in Fotshan, where he defeated him with a
> >push that sent the man in the air, off the stage and into a tea table
> >breaking three ribs. That to me doesn't sound like a very Wing Chun
> >thing to do in a fight. But I'm not saying Ip Man did Taiji. He
> >obviously didn't. But do the two arts have similarities. When it comes
> >to fighting I believe so.
>
> Let's quibble. In the wooden dummy form, one sees plenty of two
> handed pushes.
In the Bagua they use a wooden man and use plenty of palms. What are
you suggesting here, Badger?
> >I can't believe everyone is so defensive about this. It's only
> >opinion. I'm not saying it's a sacred truth or anything. It's just
> >what I think. Feel free to prove me wrong.
>
> I've got nothing vested in either style - I just want to know what
> principles you regard as being the same.
Keep in mind I'm not talking Chen Taiji with this either. But I do
hope this helps sate your curiosity.
The Fink
>
> > Ummmm.... Isn't lop sau a pull, not a push?
>
> Yes, definitely a pull. I believe Fink was referring to the Lop Da
> drills, Fon Sau switches et.c.
AHA! Thank you. That's the one.
> > If you are referring strictly to sensitivity exercises, that isn't
> > the best place to start, since most CMA have them in one form or
> > another. Perhaps you would be better off working from the angles of
> > weight distribution, stepping, power generation, linking hands and
> > feet - a few topics of discussion of the top of my head.
>
> Nevertheless I'm with Fink or whoever it was saying that Taiji and WC
> share some stuff. I've even heard Taiji people say that. But as you say,
> sensitivity drills is nothing particular to WC, nor Taiji.
That's what I'm saying. They share stuff is all.
> > Let's quibble. In the wooden dummy form, one sees plenty of two
> > handed pushes.
>
> True. Regular palms, as well as "fireball"-palms (sorry, I couldn't come
> up with a better name, but I think you get the idea... ;))
Whoa. I just got a freaky Streetfighter 2 flashback from my teenage
arcade days! Fireball palms :)
The Fink
> Well, if you take out the parts about both parties standing on 2 legs,
> breathe oxygen, and the rest of the obvious stuff, I don't see anymore
> that's common in Wing Chun and Taiji than I do in Karate and Taiji, etc. I
> think the old "Wing Chun is internal" hurrah started on RMA back around the
> early 1990's and it seems to always resolve itself to "internal" being
> applied to Wing Chun by Wing Chunners and that's about all. I used to ask
> various martial artists from China, etc., just to check, but it's a waste of
> time... it's an external art. Within the Wing Chun group, the statements
> seem to be sort of along these lines:
I never said WC was internal. Prove I did. In case you didn't notice
I'm talking Yang style fighting and WC fighting.
> 1. No on from mainland China knows Wing Chun well enough to know that it's
> internal.
You seem to have a hang up on Mainland China, Mike. You take people's
words for things when they don't make any sense. Like Chen style not
being influenced by Shaolin arts, even though the Chen village was
spitting distance from the Shaolin Temple in Honan. Or Yang Lu Chan
learning Chen family style when he wasn't part of the family and when
the two arts (Chen and Yang) are so different both internally and
externally. And don't start with 'but the Yang family said' because
they obviously change their histories as the years go on. One minute
FZW is saying they're different, the next minute the Yangs are saying
Yang came from Chen. Sound like they're trying to confuse people? Uh
huh...
> 2. The obvious external Wing Chun all of us see is simply not the True Wing
> Chun (tm) as practiced by Blah, Blah, Blah.
How do you know, Mike? I prefer to keep an open mind. I think there
are WC people out there who are awesome. Internal? I'm not one to say,
and besides I do not train just to be 'internal'. That's a buzz word.
It is an egotistical label and an obvious hang up of yours. IE: It all
HAS to be 'internal'. Whoooooo.
> 3. "No, I've never heard of six harmonies, but if it's 'internal' I assure
> you that Wing Chun has it".
What happens (hypothetical) if they do not know it by that name? And
what if they don't want to reveal their internal secrets to a
Westerner and 'non' WC practitioner like yourself? What if? Perhaps
you should have just tried the guy? Or was he too big for you to push
over?
> FWIW
>
> Mike "Not interested in the same old flame-war" Sigman
Phhht! If you weren't interested in a flame war then you would not be
posting drivel like this.
Mike Sigman
>
> What happens (hypothetical) if they do not know it by that name? And
> what if they don't want to reveal their internal secrets to a
> Westerner and 'non' WC practitioner like yourself? What if? Perhaps
> you should have just tried the guy? Or was he too big for you to push
> over?
>
"What if" they're just bullshit artists from Australia but they don't know
bullshit by that name? That means it's not bullshit, right? These are
interesting and pithy points you bring up. Very convincing. :^)
Mike
Badger Jones
wrote:
>> >You see, I'm not saying the two arts are the same. I say when you
>> >break them down into fighting principles they are. It's said (in one
>> >of the latest KF/QG magazines) that Ip Man had a famous fight with a
>> >Mantis fighter at a theater in Fotshan, where he defeated him with a
>> >push that sent the man in the air, off the stage and into a tea table
>> >breaking three ribs. That to me doesn't sound like a very Wing Chun
>> >thing to do in a fight. But I'm not saying Ip Man did Taiji. He
>> >obviously didn't. But do the two arts have similarities. When it comes
>> >to fighting I believe so.
>>
>> Let's quibble. In the wooden dummy form, one sees plenty of two
>> handed pushes.
>
>In the Bagua they use a wooden man and use plenty of palms. What are
>you suggesting here, Badger?
That there are two handed pushing movements in WC. Ip Man pushing
someone off a stage isn't so dramatically "un-Wing Chun" that it
really holds up as an example.
If you are going to say they have some identical principles, you'll
have to go further than mention something that is fairly common in
percussive styles.
>> >I can't believe everyone is so defensive about this. It's only
>> >opinion. I'm not saying it's a sacred truth or anything. It's just
>> >what I think. Feel free to prove me wrong.
>>
>> I've got nothing vested in either style - I just want to know what
>> principles you regard as being the same.
>
>Keep in mind I'm not talking Chen Taiji with this either. But I do
>hope this helps sate your curiosity.
Unfortunately, not really.
Badger Jones
www.cyberus.ca/~badger
File not found. Smash forehead on keyboard to continue.
The Fink
Touche Master. But you didn't answer the question. You just bit back.
What if you can't just stroll into the door of a school to be shown
high level internal secrets on demand? I didn't think it sounded as
silly as you calling me a bullshit artist even though both seem to
have been done before. Que sera I say.
I must say I find it interesting that you call me a Wing Chun guy all
the time, Mike. Is that what you think Erle's art (whatever it is) is?
Serious question.
The Fink
> On 13 Jan 2003 02:29:35 -0800, finke...@start.com.au (The Fink)
> wrote:
> >>
> >> Let's quibble. In the wooden dummy form, one sees plenty of two
> >> handed pushes.
> >
> >In the Bagua they use a wooden man and use plenty of palms. What are
> >you suggesting here, Badger?
>
> That there are two handed pushing movements in WC. Ip Man pushing
> someone off a stage isn't so dramatically "un-Wing Chun" that it
> really holds up as an example.
Eu Contraire. That's exactly my point. It's not 'un-Wing Chun' at all.
I didn't say it was the same move. I never would be so disrespectful
as to suggest Ip Man was a Yang Taiji man because fact is he wasn't.
They share all kinds of stuff though. A good point on two handed
pushes (which is not what I was referring to before anyway) is both
arts don't seem to do two handed stuff seemingly. It's always one hand
then the other. Never together. Hows that?
> If you are going to say they have some identical principles, you'll
> have to go further than mention something that is fairly common in
> percussive styles.
Once again. Why can't the dynamics be similar? You seem a bit upset
about all this. Why? It's just an opinion. A theory if you will. I
don't care if you believe it.
> >> >I can't believe everyone is so defensive about this. It's only
> >> >opinion. I'm not saying it's a sacred truth or anything. It's just
> >> >what I think. Feel free to prove me wrong.
> >>
> >> I've got nothing vested in either style - I just want to know what
> >> principles you regard as being the same.
> >
> >Keep in mind I'm not talking Chen Taiji with this either. But I do
> >hope this helps sate your curiosity.
>
> Unfortunately, not really.
I'm not sure what you want Badger? Yours is the fifth request for me
to practically write a thesis on my opinions and even though I'd
really like nothing more than that, I just don't have the time.
Seriously. I'm interested, but too busy.
How about I ask a question. What is your problem with this theory? You
seem to be nitpicking at a student who's just interested. And your not
really being constructive. Show me how I'm wrong. Go on.
Mike Sigman
"The Fink" <thefi...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:f27ce156.03011...@posting.google.com...
>
> I must say I find it interesting that you call me a Wing Chun guy all
> the time, Mike. Is that what you think Erle's art (whatever it is) is?
> Serious question.
I think you oughta go show it to a member of the Yang family and say "Is
this it?". They should know, shouldn't they? Maybe they'll stand up and
give you an ovation. Maybe not.
Mike
Kevin
Badger Jones wrote:
> > That there are two handed pushing movements in WC. Ip Man pushing
> > someone off a stage isn't so dramatically "un-Wing Chun" that it
> > really holds up as an example.
> Eu Contraire. That's exactly my point. It's not 'un-Wing Chun' at all.
> I didn't say it was the same move. I never would be so disrespectful
> as to suggest Ip Man was a Yang Taiji man because fact is he wasn't.
> They share all kinds of stuff though. A good point on two handed
> pushes (which is not what I was referring to before anyway) is both
> arts don't seem to do two handed stuff seemingly. It's always one hand
> then the other. Never together. Hows that?
More importantly, what does this have to do with anything? In both styles,
pants are worn. It's irrelevant. Wing Chun makes no effort to sustain
internal mechanisms through movement. In all external styles, there is, of
course, a hint (occasionally stronger) of the sorts of 'aligned mechanisms'
maintained throughout movements in internal styles. The difference is that,
in external arts, this is a fleeting connection, where in internal styles,
this is the entire point, and a base launching point for other 'party
tricks' if you like.
My point is just that both arts will, of course, on the surface, show
similar gestures. But the underlying mechanisms are very different.
Sometimes they begin to intersect - things like the one inch punch, where
the basic mechanism isn't too dissimilar. But the meat of the arts are
different in ways so radical as to make comparisons silly.
> > If you are going to say they have some identical principles, you'll
> > have to go further than mention something that is fairly common in
> > percussive styles.
> Once again. Why can't the dynamics be similar? You seem a bit upset
> about all this. Why? It's just an opinion. A theory if you will. I
> don't care if you believe it.
In most external arts, there is a hint of internal. In internal arts, there
is use of muscle. While on the surface that might seem to make for a very
exciting theory, it really doesn't, because with that and the fact that they
are both martial arts, that's about the end of the similarities.
> How about I ask a question. What is your problem with this theory? You
> seem to be nitpicking at a student who's just interested. And your not
> really being constructive. Show me how I'm wrong. Go on.
There isn't really much of a theory being presented, from what I can see -
there isn't much to nitpick, and even less to prove wrong. But I will point
out that Badger is a pretty open minded guy; you'll just have to do a much
better job of actually having a point. Never mind a point you can support.
:o)
Kevin
Badger Jones
wrote:
>How about I ask a question. What is your problem with this theory? You
>seem to be nitpicking at a student who's just interested. And your not
>really being constructive. Show me how I'm wrong. Go on.
My problem is that I don't really see the two as having similar
principles. Here or there, maybe, but so what? C'mon, throw me a
bone. I'm really not trying to be argumentative, but I haven't had
any specifics yet.
Theory is cool, comparing/contrasting theories is important too. I'm
just waiting for you to mention a couple principles you find
congruent. *Then* we'll have something we can discuss. Again, I am
not a wing chun or tai chi practitioner - it isn't like I'm going to
get huffy because I feel you've slagged my style.
Congruent principles have their problems. For instance, baji, pak mei
and hsing i aren't really interested in closing down the opponent's
centerline. On the surface, it would appear that they are using the
same principle, but baji figures they can just power through, pak mei
does it because of sophisticated technique and hsing yi because of
speed.
In many ways I find TC and WC almost diametrically opposed. I think
you would have an easier time finding similar principles in wing chun
vs. hsing i.
The Fink
> > I must say I find it interesting that you call me a Wing Chun guy all
> > the time, Mike. Is that what you think Erle's art (whatever it is) is?
> > Serious question.
>
> I think you oughta go show it to a member of the Yang family and say "Is
> this it?". They should know, shouldn't they? Maybe they'll stand up and
> give you an ovation. Maybe not.
And as for the Yang family, you know what I think. I don't think they
are being very honest to the public. Just my opinion.
The Fink
> On 13 Jan 2003 16:24:18 -0800, thefi...@hotmail.com (The Fink)
> wrote:
>
> >How about I ask a question. What is your problem with this theory? You
> >seem to be nitpicking at a student who's just interested. And your not
> >really being constructive. Show me how I'm wrong. Go on.
>
> My problem is that I don't really see the two as having similar
> principles. Here or there, maybe, but so what? C'mon, throw me a
> bone. I'm really not trying to be argumentative, but I haven't had
> any specifics yet.
That's OK. But I mentioned Erle's Peng Hinge push hands and the other
WC drill I mentioned that Jeff fixed me up on (Lap Sao?), anyway, the
two are extremely similar. But of course, I'm willing to admit that
other KF styles have the same drill in one form or another. It is that
good that I wonder the origins. Did it originate in Taiji (is it a
type of push hands) or does it belong to another system. I don't know
these things. I don't think anyone does. I'm willing to listen to
anyone's info, but if I smell bullshit I'll call it. And I don't take
"well, a chinese master said..." as an answer. The Chinese just don't
have a history of sharing when it comes to their arts. Some of the
ridiculous flowery stuff I've seen (and studied) in the past has shown
me that.
> Theory is cool, comparing/contrasting theories is important too. I'm
> just waiting for you to mention a couple principles you find
> congruent. *Then* we'll have something we can discuss. Again, I am
> not a wing chun or tai chi practitioner - it isn't like I'm going to
> get huffy because I feel you've slagged my style.
Do you know the drills I was referring to? Because I'm not the only
guy who thinks this way. That example isn't exactly original.
> Congruent principles have their problems. For instance, baji, pak mei
> and hsing i aren't really interested in closing down the opponent's
> centerline. On the surface, it would appear that they are using the
> same principle, but baji figures they can just power through, pak mei
> does it because of sophisticated technique and hsing yi because of
> speed.
That's correct to a certain point of view. But if you think I'm saying
WC contains push hands, you would be wrong. It doesn't to my
knowledge. The only difference is in Taiji the use of the waist is
what generates the power as oposed to WC where the power aspect seems
to be physical. I could be wrong there. I don't think they use the
waist for their Fajing.
> In many ways I find TC and WC almost diametrically opposed. I think
> you would have an easier time finding similar principles in wing chun
> vs. hsing i.
Actually if you saw Erle's Taiji (which you might've I don't know) but
it's not that different to other internal arts - just other Taiji
styles and I say for the better. He seems to have it right. Let's just
say it's far more like Hsing Yi and Bagua than the modern Tai Chi
styles there are out there. As for your comment I think you're totally
right. I'd say you'd find comparisons in Bagua as well. Whether
coincidental or whatever, I don't know.
I will say my interest and study began when I came across the Wudang
Weng Shun website from GM Rien Bul in the Netherlands. I'll try and
find it and post it here. It's very interesting thought food for an
open mind.
Oliver Richman
> learning Chen family style when he wasn't part of the family and when
> the two arts (Chen and Yang) are so different both internally and
> externally.
No they are not, they are very similar. I've done yang style for about 6
years and chen for 5 or 6 (on and off with the chen style recently due to
school :p)
I see tons of similarities.
-frl
Oliver Richman
> young_...@hotmail.REEEMOVEcom (Badger Jones) wrote in message
news:<3e242890...@news21.bellnet.ca>...
> > On 13 Jan 2003 16:24:18 -0800, thefi...@hotmail.com (The Fink)
> > wrote:
>
> > In many ways I find TC and WC almost diametrically opposed. I think
> > you would have an easier time finding similar principles in wing chun
> > vs. hsing i.
True.. xing yi even has a centerline theory which in my limited experience
with both arts.. seems similar to wing chun's.
> Actually if you saw Erle's Taiji (which you might've I don't know) but
> it's not that different to other internal arts - just other Taiji
> styles and I say for the better.
I have seen video clips of earle's tai chi and it looks like he is not doing
good tai chi. Honestly, my form (now) is better than his was back then, and
I am not saying that for any other reason than it's true. then again the
clips I saw were at least 7 years old so if you could point me to some
updated ones I would be happy to review them - I was a tai chi judge before,
I wonder what I would rate him? :P
> He seems to have it right.
Not from what i've seen. He may be a good fighter, he may have other skills,
but he doesen't really have tai chi skills IMHO. Well, if you have some
recent clips or know where they are on the web (I will check his website
later) I will take a look :)
-frl
Jeff Lindqvist
> That's OK. But I mentioned Erle's Peng Hinge push hands and the other
> WC drill I mentioned that Jeff fixed me up on (Lap Sao?), anyway, the
> two are extremely similar.
Yes, Lap Sao is the technique ("grabbing hand"), and Lap Da is the name
of the drill (grabbing (hand) and strike). According to my terminology:)
Jeff Lindqvist
Badger Jones
wrote:
>
>That's OK. But I mentioned Erle's Peng Hinge push hands and the other
>WC drill I mentioned that Jeff fixed me up on (Lap Sao?), anyway, the
>two are extremely similar.
Unfortunately I've not seen Erle's drill, so that does limit me
somewhat.
>> Theory is cool, comparing/contrasting theories is important too. I'm
>> just waiting for you to mention a couple principles you find
>> congruent. *Then* we'll have something we can discuss. Again, I am
>> not a wing chun or tai chi practitioner - it isn't like I'm going to
>> get huffy because I feel you've slagged my style.
>
>Do you know the drills I was referring to? Because I'm not the only
>guy who thinks this way. That example isn't exactly original.
As mentioned above, no I don't know the tai chi drill. As for the lop
da drill, I've been to a seminar or two and had a WC sifu teaching out
of my kwoon for a while so I'm at least outwardly familiar with it.
>That's correct to a certain point of view. But if you think I'm saying
>WC contains push hands, you would be wrong. It doesn't to my
>knowledge. The only difference is in Taiji the use of the waist is
>what generates the power as oposed to WC where the power aspect seems
>to be physical. I could be wrong there. I don't think they use the
>waist for their Fajing.
Ooowee... I think we're close to a breakthrough here.
When you say "principles" I'm thinking more like TC's six harmonies,
WC's centerline and gates theories, not just similar drills. If we
look at chi sau vs. tui shou, WC is primarily interested in the
structural elements of the arm positions and TC is interested in
shedding force through the use of the waist. If we expand the concept
of sensitivity exercises, we see things like hubud lubud in the FMA
and even kaki-kumite in some karate styles. But what are the
underlying principles that each of these styles bases their
sensitivity exercises on? *That's* what I'm trying to get at.
Dan Bummer
>
> "Soft" and "hard" mean nothing, they're merely buzz words.
> These descriptions spring up in everybody's art and are used
> far too inconsistantly (and inaccurately) to be reliable terms.
Soft and hard mean different things to different martial artists within
different systems, it appears. Thus, the confusion.
> Good observation, seems to be happening more and more.
> The karate guys trying to offer "tai chi", however, are a small group
> compared to the number of "kung fu" instructors who put it on their
> menu- these guys are like sand on the seashore.
> Heck, you see the confusion right here on RMA, the wing chun dudes
> don't understand why chi sao shouldn't be considered "taiji".
Yet, chi sao and push hands are comparable within Wing Chun and Tai Chi
(and vice versa) in essence within their limits.
> So it seems a lot of kung-foo schools are starting to get on the taiji
> bandwagon and offering their version in their schools.
> Since the average martial artist can't tell you what's wrong with
> this picture (any doubt? read the posts here), we can't expect the
> general public to understand.
Why not? Tai Chi *is* kung fu. The question is whether it is taught
properly within a kung fu school or whether kung fu would be
taught properly alongside a kung fu school.
> One exception, however. I do think the external dudes can get some benefit
> out of the genuine article (I'm not talking about the "kungfu" version
> here). Most martial artists don't realize how stiff they really are.
> It takes something qualitatively different to get them to realize how
> stilted their style has made them :-), even if they're to the point
> where they're moving through their techniques pretty fluidly. They see
> what real body relaxation (maybe I should say, "linking-via-relaxation")
> means in the context of getting the body coordinated from the ground up,
> and it's helpful. It might kick out a lot of the stiffness they approach
> their own techniques with.
> I think it's one thing that guys like Kanazawa Hirokazu found when he
> started doing taiji. Already world-famous as one of the great karate
> technicians of the 20th century, he realized how stiff the external
> stuff was only after seeing an alternative.
Well, one exception.
> I don't think his taijiquan is very high-level, but at least he found
> that much. He also doesn't advocate trying to mix taijiquan and karate
> like some people do; they're obviously mutually exclusive.
The man deserves respect there. :-)
> But you won't see that recognition often on a group like RMA.
> People that promote things like "wing chun and taiji have a lot
> in common" are really a dead give-away, and alas, so is the
> quality of their instruction. Famous teacher or no.
The promotion can be done if approached *cautiously*. "Such as Wing Chun
and Tai Chi are both Kung Fu. Take your pick." Then the variances can be
explained and should be.
Dan Bummer
> Now that's interesting. You don't think that a Karate guy trying to loosen
> up would actually be counter productive for a while?
As with someone having done Shotokan?
Dan Bummer
>
> IMO, not really. The external arts *do* try to approximate some of
> this relaxation- it's commonly sought in both shaolin and karate.
The relaxation in shaolin is *far closer* to the internal arts than the
relaxation in karate.
> They just go about it in a too-localized manner, generally.
> So the alternative teaches them to relax a little deeper and
> begin to coordinate larger "sets" of musculature into a given
> technique. It helps them. Their punches start originating more in
> the legs instead of the upper torso, and so on.
> I'm assuming somebody is fairly accomplished in the basics already
> and can benefit from such supplemental
> training, of course.
Differences of whether the waist is turned before the punch is made,
rather than the punch working independently of the waist. In Hung Gar
waists can remain in one direction while hand or foot work is done
in the other.
> Of course, the manner of delivery being so different, the benefits
> are limited. Karateka, wing chunners, shaolin boxers, etc.,
> do not strike with the various joints unhinging
> slightly like a relaxed whip.
The crane of Hung Gar is like a relaxed whip.
> The whole yi-qi-jin thing (Mike alluded to the
> "six harmonies" earlier, same thing) the internal arts focus
> on is foreign to how externalists do their own thing. It's like
> comparing oranges to bacon.
Maybe yes most of the time but no some of the time.
> But it does provide some supplemental help to externalists to
> go through these procedures, however inadequately, yes.
> The better the teacher, the more benefit can be derived.
> I think you'll hit harder, yes.
> Just my own observation,
The more the teacher knows about martial arts. Not an easy task there.
Dan Bummer
> In most external arts, there is a hint of internal. In internal arts, there
> is use of muscle. While on the surface that might seem to make for a very
> exciting theory, it really doesn't, because with that and the fact that they
> are both martial arts, that's about the end of the similarities.
A diehard Taiji man might say an external art like Hung Gar uses too much
muscle yet Hung Gar works on the internal with its dragon form and does not
use muscle heavily with its crane movements. Both are Kung Fu, that is what
counts.