Wm. CC Chen--A response from Peter Ralston
David Kolodney
reference to Chen's body mechanics as illustrated in some
photos from one of the magazines. I am forwarding his reply
below:
David,
Thanks for forwarding the dialogue on Chen.
Unfortunately this kind of thing is commonplace, especially
in t'ai chi. The
main problem is the questioners have no real experience of
their own art,
rather they have "beliefs." This puts them in the awkward
position since they
have no way to evaluate things except in so much as it
matches or doesn't
match what they've been told, or the "rules."
Rules are unimportant, they exist to give direction, to make
sense of an
activity or art. In short the exist to serve us, not for us
to serve them.
When this is turned around (and it happens quite often) we
are in trouble.
Understanding the principles, or even the challenges in
accomplishing
something, makes all the difference. You can see that
through such an
understanding we no longer need to stand on the rules.
I feel for people in this dilemma. So little in that field
is authentic or
presented honestly and candidly, so what are the students to
do but be upset
when a "master" doesn't seem to match what they are trying
so hard to attain?
What's not known is that the rules are like rungs to a
ladder, or formulas for
chemistry, they are for getting us to someplace not for
being adhered to for
themselves.
Think about what it is to be human, to have a body and mind,
to function
effectively simply as a person in these things, and it takes
away much of the
mystique, grounds our investigation in what's real, and
provides a more solid
viewing place. (Way too much internal arts rhetoric is
bullshit, but this is
true of most everything. In the internal arts, however, we
have little common
sense to balance our conjectures and even less past
experiences, since these
are eliminated due to the unusual nature of the endeavor and
the secretiveness
and obscurity with which it is addressed.)
Regarding Chen, I looked at the pictures. As you know I am a
proponent of
various body alignments that Chen is not. Yet this is
founded on experience
on my part, not beliefs or rules; as it is with Chen. The
fact that they are
different and that Chen is still more effective and powerful
than the vast
majority of people who practice t'ai chi (even one's who
follow all the rules)
should be an occasion to give us pause and wonder: what are
the PRINCIPLES
that are in operation here? Chen is not a "traditional" t'ai
chi master. This
is his strength. He has been willing to experiment, try new
things,
investigate the matter more thoroughly than almost any other
teacher. Rather
than stand on dogma he puts his ass on the line and wonders
what it is really
about. If he makes mistakes so be it. Better that than
playing it safe, and by
so doing, going nowhere (but looking good getting there).
Besides, William's
body mechanics left the "t'ai chi look" long ago. What he
does is powerful and
effective, and based on principles that are consistent with
internal arts. One
has to study his methods in order to recognize what he is
doing. It won't look
like people's ideas of traditional t'ai chi.
I've written more than I originally intended. Perhaps you
could add this to
the dialogue on the Chen fiasco. For more information
regarding my views, I
invite people to visit: http://come.to/chenghsin.
Thanks for keeping me informed.
Peter Ralston
Quark
>
>I wrote to Peter about the critiques of Mr. Chen, mostly in
>reference to Chen's body mechanics as illustrated in some
>photos from one of the magazines. I am forwarding his reply
>below:
Yeah! Hey, great! Now we can clear this stuff up by having a white guy aka/sage
wind up with vague philosophical wandering at the drop of a hat, just like his books!
[treatise on being and the nature of humanity partly snipped]
>What's not known is that the rules are like rungs to a
>ladder, or formulas for chemistry, they are for getting us to someplace not for
>being adhered to for themselves.
>Think about what it is to be human, to have a body and mind,
>to function effectively simply as a person in these things, and it takes
>away much of the mystique, grounds our investigation in what's real, and
>provides a more solid viewing place. (Way too much internal arts rhetoric is
>bullshit, but this is true of most everything. In the internal arts, however, we
>have little common sense to balance our conjectures and even less past
>experiences, since these are eliminated due to the unusual nature of the endeavor and
>the secretiveness and obscurity with which it is addressed.)
Yip. I think this clears everything up for me.
I've thought a lot about the nature of being and what it means
to have a body and mind, per Pete's instruction, and by golly, it works: Chen's
body mechanics come out lookin' fine when ya ramble like this.
It's amazing.
Next time you guys have any questions about CC Chen's body mechanics, just do like
Peter and I do and think about the nature of being human. All will be solved.
Who sez this philosophical psychobabble is worthless??
Q. :-)
Mike Sigman
>
> Sorry Quirk, this is what you should of quoted:
>
> >The
> >main problem is the questioners have no real experience of
> >their own art,
> >rather they have "beliefs." This puts them in the awkward
> >position since they
> >have no way to evaluate things except
> >in so much as it
> >matches or doesn't
> >match what they've been told, or the "rules."
> >Rules are unimportant, they exist to give direction, to make
> >sense of an
> >activity or art.
>
> phrases like "mind" and body" still show up on your radar. So much so they
> distract you from what is really the point of a post.
>
> Regards,
> BP
Frankly, I would like to see the Taiji that some of these people do.
If it is anything like their pontificating, it must be excellent.
Mike Sigman
BPeplinski
Richard A Shandross
David Kolodney <d4...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
+I wrote to Peter about the critiques of Mr. Chen, mostly in
+reference to Chen's body mechanics as illustrated in some
+photos from one of the magazines. I am forwarding his reply
+below:
The comments on Mr. Chen were made in the Neijia list.
Why are you not responding to them in that forum?
Rather than give feedback to the group that specializes
in the topic, you are spreading the discussion into a
broad forum which in general has neither the expertise
to understand the issue, nor the context of the discussion
(the original comments). Furthermore, as a protector of
Mr. Chen you are doing him a disservice by making criticisms
of him known to a wide audience before they have been
thoroughly debated.
Rich Shandross
--
Rich Shandross
r...@mit.edu
http://www.mit.edu:8001/people/ras/home.html
Richard A Shandross
David Kolodney <d4...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
+I wrote to Peter about the critiques of Mr. Chen, mostly in
+reference to Chen's body mechanics as illustrated in some
+photos from one of the magazines. I am forwarding his reply
+below:
As a just posted, I think it was inappropriate to post this
response here, but since you've done so I think a couple of
points of rebuttal to Ralston's comments are needed.
+Unfortunately this kind of thing is commonplace,
+especially in t'ai chi. The main problem is the
+questioners have no real experience of their own art,
+rather they have "beliefs." This puts them in the awkward
+position since they have no way to evaluate things
+except in so much as it matches or doesn't match what
+they've been told, or the "rules."
Ralston states his standard -- one should have real
experience of something to comment on it -- then
IMMEDIATELY violates it: what experience does he have
regarding the level of skill and understanding of the
people who participated in the discussion? None.
So he has no legitimate way to jump to the conclusion
he reaches.
Ralston responds to the word "rules" in a knee jerk
fashion, assuming a meaning for the term which I can
guarantee you is not the one he thinks it is. I venture
to say that -- in spite of his published philosophy of
"creating the possibility of a new and open design for
interaction and ability" -- his mind was so closed
about the criticisms that he never gave them enough
thought and research to understand what they were.
The way I see it, the crux of the issue is whether one
is willing to redefine the term "Taiji" from its
original meaning, or not.
+Regarding Chen, I looked at the pictures. As you know
+I am a proponent of various body alignments that Chen
+is not. Yet this is founded on experience on my part,
+not beliefs or rules; as it is with Chen. The fact that
+they are different and that Chen is still more effective
+and powerful than the vast majority of people who practice
+t'ai chi (even one's who follow all the rules) should be
+an occasion to give us pause and wonder: what are the
+PRINCIPLES that are in operation here? Chen is not a
+"traditional" t'ai chi master. This is his strength. He
+has been willing to experiment, try new things, investigate
+the matter more thoroughly than almost any other teacher.
+Rather than stand on dogma he puts his ass on the line
+and wonders what it is really about. If he makes mistakes
+so be it. Better that than playing it safe, and by
+so doing, going nowhere (but looking good getting there).
+Besides, William's body mechanics left the "t'ai chi look"
+long ago. What he does is powerful and effective, and
+based on principles that are consistent with internal arts.
+One has to study his methods in order to recognize what he
+is doing. It won't look like people's ideas of traditional
+t'ai chi.
Interesting. Ralston finds that his experience of the
requirements to develop internally is contrary to Chen's,
but that's OK: Chen's powerful and doesn't mind making
mistakes so we have to call what he does Taiji. I guess
Chen is subject to different rules of physics than the
rest of the world.
And why is it that if rules are so unimportant that if
we look at photos of the best acknowledged masters --
Yang Chengfu, Yang Zhenduo, Chen Xiaowang, Feng Zhiqiang,
Wu Jianquan, etc -- almost always they seem to be doing
forms and applications in a way which validates and gives
life to the "rules," rather than collapses and sidesteps
them?
Ralston admits that Chen is not a traditional Taiji
master. I'm glad for him that he recognizes that.
If you believe that the concept of what Taiji is
should be that concept originally developed by the
Chen Village families and carried forward by the masters
mentioned above and others like them, then Chen is not a
Taiji master at all.
But if you believe that those principles are not the
crucial ones, and "powerfulness" along with a subset
of the original principles is good enough, then you will
see Chen as a topnotch practitioner.
I invite Ralston to reply directly, so I can experience him
firsthand. :-)
David Kolodney
distinction--much less the correct distinction that you have
explained--between the two venues. I think I have just responded
to things in the place where I found them, which would have taken
care of things without my knowing it. In this unusual case I was
coming off of an email, and I just went to my addresses and
mechanically forwarded it from there.
So this teaches me I'd better find out what I am doing_before_
I do it. I feel especially rotten about the point you make that I
circulated this to an audience that hadn't ever seen the messages
I was supposedly going to correct.
Thanks for _your_ correction.
Richard A Shandross wrote:
> In article <36609034...@ix.netcom.com>,
> David Kolodney <d4...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> +I wrote to Peter about the critiques of Mr. Chen, mostly in
> +reference to Chen's body mechanics as illustrated in some
> +photos from one of the magazines. I am forwarding his reply
> +below:
>
> The comments on Mr. Chen were made in the Neijia list.
> Why are you not responding to them in that forum?
>
> Rather than give feedback to the group that specializes
> in the topic, you are spreading the discussion into a
> broad forum which in general has neither the expertise
> to understand the issue, nor the context of the discussion
> (the original comments). Furthermore, as a protector of
> Mr. Chen you are doing him a disservice by making criticisms
> of him known to a wide audience before they have been
> thoroughly debated.
>
Curtis E. Sahakian
> we look at photos of the best acknowledged masters --
> Yang Chengfu, Yang Zhenduo, Chen Xiaowang, Feng Zhiqiang,
> Wu Jianquan, etc -- almost always they seem to be doing
> forms and applications in a way which validates and gives
> life to the "rules," rather than collapses and sidesteps
> them?
>
> Ralston admits that Chen is not a traditional Taiji
> master. I'm glad for him that he recognizes that.
> If you believe that the concept of what Taiji is
> should be that concept originally developed by the
> Chen Village families and carried forward by the masters
> mentioned above and others like them, then Chen is not a
> Taiji master at all.
Where can you get these photos of the Masters? I'm not familiar with all
the names that people toss around. Are the masters you are talking about
alive? Are they all Chen style?
I've seen huge apparent differences between Chen stylists. How does Wm.
Chen differ from the Masters you refer to? There is a local Chinese
student who claims that they have done research in China of the Tai Chi
styles in the Chen village and neighboring villages - and came to the
conclusion that modern Chen style has grown further away from the original
Chen than has Yang style. (probably done by Yang stylists :-)
Have you ever done the trick of getting a group of people in a circle and
sending a whispered message around the circle. It never comes out the same
way it went in. How do you know that the Chen of today is the same chen of
old?
In any event someone had to invent Tai chi and it's unlikely that the did
it other than building on what they know. Why would you think that this
experimentation should ever stopped or has reached its ultimate resting
place?
Curtis Sahakian
BPeplinski
>we look at photos of the best acknowledged masters --
>Yang Chengfu, Yang Zhenduo, Chen Xiaowang, Feng Zhiqiang,
>Wu Jianquan, etc -- almost always they seem to be doing
>forms and applications in a way which validates and gives
>life to the "rules," rather than collapses and sidesteps
>them?
But what of the pictures of late Ma Yueh-ling and Wu Ying-hua? They practice
with spines inclined and this certainly is not the standard of the Yangs. For
that matter: the Chens have practiced lower stances than Wu Jianquan, Wu(Hao)
practices smaller circles than the Yangs. Whose right? How do we explain all
these variations? Is it concievable that these "styles" are the result of
individuals applying taiji principles to thier anatomy and experience?
Richard A Shandross
BPeplinski <bpepl...@aol.com> wrote:
+>And why is it that if rules are so unimportant that if
+>we look at photos of the best acknowledged masters --
+>Yang Chengfu, Yang Zhenduo, Chen Xiaowang, Feng Zhiqiang,
+>Wu Jianquan, etc -- almost always they seem to be doing
+>forms and applications in a way which validates and gives
+>life to the "rules," rather than collapses and sidesteps
+>them?
+
+But what of the pictures of late Ma Yueh-ling and Wu Ying-hua? They practice
+with spines inclined and this certainly is not the standard of the Yangs. For
+that matter: the Chens have practiced lower stances than Wu Jianquan, Wu(Hao)
+practices smaller circles than the Yangs. Whose right? How do we explain all
+these variations? Is it concievable that these "styles" are the result of
+individuals applying taiji principles to thier anatomy and experience?
This is a red herring. Why would I have mentioned Yang Chengfu, Wu Jianquan
and Chen Xiaowang in the same breath if I was referring to minor differences
such as these?
Do you or do you not recognize the fact that there are certain things which
when present make the practice "Taiji" and when not present make the practice
"not Taiji"?
If you do, stop playing games; if you don't, then you don't know enough to
participate in this conversation.
Robert J. Mallis
>
>Frankly, I would like to see the Taiji that some of these people do.
>If it is anything like their pontificating, it must be excellent.
>
>Mike Sigman
>
I didn't want to get involved in this discussion, (since it already has
gone the way of most discussions about people) but thought you'd appreciate
some input from someone who's actually met the guy(Peter, not William).
I've been to two of Peter's workshops in Madison thus far and am impressed
with what he can do. In effect, there is nothing I've seen him print about
his physical abilities that I have been able to find untrue.
Unfortunately, since I haven't seen you or anyone you've mentioned in the
newsgroup, we have no common frame of reference. He seems pretty open to
discussion and honest inquiries and he comes across as being genuine. I
think his workshops are open to anyone and he makes allowances if someone
just wants to visit for one night, etc. I don't know how often you go to
other people's workshops, but if you want to see what he does, he's the man
to see.
Regards,
Bob Mallis
CrFost1
I don't know what the discussion has been about as I have only came in on the
last thread but based on:
>Frankly, I would like to see the Taiji that some of these people do.
>>If it is anything like their pontificating, it must be excellent.
it appears some gripping or perhaps character assassination may have been going
on. I hope this has not been the case about Master Wm CC Chen. Some people do
pontificate about all the magical energies that they have and how it courses
through their bodies. Most of them are deluded or plain liers. This would not
be the case to all. Wm Chen has an excellent lineage and his feats are well
documented. It should also be remembered a man does not put out a standing
challenge without being sure of his abilities. Bob Mallis has it when he says
don't make critisicm until you've seen the person. Most critics come from a
jealous stance.
Craig Foster - Scotland
Mike Sigman
CrFost1 wrote:
> I don't know what the discussion has been about as I have only came in on the
> last thread but based on:
> >Frankly, I would like to see the Taiji that some of these people do.
> >>If it is anything like their pontificating, it must be excellent.
>
> it appears some gripping or perhaps character assassination may have been going
> on. I hope this has not been the case about Master Wm CC Chen.
So far, all I get out of this is that you're not sure what went on, but you're
ready to fight about it anyway. Are you sure that you're not Irish???? :^)
> Wm Chen has an excellent lineage and his feats are well
> documented.
I didn't see anybody disparage Mr. Chen, however since you bring his name up, I
have never really done a lot of research about William C.C. Chen, so I only know a
few superficial things and I'm curious. What is his excellent lineage and how
long did he study with the people that he studied with? What feats of his are
well-documented?
> It should also be remembered a man does not put out a standing
> challenge without being sure of his abilities.
I wasn't aware of this!!! What standing challenge has he put out?
> Bob Mallis has it when he says
> don't make critisicm until you've seen the person. Most critics come from a
> jealous stance.
Is there no such thing as valid criticism, then? I was misled. SOME criticism
is constructive and some is not; some is deserved and some is not, wouldn't you
say?
Regards,
Mike Sigman
Mike Sigman
Chas wrote:
> He's in his mid-sixties, 'house' student of Cheng Man-ching- did
> 'special internal practice' with CMC three times a day.
How long was he with CMC?
> For many years,
> if not still- he let them ride motorcycles over him, break rocks on him,
> he would absorb 'any punch'... and he was a noted fighter in Taiwan.
How noted was he? I seem to remember that he came in 2nd at some tournament, but I
don't remember much more than that.
> He
> moved here in the mid-60's; his most public appearances were probably
> the Aaron Banks thing- Wide World of Martial Arts or something like
> that, in the late 60's and early 70's.
> He teaches a combative and hard-working 'tie-chee' (phonetic spelling),
tie-jee
> requiring fighting skills and 'contact sparring'-
> The January issue of 'Inside Kung Fu' has an extensive article on him
> detailing his accomplishments, influences and so on.
>
Doesn't he mix western boxing in with his Taiji?
> > > It should also be remembered a man does not put out a standing
> > > challenge without being sure of his abilities.
> > I wasn't aware of this!!! What standing challenge has he put out?
>
> That was many years ago and was a demonstration of his 'iron shirt'
> skills (in one instance) and his combative skills in another instance.
> During his time, I would not think that he was either defeated nor
> 'punched' effectively. He was considered very quick and very very
> 'powerful'- I would not imagine that he continues to fight competitively
> at his age- maybe the Senior Circuit; Bad Guys over Sixty-
> His people sure do think the world of him.
Amen.
Regards,
Mike Sigman
Aiki1
> tie-jee
... die-jee
Chas
> CrFost1 wrote:
> > Wm Chen has an excellent lineage and his feats are well
> > documented.
>
> I didn't see anybody disparage Mr. Chen, however since you bring his name up, I
> have never really done a lot of research about William C.C. Chen, so I only know a
> few superficial things and I'm curious. What is his excellent lineage and how
> long did he study with the people that he studied with? What feats of his are
> well-documented?
He's in his mid-sixties, 'house' student of Cheng Man-ching- did
'special internal practice' with CMC three times a day. For many years,
if not still- he let them ride motorcycles over him, break rocks on him,
he would absorb 'any punch'... and he was a noted fighter in Taiwan. He
moved here in the mid-60's; his most public appearances were probably
the Aaron Banks thing- Wide World of Martial Arts or something like
that, in the late 60's and early 70's.
He teaches a combative and hard-working 'tie-chee' (phonetic spelling),
requiring fighting skills and 'contact sparring'-
The January issue of 'Inside Kung Fu' has an extensive article on him
detailing his accomplishments, influences and so on.
> > It should also be remembered a man does not put out a standing
> > challenge without being sure of his abilities.
> I wasn't aware of this!!! What standing challenge has he put out?
That was many years ago and was a demonstration of his 'iron shirt'
skills (in one instance) and his combative skills in another instance.
During his time, I would not think that he was either defeated nor
'punched' effectively. He was considered very quick and very very
'powerful'- I would not imagine that he continues to fight competitively
at his age- maybe the Senior Circuit; Bad Guys over Sixty-
His people sure do think the world of him.
Chas
David A Ross
Taiwan middle weight champion for three years.
He also taught Taiji in Thailand for at least a year (?) and had some
informal matches with some Thai boxers there.
This is just information, I am not jumping into this and haven't read
most of the thread
Mike Sigman
Aiki1 wrote:
> > tie-jee
>
> ... die-jee
tdie-jee, if you want to split hairs.
Aiki1
<mikes...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > ... die-jee
>
> tdie-jee, if you want to split hairs.
| |
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
That's the best I could do.
Mike Sigman
David A Ross wrote:
> After some losses and second place finishes, William C.C. Chen was
> Taiwan middle weight champion for three years.
>
Was the style he fought with considered pure Taiji or a mixture that
included harder styles? Incidentally, you know that there are several
different tournaments on Taiwan? Which one was he the middle-weight
champion in?
> He also taught Taiji in Thailand for at least a year (?) and had some
> informal matches with some Thai boxers there.
>
I'm not sure what that means. I have never been beaten by a Thai boxer,
myself. Then again, I've only fought 2 of them and they weren't all
that experienced. :^)))
> This is just information, I am not jumping into this and haven't read
> most of the thread
All I'm trying to say is that a lot of this hype about William Chen may
be greatly exaggerated. It is NOT the way he has talked about himself
and the claims are way blown up from what I've heard. It's nice to say
good things about people, particularly people someone admires. However,
if those things are not true then ultimately it only does a disservice to
the person. William Chen is a nice guy and I personally don't want to
see his detractors flaunting the fact that William has a bunch of people
making exorbitant claims for him since that does not reflect his own
character.
Mike Sigman
Richard A Shandross
Mike Sigman <mikes...@earthlink.net> wrote:
+
+All I'm trying to say is that a lot of this hype about William Chen may
+be greatly exaggerated. It is NOT the way he has talked about himself
+and the claims are way blown up from what I've heard. It's nice to say
+good things about people, particularly people someone admires. However,
+if those things are not true then ultimately it only does a disservice to
+the person. William Chen is a nice guy and I personally don't want to
+see his detractors flaunting the fact that William has a bunch of people
+making exorbitant claims for him since that does not reflect his own
+character.
I personally heard him claim that he is a Taiji master. And I
also heard him say that some of his understandings over the
years are identical to things that western boxers have said
about their technique. Seems to me that the two are incompatible
(being a Taiji master through using western boxing principles).
And yes, he's a very nice guy.
Richard A Shandross
+Mike Sigman <mikes...@earthlink.net> wrote:
+ +
+ +All I'm trying to say is that a lot of this hype about William Chen may
+ +be greatly exaggerated. It is NOT the way he has talked about himself
+ +and the claims are way blown up from what I've heard. It's nice to say
+ +good things about people, particularly people someone admires. However,
+ +if those things are not true then ultimately it only does a disservice to
+ +the person. William Chen is a nice guy and I personally don't want to
+ +see his detractors flaunting the fact that William has a bunch of people
+ +making exorbitant claims for him since that does not reflect his own
+ +character.
+
+I personally heard him claim that he is a Taiji master. And I
+also heard him say that some of his understandings over the
+years are identical to things that western boxers have said
+about their technique. Seems to me that the two are incompatible
+(being a Taiji master through using western boxing principles).
+
+And yes, he's a very nice guy.
I just want to clarify where I'm coming from here.
Everything I've heard, from people who I believe can
distinguish real skills from fake ones, is that Wm. Chen
can really fight, and he is very skilled at what he does.
Two things bother me: first, that he not identify what
he does as pure Taiji if that's not what it is. I don't
mean that he leave it up to the student to think about
the semantics of what he said and didn't say -- a la
Bill Clinton -- but rather that he be upfront and say
exactly what his influences are and in what way he's
mixed them.
The second thing that bothers me is that I know some
students of his -- one of those students I know very
well -- who do *not* do what I would consider to be
valid Taiji and who come away from his seminars being
very confused as to what Taiji is and how to "get it."
These are very long-time practitioners, who have built
up a lot of certain kinds of strengths but not in my
opinion the unique ones that make Taiji to be what it
is. Chen's instructions to them are that they should
just think less about what they're doing and only pay
attention to their "three nails" and certain fingers.
In my judgment, those instructions will never get
those people to do what they need to do to be practi-
cing valid internal arts. I don't like to see my
friends spin their Taiji wheels; I'm sorry if my
observations have offended anyone (except maybe Peter
Ralston, who thinks that just lashing out at people
he doesn't know at all is a prerequisite to being human
:-).)
Wm Chen says that he only realized after maybe 20 or so
years that it's not the waist that powers the movements,
it's the thighs and ultimately the feet/legs. If he
studied so deeply with Cheng Man-Ching, why didn't he
know that on day one? And I may be working from too
small a sample of his students, but I haven't seen
true "ground powering" in those that I've seen who
work his 'nails method'.
Just my $0.02, of course.
Caterbro
>
I think you got it little backwards.... theres nothing incompatible with
acheiving different ends with same principles. some of the things that boxers
do are just exactly the same as what tai-chi does. Some of the things that
Karatekas do are just the same as what tai chi practioners do, or boxers, or
what have you. some things are just basic; its real hard to pigeonhole the
underlying concepts of technique(sic) as being from one source or another.
William Chen probably wanted to find a way to relate how he was thinking to how
his audience was thinking, and drew analogies to whatever handy source was
close by.
caterbro
Caterbro
Please don't hop up on my metaphorical shoulders and belabor my head with
stinging commentary, this should not be regarded as an attack, or even slightly
opprobrius(sic).
What do you regard as valid tai chi? what are the unique srengths that a
practioner should biuld upon to achieve tai chi?
do you think it more indicative of a senior practioner or a junior practioner,
if the latter comes away from instruction confused?
Thanks,
Caterbro
Richard A Shandross
Caterbro <cate...@aol.com> wrote:
+>
+What do you regard as valid tai chi? what are the unique srengths that a
+practioner should biuld upon to achieve tai chi?
It's nicely summarized at http://www.neijia.org
+do you think it more indicative of a senior practioner or a junior practioner,
+if the latter comes away from instruction confused?
Depends, of course, on the situation. I've been to Wm Chen's seminars;
I didn't hear him say anything that was to-the-point about the
fundamental Taiji skills. Pretty much, what my friend comes away with
from the seminars is what William is imparting. My friend has the added
benefit of being a student of a guy who's studied closely with Chen for
about 25 years, one of Chen's top students, so he can get "translations"
from that guy, but they don't seem to result in improved understanding of
things.
Richard A Shandross
Caterbro <cate...@aol.com> wrote:
+>I personally heard him claim that he is a Taiji master. And I
+>also heard him say that some of his understandings over the
+>years are identical to things that western boxers have said
+>about their technique. Seems to me that the two are incompatible
+>(being a Taiji master through using western boxing principles).
+>
+>And yes, he's a very nice guy.
+
+I think you got it little backwards.... theres nothing incompatible with
+acheiving different ends with same principles. some of the things that boxers
+do are just exactly the same as what tai-chi does. Some of the things that
+Karatekas do are just the same as what tai chi practioners do, or boxers, or
+what have you. some things are just basic; its real hard to pigeonhole the
+underlying concepts of technique(sic) as being from one source or another.
So do you think that the underlying principles of Taiji are the same as
those of boxing, Karate, etc? Wow, that's an interesting one.
And what sort of things that Karatekas do *are* just the same as what Taiji
practitioners do? Do you suppose they're the same as what Chen was talking
about, which I haven't even stated?
+William Chen probably wanted to find a way to relate how he was thinking to how
+his audience was thinking, and drew analogies to whatever handy source was
+close by.
Nice of you to jump to that conclusion, but who the heck knows? I know this
much: NOBODY in that audience was thinking that what he was showing us was
just like western boxing. I knew many of the people there, and that's just
not the common understanding.
Any other excuses and out-on-a-limb statements you'd like to make so that
Wm Chen looks like a master and I look like a grumpy whiner?
Caterbro
> +Karatekas do are just the same as what tai chi practioners do, or boxers,
>or
> +what have you. some things are just basic; its real hard to pigeonhole the
> +underlying concepts of technique(sic) as being from one source or another.
>
>So do you think that the underlying principles of Taiji are the same as
>those of boxing, Karate, etc? Wow, that's an interesting one.
>
>And what sort of things that Karatekas do *are* just the same as what Taiji
>practitioners do? Do you suppose they're the same as what Chen was talking
>about, which I haven't even stated?
>
> +William Chen probably wanted to find a way to relate how he was thinking to
>how
> +his audience was thinking, and drew analogies to whatever handy source was
> +close by.
>
>Nice of you to jump to that conclusion, but who the heck knows? I know this
>much: NOBODY in that audience was thinking that what he was showing us was
>just like western boxing. I knew many of the people there, and that's just
>not the common understanding.
>
>Any other excuses and out-on-a-limb statements you'd like to make so that
>Wm Chen looks like a master and I look like a grumpy whiner?
>
> Rich Shandross
All share a characteristic smooth, flowing motion that develops from the
movement of the waist, driven by the power of the legs exerted against the
ground. The softness of the relaxed upper body together with the driving power
of the lower body gives the Taiji practitioner's upper body an appearance like
that of whips or snakes in motion.
from www.neija.com
I have reprinted above, w/o permission, as small segement from 'distinguishing
characteristics of Taiji' from neija.com, which appears to be an excellent
resource in all respects. as described above taiji doesnt look much like boxing
or karate, i have to say. the important comparison i can see is the development
of power from the ground up, using the motion of the hips and feet to supply
the utmost power to am upper body technique. boxer does this with consummate
skill(cuban boxers are notorious;they call it plyometrics or some such) the
best karate practitioners i've seen use the same principles, at times
developing different kinds of force that look and feel indistinguishable from
taiji.
I hope that helps to clarify my responses. i do consider Wm. Chen a master; of
'pure Tai Chi" or not, i don't know; a master of what he does, surely.
cheers
caterbro
Caterbro
> +>
> +What do you regard as valid tai chi? what are the unique srengths that a
> +practioner should biuld upon to achieve tai chi?
>
>It's nicely summarized at http://www.neijia.org
>
> +do you think it more indicative of a senior practioner or a junior
>practioner,
> +if the latter comes away from instruction confused?
>
>Depends, of course, on the situation. I've been to Wm Chen's seminars;
>I didn't hear him say anything that was to-the-point about the
>fundamental Taiji skills. Pretty much, what my friend comes away with
>from the seminars is what William is imparting. My friend has the added
>benefit of being a student of a guy who's studied closely with Chen for
>about 25 years, one of Chen's top students, so he can get "translations"
>from that guy, but they don't seem to result in improved understanding of
>things.
>
> Rich Shandross
Thanks. I enjoyed poking around at Neija. I quoted some material in another
response. I am just curious, because I have heard only the best regarding
William C. Chen, about his teaching and practice. I have never attended his
seminars, but valuable input usually results from those who have. Anything
information atall is always interesting to me, because its almost always new to
me.
besides, i just love that internal arts gossip. its even better than OLTL
yours
caterbro
Richard A Shandross
Caterbro <cate...@aol.com> wrote:
+
+All share a characteristic smooth, flowing motion that develops from the
+movement of the waist, driven by the power of the legs exerted against the
+ground. The softness of the relaxed upper body together with the driving power
+of the lower body gives the Taiji practitioner's upper body an appearance like
+that of whips or snakes in motion.
+
+from www.neija.com
+
+
+I have reprinted above, w/o permission, as small segement from 'distinguishing
+characteristics of Taiji' from neija.com, which appears to be an excellent
+resource in all respects. as described above taiji doesnt look much like boxing
+or karate, i have to say. the important comparison i can see is the development
+of power from the ground up, using the motion of the hips and feet to supply
+the utmost power to am upper body technique. boxer does this with consummate
+skill(cuban boxers are notorious;they call it plyometrics or some such) the
+best karate practitioners i've seen use the same principles, at times
+developing different kinds of force that look and feel indistinguishable from
+taiji.
Your prose is a bit difficult for me to understand, but it seems that you're
saying that yes, Taiji and the other arts are indistinguishable at high levels.
I won't say that I've seen every kind of practitioner from every art, but
it's pretty common wisdom among those who *have* gotten around a lot that
the skills of neijia are unique to neijia. What you have to realize is that:
(1) as hard as people try, all descriptions given thus far of internal strength
are *still* sufficiently ambiguous that there are several ways of moving
and applying strength that could meet the above desription pretty well,
yet only one of them is real internal strength as the founders of Taiji
developed it,
(2) you may or may not have encountered real internal strength -- it's actually
pretty rare to find, in spite of the number of strong "Taiji" practition-
ers out there -- so your comparison may or may not be between external
arts and real Taiji strength. It may be a comparison between two flavors
of external strength.
The safest bet for encountering real Taiji is to go to workshops by the top
practitioners of each style, such as Chen Xiaowang, Yang Zhenduo, etc. Then
compare THAT to the tops of other arts.
Richard A Shandross
+(1) as hard as people try, all descriptions given thus far of internal strength
+ are *still* sufficiently ambiguous that there are several ways of moving
+ and applying strength that could meet the above desription pretty well,
+ yet only one of them is real internal strength as the founders of Taiji
+ developed it,
This also can be found on the Neijia web page...
"[The Neijia Home Page does] express a particular editorial
point of view: that the neijia arts are characterized by a
particular and unique method of movement that is based on
certain coordinations that are easy to demonstrate, hard
to learn properly, and virtually impossible to describe
accurately in words. Accordingly, in the words of one poster
to the Neijia Mailing List, "it has to be shown;" no
effective way is known to adequately describe the basic
movement skill of the neijia in words."
Caterbro
>'distinguishing
> +characteristics of Taiji' from neija.com, which appears to be an excellent
> +resource in all respects. as described above taiji doesnt look much like
>boxing
> +or karate, i have to say. the important comparison i can see is the
>development
> +of power from the ground up, using the motion of the hips and feet to
>supply
> +the utmost power to am upper body technique. boxer does this with
>consummate
> +skill(cuban boxers are notorious;they call it plyometrics or some such) the
> +best karate practitioners i've seen use the same principles, at times
> +developing different kinds of force that look and feel indistinguishable
>from
> +taiji.
>
>Your prose is a bit difficult for me to understand, but it seems that you're
>saying that yes, Taiji and the other arts are indistinguishable at high
>levels.
Sorry. big fingers, little keyboard. you are more or less correct.
specifically, I was referring to the use of the lower body to generate energy
which is then directed by the upper body.
>(1) as hard as people try, all descriptions given thus far of internal
>strength
> are *still* sufficiently ambiguous that there are several ways of moving
> and applying strength that could meet the above desription pretty well,
> yet only one of them is real internal strength as the founders of Taiji
Quite so. I've been knocked around by representatives of a variety of
'internal' and 'external' arts. sometimes, someone that I classify as an
external artist will do something to me that I can only identify as internal in
nature, regardless of what it looks like. the converse also holds true.
s>(2) you may or may not have encountered real internal strength -- it's
>actually
> pretty rare to find, in spite of the number of strong "Taiji" practition-
> ers out there -- so your comparison may or may not be between external
> arts and real Taiji strength. It may be a comparison between two flavors
> of external strength.
>
I am pretty sure I can tell the difference. the best practioners, from both
ends, that I have seen look and feel(oof) remarkably similar, although many
'external' artists don't get around to developing subtler internal aspects.
you are correct, real internal strength is rare, and its users are to be
respected.
thank you fory our comments
caterbro