Taiji - Trad vs Modern

Posted by: ashe_higgs

Re: Taiji - Trad vs Modern - 02/06/07 01:56 AM

it's not really good or bad in and of it's self. it just depends on what you want out of what your practice.

the standard forms are all CCP govt. sponsored forms intended purely to be aesthetically pleasing. so they don't really have anything to do with "real" taiji other than they imitate some of the external movements.

if you want to do form compititions and do well, standard forms are the way to go.

if you want other things from your practice, it's prolly best to avoid the standardized stuff.

Posted by: 18lohans

Re: Taiji - Trad vs Modern - 02/06/07 03:03 AM

makes sense. I can definitely see the difference b/w modern wushu and the more traditional kung fu. but it's harder for me to catch that with tai chi.

any ideas what these standardized forms lack (or that the traditionals form have) that will give you the tai chi benefits? I've gotten to learn standardized forms, but can't say I know any traditional forms. And from videos online, they honstely don't seem too different?

Posted by: Fisherman

Re: Taiji - Trad vs Modern - 02/06/07 08:28 AM

I don't think that it is necessarily what the forms are so much as how they are trained.
If you are training a form to look aesthetically pleasing then I think you will miss the majority of what the form was meant to convey.
If you want to get what the form is trying to teach then you must train the for rather than just doing the form. For that you have to know a teacher who does exactly that so they can transmit this information to you. Seems that these teachers are in short supply these days especially when it comes to IMA's.

Posted by: ashe_higgs

Re: Taiji - Trad vs Modern - 02/06/07 12:14 PM

basically, what fish said.

with any style of taiji, is not about the form (or wasn't traditionally, although that is the trend today).

any system of cma are whole systems with whole series of exercises which are designed for one purpose; to make you a better fighter.

the form was just one part of any system, and the point of the form is principles.

complete traditional systems should have basic exercises (jibengong, which may or may not include nei and qigong, gong li (conditioning exercises), tui/rou shou (pushing or spinning hands) qi shou (sticky hands) and san da (free fighting) some systems also have two man sets.

if you go ask somebody that does the standard stuff about taiji's san da methods your likely to get some strange looks.

and lastly, after you've trained the real stuff for awhile you can begin to see who has it and who doesn't (in their forms).

Posted by: ButterflyPalm

Re: Taiji - Trad vs Modern - 02/07/07 07:11 AM

Quote:

and lastly, after you've trained the real stuff for awhile you can begin to see who has it and who doesn't (in their forms).

Yep, it is in the Forms and it is not in the Forms.

Sounds funny, well, about 25 years ago I wanted to learn or at least see some real Xing Yi because I heard so much about it and wanted to know what's so great about it. So I was introduced to a well regarded master. I said I wanted to learn some Xing Yi. This master never started off teaching Xing Yi to anyone unless the student did some Tai Chi first (in this case the rare Sun Style) I said I've done Yang Tai Chi already. The master said alrght, do a Form and we'll see if I was good enough. I said (which on hindsight sounded a bit arrogant, I was young then) there was really no need to do the whole Form, let me show you just one, yes, one movement and from that you should be able to decide.

The movement I chose was the 'single whip' So I just did this single whip movement. Well, I could see the master's eyes widened and broke into a knowing smile. The master agreed to start me off straight into Xing Yi. There were a couple of students there and I could see the incredulous looks on their faces, like what's so great about that 'single whip?'

As fate would have it, I only had a couple of lessons of Xing Yi (which of course is meaningless in learning any art) due to factors beyond my control and I missed the chance to get serious into it. I regret it to this day. That master had long since passed away at the age of 80 something. And as fate would have it I met one of the master's students recently (not the ones there on that 'single whip' day) and when I related the story, he said never in all the years that he was under that master had any student went straight into Xing Yi.

So yes, either you have it or you don't and one movement is all that is required to settle the issue.

So the Tai Chi Forms (of whatever description or style or number of moves) are important and also not important.

The Wushu Tai Chi Forms you see in the competitions are just Tai Chi dances. But as I said before, even then, the aerobic effect from doing them regularly will have positive health benefits.

The movements by themselves are not important which is why there are different Tai Chi styles with differing sets of movements in differing order and yet all of them are Tai Chi Chuan. It is how the movements are consciously "imbued" with the breath that makes all the difference. All IMA starts from this basic premise.

If you have the chance to make a comparision between a Yang and a Sun 'single whip' movement, they do not look alike and yet both are 'single whips'

To me the single whip movement is the most difficult one to master, not to do, but to master it as an IMA movement.

Posted by: Fisherman

Re: Taiji - Trad vs Modern - 02/07/07 08:08 AM

Quote:

complete traditional systems should have basic exercises (jibengong, which may or may not include nei and qigong, gong li (conditioning exercises), tui/rou shou (pushing or spinning hands) qi shou (sticky hands) and san da (free fighting) some systems also have two man sets.

I couldn't agree more Ashe. I had done tremendous amounts of forms before I started doing bagua and I can attest to the importance of having a system that has more than just forms. I know for a fact that is what makes things work. You need to have skill sets that train specific skills and you need to be able to work with others in a cooperative manner to practice and feel how they are applied. Then you need to transition to a point were you are receiving less and less cooperation from your opponent, to the point were there is none at all.
Many systems of IMA's teach forms and that is it. IMO, if that is all they teach (the form) then that is all you will get. If you want to have success in using a IMA in an effective and efficient manner then you have to find a system that trains that way.

Posted by: ashe_higgs

Re: Taiji - Trad vs Modern - 02/07/07 12:02 PM

Quote:

So yes, either you have it or you don't and one movement is all that is required to settle the issue.

i think doing one movement well, even "the most difficult" can show that you have something, but being able to do a string of moves, or the whole form, shows even more. it's a lot easier to uses and express all the principles one move at a time, but things can start to fall apart when you begin moving continuously.

Posted by: 18lohans

Re: Taiji - Trad vs Modern - 02/07/07 03:09 PM

I agree a lot with what fisherman said about needing a system. As much I enjoy learning and trying to get good at forms, I do think they lose a bit of their meaning if that's all you do. And I'll agree that it is often the case with IMA.

With external arts, I've always done forms, and then spent a lot of time doing single movement drills, partner drills, and freestyle type drills/sparring. And I guess it's easy to tell when you progress, and when you haev something.

With internal arts... it seems to get kinda "mystical" for lack of a better word. The thing butterfly palms was talking about having it or not... I my tai chi training pretty traditional, and by comparison with others, I can tell my forms HAVE something others don't. But then again, if I think about in terms of that "for the beauty of the movements" discussion, then I might be doing a lot of that.

So questions are: IMA, like external arts, also care about proper form, angles and such right? With external arts, proper power/balance/speed/structure is kind of my indicator of how well I have things. But when it comes to internal, people always talk aobut that X-factor. So I guess what I'm trying to say is that I'm still not sure if I'm doing it right or not. (I want the traditional tai chi rather than competition tai chi). I guess a good reference for discussion would be the performance videos they have in www.taiji.de. Personally, I think those people are really good at it. But then again, I can't judge the internal value of their performance. So maybe what I think it's good IS really just the modern wushu value of it.

And also, while we do have qigong, push hands and such... I feel we do focus A LOT MORE on forms throughout the course of our tai chi training. Is this pattern typical for IMA? I mean, I've always assumed you need to get your body moving correctly and such before you get to serious push-hand etc. training?

Posted by: ashe_higgs

Re: Taiji - Trad vs Modern - 02/07/07 08:29 PM

i've seen all the stuff from taiji.de and it's all very wushu imo.

to tell you the truth i don't know anyone i would recommend that does just taiji.

chen yu seems to be a pretty good chen player but i've never played with anyone from his lineage.

tim cartmell studied with xie, pei xi and leanred all three of the internal sisters, and he's pretty well known as being bad ass.

steve cotter studied with hong, xu ? and is well known as being a full contact bad ass but he doesn't do xingyi much anymore. mike patterson also studied with hong, but i thought his stuff looked terrible so i wouldn't reccomend him.

yang, jwing ming also puts heavy emphasis on the martial aspect of his taiji, but most of his apps seem to come from either his white crane or long fist.

my own Sifu is a monster, but it's not likely that you're anywhere near enough to train with someone who does I Liq Chuan.

knowing where you are and if you're willing to travel would be a big help in helping you.

Posted by: 18lohans

Re: Taiji - Trad vs Modern - 02/08/07 06:04 PM

I'm currently in CA. I'm okay with traveling, but the consideration is that I don't know how much I can learn even from a two or so week long program. And tai chi seems to be something that definitely takes a little longer than the rest.

Hate to sound like a broken record or a retard... but can we disect a bit of what makes taiji.de wushu like? I mean, I understand that for tournaments and such, the time limitations totally kill your internal development. But overall, those taiji.de people have such great structure. They stay at the same level throughout the form, haev good grounding and rotation, good relaxation and fluidity... is the wushu part of it coming from the fact that they probably don't have push hands, qigong and/or the application components of tai chi?

I mean, I was watching various clips from the chen village guys, and even they seem to care quite a deal about proper angles and structures. (So I'm assuming it does matter?)

Posted by: 18lohans

Re: Taiji - Trad vs Modern - 02/08/07 06:19 PM

Just re-read the thread after I posted my last comment, and I guess something clicked. (Or so I hope)

Quote:

I don't think that it is necessarily what the forms are so much as how they are trained.
If you are training a form to look aesthetically pleasing then I think you will miss the majority of what the form was meant to convey.
If you want to get what the form is trying to teach then you must train the for rather than just doing the form.

So I guess scrap trad vs standardized form and focus on the "training to look aesthetically pleasing" part. Can you guys help me define what that means?

Right now with trad. kung fu vs modern wushu, I can see that. I guess an obvious one is why bother doing a 540 jumping spinning crescent (which looks great!), when 180 has way more power and speed, and is also all you really need.

But again, it's harder to see with tai chi. I'm thinking to the lines of wushu being more like "fluff your hands during transitions it'll looks more cloudy" or "make this move here extra round, because it looks better" vs "it's important to keep the waist loose here because it keeps you grounded" or "sink the qi down to the dantian during the opening move"...

am I on the right track, or is it still something else?

Posted by: ashe_higgs

Re: Taiji - Trad vs Modern - 02/09/07 01:14 AM

it's really all about one thing;

recognizing the right energy at the point of contact, and is it spiral force?

here's my Sifu, compare to the videos from taiji.de

21 form

and some explanations of how to manifest the spiral force from moves from our form;

pivot points 1

pivot points 2

spiral force

here's an example of chen yu talking about application which should help you along (although i think chen yu leverages the point too much rather than using more accurate spiraling force)

chen yu

and here's a nice clip of song style pi quan which shows a nice tight spiral

pi quan

many people misunderstand the calssics.

for instance you mentioned no up and down. well there has to be up and down, it just get's smaller the better you get. up and down is absorb and project, one of the qualities of the spiral force (absorb and project, expand and condense, three dimensions, open and close (kua and shoulders) and concave and convex energy) plus being harmonized with the greater flow. that's the internal skill regardless of style.

Posted by: tailiugug

Re: Taiji - Trad vs Modern - 02/20/07 08:23 PM

Grettings.

I beleave all that have posted hear clearly put true contemplation into there responses. and with that alone i would like to pay my respect. I would like to share my thoughts/ responses to this subject. First know that there is true knowledge outthere never stop seeking and dont be afraid to travel. next please examine why the standardize forms were created in 1956 the "first" standardized form "24" was astablished for many reasons, one being at competions judging had become quit difficult in that even within the 4 main families (chen,yang,wu & sun) there were and are many variations of every form, to make that worse there are the "frames" small medium and large within each family. aslo some forms may take 2 mins at fast pace or 45 in slow mode. witch would make a competiter have to stop in mid stream to make time requirements. so most standardized forms are based on a 5 min time frame. also note that for respect to the (traditional) forms the "24" strarts of after comencing you go to the left(were tradialaly you would go right) this was to respect The differnce from traditnal and modern. but please note that sence then that has changed take for instance the "42" a highly skille team took the best of each of the 4 families for instance silk realing from chen, grace & strength from yang, flexibilitiy from sun and subtle powers of wu also 5 foot and 8 hand tech from push hands. and since the fighting aspects were not takin out.following comencing you go to the right because although newer then the "traditional forms" they follow all the standards & traditions so it and most other standardized forms can/and in my opion should be considered traditional.

The key to traditional and modern is the traning at whole, in any form you should understand each and ever movement for its fighting and healing benifits. also there is a whole lot more to tai chi then any single form, there has to be a package of training, from qi gong, worm up, standing postures (meditating), push hand, combat applications, weopons, so if you are learning any tai chi form but not its applications in my opionion its not traditional no mater how old the form is.

Posted by: 18lohans

Re: Taiji - Trad vs Modern - 02/20/07 10:10 PM

Quote:

Grettings.

I beleave all that have posted hear clearly put true contemplation into there responses. and with that alone i would like to pay my respect. I would like to share my thoughts/ responses to this subject. First know that there is true knowledge outthere never stop seeking and dont be afraid to travel. next please examine why the standardize forms were created in 1956 the "first" standardized form "24" was astablished for many reasons, one being at competions judging had become quit difficult in that even within the 4 main families (chen,yang,wu & sun) there were and are many variations of every form, to make that worse there are the "frames" small medium and large within each family. aslo some forms may take 2 mins at fast pace or 45 in slow mode. witch would make a competiter have to stop in mid stream to make time requirements. so most standardized forms are based on a 5 min time frame. also note that for respect to the (traditional) forms the "24" strarts of after comencing you go to the left(were tradialaly you would go right) this was to respect The differnce from traditnal and modern. but please note that sence then that has changed take for instance the "42" a highly skille team took the best of each of the 4 families for instance silk realing from chen, grace & strength from yang, flexibilitiy from sun and subtle powers of wu also 5 foot and 8 hand tech from push hands. and since the fighting aspects were not takin out.following comencing you go to the right because although newer then the "traditional forms" they follow all the standards & traditions so it and most other standardized forms can/and in my opion should be considered traditional.

The key to traditional and modern is the traning at whole, in any form you should understand each and ever movement for its fighting and healing benifits. also there is a whole lot more to tai chi then any single form, there has to be a package of training, from qi gong, worm up, standing postures (meditating), push hand, combat applications, weopons, so if you are learning any tai chi form but not its applications in my opionion its not traditional no mater how old the form is.

Thanks for the very insightful reply, tailiugug. You have brought in some good historical facts on the modern standardized form, as well as put more key points into perspective. There are a few complementary comments and questions I have for your post, and I'd really like to hear your thoughts on it.

First of all, I never knew there was a significance in tai chi, as far as which direction you go after the opening of each form. Other styles I've studied do stress that, so I can definitely see principles linked to it. Also, how 24 was the first standardized form, and that since then all of them started following tradition better makes sense. It is an improvement and evolution process afterall (just like the first few Chen forms finally came to be, after many generations of just doing separate techniques). Also, I'll agree that most forms do come into the 5 minute time frame. Afterall, 42 is a revision of 48, for it's length.

48 and 42 both open to the right. What is the significance of that? And are there other differences between standardized forms and traditional ones? (never really seen other traditional forms other than the chen jia gou forms)

Finally, how would you classify people that have only done 48 and 42 as far as what tai chi branch they practice?

Posted by: tailiugug

Re: Taiji - Trad vs Modern - 02/21/07 11:52 PM

Gretting

I dont have alot of time tonight so i will get right to the point, first i don't feel that it is fair to classify practicaners on such little evedence as what form they currently have knowledge of. tai chi is a life long study and it makes perfect sence to start a student out on something that can fit easy into there bussy scedual. and get them hooked. if you look closly into the 24 every move is traditional. also it was based on the yang family large frame as was the 48. both are performed in a slow constant pace. but the 42 maintains the yang flavor between the transitions of the 4 families. ( note they also thru in a Bagua tech in close to the end ) with in the 42 the pace verys slightly as well as a few "ha & Hen" exahatations. to put from a teachers point of view. these forms are a great tool and can be used as a gauge as to were tai chi was in the time of their creation. as i said before tai chi is a life adveture over time a practioner may learn many forms and applications from many differnt families or instructors. yet it is the mental energy and contimplations that matter most. example i have a instructor that is 78 and has trained in martial arts sence he was 3.5 years old yet as far as tai chi is conserned in his daily practice only a few key motions are trained and no complete forms. tai chi is where you mind is

Posted by: ashe_higgs

Re: Taiji - Trad vs Modern - 02/22/07 12:41 AM

sorry to disagree, but if you want any kind of real skill, the modern competition stuff is a waste of time.

Posted by: tailiugug

Re: Taiji - Trad vs Modern - 02/23/07 08:57 PM

well we all are intitled to our opinions. but the standardized forms are all traditional tech. in differnt sequence. as for REAL SKILL that comes from the gong fa's (sectrets) there are 108 of them. and push hands. it doesn't matter what form you train if your not training push hands your REAL SKILL will never fully develope. for my self i use the standardized form as a training / seperation tool once they are learned it is very easy to go on to any of older forms. as for the gong fa's in our lineage they are only for deciples not for regular student.

Posted by: ButterflyPalm

Re: Taiji - Trad vs Modern - 02/24/07 01:23 AM

Quote:

...as for the gong fa's in our lineage they are only for deciples not for regular student.

How does a 'regular student' becomes a 'disciple' in your lineage?

Posted by: ashe_higgs

Re: Taiji - Trad vs Modern - 02/24/07 11:22 AM

secrets.

i smell a troll...

Posted by: ButterflyPalm

Re: Taiji - Trad vs Modern - 02/24/07 12:07 PM

May or may not be.

Secrets in the CMA is normally called 'Xin Fa' ("heart method", meaning the "essence")

"Gong Fa" simply means loosely "Training Method"

Posted by: ashe_higgs

Re: Taiji - Trad vs Modern - 02/24/07 02:58 PM

essence is a good word. i would have said "philosophy, concepts and principles" but essence is a nice little word to sum it all up.

Posted by: tailiugug

Re: Taiji - Trad vs Modern - 02/25/07 10:01 PM

well its not a matter of time , my tai chi instructor (Fu Shu Li)teaches over 500 student and has only 26 diciples (in the usa) not sure what he has back home on o-mei mnt. and by the way he teaches the essense to all students and over a long period of time and constant training is enough to master the art. the gong fa's or sectrets speed up the process. not all students are cut out or ready for the training that is required to be a diciple but when a diciple completes thier traning we receive 6th generation (yang style) rights. as far as the spelling or translation of secrets I may have miss spelled. I am a gung fu guy not a language specialist. I can tell you this i only have 31 years of gung fu training in and hope to get another 40 and i will & can back up any of my posts so you might think twise about calling me a troll.

Posted by: ashe_higgs

Re: Taiji - Trad vs Modern - 02/26/07 01:58 AM

your teacher lives/operates out of omei but teaches yang style?

Posted by: MikePatterson

Re: Taiji - Trad vs Modern - 02/27/07 02:16 PM

Quote:

steve cotter studied with hong, xu ? and is well known as being a full contact bad ass but he doesn't do xingyi much anymore. mike patterson also studied with hong, but i thought his stuff looked terrible so i wouldn't reccomend him.

Excuse me. Your "facts" are incorrect.

Steve Cotter was my number one student for fourteen years until our split in the mid 90's. He learned all of his XingYi through me, not through Hsu Hong Chi (Xu Hong Ji) who was my teacher.

So it is interesting that you seem to think the student is better than the teacher. Kind of shows exactly how ignorant you are, don't you think?

Posted by: ashe_higgs

Re: Taiji - Trad vs Modern - 02/28/07 01:18 AM

mr. patterson,

i'm not aware of all the history behind your split, but i gather that it was sour. your entitled to keep that private, but it is my understanding that mr. cotter generally doesn't mention your name and instead mentions the late mr. xu. for that reason.

i should have been more explicit to say that mr. cotter trained under the lineage of mr. xu.

i've never seen any of mr. cotters xingyi, and i only said that his reputation was that of a bad ass.

i have however seen some of your videos, and though i have also heard that you were a full contact champion as well, being a good fighter is not the same as having good xingyi.

some of my training partners come from the lineage of kenny gong's shing yi, so i am familiar with it methods, and i did not care for your videos.

the gentleman in question was asking for advice and i simply offered my opinion, which is after all, just that. only my opinion.

i do apologize for offending you, i should have chosen my words better.

Posted by: Taison

Re: Taiji - Trad vs Modern - 02/28/07 01:28 AM

Quote:

I can tell you this i only have 31 years of gung fu training in and hope to get another 40 and i will & can back up any of my posts

Go ahead. Back it up.

Quote:

you might think twise about calling me a troll.

or?

-Taison out

Posted by: ashe_higgs

Re: Taiji - Trad vs Modern - 02/28/07 01:34 AM

actually in hindsight (rereading my post) i suppose i was inappropriate to even mention your name.

so again, i do apologize.

it's funny how my "mouth" can run away from me. it's a good example of how much progress i have yet to make.

maybe someday we can meet in person and i can feel what your xingyi is like and then i could make a more informed opinion.

Posted by: Fisherman

Re: Taiji - Trad vs Modern - 02/28/07 07:39 AM

Quote:

well its not a matter of time , my tai chi instructor (Fu Shu Li)teaches over 500 student and has only 26 diciples

Aren't you contradicting your self here?

Quote:

he teaches the essense to all students and over a long period of time and constant training is enough to master the art.

So are you saying it doesn't matter whether or not the student becomes a deciple? All they need to do is train and they will eventually get it? I seriously doubt that. There are things that a teacher can hold back on teaching you that will make your art much more superior. There are conceptual ideas that you are not likely to figure out on your own because they are things that need to be implemented into your practice before you can understand them. There are secrets. If a teacher gave them all to you at once they wouldn't make any sense and if he never told you, you might not know they existed.

Posted by: MikePatterson

Re: Taiji - Trad vs Modern - 02/28/07 03:33 PM

Quote:

i should have been more explicit to say that mr. cotter trained under the lineage of mr. xu.

i've never seen any of mr. cotters xingyi, and i only said that his reputation was that of a bad ass.

i have however seen some of your videos, and though i have also heard that you were a full contact champion as well, being a good fighter is not the same as having good xingyi.

some of my training partners come from the lineage of kenny gong's shing yi, so i am familiar with it methods, and i did not care for your videos.

the gentleman in question was asking for advice and i simply offered my opinion, which is after all, just that. only my opinion.

i do apologize for offending you, i should have chosen my words better.

Kenny Gong's Xingyi is not the same as that of the lineage of Hsu Hong Chi. Different does not mean better or worse. Principle adherence is what matters. I watched the video clips on your website as well and was not impressed by anything I saw. But I tend to reserve final judgement until I cross arms with someone. Feeling is believing when it comes to IMA.

My Xingyi skills/form/fighting have been judged to be excellent by eyes that are much higher than yours will ever be. So, your "opinions" mean precious little to me.

As far as your second post... you are welcome to visit me and test my skills at any time your heart so desires. I have no problem with that. In fact, I get down to Arizona fairly regularly. Perhaps I will come look you up next time I am in your area and we can "evaluate" each other.

Posted by: ashe_higgs

Re: Taiji - Trad vs Modern - 02/28/07 03:49 PM

mr. patterson,

i'm always happy to meet a fellow cma player. i'd love meet you the next time you're in town.

Posted by: MikePatterson

Re: Taiji - Trad vs Modern - 02/28/07 07:05 PM

ashe,

That's nice. But I don't "play" at the internal martial arts. I am quite serious about what I do.

I'll look you up. Next time you visit Las Vegas, feel free to give me a shout as well.

Posted by: ButterflyPalm

Re: Taiji - Trad vs Modern - 03/01/07 12:13 AM

Quote:

Feeling is believing when it comes to IMA...........My Xingyi skills/form/fighting have been judged to be excellent by eyes that are much higher than yours will ever be.

It reminds me of the song which is meant for kids, but actually........

The Bear went over the mountain,
The Bear went over the mountain,
What do you think he saw?
He saw another mountain,
He saw another mountain,
And what do you think he did?
He climb the other mountain,
He climb the other mountain,
And what do you think he saw?
He saw another mountain......

If I am ever in the US, you are on my shopping list

Taiji - Trad vs Modern