The Chen Tai Chi debate

Hope some of you Chen folks have some insight. I recently met some Chen people that study a form of Chen that is new to me. They are students of the Chen Peichan lineage and say that the way they practice is the original way that it was done. I always have reservations when someone tells me that their way is the 1 and only.
I have studies both the new frame and old and have never heard anyone mention the Chen Peichan way before. Anybody have any info or insight.

Would this be it?
http://www.chen-taijiquan.com/intro_masters.htm

Yes this is the website I found as well. Have you seen the way they do their form? Do you know anything more about them than what says on their website?

no, I'm afraid not. Sorry.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PCEwEjE2hS0

I have seen that Palm. Would you have an info or insight on that group?

No, but looks pretty mainstream Chen to me, just a Japanese branch of the family I think. That Chen PeiJu impresses me more than Chen PeiShan. A matter of taste I suppose.

According to the mighty Wikipedia:

Quote:

---

Chen Peishan and Chen Peiju (20th generation) have been influential in promoting the less well known Chen Village Small Frame tradition (see below). They continue to travel and teach Small Frame Chen taijiquan around the world.

---

Quote:

---

Around the time of the 14/15th generation Chen Village practice appears to have differentiated into two related but distinct practice traditions which are today known as big frame (sometimes called large frame) and small frame. The various practise routines embodied in big/small frame traditions modified and assimilated Chen Wangting's seven set corpus and the original practise routines are now said to have been lost. (Though recent claims are being made that Chen Wangting's 108 form has been rediscovered from two possible sources: senior Beijing disciples of Chen Zhaokui; Chen relatives back in Shanxi Province)

There are conflicting claims about which of these two traditions came first. Western theories and most of the famous masters from Chen Village (see Chen Zhenglei's English language book) tend to favor the view that big frame tradition came first (noting that "small frame" tradition was originally called "new frame"). There is a minority view from outside of Chen Village that tend to favor the reverse view.

There are also conflicting stories about the reason for the differentiation into these two traditions. Zhu Tian Cai comments that small frame tradition routines tended to be practiced by "retired" Chen villagers (and mimicked by younger children). It seems this was because the more demanding leaping, stomping, low frame, and intensive Fa jing of the advanced big frame tradition routines have been eliminated and the retained movements emphasize the training of the soft internal skills. Keep in mind that this is only a tendency and a master of the principles may use them to add fa jing, leaping, stomping, and low frame back to the small tradition at will. Just as a master of the large frame can perform the set small, large, smoothly, with fa jing in every movement, low, middle, or high. The traditions are only significantly different because the elder practitioners tend to focus on longevity and may develop injuries if they practice in the same manor as the younger practitioners.

---