tai chi experts?

[hapki-bujutsu]

I want to learn some forms from tai chi. What I want it to learn ones that mimic fighting the most. kung fu almost. I emailed tuttle web sites and they said they had no recomendations. anyone know what i mean? anyone know where I caould find this?
thx

 

[Taiji fan]

You might want to do a search on Google for Chen Taijiquan....there does seem to be less airy fairy stuff there. Avoid anything called Cheng Man Ching style and some other Yang style variations are not up to much either. Taijiquan does take a while to learn before you are able to apply it, much of its sucess as a fighting art is down to the body mechanics.

 

[7starmantis]

Originally posted by Taiji fan
You might want to do a search on Google for Chen Taijiquan....there does seem to be less airy fairy stuff there. Avoid anything called Cheng Man Ching style and some other Yang style variations are not up to much either. Taijiquan does take a while to learn before you are able to apply it, much of its sucess as a fighting art is down to the body mechanics.

Why avoid Professor Chen Man Ching or Yang style?

Yang is what I practice, and its extremely effective if done correctly. It does however take many years to be proficient with it.

Taiji doesn't really mimic kung fu however, I'm not sure what your looking for. Many of the techniques are the same principles in KF and TC, so maybe thats what you mean.

7sm

 

[Taiji fan]

Why avoid Professor Chen Man Ching or Yang style

because CMC style is a bastardisation of Yang. It lacks correct body mechanics, it encourages poor posture and it is favoured by the new age. Of all the practitioners I have met who practice this style, not one of them had a clear understanding of body mechanics and body usage. I never said avoid Yang style...I said some Yang variations....as in the simplified form and the Taoist tai chi brigade etc. I also study Yang Shi, but it does seem that there have been far more misrepresentations and missinterpretations of Yang style than any other. You are absolutley correct that Yang taijiquan is very efficient when understood and practiced correctly.

 

[Makalakumu]

Chen Men Ching was an excellent martial artist. Some would say a master. One of his students was TT Liang, who is one of the most reknown teachers of tai chi in the US. One of TT Liangs senior students (2nd I believe) is Stewart Alve Olson. Any search in tai chi will bring up his name and if you've ever seen the man in action, you will clearly see competancy in the "supreme ultimate fist" My instructor is Mr. Olson's senior student and from what I've seen of Yang, style, this style is nothing to avoid. It works and it compliments many other martials arts. Bad teachers are something that should be avoided though. Tai chi is no different then any martial art in that respect.

upnorthkyosa

 

[Taiji fan]

Did you meet Cheng Man Ching?

One of his students was TT Liang, who is one of the most reknown teachers of tai chi in the US

this is really interesting and does tend to show a huge problem in the taiji world. It is often thought that when someone is 'one of the first' to bring something to a nation that automatically makes them an expert in the subject....unfortunately it takes a number of years before people start to look deeper and get to the heart of the matter. For many years the Yang family wouldn't even mention CMC's name. Many people are good martial arts, that doesn't necessarily mean they know Taiji. I find it very curious that our USA cousins revere CMC so and in China the style is unheard of......

 

[pete]

Why all the animosity?

Forgive me if I speak out of turn....

Isn't the Kenpo as Mr Parker taught it supposed to be the beginning of a personal journey and path for growth in mind body and spirit? If so, then why does everyone not just respect the path others have chosen and follow or create thier own without all of the bad thoughts and feelings?

With respect

Beau

i lifted this question was taken from the Kenpo forum... please replace "Kenpo" with Tai Chi and "Mr Parker" with the founder or prominant master of any of the Tai Chi styles, and then ask yourself why?

pete.

 

[Makalakumu]

TT Liang used to live in my hometown St. Cloud MN. Unless you have seen him and Stewart do Tai Chi, I would honest reserve your opinions of the style. I will tell you what, they were amazing and I have NEVER seen the things that they were able to do, ANYWHERE. As far as not being seen in China, Stewart Olson's books are being translated into Chinese and sold widely over there because he is now considered one of the foremost experts in the world on the subject of Tai Chi. Even Guro's such as Dan Inosanto are trying to get Mr. Olson to train them. I think one of the reasons that CMC yang styles isn't seen so much can be traced back to china's recent communist history. I imagine that only the styles that toed the government line were allowed to be taught and that the boxing tradition in china was so large that they could never really completely suppress it. So, perhaps a watered down version was offered to the "people" in response. I don't have much evidence of this surmization so please enlighten if I am totally off my rocker.

upnorthkyosa

 

[Taiji fan]

I have NEVER seen the things that they were able to do, ANYWHERE

such as..............................?

I think one of the reasons that CMC yang styles isn't seen so much can be traced back to china's recent communist history. I imagine that only the styles that toed the government line were allowed to be taught and that the boxing tradition in china was so large that they could never really completely suppress it. So, perhaps a watered down version was offered to the "people" in response

CMC studied (although briefly as is commonly thought) with the Yangs. It is curious that in his time it would appear that he never leaned (or abandoned) the body requirements, and the 10 essences. I have no problem with people going off and 'developing' their own style, but if your only contact with Taijiquan was CMC style you are missing out a great deal of what the 'family' style has. Interestingly, a number of my taiji buddies spent a week working on sword with CMC's daughter. As they all have a background in traditional Yang, they were astounded and even appalled by the lack of any apparent understanding of taijiquan from the teacher. There was no foundation, loose feet, no body connections, no essences and poor sword control.

The Chinese government like to promote taijiquan, especially the simplified form which again pays little attention top correct body usage, and now they are starting to promote Yang family taiji although this is through their 'favourite' son Yang Zhen Duo. This is better than nothing but does ignore the oldest living son who's taijiquan is significantly different.

In the UK we also have our 'leading authorities' many of them are in this position by virtue of the length of time they have practised, or they are credited with 'being the first', again it is interesting to note that many of them are CMC style and most of them wouldn't know taijiquan if they fell over it. Now that access to higher level teachers is getting easier, more and more people are becoming more questioning and questing to cut through the superficial and get to the depths.

upnorthkyosa, have you ever had any experience with the Taoist Tai Chi Society? Now that is some seriously messed up Yang style

 

[someguy]

Wouldn't Tai chi still be part of kung fu? sorry of topic I know:-offtopic
So shoot me
:uzi: :bazook: :uhohh: :lasma: :ripper: :shock::biggun:
uhhhh dang

 

[Makalakumu]

I think its good to be skeptical of martial arts instructors in general and this is a healthy debate to be having about any art. Frankly, I am surprised by the anti-CMC sentiment. I am not sure if it is coming from his rivals or if it is coming from the truth.

I have had three tai chi instructors over the last 15 years. My current instructor is a pupil of Stewart Olson whom I have mentioned above. I also mentioned that I lived in St. Cloud, the same town that TT Liang lived in. Here is what I remember of his studio. I first heard about it from my shotokan instructor when I was a boy. He talked about an old man who was teaching Tai Chi out of some guy's basement. It turns out that some guy was Stewart Olson's house. I was interested to see what Tai Chi was, so I asked my instructor if he would take me sometime. So I get to the studio. The first thing I see is mats lining the concrete walls of the basement. People are doing push hands and some people are being moved around without even touching the other person. "What's that?" I asked. "Intrinsic energy" my instructor replies. He then tells me to go and sit in the corner and watch quietly. I obey like a good Karate student. He joins in the push hands. An Old Man comes down the stairs. He is wearing a too tight micky mouse shirt and blue jeans. His socks have holes in them. Its TT Liang. He takes one look at the mess and talks about applications. Then he proceedes to "show" applications. Those mats on the wall got good use! This man, short and kind of fat was throwing grown men across the room and it looked as if he hardly did anything at all. That is what I mean by stuff I have never seen anywhere. And this is just two examples.

As I said above, TT Liang was CMC top student and I am surprised by the anti-feelings.

upnorthkyosa

 

[7starmantis]

I can't say that I have ever seen anyone of the CMC lineage actually perform taiji. I have however read both Wolfe Lowenthal's books on CMC and his taijiquan. The principles written in these books are the fundamental basics, MOST taiji students and instructors are missing. CMC never claimed to be anything more than a follower of taiji. He was alot more than simply a taiji practitioner. He was a chinese doctor and wholist. His principles by which he tought taiji, at least from the books, were exactly perfectly on. They are the principles taiji is truly about. The 4oz principle to name one.

From reading those books, I would have a hard time agreeing that CMC's tajiquan is a watered down, no application version of Yang. Again, however, I have not seen it in action.

I study Yang style with my Sifu, and I have to say, the principles in There are no Secrets are exactly what my sifu says to me. And the moving a person with no more than 4 oz of energy is amazing, and when finally learned, is extremely effective.

JMHO,
7sm

 

[7starmantis]

Originally posted by someguy
Wouldn't Tai chi still be part of kung fu? sorry of topic I know:-offtopic
So shoot me
:uzi: :bazook: :uhohh: :lasma: :ripper: :shock::biggun:
uhhhh dang

If you are using the term Kung Fu to mean all Chinese Martial Arts, then I guess so. If using Kung Fu to mean system of kung fu then no. I study 7 Star Preying Mantis Kung Fu, there are like 300 systems, but tai chi would not be included in a kung fu listing.

They are however very similar many time in principles. In fact, Tai Chi is in reality the basis of most martial arts today, including kung fu.

7sm

 

[Taiji fan]

I first heard about it from my shotokan instructor when I was a boy. He talked about an old man who was teaching Tai Chi out of some guy's basement. It turns out that some guy was Stewart Olson's house. I was interested to see what Tai Chi was, so I asked my instructor if he would take me sometime. So I get to the studio. The first thing I see is mats lining the concrete walls of the basement. People are doing push hands and some people are being moved around without even touching the other person. "What's that?" I asked. "Intrinsic energy" my instructor replies. He then tells me to go and sit in the corner and watch quietly. I obey like a good Karate student. He joins in the push hands. An Old Man comes down the stairs. He is wearing a too tight micky mouse shirt and blue jeans. His socks have holes in them. Its TT Liang. He takes one look at the mess and talks about applications. Then he proceedes to "show" applications. Those mats on the wall got good use! This man, short and kind of fat was throwing grown men across the room and it looked as if he hardly did anything at all. That is what I mean by stuff I have never seen anywhere

thanks that sounds like agreat experience............was this what lead you to begin studying taijiquan?

I can't say that I have ever seen anyone of the CMC lineage actually perform taiji. I have however read both Wolfe Lowenthal's books on CMC and his taijiquan. The principles written in these books are the fundamental basics, MOST taiji students and instructors are missing.

I hear ya......and yes I agree that it all looks good in print.....but, my first teacher could intellectualise taijiquan till the cows came home, but as for actually understanding the principles in his body and actually being 'in' the principles, he definately was/is not. And he is considered a top boy in the UK.......his real taijiquan ability is minescule, but it took for me to find a traditional Yang teacher before I really understood what was missing in my first teachers form...and what was missing......everything, his form was not biomechanically correct, there was no integration of the essences and in particular...no spirit. And in all of the CMC practitioners I have seen this is what has also been missing. CMC taijiquan is fine if that is what you choose, just don't call it Yang style....because it aint....simple as that.

 

[Makalakumu]

What about CMC style makes it not Yang Style? Maybe I am missing something, but didn't CMC learn from the Yang Cheng Fu liniage? I have seen trained in three different "yang" styles and each is different. Maybe Yang Tai Chi is now just a name with random techniques behind it? I don't know? How could anyone find the "true" Yang style?

As far as seeing TT Liang when I was a boy...I thought it was really cool, but I didn't have the discipline for something like that yet. (I still don't, I am a half assed tai chi student at best) I enjoy the harder physical martial arts more at this moment, but a grain of wisdom inside me says, to keep doing some tai chi for when I'm older. Maybe then I'll be ready eh? I would like to try Chen style Tai Chi for a while and see how it goes.

Anyone ever heard of Erle Montague? I wonder if he fits into this equation?

upnorthkyosa

 

[7starmantis]

Originally posted by Taiji fan
I hear ya......and yes I agree that it all looks good in print.....but, my first teacher could intellectualise taijiquan till the cows came home, but as for actually understanding the principles in his body and actually being 'in' the principles, he definately was/is not. And he is considered a top boy in the UK.......his real taijiquan ability is minescule, but it took for me to find a traditional Yang teacher before I really understood what was missing in my first teachers form...and what was missing......everything, his form was not biomechanically correct, there was no integration of the essences and in particular...no spirit. And in all of the CMC practitioners I have seen this is what has also been missing. CMC taijiquan is fine if that is what you choose, just don't call it Yang style....because it aint....simple as that.

So you just think that CMC lineage is lacking in application and understanding then? Also you don't think it is Yang style?

I don't mean to offend you at all, but may I ask how long you have studied Taijiquan? I'm just simply curious. I obviously dont have the knowledge about the different systems that you do, but I just have a hard time seeing all the understanding that CMC had about the true principles of taiji, and then hearing that he had no application. Thats all.

7sm

 

[Taiji fan]

Also you don't think it is Yang style?

no, it is not Yang style. It is CMC style, the same was as Yang Shi is not Chen shi even though its origins were.

I have studied now for 10 years, firstly in wishy washy taiji then later as I looked deeper with a trad. Yang teacher. the differences were immence. The most notable was the incorrect use of the body. In all end frames and transitions the body is lined in a very particular was to ensure that the minimum energy is used and that the power issue is explosive. Each 'move' / posture/ form whatever you refer to them as has a preciscion that ensures its application. In the 10 essences, essence number 1 is straighten the head and raise the spirit, this is concerned with the manner in which the head and neck are connected and also with the manner in which you approach you practice. In all of the CMC practitioners I have watched, not one of them have aligned their head in the way the Yang family have taught. Sinking shoulders and elbow seems to have been missinterpretated to be overly bent and floppy. In trad Yang, the pratcitioners hands are stretched and open, also reflected in the spirit of practice. There is no following the hands with your eyes.

in the end frames, with the the CMC practitioners I have watched, there was no disctinction between body open or body closed.....one of the fundamental principles of correct mechanics.

I have no doubt there are plenty of good martial artists who practice CMC style but that does not make them Yang style Taiji practitioners. Perhaps it does have application, but not in the way that Trad Yang does because the body mechanics are not the same. I also meet an awful lot of CMC practitioners with knee problems................

CMC appeared to have studied only breifly with the Yangs and his form looks nothing like Tradtional Yang..........you really need to watch a Trad Yang practitioner to see the differences.

 

[7starmantis]

Originally posted by Taiji fan
..........you really need to watch a Trad Yang practitioner to see the differences.

My sifu has been studying trad. Yang style for nearly 25 years, and my sigung for about 41 or so. I get to see true application of Yang style. I don't get to see CMC style, thats the problem.

The only thing that bothers me is that both of them (My Sifu and Sigung) refer to the books I mentioned earier, heavily. Thats what makes me have a hard time writting off CMC as unapplicable.

It is interesting however about many CMC students having knee issues, thats a bad sign.

7sm

 

[Taiji fan]

My appologies, my comments were not intended to offend...certainly here there seem to be more CMC practitioners or simplified 24 step folk and few who have seen Trad Yang. The differences are very clear when you see one from each of the 'styles'.

I totally agree that many of the books seem to show a good grasp of the concepts, where I have the problem is when watching the practitioners and seeing that they haven't integrated these principles into their body.....its like the theory and the practical are 2 different things.

 

[Crouching Tiger]

Originally posted by someguy
Wouldn't Tai chi still be part of kung fu? sorry of topic I know:-offtopic
So shoot me
:uzi: :bazook: :uhohh: :lasma: :ripper: :shock::biggun:
uhhhh dang

If I may interject, Taijiquan actually falls under the practice of Qigong, not Gungfu; Yang being recognized as the most traditional. For further reference I suggest:

http://store.yahoo.com/ymaa/esoftaijqigi.html. Dr. Yang, Jwing-Ming has written several books on the subject for all of us.

Regards,

Jeff

:asian: