The creation of Chang Taiji

[Kung Fu Wang163 193]

Chang Taiji was created for the following reasons:

1. Add leg skills into the form (push + leg skill = throw).
2. Emphasize pulling more than pushing (emphasize leading arm control).
3. Combine both fast speed and slow speed training (slow, fast, slow, ...).
4. Add power generation (in those fast moves).
5. Integrate Xingyi principles into the form (Pi Quan, Beng Quan, ...).
6. Coordinate each move with breathing (1 move = 1 inhale or 1 exhale).

Any comment?

 

[Appledog68 40]

Chang Tung-Sheng learned Tai Chi Chuan as part of his required training and knowledge exchange while studying and teaching at the Nanking Central Martial Arts Academy (Central Kuoshu Institute) in the 1930s. But Tai Chi was never his forte--instead, he became known as the undisputed King of Shuai-Jiao.

Therefore when discussing Chang Tai Chi it must be seen as a variant of Shuai Jiao and not as a style of Tai Chi per-se. This important conclusion is borne out by a reading of history. As a boy in Baoding, Chang's family ran a chicken-roasting business which paid for private lessons with Zhang Fenyen, a local businessman and Shuai Chiao master who practiced baoding shuai jiao as instructed by Ping Jinyi. Zhang Fengyan was his wrestling teacher, not his taiji teacher.

Chang didn't actually start learning Tai Chi until he was 20. He became a Shuai Jiao faculty member at the Nanjing Central Kuoshu Institute (中央國術館) and exchanged knowledge with other martial arts experts. The person most often named is General Li Jinglin (李景林). Chang-style practitioners say his Yang-Taiji came from Yang Jianhou from whom he learned directly. That would put Chang two generations from Yang Luchan, though this is an informal forum claim. Li was a deputy inspector-general and later army general for the Fengtian clique and was famous as a swordsman. According to the lineage account, their exchanges led to the development of Chang-style Tai Chi. In all likelyhood he actually learned from Yang Cheng-Fu at the Institute, although his social position would preclude that from being written down because they were compatriots. Thus, he would have at least been introduced to Yang Jianhou for formal purposes even though he likely only learned from Yang Cheng-Fu. There's no shame in this, it's just a social convention. In any case he primarily would have learned from Li Jing-Lin, who died in 1931, limiting his instruction to no more than 3 years of informal practice alongside his primary art, Shuai Jiao.

Chang later created his own variation of tai chi and xingyiquan, Chang-style tai chi, based on Yang-style tai chi, xingyiquan and his shuai jiao knowledge. It is unclear to me where he got his Xingyi knowledge -- probably from others in the Institute. The Nanjing institute is the likeliest place he learned it. From 1928 into the 1930s, xingyi was one of the core arts there, and its staff included notable Hebei xingyi lineage teachers. Sun Lutang briefly headed the Wudang (internal arts) department in 1928, and Zhu Guofu was on the faculty. Chang probably absorbed xingyi through the same informal, reciprocal exchange as his taiji: wrestling instruction traded for internal-art instruction. That would explain why his xingyi comes down as material folded into a composite system rather than as a separate lineage with a named master. Nothing I found links him specifically to Sun, Zhu, or any other xingyi teacher, so I would not attribute it to any of them. Also on this note, it is likely Chang Tung Sheng met Wang Ziping, my Dashi. I would like to believe they became friends out of a shared love of Shuai-Jiao, but again, this is just speculation.

Biographies say he travelled across all China and learned with around 70 masters, always introducing himself as a simple student. That means his taiji probably drew on more than one person, though those other teachers are not named. So it is perhaps unfair to limit his Taiji instructoin to 3 years of reciprocal, not formal instruction. Most of Chang’s taiji likely took shape through his own later development in Nanjing and then in Taiwan after 1949. This suggests he learned from Taiji artists on the island -- highly likely Cheng Man Ching. Robert W. Smith trained with both in Taiwan and profiled both in Chinese Boxing: Masters and Methods. Yet I know of no account, from Smith or from Chang’s lineage, that has Chang studying under Cheng. An informal relationship is easy to speculate on circumstantial grounds, though this is inference. By 1949 Chang was an established national champion and senior instructor with his own Yang-derived material. His taiji also runs in the opposite direction from Cheng’s: Chang’s is compact and throw-oriented, while Cheng’s 37-posture short form emphasizes softness and yielding. If the two had contact, it was more likely the peer exchange Chang was known for than formal instruction.

The above puts Chang Tai Chi into much greater focus and explains why Chang modified Tai Chi to include what he did, somewhat unaware that Tai Chi already contains many of these aspects. What we can easily infer is not that Chang was a Tai Chi master and made educated changes to the form to improve it; rather that he saw the value in Tai Chi and desired to approach it. In that light I say Chang Tai Chi is a success, and that Chang Tai Chi is valuable for:

a) Shuai Jiao students who want to approach Tai Chi and would like a smoother transition, and
b) Any Tai Chi student who is interesed in fighting.

I can't comment directly on what is inside Chang Tai Chi but I can review your points, which are interesting:

1. Add leg skills into the form (push + leg skill = throw).
Tai chi already has leg skills. although they are likely not as comprehensive as in Chang Tai Chi. Tai Chi's leg skills come as part and parcel of the applications from the moves. For example, BKTS contains a shin press. Most recently I have seen such applications shown in Chen Zhonghua videos.

2. Emphasize pulling more than pushing (emphasize leading arm control).
Tai Chi does not emphasize pushing, it emphasizes pulling. There is no emphasis on any of the 13 energies, however, peng and lu play a central role because of their position as foundational basic concepts. I would not say peng is emphasized. If peng is emphasized that's not good. Emphasizing pulling is a defiantly better strategy,

3. Combine both fast speed and slow speed training (slow, fast, slow, ...).
4. Add power generation (in those fast moves).
Chen style, Hao style, Sun style all have intermittent fajing in the form, which is also used to train power generation. If Chang felt this was missing it's probably because of his introduction via Yang style.

5. Integrate Xingyi principles into the form (Pi Quan, Beng Quan, ...).
Chen style and of course Wu/Hao and Sun style retains these motions -- at least, if you want them. There are variations of moves which are retained that match xingyi and xinyi liuhe.

6. Coordinate each move with breathing (1 move = 1 inhale or 1 exhale).
I can't comment on Tai Chi breathing techniques, as I think it's beyond the scope of the topic. But I will note that Chang likely was not taught any breathing techniques because Yang style uses the natural breathing method until much later in training. Chang would have obviously wanted to use Shuai Jiao breathing techniques, or maybe something he learned in Xingyi. It's also plausable he learned real Tai Chi breathing techniques later, but he wouldn't have learned them in the Institute. Just a historical curiosity, I don't think it's good or bad just interesting!

Conclusion; what is the takeaway value of Chang Tai Chi compared to other styles of Tai Chi? if you are interested in Martial Arts you can learn Chang Tai Chi and later on you can more easily get into either tai chi or (I presume, shuai jiao). However, as a purist I would wonder if at the higher levels of Chang Tai Chi, whether one has direcrt "Chang Tai Chi" material to work on, or if they end up drawing more directly from either Yang style or Shuai Jiao.

 

[Kung Fu Wang163 193]

peng and lu play a central role because of their position as foundational basic concepts. I would not say peng is emphasized. If peng is emphasized that's not good. Emphasizing pulling is a defiantly better strategy,

If we can look at 10 Taiji discussions about Peng and Lu, we may see 8 Peng discussions and only 2 Lu discussions.

If you can control/pull your opponent's leading arm, you can do a lot of things.

One should keep his friend close and his enemy closer.

=

 

[windwalker099163 11]

Interesting summary.

You say, “I can't comment directly on what is inside Chang Tai Chi.”

Yet you've already characterized it as:
“Therefore when discussing Chang Tai Chi it must be seen as a variant of Shuai Jiao and not as a style of Tai Chi per-se.”

It does help explain Kung Fu Wang's viewpoints and the lens through which he looks at Taiji.

 

[windwalker099163 11]

If we can look at 10 Taiji discussions about Peng and Lu, we may see 8 Peng discussions and only 2 Lu discussions.

If you can control/pull your opponent's leading arm, you can do a lot of things.

One should keep his friend close and his enemy closer.

According to some,

“Therefore when discussing Chang Tai Chi it must be seen as a variant of Shuai Jiao and not as a style of Tai Chi per-se.”

Perhaps

this is why you cannot find the answers you're looking for in discussions about Taiji?

 

[Marsha Larts3]

Pull is Push in the opposite direction

Poling a raft or boat is pull...or push...every pull is a push and every push is a pull

 

[Kung Fu Wang163 193]

every pull is a push and every push is a pull

Agree that "every pull is a push". Disagree that "every push is a pull".

When you push your opponent away, you can't pull him any more. When your opponent is away from you, you don't have any control over him.

- In striking art, you pull your opponent into your punch to cause head on collision (A + B > A).
- In throwing art, you pull your opponent so you can borrow his resistance force for your push to cause a rear end collision (A + B > A).

 

[Kung Fu Wang163 193]

every push is a pull

This is why the "leg skill" is added in. When you push your opponent's upper body away, you use your leg to pull his leg/legs. This way, your opponent will still fall under your attacking range.

 

[Same Trick107 8]

Chang Tung-Sheng learned Tai Chi Chuan as part of his required training and knowledge exchange while studying and teaching at the Nanking Central Martial Arts Academy (Central Kuoshu Institute) in the 1930s.

In all likelyhood he actually learned from Yang Cheng-Fu at the Institute

in Taiwan after 1949. This suggests he learned from Taiji artists on the island -- highly likely Cheng Man Ching

That would make sense, to continue study under some of Yang Chengfu’s most highly regarded diciples

 

[Kung Fu Wang163 193]

After Chang had defeated Li in Taiji push hand (Li used Taiji diagonal fly, Chang countered with SC body squeeze), Chang exchanged SC knowledge with Li's Taiji knowledge. Li and Chang were on the same level.

he actually learned from Yang Cheng-Fu at the Institute,

This is a false statement.

This suggests he learned from Taiji artists on the island -- highly likely Cheng Man Ching.

This is also a false statement.

 

[Appledog68 40]

After Chang had defeated Li in Taiji push hand (Li used Taiji diagonal fly, Chang countered with SC body squeeze), Chang exchanged SC knowledge with Li's Taiji knowledge. Li and Chang were on the same level.


This is a false statement.

This is also a false statement.

No, his art was mainly developed and spread in Taiwan. On the mainland his public record is wrestling. He was the Baoding “Flying Butterfly,” chief wrestling instructor at the Nanjing Central Guoshu Institute from about 1932, heavyweight winner at the 1933 national guoshu competition, and notably, army wrestling champion again in 1948. Wartime posts were sports and wrestling instruction for Nationalist units, including the paratroopers. Chinese biographies call him 摔跤大王 and 花蝴蝶. They do not treat him as a tai chi teacher.

His later students have stated the Nanjing 1930's material material, mixed with his throwing, became “Chang-style” tai chi. That was a personal practice and a later lineage name, not the reputation he carried before he left. The surviving public demonstrations of his tai chi are from Taiwan: the Central Police College in 1965, and later trips such as Ohio State in 1980 and San Francisco in 1983.

Re: Yang Chengfu, yes, that is just speculation. But it may be important for people to understand why. Li Jinglin, the Fengtian general and swordsman known as “China’s First Sword,” a Yang-style practitioner associated with Yang Jianhou, and a founder figure of the Central Guoshu Institute. By 1929 he was running the Shandong Guoshu Institute in Jinan. He died of dysentery there in December 1931, aged about 46.

Chang was a Baoding shuai jiao specialist, later called the “Flying Butterfly.” Biographical accounts place his appointment as wrestling instructor at the Nanjing Central Guoshu Institute around 1932–1933, after Li’s death, when Chang was about 20–25. He won the heavyweight division at the 1933 national guoshu tournament and later built what students call Chang-style tai chi from Yang-style material, xingyi, and his own throwing.

So even if we say Chang Tung Sheng was admitted as instructor in 1928, which is speculative, Li was in Shandong at the time. He could not have taught Chang or engaged in any sort of match with him. Even if he wasn't in Shandong, Chang would have had at most 3 years to learn from Li Jinglin. So even if the challenge match took place, it wouldn't have been a push hands match because Chang Tung Sheng didn't know Tai Chi at the time. Needless to say, Yang Jianhou's name doesn't even enter the picture. Yang Chengfu's name was only brought up because it is unclear who else could have taught him Tai Chi. So if he didn't learn from Yang Chengfu, who did he learn from, then?

What does circulate is an oral claim from some of Chang’s Taiwanese students and descendants: that Li challenged Chang, lost at push hands or wrestling, and then taught him Yang-style material (sometimes with the added detail that Li adjusted throws on Chang’s advice). Western shuai jiao pages echo a softer version; a “martial exchange” with “General Li Jin-Ling” at the Institute in the 1930s. No period newspaper, institute record, or independent biography records such a match. Therefore what is most likely is that Chang and Li met and had a martial exchange and Chang and Li shared information and techniques, but nothing special can be made of it. Li simply was not in Nanjing at the time. He was in Shandong and died before Chang joined the Nanjing academy.

What is not in dispute is that Chang Tung Sheng was a master of Shuai Jiao.

 

[Xue Sheng152 6]

I do not want to get into this to deeply..... the OP and I do not agree at all on Taijiquan. And that is documented in multiple posts here on MT

But I will add this

Chang Dongsheng (Chang Tung Sheng)​

Also, Traditional Yang Taijiquan has kick, punch, push, pull, yank, qinna and leg work. I've been trained in them. The OP seems to continually believe it does not.

All Chinese martial arts have Kick, Punch, Qinna and Shuaijiao to varying degrees. Some have more some have less

Chang Dongsheng was a Shuaijiao guy, and a very good one, so it is to be expected, and thing he comes up with will have a lot of Shuaijiao.

Is Cheng Taijiquan, actually Taijiquan, IMO, no. But then I ahve my doubts about the Wu style that comes from Wu Quanyou and his son Wu Jianquan as well. I really like the style, but my Yang Shifu will tell you it is not taijiquan, I tend to think that it is. Either way it is closer to Taijiquan than Cheng taiji. This is not to say Cheng's martiual art is bad or sub par, it isn't, it is rather effective from what I can see, but IMO, it is not taijiquan.

I really do not plan to post anything else in this thread, do not want to give the Mods more work to do.

 

[RDG5]

Some observations of the discussion -
Appledog seems to not give credit to AI
Having been exposed to both Yang and Chang - of course it is TAI CHI unless Yang Tai Chi is also not Tai Chi - how anyone can form conclusion without immersion is puzzling.
As a Pa Kua guy I can say after a study of Shuai Jiao that enough credit is not given
Shuai Jiao for its DNA in PaKua.
On a personal note -
I now understand why John's Xing Yi is a perfect match to what Bow Sim Mark taught
It has to be General Li's influence on her and Master Chang.
I stand impressed by John's insights into Xing Yi technique.

 

[windwalker099163 11]

Is Cheng Taijiquan, actually Taijiquan, IMO, no. But then I ahve my doubts about the Wu style that comes from Wu Quanyou and his son Wu Jianquan as well. I really like the style, but my Yang Shifu will tell you it is not taijiquan, I tend to think that it is. Either way it is closer to Taijiquan than Cheng taiji. This is not to say Cheng's martiual art is bad or sub par, it isn't, it is rather effective from what I can see, but IMO, it is not taijiquan.

An interesting observation.

There is no single method or style that exclusively defines "Taijiquan."

Rather, there is a family of styles that share certain underlying principles and concepts associated with the practice of Taiji, although their methods of expressing them may differ.

Historically, this distinction was debated in discussions over whether Chen style should be included within the Taiji family. The question centered on whether it was an internal or external practice.

As one account relates:

"Master Wu Tunan did not concur. He felt that Chen Style should be treated as an external style, similar to Shaolin. Someone turned to Chen Fake, 'Master Chen, you are the standard bearer of the Chen Family, is it external or internal?'"

An interesting historical account, made more so by the fact that @Kung Fu Wang
does not recognize the distinction between internal and external methods, while still referring to his teacher's method as Taiji, questioning why other Taiji methods do not contain or emphasize the same movements or strategies to the same degree.

If the distinction between internal and external methods is considered meaningless, what underlying principles distinguish Taijiquan from other martial arts?

I mention this as someone whose own practice was once described in much the same way.

At our first meeting, he asked to see my Taiji. He was in his 70s at the time.

After observing my movements, he remarked,

“This is not Taiji, it’s slow Shaolin.”

I simply responded, “Okay.”

And so, my real training with him began.

 

[windwalker099163 11]

@Xue Sheng

You mentioned having doubts about Wu Jianquan's method, although you tend to regard it as Taijiquan, while you do not regard Chang Tung Sheng's method as such.

What specifically distinguishes the two methods that leads you to accept one as Taijiquan but not the other?

 

[Xue Sheng152 6]

@Xue Sheng

You mentioned having doubts about Wu Jianquan's method, although you tend to regard it as Taijiquan, while you do not regard Chang Tung Sheng's method as such.

What specifically distinguishes the two methods that leads you to accept one as Taijiquan but not the other?

Admittedly I have a strict view of what constitutes something being called taijiquan, Cheng does not follow much of this, where it can be argued Wu does.

The Ten Essentials of Tai Chi Chuan​

also the Chen family view

Chen-style anchored view of the 13 Postures (8 gates/energies and 5 steps), the alignment of the "three bows" (spine, legs, arms), and internal/external coiling., Chen Dantian Rotation drives every movement through the rotation, Silk-Reeling (Chansi Jin) continuous spiral, wrapping, and unwinding mechanics through every joint and limb. Power Generation: integrates alternating slow-and-fast pacing, low stances, joint snaps, foot stomps, and explosive releases (Fajin)

But should also take into account that my lineage is Tung Ying Chieh, and we have obvious fajin forms. Alo I believe Tung Ying Chieh takes the 10 essentials and breaks them up a bit ot 12. But I could be wrong there, it has been many years since I read Tung Ying Chieh's Red Book. And the next taijiquan style I have more experience in is Chen. I have much less in Wu and Sun.

And I have read the views of Chen

However if you, or anyone else wishes to call Cheng Taijiquan, more power to them, just don't expect me to agree, but I will not get into arguing with the OP about things taijiquan again..... Neither of us will change our view.... I shall not comment further on this here

 

[windwalker099163 11]

Admittedly I have a strict view of what constitutes something being called taijiquan, Cheng does not follow much of this, where it can be argued Wu does.

The Ten Essentials of Tai Chi Chuan​

also the Chen family view

Chen-style anchored view of the 13 Postures (8 gates/energies and 5 steps), the alignment of the "three bows" (spine, legs, arms), and internal/external coiling., Chen Dantian Rotation drives every movement through the rotation, Silk-Reeling (Chansi Jin) continuous spiral, wrapping, and unwinding mechanics through every joint and limb. Power Generation: integrates alternating slow-and-fast pacing, low stances, joint snaps, foot stomps, and explosive releases (Fajin)

But should also take into account that my lineage is Tung Ying Chieh, and we have obvious fajin forms. Alo I believe Tung Ying Chieh takes the 10 essentials and breaks them up a bit ot 12. But I could be wrong there, it has been many years since I read Tung Ying Chieh's Red Book. And the next taijiquan style I have more experience in is Chen. I have much less in Wu and Sun.

And I have read the views of Chen

However if you, or anyone else wishes to call Cheng Taijiquan, more power to them, just don't expect me to agree, but I will not get into arguing with the OP about things taijiquan again..... Neither of us will change our view.... I shall not comment further on this here

Thanks for the reply.

I'm not really concerned with what someone chooses to call “their” method.

I do find the distinctions between methods, and the outcomes they produce, interesting. For me, these differences help distinguish different approaches to training and what they actually develop.

I often wonder why someone would insist that their method is the same as another when there are clearly differences in how they practice and what they produce. and then proceed to present arguments that the other methods are the ones lacking.

It's not something I care to argue about. The teachers I've met generally preferred physical demonstrations whenever possible, and here on the internet, videos can at least provide something to examine.

For me, the internet is more about sharing experiences and observations than proving anything. It's not a particularly good medium for that.

But pointing out inconsistencies can sometimes encourage others to question their own assumptions, if they're willing to.

 

[windwalker099163 11]

A bit of history — why distinctions matter, if they do.

An interesting story concerning Yang Banhou and Liu Shijun, as related here.

According to the account,

Yang Banhou returned home pleased with himself after throwing Liu Shijun, a well-known Eagle Claw master.

When he told his father, Yang Luchan, about the encounter, his father remarked:

"Don't be too happy, it doesn't look like a clean victory."

Banhou was puzzled. His father told him to look beneath his armpits.

There were holes in his robe, suggesting that Liu Shijun had the opportunity to seriously injure him but had chosen not to.

Later that evening, Yang Luchan visited Liu, who was preparing to leave the city. Yang persuaded him to remain, explaining that the encounter had been nothing more than a casual crossing of hands, while praising Liu's skill and character.

In another account of the encounter, Yang Luchan notices that Banhou's sleeve has been torn and asks:

這算是太極勁嗎。

“Does this count as Taiji jin?”

Whether every detail of the story is historically accurate is another question.
What is interesting is the concern Yang Luchan had for the distinctions of their art, the apparent outcome, and what actually took place.

Banhou had successfully thrown his opponent, yet his father recognized something that Banhou himself apparently had not.

Winning an encounter does not necessarily mean one has understood or controlled what occurred.

Nor does the story necessarily establish the superiority of one martial art over another. Liu Shijun, despite being thrown, may actually have had the better of the encounter.

Perhaps this is why distinctions between methods matter.

It is not simply a question of whether someone can throw, strike, or otherwise defeat an opponent—but "how" the result was achieved, what the practitioner perceived, and what the method itself allowed.

Two practitioners may produce similar outward results while operating according to very different principles.

 

[Same Trick107 8]

No, his art was mainly developed and spread in Taiwan. On the mainland his public record is wrestling. He was the Baoding “Flying Butterfly,” chief wrestling instructor at the Nanjing Central Guoshu Institute from about 1932, heavyweight winner at the 1933 national guoshu competition, and notably, army wrestling champion again in 1948. Wartime posts were sports and wrestling instruction for Nationalist units, including the paratroopers. Chinese biographies call him 摔跤大王 and 花蝴蝶. They do not treat him as a tai chi teacher.

His later students have stated the Nanjing 1930's material material, mixed with his throwing, became “Chang-style” tai chi. That was a personal practice and a later lineage name, not the reputation he carried before he left. The surviving public demonstrations of his tai chi are from Taiwan: the Central Police College in 1965, and later trips such as Ohio State in 1980 and San Francisco in 1983.

Re: Yang Chengfu, yes, that is just speculation. But it may be important for people to understand why. Li Jinglin, the Fengtian general and swordsman known as “China’s First Sword,” a Yang-style practitioner associated with Yang Jianhou, and a founder figure of the Central Guoshu Institute. By 1929 he was running the Shandong Guoshu Institute in Jinan. He died of dysentery there in December 1931, aged about 46.

Chang was a Baoding shuai jiao specialist, later called the “Flying Butterfly.” Biographical accounts place his appointment as wrestling instructor at the Nanjing Central Guoshu Institute around 1932–1933, after Li’s death, when Chang was about 20–25. He won the heavyweight division at the 1933 national guoshu tournament and later built what students call Chang-style tai chi from Yang-style material, xingyi, and his own throwing.

So even if we say Chang Tung Sheng was admitted as instructor in 1928, which is speculative, Li was in Shandong at the time. He could not have taught Chang or engaged in any sort of match with him. Even if he wasn't in Shandong, Chang would have had at most 3 years to learn from Li Jinglin. So even if the challenge match took place, it wouldn't have been a push hands match because Chang Tung Sheng didn't know Tai Chi at the time. Needless to say, Yang Jianhou's name doesn't even enter the picture. Yang Chengfu's name was only brought up because it is unclear who else could have taught him Tai Chi. So if he didn't learn from Yang Chengfu, who did he learn from, then?

What does circulate is an oral claim from some of Chang’s Taiwanese students and descendants: that Li challenged Chang, lost at push hands or wrestling, and then taught him Yang-style material (sometimes with the added detail that Li adjusted throws on Chang’s advice). Western shuai jiao pages echo a softer version; a “martial exchange” with “General Li Jin-Ling” at the Institute in the 1930s. No period newspaper, institute record, or independent biography records such a match. Therefore what is most likely is that Chang and Li met and had a martial exchange and Chang and Li shared information and techniques, but nothing special can be made of it. Li simply was not in Nanjing at the time. He was in Shandong and died before Chang joined the Nanjing academy.

What is not in dispute is that Chang Tung Sheng was a master of Shuai Jiao.

Ye Dami student of Tian Zhaolin might have been the one that taught taijiquan to Li Jinglin as exchange for learning Li’s Wudang sword back in 1926.
That is the same year Ye Dami opened the very first public taijiquan school in China and it was called Wudang Taijiquan School which probably drew the attention of Li Jinglin and later inspired Li to create his own Wudang taijiquan based on Ye’s Yang-Taijiquan teachings and also the Xingyiquan Ye had learned from Sun Lutang. Later, in 1928 with Li’s opening of the Central Martial Arts Institute Chang Tungsheng learns Li’s [Wudang]Taijiquan.

(Note : Tian Zhaolin at a young age was adopted into the Yang family by Yang Jianhou)

 

[Kung Fu Wang163 193]

Chang Taiji "power generation with variable speed" is under development.