Origins of Tai Chi?

[Malcolm]

Please tell me your opinion on the origin of Tai Chi. I believe that the creator is Sanfeng but this contradicts many student’s lineage and also complements other student’s lineage. I also believe that too much research into this subject can make an individual stray away from the truth, due to different styles of tai chi wanting to make their style seem like the initial style for the purpose of popularity. Therefore I would appreciate it if you could give me an instinctive answer. Please share your opinions and don't argue. Thank you.

[taijiquan_student]

I'm a Qi Jiguang/Chen Wang Ting guy, myself. I'm all into historical accuracy.

Let me ask you, out of curiosity, why you believe Zhang Sanfeng is the creator of taiji? I've never seen or heard of anything to suggest that this is actually true.

[Malcolm]

It is due to three main things. Yang manuals referring back to Sanfeng down the line, if I remember correctly somebody taught the yang family, who was taught by some one else and who was taught by Sanfeng, lineage of my of very experienced students, and research into the village in which Sanfeng is said to have creator this art. I.e. him creating it and many villagers believe he is the creator. This is just my belief; I am interested in yours if you would be so kind.

[Souljah]

I believe it was Zhang San Feng, However as you have mentioned many people claim a different story to the origin of tai chi chuan (was still known as nei chia - 'inner/internal school', up until its present name was given c.1850 AD when introduced to the beijing public apparently)
Many Chen stylists claim it was Chen Wang Ting a former general in the military at the time, during the ming dynasty (San Fengs story dates to c.1100 AD during the Sung dynasty.)
There is a point where the two link however... Zhang San feng is regarded as the original teacher of wudang tai chi chuan (wudang wushu), who later passed these teachings to Wang Chung-yueh. Who had two diciples considered to be imprortant to the origins of the various styles of tai chi.
One went to south china while the other named Chiang-fa resided in the north and eventually became the teacher of Chen Wang Ting from the honan province. Becoming the founder of CHEN STYLE TAI CHI
Although the Chen tai chi family kept thier style secret for many years eventually Chen Chang-hsing broke the mould and tought Yang Lu-shan who eventually derived yang style tai chi from his knowledge. This is all i could gather from reading various sites, I found it hard to find anything else challenging or giving proof of anyone else being the true creator of tai chi.
Though it could be open to debate about chen wang ting recorded in chinese history to have practiced taichi, whereas san feng could only be believed by word of mouth due to no offical documentation of him. This could be why many believe chen wang ting created it as there is no stamping evidence of chen san feng ever existing and many claim he is just a myth and popular folk story.
Though the style taught may have been different from tai chi learnt today i belive it formed the base of the various styles we call tai chi chuan.


soul

[Shadow Dragon]

It is kinda dificult..

Many Chinese Arts associated a famous Person as the founder of the Art.

I heard a different story that Sang Feng invented "Neijia Chuan" (now extinct style), and that the internal principles from there influenced other styles and arts.

Internal principles can be found in many Arts not just the internals.

Many also believe that it was Jiang Fa that internalised the styles that became aler kown s TJQ.

Being a Chen stylist I am going with their History at the moment.

Personally, the Sang Feng theory is too nice and clean to be accurate.

Regardless of what is written, I don't believe that we can credit one single Person with creating TJQ or even the internal concepts.
Cheers.

[Souljah]

Shadow Dragon- Yes your right about it being hard to credit one single person, but from small acorns giant oaks may grow and if san feng was responsible even for the philosophical interpretations tai chi uses of daoism then that is what I can credit him for although I believe he created nei chia which would later lead onto original daoist tai chi (also known as wudang tai chi). Whether this be the interpretations of his students or not, he formed the foundation on which it was built.

soul

[Walter Joyce]

I think you are confusing mythology with history. I've been through the topic of this thread a number of times. When I get back to my desk I'll be happy to send you an article or two if you like. Or try a web search using Stanley Henning and Taiji/tai chi.

In a nutshell, Chang San Fen as the founder of taiji quan is a myth. If you choose it as your belief, fine, but at least realize there is no historical foundation for this theory.

Chen Wang Ting developed the first systemized approach to martial arts which later became known as taiji. Yang Luchan learned from the Chen family while an indentured servant. Even the modern Yang family representatives acknowledge this.

But hey, I could be wrong. Great thing is, you can believe what you like, and so can I.


:cool:

[Malcolm]

Indeed I agree. I also believe that to call SanFeng a myth is very arrogant. Indefinitely tai chi is an extremely old art form. Due to this fact and also the nature of research from china which is translated to the west. By this I mean a large number of documents being burnt, and what not. Research I am not going to go into at the moment. The research which suggests that SanFeng is not the founder is questionable. A relatively accurate why to find the truth is to look into lineage, since lineage is passed down to a selected student and is not disrupted by politics in China. Also another way to find the truth would be to go to China its self and to the village where SanFend was sad to have created this great art, thus avoiding all the *****iness between styles so predominate in the west. For example Chen style is the First style, no its Yang.

[planetwc]

Why would it be arrogant to call SanFeng a myth, when it is already known that Yang first learned from the Chens in Chen village? It is a Chen village art, the village actually exists and today still holds many of the family lineage holders?

Here is the Henning article:
http://www.nardis.com/~twchan/henning.html

The evidence is clear in terms of who learned from who.
It makes even more sense that Chen village used this system of combat to protect their village among other things.

Would it be arrogant to call Santa Claus a myth? :P


Originally posted by Malcolm
Indeed I agree. I also believe that to call SanFeng a myth is very arrogant. Indefinitely tai chi is an extremely old art form. Due to this fact and also the nature of research from china which is translated to the west. By this I mean a large number of documents being burnt, and what not. Research I am not going to go into at the moment. The research which suggests that SanFeng is not the founder is questionable. A relatively accurate why to find the truth is to look into lineage, since lineage is passed down to a selected student and is not disrupted by politics in China. Also another way to find the truth would be to go to China its self and to the village where SanFend was sad to have created this great art, thus avoiding all the *****iness between styles so predominate in the west. For example Chen style is the First style, no its Yang.

[taijiquan_student]

Malcolm--I may be a skinny white guy who knows just a couple of chinese people, but I can say you don't know much about the way Chinese work (no real disrespect). Lineage is the worst way to find out if the Sanfeng myth is indeed a myth. It is very typical for Chinese to attribute systems to famous, ancient personalities--it gives the art a certain credibility. Chinese generally like "tried and true" over "new and improved".
The fact is, there is nothing that suggests Zhang Sanfeng was the creator of taiji other than the claims by students of the Yang family who wanted to place taiji on a pedestal. An ancient immortal on Wudang Shan is a whole lot cooler than a military general (Qi Jiguang and Chen Wang Ting).

[dz]

Geez, this is going to be interesting...
Brace yourself for the flame war extravaganza :D

[Souljah]

taijiquan_student, I get what you mean about schools placing folk legends as their founders and what not.

However contrary to what you have said there are a few leads in the case that suggest that San feng was the creator. Again you can question the authenticity of these leads, but then you cn do that with any colliding stories.

From a source i've read san feng created nei chia (the title of this section of the forums), although some call it wudang wushu, wudang tai chi or daoist tai chi, but the fact reamains that there WAS a man who studied the dao in the wudang mountains at the time and developed a style using these daoist principles and his own previous knowledge of shaolin from his younger days, making soft movements and realising from watching a snake and a crane attack eachother (the famous animal stories which inhabit many MA histories) that a small force can topple a large force if used correctly.

Hereby developing the first 'soft' system.

Now whether Nei chia led on to taichi chuan we know today is very hard to pinpoint, but a few sources i've read have suggested he passed his teaching to Wang Chung-yueh, who passed them to many including Chiang fa, who eventually passed these to Chen wang ting - which i mentioned in an earlier post
(want a link -
here you go (http://www.xs4all.nl/~stcc/changsfeng.html) )
Now I dont claim that San feng CREATED tai chi chuan as we know it today, but I believe he provided the base from which it was formed/refined down the line.
Again this is just my opinion.....:D
When people say that chen wang ting MADE tai chi chuan, I would agree to a certain extent...but I would say he was taught san fengs principles and refined or organised the style of tai chi as we know it today.
Quite similar to the story of wing chun, although tai chi is much more vast in content, you can pin the ideals, principles and initial concept on san feng and the organised style and 'curriculum' you know today on chen wang ting .

Although people claim Nei chia to be 'extinct' There are still people who practice forms of wudang/daoist tai chi......

[Brad]

but the fact reamains that there WAS a man who studied the dao in the wudang mountains at the time and developed a style using these daoist principles and his own previous knowledge of shaolin from his younger days, making soft movements and realising from watching a snake and a crane attack eachother (the famous animal stories which inhabit many MA histories) that a small force can topple a large force if used correctly.

How is this fact? That website even states at the very top in big bold letters:
Legend attributes the creation of T’ai Chi Chuan to Chang San-feng,
a Taoist who studied at the Shaolin Temple in his youth.
Legit research requires more than piecing together a story from a few websites and people repeating a legend. The whole watching a snake and crane thing reads and probably is nothing more than a fanciful folk tale like many other CMA origin stories.

[GLW]

Let me see...

You have a monk in New York who drinks "Special Water" (alcohol) and meat and has been taken in for abusing a GIRLFRIEND and has a small baby (and you wondered where new monks came from)...yet with all of this, people flock to his school to buy into the Shaolin mythos.

You have people who are more than willing to buy into Yue Fei being the creator of at least 6 different styles of Martial Art - he was famous after all and no one really knows for sure what style he did...but it is good press and a number of VERY famous teachers in the US and Hong Kong proliferate this idea.

Now you also have Zhang Sanfeng, Jiang Fa, Wang Tsungyie...going form most dubious to least...but still doubtful.

So we should all be surprised when folks like to attribute what they do to a 7 foot tall Taoist "Immortal" who had a huge forehead and a back like a turtle....from the accounts...and these same people also talk about the 250 year old man...who disappeared when people finally decided to really go look for him...

Not surprising. P.T. Barnum TRULY KNEW human nature.

So...are you willing to be Barnum or the sucker?

[Walter Joyce]

If you think scholarly research into the historical record connected to the person whose name you used, Chang san Fen is arrogant, then we don't have much to discuss.

The basic premise of scholarly research is objectivity, collection of ALL available data, review of said data, and then interpreting the data in a fashion that makes sense. You may want to familiarize yourself with the phrase Occam's Razor.

I have to say I don't get the feeling the Chang San Fen proponents are being objective, they have not looked for all available data, and they have not intrepreted the data in a way that makes sense. And ad hominem attacks are never a sign of a well reasoned argument.

We have been down this road many times before. Believe what you want, call me what you like. It won't effect my life or my training. And if you want to come here and ask questions just so people will agree with you, then say so at the onset.


Main Entry: myth
Pronunciation: 'mith
Function: noun
Etymology: Greek mythos
Date: 1830
1 a : a usually traditional story of ostensibly historical events that serves to unfold part of the world view of a people or explain a practice, belief, or natural phenomenon b : PARABLE, ALLEGORY
2 a : a popular belief or tradition that has grown up around something or someone; especially : one embodying the ideals and institutions of a society or segment of society <seduced by the American myth of individualism -- Orde Coombs> b : an unfounded or false notion
3 : a person or thing having only an imaginary or unverifiable existence
4 : the whole body of myths

Main Entry: his·to·ry
Pronunciation: 'his-t(&-)rE
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -ries
Etymology: Latin historia, from Greek, inquiry, history, from histOr, istOr knowing, learned; akin to Greek eidenai to know -- more at WIT
Date: 14th century
1 : TALE, STORY
2 a : a chronological record of significant events (as affecting a nation or institution) often including an explanation of their causes b : a treatise presenting systematically related natural phenomena c : an account of a patient's medical background d : an established record <a prisoner with a history of violence>
3 : a branch of knowledge that records and explains past events <medieval history>
4 a : events that form the subject matter of a history b : events of the past c : one that is finished or done for <the winning streak was history> <you're history> d : previous treatment, handling, or experience (as of a metal)

[TaiChiBob]

Greetings..

Most likely scenario.. as told to me by a chinese "GrandMaster"..

Hundreds of years ago an Emperor feared martial arts in the hands of the people, so he forbid the people to practice martial arts.. the people continued to practice, but when government officials or snitches were around, they slowed the forms down and called it a villiage "dance".. Certain medicine men (QiGong) noticed the special effects and began studying them in depth.. Patron Saints of Tai Chi are most likely those that organized the previous work of others into family styles.. The argument as to who is the originator is most likely lost in antiquity.. and completely irrelevent to the Arts today..

Be well..

[Walter Joyce]

Just curious, a taiji grandmaster?

The existence of documents supporting the Chen family claims, including the acceptance of this claim by the Yang family representatives belies your "lost in antiquity" assertion.

And as I type I'm thinking, who cares? Even the person who started this thread appears not to be interested in an answer unless it conforms to his pre-conceived notions.

I have spent too much time and energy on an issue that is of dubious importance and long settled in my mind.

Like I said in my first post, you believe what you like, and I'll do the same. It seems no one picked up on that part of my post.

[TaiChiBob]

Greetings..

No, a Kung Fu Grandmaster.. and, yeah, who cares.. it is my humble opinion to be grateful for the Arts as they exist.. and i just offer my respect to ALL that have come before me to make it so..

[Souljah]

Brad,
At this point all I can do is research via the internet, there is no other way of me researching as I cannot travel to china (no funding:( )

But the quote you mentioned was not reffering to the site mentioned, that site was to give a link to the lineage that I mentioned between san feng and chen wang ting.....

The other info was from various sites I've looked up ..... though I cant give you the link to all of them, you should look it up yourself!

Wudang history states this, and its the closest your going to get to a fact at this level as no other documentation was made at this time.....

So who else do you suggest made the first soft style ?
Like I said before im not claiming san feng MADE taichi chuan as we know it today, but had a very strong role/influence in the making of its modern form.

Plus, calling someone a legend does not mean that its more likely they are a folk story and myth than an actual person.

Wong fei hung was labelled a legend and we all know he existed, Just because we mainly only have word of mouth to believe in san fengs existence does not mean that it is invalid.....


walter joyce,
yes you have your opinion and I have mine, but these forums are about expressing opinion are they not?
So when you nievly say "who cares" , maybe it may not matter to you but it is a topic of interest to me and im sure many other people.

Ockhams razor by the way (william of ockham c.1300-1349)
I do not feel is neccessarily appropriate in this scenario, as in my mind it promotes a kind of laziness toward research, the whole notion of not multplying beyond neccessity would just point us to chen wang ting right?
But if there is information that is not as apparent when searching and may require a more indepth approach, then this concept is just a way of accepting what is on the dinner table infront of you when you know the menu is much larger.

I mean to almost everyone the earth was flat until proved otherwise, what if Christopher Columbus had used Ockhams razor, saying "oh theres no point believing the world is round because i dont want to multiply thing beyond neccessity, call the voyage off!" , so many things would be left uncovered if this theory became a household belief.
lol



soul

[Walter Joyce]

Souljah
As I understand it we have more than word of mouth or oral history. There are the imperial records and the local gazeteers. Based an historical analysis of these preserved written records, there is no support for Chang San Fen as even being connected to the practice of martial arts until well after he lived.

In other words, this theory seems to be a later attempt to credit him for something for which he received no credit during or even in the period directly after his lifetime. Given his importance in chinese history, his efforts in martial arts would most likely have been recorded in the record during his lifetime.

I think I'm done with this. Enjoy your research.

[GLW]

Herein lies the big problem...

"As told to me by a Grandmaster..." First off, what makes the person a GRANDMASTER....?

Second, why should anyone believe him/her.

Martial Arts people are notorious for NOT being literate. Yang Luchan through Yang Chengfu were ILLITERATE. Meaning, they knew NOTHING of history or scholarship. They are the least likely to be trusted in regards to history UNLESS they are pulling from county records or other items.

The scholarship required of a historia vs. the skill required of a martial artist...not the same skill and it is quite rare to find a person accomplished in both.

Myth and legend....amazing things...but of course, George Washington DID indeed chop down a cherry tree :)

That is only 200 years ago. Now think about 400+ years.

[Souljah]

I wouldnt consider chinese records the 'be all and end all'.

It is perfectly possible that during chinas pugilistic past records could have been 'erased', 'rewritten' or just not recorded at all as they may have not been considered important at the time.
I dont think at the time of its creation (whoever you believe created tai chi) people knew that thier art would eventually become the most practiced art in the world.

Just something I feel needs to be considered for the last statement by walter .


soul

[Walter Joyce]

Souljah,
Ok, lets assume you're right, we can't trust the written record. Then what do you suggest is more accurate, the oral tradition?

Indulge me and answer the following questions:

How old are you?

How long have you studied martial arts?

How much of the exiting written materails for the roots of taiji have you read?

How many versions of the taiji classics/secret transmissions have you read?

Have you ever been trained as an historian?

Are you familiar with the historical research process?

Have you ever read any of Douglas Wile's writings? Stanley Henning's?

Who or what do you rely on for your conclusions?

Is there a be all and end all to anything?

In conclusion, I will concede that I may be wrong, but at least I've done the homework. Occam's (an accepted spelling, check if you care to) razor is rarely if ever the lazy approach, it requires rigor to be applied correctly, and the correct spelling is naive.

Main Entry: Oc·cam's razor
Pronunciation: 'ä-k&mz-
Function: noun
Etymology: William of Occam
Date: circa 1837
: a scientific and philosophic rule that entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily which is interpreted as requiring that the simplest of competing theories be preferred to the more complex or that explanations of unknown phenomena be sought first in terms of known quantities

I paraphrase this as the most direct interpretation of the data that relies on a thorough uderstanding of the context from which the data is gleaned, that does not require relieance on extraneous unsupported data, is the most probable.

Why do I care?

Because I see a correlation between mystical legendary sources of internal arts and mystical approaches to training.

The same type of thinking that relies on a less reliable source for interpreting history MAY also rely on "Chi" to explain the skills of taiji (exceptions allowed for those raised with chi as a cultural concept) instead of relying on rigorous physical and mental training in their daily practice, based on reliable teaching and critical examination of those teachings.

The only secret of any value is proper daily training, without that nothing else matters, because all the other "secrets" require the application of this first secret to ever produce valuable results.

Legends shrouded in mist are entertaining, much like fairy tales. Thinking you can rely on your "chi" has about as much value. Lazy thinking is a precursor to lazy training.

I'll bet you wish you never got me started.

Take of the blinders, look at things critically, and realize that relying on the mystical gets you nowhere.

The only reason I see this as a waste of time is that wheteher or not we ever agree on any of this doesn't matter a ****. Its the blood sweat and effort that go into the training that counts.

[Souljah]

OK first off, I dont appreciate you patronizing me, I dont care how many years you may have on me im still entitled to my opinion and NOTHING makes you better than me or me better than you, understand?
'Dont look down on anyone' is the way I live but then again you are not me and arrogance may just be part of you personality.

If you read my posts you will see that im not making any stamped conclusions as I do not have enough (reliable) sources, I just state what I believe at present..
If down the line I wanted to make a conclusion I would base it on the types and amout of evidence I have and the reliability of the sources.
Why do you insist on making it out like im saying sometyhing im not.....?
I DIDNT say we couldnt trust the written records but I said they are not the only things we should go on, alot the information on the internet on tai chi is mostly from chen style tai chi practitioners and obviously they would portray chen wang ting as the grand creator of tai chi.....

Next, there was Occams/ Ockhams razor.....
where should I start on this. Obviously you have not followed the advise you gave me and everyone else on tracing historical facts.
As you will find that occam and ockham are both accepted spellings and he lived between 1287 and 1347 AD, now this is from various sources not just one and not just your online encyclopedia cuttings.....

OK ockhams razor points to the most probable answer, being chen wang ting (though I dont even think I've seen your opinion on this), However like I said before alot of the info on the net is from chen style practitioners as this is the most practiced form of tai chi chuan.....

So with this said I would say that I cannot conclude at this point due to the very 'one-sided' arguements put forward on the internet by chen stylists and the portrayal of San feng by many to be just a folk legend and myth, and you and I know why this has been done.

The claimed myth would not explain that Daoist/Wudang tai chi is still being practiced today and you will find this dates back to Zhang san feng.

[Walter Joyce]

I merely asked your age and years of practice, you can infer from that whatever you like. There is nothing wrong with being younger, and nothing right about being older. My implied thought was that you're arguments lacked a mature perspective, which can be the product of chronology or perspective.

I had no intention of putting you down personally, just your assertions. Although I am not fond of being called naive. At my age thats the same as being stupid, i.e. I should know better.

As for the Wudang claims, again you are asserting claims, more probably than not motivated by economics, as fact. You may find the same lack of supporting evidence for the Wudang continuous lineage as you will for Chang San Fen.

The only explanation I have to offer for the differing dates is that Ockham himself may have lived when you stated, and the phrase "Occam's Razor" may be traced to the date cited in the dictionary. Makes sense if you think about it.

[Souljah]

OK about the ockhams razor point



As for the Wudang claims, again you are asserting claims, more probably than not motivated by economics, as fact. You may find the same lack of supporting evidence for the Wudang continuous lineage as you will for Chang San Fen.

Nope, I have proof that this practice is still going on, and as I stated before you can accomodate the lack of evidence on san feng due to the abundance of chen stylists on the net trying to implement the view of their style as supreme (not to diss any of these ma's)

The reason for calling you naive was because you said "WHO CARES?" when obviously alot of people will care about this topic.

As you say training is the most important thing , philosophy and history is also important to many. And kung fu to me is about much more than just training.

"If one ignores the past, he may rob the future
However if one dwells on the past he may rob the present
The past nourishes the future"

[Walter Joyce]

That the wudang practice continues or exists is not debated, that it is the same practice dating back for centuries is actually an open question as hotly debated as this one. An objective examination of the issue would lead to that conclusion.

Again, the spelling is naive, not to be confused with stupid (nice try pushing that button, but you'll find I pick my battles. You know the one about not engaging an unarmed man I suspect).

I care about history, I just care less and less about convincing people that they may be headed down the wrong path. And I keep history in perspective. I find myth amusing and a cultural revealer. I try not to confuse the two.

I think I'll follow the advice of my kung fu brother and let people like you make and learn from your own mistakes.

My replies were addressed originally to Malcom, who started the thread. As someone who has spent a fair amount of time thinking about and researching the issue I thought I had something to offer.

And this topic is OLD, its been debated off and on for ages...and it amounted to ..this thread, once again ... the rationalists versus the romatics (and the current marketers of the myth with an economic stake in the issue).

The important lesson from history is that it repeats itself, over and over. The outer shell changes but the essence of the struggle is the same. Heres hoping you enjoy yours, I know I relish mine.

[taijiquan_student]

Even the writings on Wudang Shan dedicated to Zhang Sanfeng mention nothing of martial arts, merely saying he was a daoist immortal.

Many of the postures in General Qi Jiguang's manual are Identical to Chen family postures.

Just because someone says "my lineage comes from Zhang Sanfeng" doesn't mean it's true. Heresay and fantastic lineage claims are not any kind of proof.

Chinese have been known on many occasions to attribute styles to legendary figures. Someone mentioned Yue Fei--he supposedly created at least two or three martial arts in his lifetime.

As Walter already said, our training TODAY is the most important thing. I've always been interested in history and the like, but it really doesn't matter. I think the fact that people see history and lineage as on the same level of importance as training, and read about old masters more than they practice is why so few practitioners are any good these days.

But anyways--unless you can prove to me otherwise (which I'm pretty darn sure you can't), THE ZHANG SANFENG LEGEND IS JUST THAT--A LEGEND.

Now, to keep this lively discussion going strong, I ask you to prove me and many others wrong. We've given you facts and historical and cultural reasons for our view. Do the same, and without resorting to "people claim their art comes from Zhang Sanfeng."

[Souljah]

taijiquan_student


What is wrong with wanting to expand your knowledge?
Learning about the history and lineage of taichi is just something to help that. And by challenging views I can get alot of you to express more, which is what you have done isnt it?
Thus helping me learn more.
To tell the truth Its not something that really bothers me as I dont even practice tai chi and If I did, I'd probably be doing chen style anyway.
I just want to know why everyone is so opposed to Zhang san feng being in any way associated with the makings of tai chi (if you look back at my earlier post you will see that this is what im trying to point out, not that he MADE it)
He can be credited with developing the first soft style, yet no one has challenged this for some reason.

Walter Joyce

A bit harsh about the unarmed man comment, I'd think twice about challenging a 46 year old lawyer (29 years my senior) to any sort of a debate unless I knew I was arguing for the right cause.....
I'm just asking you guys why its so proposterous that san feng had anything to do with the creation of tai chi....
You've seen this discussion many times before, yet you still post on it? There must be something here of interest.....?

OK you'll say there are no historical records. But I havent read any official records on chen wang ting either, is it not possible that he could be a myth too?
OH no because he was a general.......yes yes....must be true then.....

All I've read is a bunch of chen stylists tell the history the way they like it.

[taijiquan_student]

Nothing wrong with wanting to expand your knowledge.

"I'd probably be doing chen style anyway." Ouch. What's wrong with Yang style:( . Just kidding.

"I just want to know why everyone is so opposed to Zhang san feng being in any way associated with the makings of tai chi"

It's because outside of lineage claims and heresay there is nothing, not even his steele on Wudang Shan, that mentions Zhang was even involved in martial arts, let alone taiji. I'm not a Chen guy wanting to puff my style up, by the way. I do Yang style.

Again, it's cool you're trying to learn more (so am I. I'm sure Walter probably knows a whole lot more about this than I do).

[GLW]

Expanding one's knowledge requires that the person doing the expanding approach things with an open mind.

Unfortunately, Souljah has displayed that the open mind is NOT there.

The Zhang Sanfeng legends give a lot of credibility to those who need such things. However, they ARE legends. Try mentioning this line of reasoning to any martial historian scholar in China and you will be at best met with politeness ...concealing amusement at your gullibility.

"Minds, like parachutes, only work when they open"

[Souljah]

Showing open - mindedness..... I think I'm showing alot of open mindedness my friend, As myexample of an open mind in this instance would be taking in other views which I have done.....have I not?
I havent rashly dismissed anyones thoughts unlike 'you've' (rhetoric) done to me.....
Considering I dont neccessarily buy either story I'd say that I've got my mind pretty open on this topic.....try reading earlier posts before making these comments

As I didnt know much on this subject up until yesterday, I'd say im doing ok. :D

My gullability? lol thats pathetic of you, considering I didnt buy into any story, merely suggested possibilities.....

again the alliances formed on these forums are amazing, and because im not in one I am usually left outside in the cold:(
no matter though, rogue it is i guess......

:( :) :D

[Walter Joyce]

I was going to send this privately but no need.

I am a Yang stylist, interested in chen and facts, as well as bagua, and nei jia skills in general.

Douglas Wile and Stanley Henning are historians specializing in chinese history. Neither is a chen stylist.

I don't post to beat up on 17-year-olds, but to share what little I know.

While some people may agree with me from time to time, they will disagree just as often. The point being, there are no alliances, unless formed by consensus on the information being offered.

Keep training and keep searching Souljah, for someone your age you show great spirit.

Indiscretion is part of youth, and so easily dismissed as unimportant.

Learning to think critically is a lifelong process, the earlier you start, the better.

[GLW]

"Showing open - mindedness..... I think I'm showing alot of open mindedness my friend, As myexample of an open mind in this instance would be taking in other views which I have done.....have I not? "

Not really. You approached the subject with a preconceived notion about Zhang Sanfeng. There are those here (myself included) that have looked into this and found it to be highly unlikely. There were NO questions posted by you asking WHY people determined this. There were statements about how you discounted things and how you determined what you believed.

This may not necessarily be a closed mind but it is a mind pointed inward in a discussion instead of outward.

The tone of your posts from the beginning was less than open. This is what I am picking up on. Now, in your favor, it may be the exuberance of youth and not realizing tone of writing counts for a lot.

whatever....


"I havent rashly dismissed anyones thoughts unlike 'you've' (rhetoric) done to me....."

Nothing doen RASHLY - however, there have been a number of posts on this subject.

There are references that are quite good and accurate that point to the time period when Zhang Sanfeng got attributed to Taijiquan. The other things about Taoist and Wudang as well.

Many of these stories only serve to make people believe in mysticism instead of GONG FU - time and work.... I dismiss such things because they waste time.



"Considering I dont neccessarily buy either story I'd say that I've got my mind pretty open on this topic.....try reading earlier posts before making these comments"

The impression I was left with was that you bought the Zhang idea hook line and sinker. If I am mistaken in this...Mea culpa. If not, well, I do stand by my statement that such an origin is the stuff that P.T. Barnum loved.

"As I didnt know much on this subject up until yesterday, I'd say im doing ok. "

Ok...but read up...and definitely DON'T buy into the mumbo jumbo mysticism. Everything should be taken with a large grain of salt. There are still people in China trying to make the legends true so they can letitimize their lineage or make themselves more than they are.

There are also a large number of people in the US who came from China who do the same thing. Their names happen to be the same as some family name for a style...so then they become part of that family lineage... However, if you KNOW their history you can either laugh at it or get disgusted. I do a bit of both.


"merely suggested possibilities....."

Your suggestions read like you believed them. If they were merely what if's, fine. If you buy into that stuff - well - I stand by my Barnum statements.

Anyway - I am off to China now....have a fun month all ... I am hoping I will.

[Malcolm]

Arrogant and a paradox of open minded I would say. Open minded hmmmmm. Maybe you simply don’t want to conform to the San Feng LEGEND thus being VERY open minded for doing so WELL DONE (only maybe though- see how easy it is to make yourself sound like you are making no assumptions at all when you obviously are). As for the relevance of age and the constant reference to souljah’s (talking about Souljah KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK KID haha) I don’t see the importance of it, so therefore the reason to ask. Finally I agree that San Feng is a Legend. A very good legend that existed, at the very least.

[Walter Joyce]

Thanks for setting us all straight.

Next time you have a question you want answered, I'll be sure to weigh in.

As soon as I'm old enough.
:cool:

[Malcolm]

Cheers

You have all been ever so good so far. Ever so helpful THANKS. You didn't argue once as well.

[Souljah]

lol.....