more open, or more relaxed?

[wujimon]

I was doing some research regarding the stylistic and postural differences between the Cheng Man Ching and Yang Zhen Duo schools and ran across an interesting link:

http://www.sataichi.com/compare.html

Since a lot of my background comes from wushu, I think I'm a bit more partial to the "open,extended" postures as opposed to the "relaxed,compact" ones. Also, it was interesting to read about the differences how each interpreted "Sung" and Spirit.

To the Cheng Manching stylists this word has always contained the ideas of being sunken, relaxed and empty. Yang Zhenduo, however, emphasized the characteristics of being open, extended and full.

Yang Zhenduo exhibits a much more outward martial appearance while Cheng Manching's later appearance is much more inward directed andtranquil.
What are some of your takes regarding some of the differences. Right now, I'd say I'm a bit more partial to the YZD take, but I'm being taught the CMC take. Kind of contradictory, but I think it might be possible to find a middle ground.

[GLW]

I think you may find that they are very contradictory.

Food for thought, however...

While the Cheng Manching folks adhere to the ideas you listed, if you look at those in Dong's (Tung) lineage, Yang Zhenduo, Fu Zhongwen, Gu Luxin (Yes...he did Yang as well as Chen - have him on film ) and then look at other styles (except for Wu / Hao), such as Ma Yuehliang, Wu Yinghua, and such... you will find that the more open and martial is the rule rather than the exception.

In fact, part of the goal is to maintain that outwardly while relaxing into it inwardly. To have it outwardly relaxed, one CAN say that "Oh, I am inwardly ready and martial" but 9 out of 10 who would say this would be lying....and without actually seeing the effect of use, there is no way to tell.

As for an art form, many may view the outwardly relaxed as lacking in spirit and structure...

[wujimon]

I am starting to realize how contradictory they are. Like I said, I'm a bit more partial to the YZD take due to my wushu background and it seems like a lot of times, I feel the postures that I'm being taught are just too "limp". True, there is a lot of internal energy and meditational aspects going on, but to me, it just seems like a moving meditation as opposed to a martial art in this way. My first sifu taught us to have the "spirit" in the eyes, for the eyes to be alert and for one to be "ready" like a cat.

At first, I thought perhaps that i was too yang due to my wushu background but now I think perhaps the instruction that I'm receiving is a bit too yin. Dilemmas, dilemmas.

Thanks for your post, GLW. I just recently moved away from my "home training ground" and now I'm trying to find instruction. Never realized how hard it could be to find another school to train at.

[Al S.]

It's interesting that you bring up this open vs. relaxed "contradiction," because I've been thinking about it recently in relation to an experience I had. Over 10 years ago, I faced the same "dilemma," because I was studying with two Yang Long "style" teachers at the same time.

In brief, teacher "A" did a variation of the Yang Cheng Fu set; teacher "B" did a set in the T. T. Liang / Cheng Man Ching style. Without going into too many details, I observed these differences. A’s form was large frame with bent wrists, more open stances, some weighted turns. Overall, this fit into the "more open" category you mentioned above. B’s form was medium frame with straight wrists, shorter stances, no weighted turns. Overall, B's form fit into the "relaxed" mode you described above.

At first, I tried to "reconcile" these "contradictions" - and wound up with a weird hybrid "middle ground" form that did justice to neither set. "A" said some of my moves were too "collapsed," and "B" said some of my moves were too "tense."

Over time, I changed my approach to training by NOT trying to reconcile the two sets. Instead, I treated them as different "styles" rather than as different "sets" - in other words, I approached them as different methods to train different principles, rather than as similar methods training similar principles.

At this point, a decade after the fact, I now realize that I accidentally stumbled on at least a partly "operational" approach to training. Operational approaches, which first came to the fore in physics in the 1920's, are prevalent in the "contemporary" (post 1920's) applications of many different disciplines, such as science, technology, psychology, philosophy, and semantics . However, operational approaches are generally unknown outside these disciplines - and that includes our "everyday" life, where we use principles and approaches that are now almost a century out-of-date.

I recently wrote an article about at least the "thought" part of operational processes in relation to Taijiquan. It's in the latest issue of Qi Journal (Winter 2002-2003), and it's entitled "The 'True Nature' of Taijiquan." It doesn't directly address the open/relaxed "contradiction," but it does provide a contemporary thought and logic tool for resolving many of the other "contradictions" surrounding Taijiquan.

I've just begun outlining an article on an "operational" approach to Taijiquan teaching and training (no publisher for it as of yet). Your question came just as I was planning the article and describing how I first developed the approach as a student and how I apply it now as a teacher in my program.

Thanks,
Al

P.S. I don't know if I'm allowed to say this here, but the Qi Journal with my article in it is available in most bookstores and available by subscription from the Qi Journal web site (http://www.cloudwater.com/qijournal.htm). I mean no disrespect meant to Kung Fu Magazine, which sponsors this forum and includes many great articles on Qigong. If mentioning another magazine is not allowed, please let me know and I'll edit this post to remove the references.

[GLW]

" it seems like a lot of times, I feel the postures that I'm being taught are just too "limp". "

that is the interesting part. If you follow the writings of these older generation people, they invariably start out harder and end up softer. The harder training is almost always pointed out as 100% necessary to develop the connections and strength to evolve into the softer. At no time do these people in China advocate moving away from the more vigorous training.

Then, somehow it gets to the west and you have the Yin-ification of it all. While being able to issue power from high stances is laudable, how do you get there without training stances to find a root?

Also, a number of those softer folks that lay claim to the martial training parts also have experience with other martial arts - whether that be wester boxing or external styles. With that, can you truly say that they are doing Taijiquan applications or that they have taken the applications from the other and applied Taijiquan to it? Others then point to those people's students as examples. That is really not a fair example either. If you are taught by a teacher that has only done Taijiquan, you get one thing. If your Taijiquan teacher has other background as well, they bring different tools to the teaching experience and the student gets a different set of abilities.


"True, there is a lot of internal energy and meditational aspects going on, but to me, it just seems like a moving meditation as opposed to a martial art in this way. My first sifu taught us to have the "spirit" in the eyes, for the eyes to be alert and for one to be "ready" like a cat."


Qi gong is one thing....but Qi Gong is practiced according to Qi Gong rules. Martial aRts according to different rules. While Taijiquan does intesect with both, to emphasize solely on the internal aspect is to ignore the Yang aspect of Taijiquan.

The trick is to find stillness in motion, softness in strength, movement in stillness....all of those contradictions. In the form, it starts from the very beginning. You have one hand up one down, one moving foward while the other moves back, etc.... Showing the spirit in the eyes seems like an easy thing. In the beginning, it IS easy. But to truly do it at all times is very advanced. You have to first show the spirit outwardly before you can take it inward.

[wujimon]

" I approached them as different methods to train different principles, rather than as similar methods training similar principles."

That's an interesting point Al. I'll have to take this into consideration. I did consider trying to practice a "hybrid" but I like your point of that doing neither style justice.

GLW, I agree with a lot of what you have to say. I'd say that I'm from a similar camp in that i went from the hard -> soft, or I'm at least trying to :) Your notion of practicing stance training to find root is interesting. I've read in previous issues of tai chi magazine in where they mention that YLC used to practice outside with a very heavy pole. The story pretty much concluded to something along the lines of what YLC discovered was to use his energy/strength in the most efficient manner possible. I also liked your notion of a differentiation between qigong and taiji.

Thanks for the input.

[Al S.]

Glad to be of service, wujimon.

That approach has served me well in many different areas, but especially in Taiji and Qigong.

Regards,
- Al