Origin of the 88 Step "Yang" Form

[Kungfuren]

I have found that the 88 step form was standardized in '49 by the PRC. My question is does anyone know when it was created? By Whom? and any sources?

Thanks

[GLW]

1956 - 24 Posture Taijiquan created

AFTER this between 1956 and 1966 (Cultural Revolution started in 1966) and the exact year I can't quite pin down right now...

48 Posture and 88 Posture Taijiquan were created.

The head of the committee was Li Tianji. The 24 and 48 Posture routines were mainly a group effort.

88 Posture was more Li....and it was more of a rehash of Yang Chengfu's 85 Posture routine.

Many prefer to learn traditional Yang Chengfu 85 Posture Taijiquan rather than 88 Posture.

[Kungfuren]

Can you site any sources? I believe Paul Lam is the source for the '49 creation story.

[GLW]

Well, one would be my teacher being on a number of those committees....

Another would be doing a dogpile or google search...and then finding any number of sources that quote that 24 Posture was created in 1956 and that 48 and 88 were created later.

Given the history I have from my teacher - again - who was on many of the committees, I believe that 48 came before 88.

[Kungfuren]

GLW,

Your teacher would be an excellent resource... what is his name?

[Brad]

My teacher was one of Li's students, but unfortunately he's in China so I can't ask him :p Anyway, the only thing I know for sure is 24 form came in 1956. Then came 32 sword and 88 form afterwards. 48 combined was in '76 I think, and there's also a 66 combined form in there somewhere.

[Brad]

88 form came out in 1957: http://www.allmasters.com/vc00lid88q.html (scroll halfway down, second paragraph after the Chinese writting)

[GLW]

The name is a she....Prof. Wang Jurong.

48 was completed, I believe, BEFORE the Cultural Revolution.

From 1966 - 1976 virtually NOTHING happened. In fact, many of the teachers were restricted from doing anything.

After 1976, it took a few years to get things moving again. Many of the teachers were skeptical of the Cultural Revolution being over. They would have students approach them or be asked to document, create, etc... and from the 10 years of madness, they would hold back or refuse to do a number of things - just in case the madness was NOT over - they didn't want to go through another purge.

[GroungJing]

I have a huge appreciation for the 24 form and the 48 mixed. (I’m assuming we are talking about the 48 mixed, but we all know what happens when one assumes) I’ve seen the 42 and the 88 but I’m not vary familiar with them. I was first taught 24 and the 48 Here is the kicker for me. I learned/and still practice family style, which doesn’t have that weight disruption rocking back and forth between postures thing going on. (It’s more of a twist the hip thing) So now when I do the 24 or the 48 I have a serious family style influence in them. For some reason I want to refer to the 24 and 48 competition as Beijing style. Both are great and have serious depth to them martially and physically.

[GLW]

If you were to be TEACHING 24 or COMPETING in 24 (or 48, 42, etc... basically, any of the standardized routines) in a division specified as that standardized routine and did NOT do the rocking step, then you would be wrong.

In your solo practice, it throws the timing off - only really important if you are using any of the music that has been written for those routines....but aside from that, you can do them with any flavor you choose. I have seen people IN COMPETITION come out and do 42 with a 100% Chen style flavor - they, of course, got a deducted score....but they did it.

So, for your own use...no big thing.

For teaching someone, you sort of have the responsibility to hand it down as close to the standard as possible...and then let the individual make the choice to change things or not.

Non-standard routines...only have to adhere to Taijiquan principles.

As for the rock back, the reason for that is to prevent beginners from developing Taiji knee. With the twisting for - say classical Yang form- there are a great number of people that strain their knee by not allowing the foot to turn with the waist AND knee. They twist with weight on the foot but without letting the foot pivot correctly. 24 was modified with the rock step to remove the weight from the foot so this torquing of the knee would not happen.

Advanced people know not to torque the knee.

[Brad]

48 was completed, I believe, BEFORE the Cultural Revolution.
You sure? Your logic makes sense, but everything I've read about 48 points to it being released in the 70's.

[Brad]

Ok, found a couple books on the 24 & 48 posture forms, lets see what they say:
Tai Chi Chaun 24 & 48 Postures With Martial Applications by Liang Shou Yu & Wu Wen Ching
Wang Juroung wrote the forward saying, "...many new sequences have been compiled. Among them are the 24 and 48 Posture Taijiquan which have recieved broad aclaim both in and outside of China. They have been meritorious in promoting and developing Taijiquan since the 1950's."

That sugests 48 form was created in the 50's. But then in the same book Liang Shou Yu says this:
"In 1956, the simplified Taijiquan(or 24 Posture, which is the primary focus of this book), was compiled. In 1976, another sequence was compiled. It was called Fourty-Eight Posture Taijiquan."

http://www.taiji.de also lists 48 as 1976 I believe.

I also read somewhere that 48 form was a shortened version of the 66 combined form.

[Brad]

For some reason I want to refer to the 24 and 48 competition as Beijing style.
24 form is often called the Beijing Short Form, so that's probably why :)

[GLW]

The year could be when 48 was OFFICIALLY released. However, given that the Cultural Revolution officially ended in 1976, I find it rather unlikely that a routine as well developed as 48 was done completely in the same year.

That combined with a number of other things makes me think that it was probably mostly done in the 1960's but not finalized....and then finalized and released for general use in 1976 if that is the "official" year.

I know that Prof. Wang Jurong had created a combined routine in the early 1960's due to many people writing to her requesting a more advanced routine than 24. Hers was completed but then 48 was released and became the more widely practiced routine.

[Brad]

makes sense.

[GroungJing]

Originally posted by GLW
If you were to be TEACHING 24 or COMPETING in 24 (or 48, 42, etc... basically, any of the standardized routines) in a division specified as that standardized routine and did NOT do the rocking step, then you would be wrong.



I agree, however I do teach and I’ve found with some students as we move into the long form “family style” they become confused. Basically, in my curriculum I teach the 24 as a primer to the long form. I’ve found it’s easier to get across what Yang style Taijiquan is all about. When and after I teach the 24 form I move into other areas such as tou shou, stance training and da-lu etc…After the student has worked on/experienced the other half of the art I begin to teach the long form. The 24 form is taken very seriously. It’s how I combat the short attention span out there in the public. As you know to do these forms it really takes a long time and dedication to learn them correctly. How many times have you heard of someone taking Taijiquan for years and just doing the form? There is nothing wrong with this. But (IMO) it’s how misconception of the art gets started. So for uniformity, I imbue the 24 form with the characteristics of family style to avoid confusion at a later date. I let them know that this isn’t the correct way the rest of the world does it. I’m not much of a forms competitions kind of guy anyway. I’m more of a combative-push-hands and heavy on Ba-Men type of guy.

The 48 I keep pretty much keep standard. Long form family style I don’t screw with and consider it sacred.

[GLW]

My statement about teaching was more aimed at making sure that those you teach KNOW what the standard method for the routine is - even if you do not do it that way.

For example, I teach a southern style on occasion. I LEARNED it one way. After practice and correction from my present teacher, I DO it differently now. When I teach it, I first show the original way I learned it. I then explain the WHY of making the changes and then teach the newer way. However, if a student were to be considering teaching, I would not state that they were qualified to teach unless they also knew the original method and could DO the original method.

Sort of an "It's OK to deviate from the path as long as you know where the path is and can get back to it..." kind of thing