differences between Yang and Chen

[red5angel]

Can anyone tell me the main differences between Yang and Chen style Taichi?

[norther practitioner]

One was made by the Chen's
One was made by the Yang's..

any other questions...

:D

Chen stylists focus on expressing more fajing than Yang..

[red5angel]

you bastich.....


how about a little detail?

[norther practitioner]

I know that we focus on a lot of uprooting, thats about it. I can spot the two styles easily... however, I'm not versed at all in Chen, so I'm of no real help here.


Go ahead and say it.

[red5angel]

hehe, I'm going to skip it for the sake of good conversation ;)

so you study Yang? Tell me about it if you can.


Also, when di dyou turn into an asian guy with a hair dryer addiction?!

[intimidation]

Just some basic observations-

Chen is more concerned with spiralling internally in every movement, the Yang will start out more concerned with the 10 essential points of taiji, and go right to forms weapons and push hands, as well as follow, join, sticking, and adhereing.

Chen stancework is more like a "bridge" with the legs, and the weight shifting in the 2 styles may be slightly modified from each other, so opening and closing may be in slightly different directions at different times, but not really.

I think the emphasises are slightly different sometimes, but the main form is the same form in both, and they certainly are related to each other, and really the same style I think. I'd say, modifications in the weightshifting, opening and closing , and the chan su jin or spiralling.

Some Yang style has 2 peson forms, but I have never heard of any in chen style, and if I'm not wrong there isn't one. I'm probably not very clear sounding, and of course just my opinion and observations.

[norther practitioner]

It's my tribute to Gene... I'm going to keep it for a little while.


We focus on a lot of throws and pushes, some chin na, and obviously some striking as well. Our fajing is expressed primarily in our kicks. Seperate foot is the only one done slow, the rest are done quick. Sweep the lotus, which is a outside crecent kick, is done at the end of our forms, after the "qi" is built up. The other, which is a front kick (that I haven't had a chance to play with alot yet) is done quick as well. To tell you the truth, this is a little decieving, as almost any step can be a kick in Yang style, some practice them, some don't. Step back repulse monkey, fan through the back, etc., seem to be the very obvious and we show the kick and they are done slow as well, but with taiji walking, the step is very easily converted to a spike.


I'll get beat up if I get too far into it, :p , so, thats all I'll say for now.

[Shaolinlueb]

the original yang creater learned tiaji form the chen creator or 2nd gen. i have it in a book. yang, sun, wu taiji all come from chen style.

[David Jamieson]

The easiest thing spot for me:

1) Chen uses larger movements, wider and deeper stances and postures and employs fajing to a greater extent.

2) Yang uses smaller frame, does not use fajing as much and maintains a constant speed.

As an aside, it is said that Yang was developed from Chen.

cheers

[Christopher M]

There's clips of the various taiji styles here (http://www.taiji.de/taiji/head5e/index.htm) and here (http://www.taichiamerica.com/Video%20Demonstrations.htm) and here (http://www.energyarts.com/shared/library/videogallery/index.html) for comparison.

The Chen compilation video following that first link has a remarkable performance starting at 4:59; does anyone know who that is?

[bamboo_ leaf]

Differences the I have noted with people that I have touched hands with using chen.

The chen seems to be very concerned with keeping a frame (peng) and using this while the yang style at lest as I practice it dose not. The idea of central neutrality is very highly expressed in the yang forms even more so depending on the teacher or yamg family style followed.....

The fajin that many talk of is also expressed in the yang styles, but its not easy to see. Each style has some very unique qualities and are just expressions of different insights by different masters.

True the yang developed from the idea of chen, this does not make the chen better nor the yang style weaker. Only different.

Each is equally hard to get, with the chen having some more energetic movement expressions.

As some pointed out, chen, yang, wu are all expressions of an idea created by noted masters. They are not the idea itself. Eventually we all have to find our own taiji.

[Christopher M]

A curious contrast whose origin I'm not aware of concerns the basic push hands pattern: it seems that only Chen style practices with a non-symmetrical position (one person in an open position, the other, closed).

[QuaiJohnCain]

Originally posted by Christopher M
[B]
The Chen compilation video following that first link has a remarkable performance starting at 4:59; does anyone know who that is?

Chen Xiaowang. 19th Generation Lineage Bearer for Chen Family Taiji.

[Brad]

http://hltjd.nease.net/cxw001.WMV

[kungfu cowboy]

One is like Tom Selleck and the other is like Kevin Costner. But they are both like Woody Allen.

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by QuaiJohnCain
Chen Xiaowang.

Thanks. Makes you wanna go out and learn Chen style.

[CaptinPickAxe]

Is there any chen style instructors in Colorado? I'm regretting leaving say-town a little due to the two very good sifus:
1.Kirk Woller (Combat Shuai Chiao)
2.Sal De La Rosa (Chen Style Taiji)

Sal's Taiji was very impressive. When I go back I plan to join his classes. Thats sorta why I was wondering if there is any Chen in Colorado.

[Starchaser107]

you don't like yang style?
or you just want to be consitent with your learnings cap?

[CaptinPickAxe]

I haven't seen any Yang practioners in person, but I have met two Chen Sifus who were both very impressive. I'm not really partial its just that I thats whats been around me. That and I heard it worked pretty well with Shuai Chiao.

[blooming lotus]

I have previously studied a little yang and now chen...I think in chen you seem to work harder and greater focus is on foot pos and leg stance.....with more changes in each set of movements.....also the hands are a little more complicated....with yang...I had a great time and felt it to be more dynamic....chen to be much more flowy....total opposite of what someone said before......I know all taiji is internal but chen feels to me more so...focus on more meridians maybe??

[omarthefish]

Yang Lu Chan's big innovation was to take all the various jin's and hide them away. He figured out a way to make everything less apparent.

[blooming lotus]

I guess that 's why it feels more powerful and less complicated....take nothing away from chen though, because is a devestating style of it's own

[Starchaser107]

It's the opposite experience for me,
I've never seen a chen practicioner in person.

[omarthefish]

Yeah.

Sometimes I just get really tired of the Chen Taiji "nutriders" going on all day about only Chen style has the big fa jin....blah blah blah....only Chen style really focuses on fighting . .. . .*yawn* .....only Chen style has Chan si jin really well developed ...:rolleyes:

Somehow older and more original = stronger, more practical, yada yadda yada.....

[kungfu cowboy]

How do the two compare/contrast in their manner of bringing a rank beginner to the level of fighting ability?

How much of their methodologies run parallel to each other, and where do they diverge? Why?

Is it being argued that where the two differ is where one acquires the fighting ability?

[omarthefish]

ON AVERAGE, the chen guys are probably right in that you will ON AVERAGE find more peopel training hard enough to fight among Chen players.

Real practical Yang Style Taiji is probably extremely rare. But that's just another way of saying it's really really big among the Taiji "dancers" but is kind of irrelevent to anything particular to the style its self.

[kungfu cowboy]

Sure, with any martial art you will get a low percentage who are really there to learn how to fight, versus just being there to develop the idea that they are there learning how to fight, which can provide many psychological benefits. And of course physical benefits as well.

And with tai chi, you can throw in a group of people who can get that nice feeling without having to work as hard as the "external" arts.;)

So, there is probably a smaller percentage of people who are really wishing to develop real fighting skill who study tai chi.

Does it matter if you are there just to practice the art for the sake of enjoying the movements, versus there to really focus on fighting?

Is there a danger of losing what are art was
originally intended for, or is there not also room for other motives to train? Are these considered a threat?

[Midnight]

I've been a practitioner of Yang style long form for sometime now.
Also know Staff and Sword forms.

I've been keeping an eye out for Chen form teachers. It does interest me. Has a stronger military background than Yang.

One of the main differences I've noticed between Yang and Chen is wrist movements. Chen incorporates ALOT of wrist action throughout the form.

As for the million dollar question everyone asks regarding Tai Chi... 'How long does it take to be an accomplished Taijiquan artist?'

Tai Chi trains and conditions the subconscious mind for combat. Once you understand that the subconscious mind takes a long time to teach, you'll understand how long it takes to become an accomplished Taijiquan artist.

[Nick Forrer]

'Makes you wanna go out and learn Chen style.'

Chris, I dont know if you've seen the intro to the film drunken tai chi (with Donnie yen) but if that doesn't make you want to learn chen then nothing will

[omarthefish]

Originally posted by Midnight

I've been keeping an eye out for Chen form teachers. It does interest me. Has a stronger military background than Yang.


:confused:

And your basing this on . . . . . . ?

[Midnight]

I do happen to place time into the research of the martial arts that interest me you know.


Chen was developed in the 16th century after the fall of the Ming dynasty, and into the early years of the Qing dynasty.
Chen developed this form of tai chi, as type of combat practice.

Yang wasnt derived from Chen style until the 19th century.

[omarthefish]

So?

16th century or 19th century. All that says is that Chen is older. You still haven't connected it to the military in any way. You said it had a stronger military background. Tell me what military was using it? What army? What evidence?

What does older have to do with having a more military background?

[Midnight]

Actually what I said has complete relevance.

The crashing of the Ming dynasty was a period of military action. Chen was schooled extensively in both militry weaponry and boxing styles. When the civil wars ended and Qing dynasty began, Chen took his combative knowledge and compiled a Tai Chi form from it.

The Yang family on the other hand, developed the yang form not based on personal militry experiences. It was simply derived from the already existing Chen form.

[blooming lotus]

he's right....chen is traditionally geared more toward combat..I'll find you some info...but for a begginner western external practioner, yang is probably much more easy to apply....chen is great for combat but until you get "the flow on", yang has more applications you'll easily be able to incorperate.

[omarthefish]

Well, I know I'm going to alienate a lot of people with this post and have held my tongue on this subject ever since I started cruising these boards just for the sake of good relations. But what the hell, it's just a BBS so here's a more honest post than I usually put up:

Despite his failure to present any relevent evidence he MAY be right but you are not.

more geared towards combat
:confused:
Why? Because they stomp around a bit and you can see what their doing better? Because you've never met any really highly skilled Yang players? What dod you think Yang style was invented for? A class at the YMCA? Yang Lu Chan, after thouroughly mastering Chen style taijiquan, actually found a way to IMPROVE it. He made it harder to read. He concealed the movements. He made everything more subtle.

for a begginner western external practioner, yang is probably much more easy to apply :confused: :confused:

This is especially odd. First, what does "western" have to do with anything. Second, seeing as how the moves of Chen style are more obvious and, by the proud admission of many online Chen stylists, more strenuous, it would seem like a more natural transition for an external stylist to make.

Midnight,
What Emperor hired what Chen style teacher to teach troops or use in military combat? Examples please, not apocryphal history. And what do you know of Yang Lu Chan's background?

I can give at least two examples off the top of my head for Yang style. Yang Lu Chan was hired to teach in the palace and Zhang Xiang Wu, a noted warlord of the Guomindang was also a Yang style lineage holder.

[Midnight]

I didn't say that Chen in any way trained the military. He formed the art sometime after his militry training. I don't think he could have trained the military. Once having developed the form, it was kept a strict secret to those that lived in his village. No outsider was allowed to learn it. The first one to ever learn from it was the Yang family, in the 19th century.

Yang then took a form that was geared around a time of war and made his own style.

[T'ai Ji Monkey]

At the Chen Village a variety of arts(Hsing Yi, etc.) were/are practiced and taught.
Chen Wang Ting(he was military) and is said to have hidden in the Village to escape a murder charge where he is said to have created/combined the forms.

The Chen Village was also famous for fighters that they supplied to escort caravans, protection for surrounding villages and similar.
Also some members of the Chen Village studied at Shaolin temple and other sites.

Yang Lu Chan taught at the palace and also at a school outside the palace. It was common for the palace to have PLENTY of Instructors teaching their bodyguards at the same time as they wanted to get as much exposure to as many fighting systems as possible.

I have heard one theory about the differences between Chen and Yang:
Chen fought often armored guys and thus relied more on grabs, throws and similar as they couldn't do damage through the armor.

The Imperial guards, OTOH, were often faced with unarmed attackers that were traditional court dress and not fighting armor.

Looking at this I would a heavier emphasis on weapons in Chen over Yang and more moves/techniques to get to the kinks of the armor, etc.

Did one person create the whole art, personally I doubt it but rather think that it evolved over generations and later one personage was "designated" as the founder/originator, yes, the same person most likely provided a major contribution.

Will we ever know the answer, I don't think so nor do I think that it will/should have any impact on your skill.

[Midnight]

I am beginning to think the only conflict in opinion here, is being developed based on personal opinion.

I consider the creation of a form, which was built around military tactics. To be a stronger military background then taking the form and teaching some troops. My opinion on the Chen form having a stronger military background is based not on number of troops taught or size of army, but on heritage, and overall creation of the form.

[omarthefish]

Actually not disagreeing with you at all from what I can tell. I just thought that was a pretty remarkable statement you made. You said it had a "military" background. Something I've never heard before and it seemed at odds with Chen's basic reputation as a village style.

Well....we still disagree on why the 2 styles are as different as they are but we havn't actually debated that. I assume we disagree there just by some of the implications of your historical assesment.

[Christopher M]

Can anyone comment on the characteristics of Chen Qing Zhou's old frame compared to that of the other big Chen style names? It would be appreciated; thanks.

[red5angel]

Midnight - maybe the problem is that you don't learn from a chinese guy and so what your studying or know about Chen style is inaccurate and full of gwailo lies? ;)

[kungfu cowboy]

Can anyone comment on the characteristics of Chen Qing Zhou's old frame compared to that of the other big Chen style names? It would be appreciated; thanks.

I would imagine that they would be nearly identical as they are all from the same village, have learned the same art, in some cases under the same teacher(s).

[Christopher M]

Thanks.

That's what I would have guessed; but I heard vague remarks elsewhere to the effect that there was some variation in opinion on CQZ's form. He seems to have distinguished himself in advocating purely the Lao Jia; I was just wondering if there was anything else.

[looking_up]

In high level Chen the movements become very subtle. It is not only Yang style that does this.

So, is it harder to start with the more subtle movements? What about silk-reeling jin, can you really learn it if you don't express it in more obvious ways at the beginning?

[blooming lotus]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by omarthefish
Well, I know I'm going to alienate a lot of people with this post and have held my tongue on this subject ever since I started cruising these boards just for the sake of good relations. But what the hell, it's just a BBS so here's a more honest post than I usually put up:

Despite his
hmm hmm...that would be her


more geared towards combat
:confused:
Why? Because they stomp around a bit and you can see what their doing better?

]no ..it is just traditionally recognised as the older combat style


for a begginner western external practioner, yang is probably much more easy to apply :confused: :confused:

This is especially odd. First, what does "western" have to do with anything
COLOR=royalblue]it's because qi ( an essential component of internal ma) is such a hard or foreign concept to the average westerner...yang is better for a westernr begginer because the movements are already familiar-ish[/COLOR]

[/QUOTE[

[kungfu cowboy]

Christopher, I think you might be referring to this, which is an excerpt from Chen Qingzhou's biography (http://www.geocities.com/Tokyo/Towers/1570/cqzbio.html)



In 1974, Chen Qingzhou, along with several other 19th generation successors, learned New Frame from Chen Zhaokui, youngest son of Chen Fake. Subsequently, he rejected New Frame, taking the position that Chen Family Taijiquan should be preserved and taught as it was handed down to him by Chen Zhaopei. The decision to preserve old traditional gong fu and Chen Family traditional push hands has caused him untold hardship. Persevering against all odds, he now, from Chen Zhaopei, retains: Old Frame First Form, Old Frame Second Form (Paochui), Taiji Single Sword, Taiji Double Sword, Taiji Single Broadsword, Spring-Autumn Broad-sword, Wu Hu Qun Yang Staff, 3-man Opponent Staff, Li Hua Qiang Jia Bai Yuan Gun Spear, the 5 different push hands techniques of Chenjiagou, taiji sphere, xing gong bang (practice gong fu ruler), dou gun zi (pole shaking), and na fa (joint locking and grappling). The fist forms contain the essence of Chen Family Taijiquan: chan si jin, yin jing lou kong, zuo hua, softness with hardness, na fa, peng, lu, ji, an, cai, lie, zhou, kao, zhan, you, lian, sui, etc. The weapons are now used specifically for building up explosive force, improving footwork, ling ji, as well as the above techniques. Now, among his peers and disciples, it is said, "In the world of taijiquan, it is Chen Xiaowang's "fa li" and Chen Qingzhou's "zhou hua" that are two of the most excellent techniques today."

[omarthefish]

You might want to go back and edit that post a bit to make it more readable. I think your missing some brackets here and there.

I'll do my best to make sense of it.


Despite his
hmm hmm...that would be her


Clarify? I think it's a good humoured stab at me but I can't quite make out what you mean.


]no ..it is just traditionally recognised as the older combat style


It certainly IS recognized as older but that doesn't make it any more combative. I like to think that some styles, such as taijiquan, have evolved and improved over the centuries.


COLOR=royalblue]it's because qi ( an essential component of internal ma) is such a hard or foreign concept to the average westerner...yang is better for a westernr begginer because the movements are already familiar-ish[/COLOR]

There are two implications by this statement:

1.That Chen style is more dependent on the 'qi' aspect and more "internal" than Yang.

2. The key word here is "apply". Perhaps Yang style is easier to sort of move through the motions and get a nice light yoga type ecercise in the morning but you said . . . somebody said (I'm too lazy to go back and check) somebody said apply. That's a whole different kettle of fish.

[Midnight]

Originally posted by red5angel
Midnight - maybe the problem is that you don't learn from a chinese guy and so what your studying or know about Chen style is inaccurate and full of gwailo lies? ;)

curse us gwailo!

I tried rubbing the white skin away....but it just turns pink. :(

[Gangsterfist]

I train yang taiji. While I am definately no expert in yang taiji I do know a few things. Chen style will have some movements that are double weighted (50/50) Yang Taiji does not double weight itself. Yang taiji will also bend the spine in the bow and arrow stance to make it one large strong structure while keep weight forward. I don't think chen does this. However, I must admit I know even less about chen style.

As for yang taiji being less "combat ready" I disagree. Taiji is just like all martial arts, there are good taiji fighters and lots of bad taiji fighters. You do not fight a system, you fight a person. If you train hard and practice your taiji every day, reguardless of what style it is, you will be good.

[T'ai Ji Monkey]

Chen style will have some movements that are double weighted (50/50) Yang Taiji does not double weight itself.


Have to disagree with one point:

Double weightness is NOT a 50/50 weight distribution, the Taiji Classics are very clear about what double weightness is.

Many students and even some teachers don't fully understand the concept of double weightness and thus interpret is as a 50/50 weight distribution.

[RAF]

http://www.emptyflower.com/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.cgi/YaBB.cgi?board=Xing;action=display;num=1084401233

Wuyizidi's post.

[Gangsterfist]

part of being double weighted is being 50/50 in one point of view, but has several meanings. I am going to ask sifu at class tonight to see if he can better answer this question for me.

[T'ai Ji Monkey]

Originally posted by Gangsterfist
part of being double weighted is being 50/50 in one point of view, but has several meanings. I am going to ask sifu at class tonight to see if he can better answer this question for me.

I understand double weighted to be:
1.) Inability to substantiate the empty & full.
2.) Flaws in the movement execution, stops & starts, not round movements, Body does not move as a whole, etc.

One TJQ teacher once said:


When you have found where this pivot is located, then your feeling will become spherical and every place will be single weighted, If you do not find the center of gravity, then your feeling will become stagnant and every place will be double-weighted. And it is not only the feet and hands—even one finger will be double weighted.”


http://www.nardis.com/~twchan/ph.html

Chen Xiao Want:


Chen Xiaowang (related conversation)
"in Taiji the body has to walk as an unit. Then it is "single weighted". That means, that at least the three "outer harmonies" must be considered all the time. So for example always hand and feet and shoulders and hips have to walk "together", to be a unit (=single weighted). If shoulders and hips don't move together, the body doesn't act as a unit. So parts of the body does their own things. That means, the body is "double weighted". Following the discussions about "double" weighting it seems, as if this is the worst thing that has to be avoided. But following the ideas mentioned above, it's possible that the body is also "tripple weighted" a.s.o., which happens when more parts of the body do their own things (i.e. hands, feets, hips, ellbows, shoulders ... all moving without harmony). So then it's said: "Double weighting has to be avoided" it meant for me: "Move as a complete unit, when one part stops, every part stops"


Double sinking is not double weighted.

[Fu-Pow]

Double weighting is not putting the weight 50-50. The more appropriate meaning is "mutual resisting" ie using force against force, strength against strength. This is antithetical to Taiji Quan application.