<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
wujidude:
Nice to hear your reasoning voice fronting for the National Neigong Research Society again (as one of its co-founders and vice-chairpersons).
[/quote]
Actually, I resigned from the NNRS about 2 years ago and asked to be removed from their web site. Unfortunately, they haven't done so. It is kind of annoying.
The bottom line is that I don't intend on representing the NNRS in any way, shape or form - though I may drop in on some NNRS events.
So you shouldn't presume that I am "fronting" for them. If you had spent time with CQZ the last time he was around, you may have noticed all the usual suspects around, except me.
You should take what I say as my personal opinion, instead of assuming that there is one of those stupid Chen Taiji ****ing contests going on.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
"Xingyi ringer"? His xingyi teacher, Hu Yaozhen, recognized the deep gong fu and excellence of Chen Fake's taijiquan and provided the introduction and encouragement for Feng to study with Chen Fake.
[/quote]
You seem to think this is an insult. Not at all - what it means is that Feng was a pretty bad-ass Xingyi guy even before he picked up Chen Taiji, and the Xingyi influence is very clear (especially in forms like the 24 cannon).
Chen Xiang is really good too, but with the 16 years of Baji experience, he is kind of a Baji ringer. But I went to one of his seminars and thought it was excellent.
All the guys that Chen QingZhou picked up from Zhang were "ringers" because they had years of training with Zhang and others before signing up with Chen QingZhou.
Ringers are part of how the game is played in the gong-fu world, no point in denying it.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Hu took Chen Fake's son, Chen Zhaokui, under his wing to teach him neigong principles . . . which Chen Fake did not teach, because he did not ever formally study them, although his taijiquan reflected neigong principles more deeply and profoundly than perhaps any other martial artist publicly teaching in Beijing at the time. Hu recognized Chen's excellence, and the opportunity for a genuine fusion, or rather refusion, of neigong and high-level internal martial art to take place with the exchange of students. Chen Fake also recognized the complementary nature of the teachings and sent his own son to study with Hu Yaozhen.<
[/quote]
So, uhhh, would it be fair to say that you are fronting for Feng at this point? There is not question that Hu was good, and the Xingyi stuff is good - just that Feng was good before he picked up on Chen Taiji.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Feng's methodology doesn't compensate for anything; it is a superior method to simply learning the Lao Jia yi lu form as a way to develop, express and apply the basic jins.
[/quote]
I guess saying that it "compensated" made you feel that you had to defend it. In fact, I don't think Feng's approach is bad at all, it is in many ways, much closer to what a modern training method would be like.
But the bottom line is that Feng's forms are "baroque" by the standards of the lao jia forms. They actually seem (to me) somewhat more complicated than the Chen Village xin jia forms.
This is not a bad thing, because when you are dealing with crafty opponents, it is important to be able to be capable of a lot of different variations and sudden transitions.
_BUT_ since the forms are so complex, Feng compensated by creating all the SRE and all the other simpler forms to ramp up.
I personally think it is very reasonable, and much more appropriate to the modern world than the more concise Chen Village approach.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
I agree that diving headlong into xinjia is a mistake for 99% of beginners. At the same time, oversimplifying the development of basic jins is a mistake as well (that's why Yang stylists' jins often never seem to develop, even after years of careful practice).
[/quote]
I don't think the problem with Yang style is over-simplification. But that would get us into one of those Chen Taiji vs. Yang Taiji ****ing battles.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Still, characterizing Feng's other taijiquan forms as "baroque" is meaningless criticism; they are xinjia. Chen Zhenlei and Chen Xiaowang both acknowledge the value of xinjia forms in developing the basic jins, and also in adding effectiveness to applications. Chen Fake created and believed and demonstrated the value of xinjia; it's what he taught Chen Zhaokui.
[/quote]
Maybe you think baroque implies that it is somehow not useful. But as I said above, it is baroque, and it serves a purpose. Lots of Bagua is baroque too, but it serves a purpose.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Absolutely. Even with over 100 people in attendance, it was one of the very best martial arts seminars I've attended. Feng had a number of very skilled senior students accompanying him, and there were 4 excellent translators (also skilled in Chen taijiquan)circulating who could help with the explanations. His senior students, even those who did not speak English, were very friendly, approachable and helpful in their hands-on instruction. Feng himself wandered among the students, translator hovering, to offer clear correction and opportunity for push-hands contact. During breaks he was quite affable, and offered critique of individual form. Additionally, Feng had a number of sessions for his teachers outside of the regular seminar, which offered more in-depth training.
[/quote]
Can you post a message with a somewhat detailed review of the seminar and what you got out of it? I haven't seen anything too detailed about how people liked the seminar.
Just so you know, I've heard that Feng's school in Beijing is very open in how they teach, and all the guys there are pretty good. I don't have any investment in The NNRS that needs to be protected by slamming Feng or his school.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Speaking of "a chance to be in the presence of celebrity" (your words): even though as you say NNRS "mostly fronts for Chen Qingzhou" (your words), you have NNRS co-founder Tony Wong rather shamelessly trying to link himself with Feng Zhiqiang.
Wong originally studied Chen style in the Bay Area with Zhang Xuexin, Feng's senior student in the U.S. Later, Wong broke with Zhang (along with a number of other students). Part of that was the marketing opportunity presenting itself with "original Chenjiagou taijiquan"--the Lao Jia crowd. Part of it was personality differences. Recently, Wong traveled to China and had pictures of himself taken with one of Feng's groups practicing in a Beijing park. Wong could not approach Feng through his old teacher Zhang, so instead of attending Feng's seminar in San Francisco sponsored by Zhang, he tried in other cities. Politics . . .
[/quote]
And what is my reaction to this is supposed to be?
In case you didn't know, Tony pretty much tries to hang around anyone who he thinks he can learn from. He visitted Feng's school in Beijing, and already had a connection with Feng prior to this visit. I think that Zhang and some of his students weren't aware of this.
When he was in China, he also spent time at Yao ChengGuang's school for Yi Quan, and I think he probably visitted the village.
So the way you are presenting it, as if Tony was doing something really uncharacteristic, just to be close to be Feng, is misleading. If you have some gong-fu (famous or not) Tony will try to schmooz you. You have to give the guy credit, he is very enterprising.
Stephen
--
Stephen Chan