A Chen and Yang style Analysis

[dre_doggX]

A Chen and Yang style Analysis, (Study Chen Iam not sure,you may want to read this
Iam not sure, according to Erle , Yang learn his art from a Daoist of the San Zan Feng leniage, directly will at the CHen village, the Chens had many contacts with Daoist but, Yang Luchan decided not to use the Shaolin like movements, Erle's claim becomes more believe when you study his stuff.

you see the things in his book Reflex Violence, and meditation on the Reptile Brain, studying Jing and stuff, I think I see a diference between Yang LU CHan Tai Ji with its Natural movementsna and CHen Style Tai JI with its unnaturally movements, I used to pratice a 57 movement chen form all the time.and it is on the lines of Shaolin, but the Yang Styles have certian things that differe them from of Kungfus(or external martial arts) the fist are always soft, and are held a a certained where as Chen style is like a Shaolin fist.

Erle says Chen Style is a external Shaolin art, I not completly sure about that

BUT I DO KNOW THIS.
Using the REPTILE BRAIN(Animal instinct part of the human brain) the Yang style dosent change in movement or appilcation, where the Shaolin and CHen style seem to. The Yang style is the same with or without reptile brain mode(which you can learn about inthe book reflex violence on his website).

Yang Lu Chang may of studied Chen style, but I believe that he may of learned from someone else who was not a Chen, but a Daoist.

It is fact that the Daoist did Soften the CHen families martial arts. and that there where more then one visits of Daoist Hermits to the Chen Village.


I was slow to accept this, until I started praticing it for myself.

I like the Chen style butwhen I praticed the YangLu CHan style, and studied the knowledge from it I looked at aspects


1) Chen Wan Ting was a Warrior, like the Samuria of Japan, his martial art was made to grapple and disarm people. this is probably why both Jujutsu and CHen style Tai ji use alot of Chin na(locks, and stuff)San Zeng Feng and the Daoist hermits where Hermits, they wondered China, and Asia but probably didnt take part on the battle feild, Erles claims that there is not grappling in the Internal martial arts,.

2) Now look. in Erles rules of fighitng he says its better to strike down your opponent, will you see if I was Chen Wang Ting or a Samurai my opponent would me armed, and he would have a armor, hence you would need Chin-na techinques to disarm him and flying fancy kicks to battle people on Horses, NOTE if alot of the CHen styles strikes do not hit pressure points to the body where armor would be,then what does that tell you. I havent studied the oringal Chen Wen Ting form only the one made my Chen Fa-ke,but maybe I should Elre has and he said Yang style has more postures. But look at how the Yang form seems to have more dim-mak then Chinna. On the street where hermits would more likely be, Dim mak is what you would use. But on the Battleflieds of China, Chin-na would be great for disarming a warriors weapon then attacking him in an unarmed part of his body.

3) FINALLY, lets talk about the Postures. Chen Fa-ke said that Chen Style is based on the thirteen postures, and even if you took Shaolin Cannon fist of the Chen family and studied that I-Ching, and based it on Daoism with the push hands and the softnes, if it isn based on the thirteen postures then ITS NOT TAI CHI, Erle doesnt consider Chen Style to be Tai CHi, but I do only for this reason. Wudang vs Shaolin, and Tai chi can be said to come from both. how do we know. hmm
lets us look at styles they made,

Wudang has Xing YI QUan and Eagle claw master general Yueh popularised it but we get the ideal the this art exsisted way before he was born. Then you have Bagua Zhang which has a history with more shadows and questions, one legend says that Tung learned it from a Hermit who revived him well freezing in a cave close to Wudang.

Both seem different and opposite to each other, but finally San Zeng Fangs martial art, people say it was Tai CHi but, thats not true(even though the Wudang certianly has a Wudang Tai CHi), he took Shaolin Martail arts and made 12 Qi disruptive forms.(according to Erle) and this was the ancestor to ALL INTERNAL MARTIAL ARTS again according to Erle.
He as an interview with a village of people who are descendants of San Zeng Feng, the do not teach there art openly to the public because Westeners, and Easteners alike have watered down martial art styles of almost every popular form. But according to Erle these 12 movements are in Yang Lu Changs forms,. (You can get Wudang 12 M videos from him to).

In sort BaguaZhang and XingYi Quan we know them to be more Wudang even if they may of been influence by Shaolin, however, when looking at

THE YANG LU CHAN STYLE and comparing it to Bagua Zhang and Xing Yi QUan. the doing the same with Chen style TAi chi, what looks more the same.


I found it to be the Yang style having both characteristics of BaguaZhang and XingYiQuan.



but all this I accepted only after praticing it I called myself a Chen style practioner and really like the Chen style but decided any real artist would not be narrow minded, so I took an honest look, and the rest is history.

the Yang Lu Chang form has 3 forms, the other 3 have "small frame" fa-jing so small and complex to be taught by a video or book, so I am going to learn the 2 other forms from Erle or one of his pupils.

you should read his books and articles for yourself

on Wudang Kungfu:http://www.taijiworld.com/Articles/disrupt.html

On Chen Vs Yang TaiChi;http://www.taijiworld.com/Articles/oldyang.htm

his site www.taijiworld.com and it wouldnt hurt to read "Reflex violence" in his download about books section.

[taijiquan_student]

"Yang learn his art from a Daoist of the San Zan Feng leniage, directly will at the CHen village, the Chens had many contacts with Daoist but, Yang Luchan decided not to use the Shaolin like movements, Erle's claim becomes more believe when you study his stuff."

There is nothing to suggest that Zhang San Feng had anything to do with martial arts. It is very commonplace for chinese martial arts to claim to have a legendary founder. Chinese generally prefer tried and true oer new and improved.

"I believe that he may of learned from someone else who was not a Chen, but a Daoist."

Who?

"Erles claims that there is not grappling in the Internal martial arts,. "

It is possible to practice taiji without grappling, but that doesn't mean it's not there.

"in Erles rules of fighitng he says its better to strike down your opponent, will you see if I was Chen Wang Ting or a Samurai my opponent would me armed, and he would have a armor, hence you would need Chin-na techinques to disarm him and flying fancy kicks to battle people on Horses, NOTE if alot of the CHen styles strikes do not hit pressure points to the body where armor would be,then what does that tell you."

Nothing wrong here. If the situation calls for qin-na or throwing, great. If you should be striking, great. From the video's I've seen of Chen Xiao Wang striking, Chen style can generate some impressive striking power. Although striking-points do work, one does not need to use Erle's system of dim-mak to be effective in striking.

"Both seem different and opposite to each other, but finally San Zeng Fangs martial art, people say it was Tai CHi but, thats not true(even though the Wudang certianly has a Wudang Tai CHi), he took Shaolin Martail arts and made 12 Qi disruptive forms.(according to Erle) and this was the ancestor to ALL INTERNAL MARTIAL ARTS again according to Erle."

I've always been VERY skeptical of Erle's Zhang San Feng story. Do you have anything to suggest Zhang San Feng did anything other than Daoist work, much less inventing dianxue by practicing on local prisoners with his acupuncture buddies?

"In sort BaguaZhang and XingYi Quan we know them to be more Wudang even if they may of been influence by Shaolin"

The supposed connection between shaolin arts versus wudang arts holds no historical accuracy. I thought this was "officialy" thrown out years ago. Xingyiquan--Ji Long Feng. Baguazhang--this one's hard, but nothing points to wudangshan itself. Taijiquan--Gen. Qi Ji Guan. This is greatly simplifying the history of these arts (maybe the Chen family was indeed influenced by Shaolin at some point), but I think you get the point. Shaolin vs. Wudang is for the movies.

One thing to keep in mind is that Erle's Yang Lu Chan form is not the only one out there. I practice Yangjia michuan taijiquan, which claims to be the system Yang Lu Chan did not teach to the palace. It is very different in appearance from Erle's old yang form. It's hard to say that "Yang Lu Chan's taiji was like this: ....."

[dre_doggX]

How is your form different. Martial arts is a never ending journey, ofcourse the style Yang Lu Chan did when he was 34 was different then the one he did when he was 65. so tell me have is your form different

[Brad]

Erle says Chen Style is a external Shaolin art, I not completly sure about that

I don't get it. How so? Chen style is very much Taiji. If Yang style is "internal" then so is Chen style.

[RAF]

I recently got to see first hand, 32 movements of the longfist Tai Zu Quan (Emperor's longfist) demonstrated by someone very competent.

It doesn't look like any longfist I have ever seen and appears as internal as any of the big 3 (bagua, Xing Yi and taiji).

Sorry but it only further reinforces my belief that Yang Lu Chan's interpretation of Chen's was a throwback to the first training level and tai zu quan.

Almost every major Northern Chinese system has some mysterious daoist lurking in the Mountains with some secret form. Why does it always have to be daoist that does the martial arts synthesis? Why not a simple, practical farmer in a Village that functionally needs to protect itself?

[TenTigers]

I have studied a smattering of two different versions of Chen, and although I like the form, I prefer Yang due to the fact that the movements have more in common with my Shaolin (Siu-Lum Hung Kuen) possibly because according to one version (out of the many) Yang Lu Chan was an acomplished fighter in the Shaolin style before going to Chen Village. He then combined what he learned with what he already had and thus the Yang version was born. Since Qi Ji Guan was also schooled in Shaolin (some say he influenced Shaolin, some say the other way-chicken or the egg?) Legend has Chang Seng-Feng also a Shaolin adept. Nonetheless, Yang seems to have more of a lean towards Shaolin, and shares many comanalities with my art, so I have chosen to persue it. Now, the question,; who has the OLD YANG FORM? Earle, Guang Ping Yang Tai Chi, My mom? Who indeed? One teacher taught what he called "yang discharge form" which were fat ging (fa-jing) movements extracted from the form and practiced separately. What he told me was, that if you were to re-insert these fa-jing moves back into the form, you would then have the old form. ahhhh, I'm not sure. But seeing how everyone seems to have different versions of the "truth" who knows?

[gazza99]

"Erle says Chen Style is a external Shaolin art, I not completly sure about that "

When did Erle say this? Do you have an article or book to reference?

Gary

PS
RE:"I've always been VERY skeptical of Erle's Zhang San Feng story"

I didnt know Erle made that one up!!! His stories sure turn to chinese legend quick eh?

[gazza99]

Ok to set the record straight on what Erle really said on this issue.....I found the quote in his internal gung fu book, if your going to quote Erle Dre at least do it directly and dont take it out of context. Erle offers it up as a theory, and clearly states he is presenting his own beliefs...here is the quote you are reffering to, it also appears the quote about it not really being taiji is Erle quoting Fu Sheng-yuan.

"One theory is that a man called Chang San-feng saw a fight between astork and a snake and formulated the whole thing upon that! A rather fanci-ful and romantic idea but not true.There are two separate histories given as to the invention of Taijiquan. Amodern theory is that a family called the Chen family in China invented their form of Taijiquan from which came all other forms of Taijiquan. Ifwe look at both the Chen style of Taijiquan and the Yang style, we see that the Yang system could not have come out of the Chen style. They are so .....

(Internal Gung-fu Volume One: Page 19)

"different both in physical movement and in internal movement. The idea and use of Qi is also a contributing factor in my disbelief of this history. The Classics of Taijiquan are very definite as to how we should practise and all one has to do is to follow these lessons left to us by the masters of old. It can easily be seen that the Yang style of Taijiquan has come from no other ‘hard’ system. It is its own system, whereas it is easy to see that the
Chen style has its roots in the Shaolin martial arts, mainly Chang ch’uan or Long boxing. No hard style martial art is like Yang style Taijiquan, but one can see many hard styles within the framework of the Chen style. This is only my own idea while many still believe that all Taijiquan came from the Chen style.

It is interesting to note however, that not one ‘‘Chen style”
master was ever invited to any of the great meetings of Taijiquan masters and styles at the turn of the 20 th century. Several masters have told me that they considered Chen style to be not even Taijiquan. Nowadays, the Chen style is regarded as one of the great Taiji systems. Whether one believes that all Taiji came from it or not, does not take away from the fact that it is a
great system of martial art.

What Fu Sheng-yuan (the son of the famous Master Fu Zhongwen, nephew of Yang Cheng-fu) has to say about the Chen style and Zhiang Fa in the Chen Village.
In a handout freely handed out by the son of Fu Zhongwen, he writes;"
..."one often reads about the four major styles of t’ai chi ch’uan.... Viz.: Chen, Yang, Wu and sun. However, there is only one supreme Ultimate fist that conforms to natural forces and principles.
.... It is worthy to note that Chen style is not t’ai chi Ch’uan. Historically Chen Shi has it’s origins in Shaolin Ch’uan and was actually known as Pao Choi (Pauchui) or cannon fist. A hard external form does not comply with t‘ai chi ch’uan principles.... At the time when Yang Lu-ch’an was em-ployed in the household of the Chen master, a great boxer called Zhiang
Fa came to the Chen village. Zhiang Fa was the greatest exponent of t’ai chi ch’uan of his time. The Chen master was so impressed with Zhiang fa’s skills that he invited him to stay and teach t’ai chi ch’uan to his household. Thus it was that Zhiang fa taught t’ai chi to Yang Lu-ch’an...."

[Shadow Dragon]

One thing to note:

Yang has different 'classics' to Chen.

Chen according to my sources are as follows:
1.) Boxing and Weapons Collection.
2.) Book of Wenxiu Hall
3.) Sanxing Version
4.) Boxing and Weapon Collection of Chen Family pass through generations.
5.) Illustrated Manual of Long range Boxing.

Chen has 3 principles and 6 main requirements.
One difference is that Chen TJQ allows you to lean while the spine is kept straight, etc.

Both "styles" got things going for themselves and bickering which one is older, more authentic, truer, IMHO, is not becoming of a serious practicioner of MA.

Cheers.

[Shadow Dragon]

On final thought:

In the end all this 'yang is authentic' or 'Chen is the oiginator' is simply business and marketing.

Been like that ever sicne 2 Guys tried to sell 1 Guy their wares way back when.
Compare it to the crying of Vendors at a public Market, each will ensure you that his wares are fresher, better tasting, etc.
In the end most of those products come from the same place and will be very similar in freshness and taste.

Yang was the first style to become publicly known and thus might be reluctant to be upset from it's pedestal.

Chinese MA History is continously rewritten as more styles and histories are revealed and re-examined.

Unless somebody can provide 100% clear proof of their statements there will never be an end to these type of sagas.

Cheers.

[GLW]

I would be careful about conclusions based upon who is invited and not invited to meetings.

At the time of those meetings, Chen shi Taijiquan was still pretty much hidden and a family art. There were a few masters outside of Chenjiagou that did it and taught...but not many. The Chen's also tended to consider Yang a lesser figure.

The ORIGINAL history of Yang Luchan (as written, for example by Fu Zhongwen in his earlier book...but somehow mysteriously changed in later versions...ah...revisionists history)...was that Yang was an indentured servant. He managed to learn the family art sneakily and they then decided to teach him openly.

Being who and what he was, the lowest member of Chenjiagou would still consider Yang beneath themselves.

Pride and secrecy...does wonders.

Fu Shenyuan is NOT the caliber of his father. His grasp of the history is not the same and he has other motives for what he does. Marketing is marketing.

A famous person adding mythical folks into the mix and then writing about it is no more accurate than a nobody doing the same...but IS more likely to be believed.

As for concluding from seeing Yang style that Chen and Yang are not from the same root... Depends on who you watch.

I have seen much more BAD Yang style than BAD Chen style.... With many Yang style people, most conclusions are impossible - they have virtually zero basics. Without the foundation of stance work and such, nothing is going to be similar.

this entire thread is to promote an idea - to what purpose, I can surmise...but....

There IS a set of core Taijiquan principles that ALL styles of Taijiquan adhere to. Then each style has its set of special places and principles. Some are more complete and have deeper roots than others.

However, if you get benefit from doing what you do and are working with it...fine. To do an analysis of say Chen vs. Yang, you would need to either practice both for a number of years or interview experts in both. Gu Luxin was able to do this since he did both Yang and Chen expertly...however, if you look at his Yang, you can see that he favored Chen style more.

claims about mythical folks...Zhiang fa, Zhang sanfeng, etc...you can keep them. both have histories that can't even pinpoint when or if they existed.

[Kevin Wallbridge]

When speculating about Chinese history many people make the mistake of thinking that there is not a rich beauraucratic record to follow. While has been ravaged by time and misadventure, it does suggest the Chen village origins for Taijiquan is the only version that doesn't require wandering immortals or secret hidden variant wisdom. "Occam's Razor" after all.

As for the lack of similarity between Yang and Chen I am confused. I hear this statement from people who are familiar with one but not the other, or whose study of one is cursory at best. My study of Yang and Chen styles is detailed and broad and I can easily see that Chen Diyilu and the 108 are very similar in sequence. What looks like a vast difference on the surface (say wade-obliquely and brush-knee) is really rather minor when it comes to Jin/energy.

The only significant difference that I can see is in how power is transfered from the legs. Chen's bridge is a bow, with power twining up and down the legs and not requireing any outwardly visible weight shift (though it often does shift); while Yang style uses a hip track, from the releases into and out of the Kua and then carrying the torso along as the legs drive back and forth.

The Dianmai version of Yang style is just that, a version. To say that it was necessary component only of Yang Luchan's martial arts is just hubris. If Mr. Montague was told by his teacher it was Yang Luchan's, and he sincerely believed him, I have no problem with that. I don't want to change anyone's religion. Did an illiterate pharmacy clerk know a subtle and dangerous teaching reserved for trusted inner door students? Why not? Was he the only one? Not too bloody likely.

Look at the Yang family 40 chapters. Chapter 37 is on "The oral transmission of the theory of life and death acupoints." It includes eight disqualifications. Any wonder the forms are full of Dianmai that are unexplained? The deeper I go into the study of Chinese medicine the easier I find it to see literally hundreds of Dianmai applications in my forms. As I see it, to say that this one has it and that one doesn't is just based on a lack of knowledge.

[GLW]

I was afraid you would ask that....

I have been toying with actually writing it all down and actually have some of it at one time...but not gotten a ROUND TUIT....

I am referring to things like San Jiao Bu - triangle stance work...all stances have triangles in them - stability.

Movement from the center of mass....

Dropping the shoulders and elbows...

The connection of the waist and the earth connection down to the legs and then back up until it eventually expresses itself in the hands.

The use of the mind and the gaze.

The concept of intent and relaxed power....instead of hard muscle power.

The idea of non-stop and no hard edges...if you see a hard edge or abrupt out of place non-flowing movement - it is a place that will soften and disappear with more practice...

those types of things and then explaining each one in detail takes several paragraphs or pages.

[RAF]

I second the thanks to GLW and others like you Wujidude, Joyce, Graham and Kevin Wallbridge.

Wujidude, you might find this interesting too:

http://www.geocities.com/yongnian/trainingbasics.html

[gazza99]

... Discussions of "whats the original taiji" is simply circular: myth, on top of exageration, on top of time and distorted history. Mr. DreDog simply didnt ask his question the right way, or for some reason is seeking validation that Erles old yang form is the best and the most original...

Dre: Youre barking up the wrong tree, you should be addressing principles, not history for answers. If you like what your doing great, I like Erles old yang, so I do it! The best comparison is if someone is proficient in both chen and Yang styles that can compare the different methods, postures, jin expressions and cultivation..etc.. Look over GLW's post, things that should transcend taiji styles is what we can focus on here, and if something differs, why? why? and why?

regards,
Gary