24 Simplified Set

[yutyeesam]

Well, purely from a technical stand point, the Yang-37 doesn't have needle at sea bottom, double punch to the ears, fan through the back (although fair lady works shuttles is similar to this), hitting the tiger postures right&left, snake darts tounge....uh...that's all I can think of for the time being.

I practice the 37 more than any other form, I really like it. But if I have more time to spare, I practice the 108 because of the extra movements mentioned and there are some transition motions that the Yang-37 doesn't have (eg the motion right after fan through the back, there is a turn and chop with fist posture, and the transition right between that and the rollback-deflect-intercept-punch sequence is a nice set of movements that repeats a few times in the form...).

But at the end of the day, energy is energy. Whatever form you do, it's not enough to do just that for developing real Taiji skill. Must do standing meditation quite a lot, along with push hands and silk reeling.

Just sharing what I've learned and am still learning,
123

[count]

If you don't think there is value in something like the 24, than you just don't understand it. There are no forms, only 13 postures. Only methods of training. Only practice. What it comes down to is, "it's about how you train." Nice to respect your teachers opinion, but look at other possibilities. The Yang 24 form was created by the Yang style masters of the day collectively. It is based on Yang Tai Chi, and can be enough for some.

[TaiChiBob]

Greetings..

I could easily do an 8 hour seminar on the applications in the 24 movement short form.. Parting the wild horses mane, has at least 3 classic applications and several more variations.. Repulse the monkey has 2 distinct applications defending against a punch or a kick and several more scraping or dislodging applications.. grasping birds tail, way too many applications to list here.. and so on...

Martial applications are dependent on intent.. if you approach the issue with preconceived notions of the form being inadequate for Martial use you will likely convince yourself of that.. if, as i suggest, you approach the issue looking for those applications, being adaptable as Tai Chi implies, it is likely that you will find a goldmine.. If you have a particular dislike for the nontraditional nature of the short form it is likely that you will find problems to support your prejudices..

Personally, i teach the short form first.. that lays the foundation for the long form making it easier to teach the long form.. additionally, i have a better feeling about those that stick with the short form instruction, they are likely to stay in the program.. sort of a weeding out process (surprising how many people wont comitt to low single whip, or refuse to attend to a perpendicular spinal alignment)... The short form is what i use for my "feel-good" class, it gives those people something to take with them for a short investment of time and may inspire them to continue into the more in-depth studies at my regular school (good marketing).. My "feel-good" classes are at area gyms, health clubs, etc.. the regular school classes are traditional forms and martial in nature, but begin with the short form to weed out the "walk-throughs"..

Again, IMO, it's all dependent on principle and intent.. the forms are tools we use to train principles and hone intents..

Be well..

[Vapour]

Originally posted by yutyeesam
Well, purely from a technical stand point, the Yang-37 doesn't have needle at sea bottom, double punch to the ears, fan through the back (although fair lady works shuttles is similar to this), hitting the tiger postures right&left, snake darts tounge....uh...that's all I can think of for the time being.

I practice the 37 more than any other form, I really like it. But if I have more time to spare, I practice the 108 because of the extra movements mentioned and there are some transition motions that the Yang-37 doesn't have (eg the motion right after fan through the back, there is a turn and chop with fist posture, and the transition right between that and the rollback-deflect-intercept-punch sequence is a nice set of movements that repeats a few times in the form...).

But at the end of the day, energy is energy. Whatever form you do, it's not enough to do just that for developing real Taiji skill. Must do standing meditation quite a lot, along with push hands and silk reeling.

Just sharing what I've learned and am still learning,
123

Ookey dokey. So your answer is basically that 37 step is missing other (108-37) steps. I guess you didn't read my previous comment. My intestes was that you might have felt that 37 steps lack appraoch or principles which you find it in Yang but that doesn't seems to be the case.

CMC's idea was that 37 steps contain all the 13 movements so it is complete in itself. Purist in CMC style train only the form, two pushing hand forms each containing about 5 movementss and Yang long sword. So if you add all together, it's less than 100. CMC's approach seems to be to cut everytihing to bear minimum. Apparently, there is one CMC style master in malaysia who teach student only the form and its applications and still manage to produce competent practioners.

If one think other style is lacking because it doesn't have enough step (techinque), why not do other martial arts which has dozen or more forms and 100s of techinques.

Btw, our school practice Yang style sanshou A and B and Kwai taiji, plus dao, jian and qiang. It's a very nice form, I must say. And Kwai taiji is very cool though I'm not advance enought to do it.

[GLW]

Bob,

exactly so.

I teach 24 FIRST because it allows me to evaluate a student, their committment to working things, how quickly the catch on, their ability to flow, their patience...etc... AND it gives me a good venue to stress basics over and over again.

Then, if the student finishes the routine and leaves, they have learned ONE routine that is good for health, has some martial applications, and they at least know what Taijiquan is about. If all they want is health benefits, they can get them from 24 completely...just do it several times in a row.

I can also use it to see what the person's personality is like - strengths and such. For example, a person that has a problem slowing down and taking their time I may teach Sun Style...it might just fit their personality better than Yang style.

Also, if a person comes in and asks to learn a specific form, first off, they are dictating to me what my curriculum should be. That is something that a person PAYS me for the right to do. Otherwise, I choose. Second, they invariably ask to learn something that they do NOT have the required basics for. So, to teach them what they requested, I have to take it back several notches and teach them basics that 24 would have developed.

Teaching Yang long form after 24 is easier and faster than starting out on Yang by itself. It is also safer because there are some common places in Yang that if done the "Easy" way, damages a joint and is actually wrong. With 24 first, the student KNOWS these places since I have pointed them out and can compare and contrast when they do Yang. Without it, I have to work harder at making them understand what not to do.

So, any person that comes wanting to learn - say Yang long form - I tell that I CAN do that...but they must pay for 1 year up front because it is a committment I am making to them and I want them to make the same level of committment. (That is also my way of raising the stakes to make those that want me to waste my time with them leave). To date, I have never had one of them pay..fine with me...and the ones that stayed, ended up realizing early on WHY I wanted them to start with 24.

Recently, I had a student join that wanted to learn Sun Style. I told him 24 first. He seemed a bit disappointed..but started 24. He is about 3/4 finished with learning the routine. I mentioned to him that he had a ways to go to get the basics I wanted him to have for Sun style. He HAD seen other people in class practicing Sun. His response: "I'm in no hurry. 24 is easier than Sun and I am having enough challenges with it so I don't worry about moving on until I can see myself tackling the harder one" - Sometimes they DO get it.

[count]

*bows around* With all due respect, I think it is more important to learn long form first. IMO, there IS a fair amount lacking in the 24. But after the long form it's easy to learn the 24 and get the most out of it. I would only be interested in short form as a way of practicing when time does not permit spending an hour on form. So I think it should be secondary to long form.

Also, and for Vapours additional information, are you guys aware that there is a san shou 2-man version of the 24 as well as the sword and two-man 24 sword form?

[Vapour]

Originally posted by count

Also, and for Vapours additional information, are you guys aware that there is a san shou 2-man version of the 24 as well as the sword and two-man 24 sword form?

You aren't talking about Yang style Sanshou A and B and two person forms are you. If not, no.

For jian. we have Yang 54 step jian form but I only done short 13 step jian form. For Dao, I done 34 Yang form and we do friendly sparing with wooden sword but anything other than that no.

The style I started my taiji was Chen, in fact, but I switched to CMC after very short stay in Chen so my knowldge is bare minimum. I also know short Sun form (12 steps) but I learned it because we started to introduced this form for complete beginner.

Anyway, I will ask my instructor this weekend about why he has very low opinion of 24. It's can't be about 24 being too short because we have some introductory form much shorter than 24 steps. My guess is that it's to do with his dislike of wushu taiji in general but that's just my guess.

[GLW]

The problem with a long form first - ie Yang long form

The stepping in Gong Bu (front stance) as used in doing Brush knee on both sides....is a good example of they why for a short simplified form.

In this stepping, you are supposed to pivot on the heel of the front foot while pushing into the step from the rear foot while its heel is raising to do a natural step. This is a poor description but wht I am referring to is the normal one heel down, other heel up that is part and parcel of a natural step.

The most common error I encounter is people not committing to the step. Instead of shifting their weight and connecting the waist to the knee to the foot, they sort of sit back and just turn the front foot...then do a big push to do the step.

What this does is disconnect the waist from the knee and the foot. As if this is not bad enough, the end result is putting a very bad strain on the knee. Continuing in this vein over a period of time results in permanent cartilage damage in the knee.

When a person learns 24 first, they can get this connection fairly easily and then make the change in moving to the longer form.

There are a number of things like this....

For example, 24 allows or stipulates the use of Ding Bu (a toe touching stance in transitions). Yang Style as done by folks like Fu Zhongwen staes spcificly that this is NOT done.

For a beginner, there is usually not enough leg strength to do it the correct way.

Personally, I would rather teach something that is learned as a unit where they CAN do it correctly... Then when the harder one is introduced, I point out the differences and that it is a new routine that is similar but has some different rules.

In the end, it is a matter of preference in teaching styles but the guiding principle should be to do whatever you can do as an instructor to make sure you teach...but also make sure that the learning process does not damage the student (as in knee injuries).

[RAF]

In the old days, I intially learned 4 single moving postures: Brush knee, heel kicks, toe kicks, and part the wild horse's mane and went up and down a yard the size of a football field. That's all we got for 3 months of summer instruction. Later, we then went into a 32 abstraction of the Yang's form that Liu Yun Qiao had created. The final version was a 64 movement long form of Yang style not coming out of Yang Cheng Fu lineage.

Even in all of our Chen's training we learn 2 abstractions of 32 movement and lao jia then a 3rd abstraction and then pao chui. The first abstraction is done without out power and no fajing--its for structure, leg strength and relaxation. Its done in the same flavor as the Yang's form. 2nd abstraction adds fajing to some of the postures and a double-kick. The tempo and flavor changes to what we commonly see in lao jia or yi lu. The 3rd abstraction is the flavor of pao chui with lots of fajing movements and a double kick followed by a tornado kick. This fits into the last form we learn, pao chui.

I can see very much how abstractions or short forms can be useful as a training mechanism.

When I learned from Jou Tsung Hwa's early student, Tom Phillips, we started with the Yang Cheng Fu long form. On the first day, you were required to simply follow the class through the entire form (15 minutes or so). Then a second set was played and you were to follow the class. After that a small break was taken and then the form was taught in small segments, 3 or 4 movements and then linked. You did this every class and in about 6 months or so you could follow the entire long form. From there, everything was refinement. In this approach you were, in essence learning both the long form and a short form (sequential subset of the long form which got progressively longer each new class session).

I agree with GLW, personal preferences. In the latter class, many students quit because they were frustrated trying to follow the entire class over the long form and felt it would be hopeless to continue (they saw how much they had to learn, saw how poorly they could follow, and became discouraged quite easily). However, this quickly sorted out those whose heart was in tajiquan and those who dabbled. Not necessarily a good way to run a business but it produced a small, closely knit group of taiji players who were really motivated and it was exciting to be around them. They were real lovers of the art. We also did pushing hands training, single moving fajing postures, qi gong and warmups. It was my first introduction to taiji and I loved it.

However, I can appreciate using the 24 movement or any short form as a bridge to the long form and yet almost prefer learning the long form and sequential subsets simultaneously.

In my teaching experience, most people (Westerners? maybe?) have a strong need for a sense of achievement and completedness. They seem to like closure, like they got something for their money. This is where short forms work well with instruction aimed at the general public.

I also think there is some political overtones in the creation of the 24 movement which cloud the issues. Even some of Fu Zhong Wen's disciples teach a shortened version of their Yang Cheng Fu taijiquan. http://www.geocities.com/yongnian/35posture.html

[count]

I totally understand your reasoning and logic. And it's true that without proper guidance, knee injuries are a definate problem. If I were teaching though, I would prefer the long form to start for the commitment as well. No reason to make it easy on a student. I wonder how much you know about the stepping methods of the kuang ping version in comparison with some of the others though? You do such a good job of comparing the stepping.

Vapour, Tai chi chuan is totally a secondary, side system for me. I don't know all the forms out there. I am very familiar with the differences in styles but I only know one, two-man, san shou form, and it is based exactly on the 24 movement yang form. It is also the basis for the sword form I know. If the san shou form you know is different, than where does that originate? CMC directly?

[Laughing Cow]

Don't have too much experience with short and long forms myself.

One system I learned started you off on a 37 forms and than moved onto 88 & 98 forms.
Current style 1st road is 81 movements.

Short forms are fun to learn and can be benefitial for the newcomer, problem I see many students get discouraged and frustrated with learning a long form afterwards.

Personally, I prefer to start on a long form.

[Vapour]

One thing I notice is that yang style has much longer stance than CMC style. So I'm guessing that for beginner, it tend to force them to have narrower step to compensate for their lack of leg strength.

In our school, one of the first thing I was told was to keep my feet shoulder-wideth apart all the time. Keeping feets shoulder-width apart means that your feet is always in line with your hip so essentially it allow knee to works only as hinge joint. This instruction was accomapnied by advice to keep our lenght of step (that is the difference between front and back foot) short so one can avoid having narrow stance.

Another thing about CMC is that weight distribution is rather extreme in that it is aimed at full leg 99 and empty leg 1 per cent, which consequentially force beginner to have extremely smaller step. I initially thought this is to do with strenght training for leg but with this discussion, I realised that this has added bonus of avoiding knee injury.

Because of this 99 to 1 weight distiribution, the process involved in stepping is rather anal, it seems. Just after the first brush knee (left arm brush) in which weight is completely into front left leg, we completely shift back to back right leg, then pivot our empty left foot 45% to the left then we completely shift our weight into left leg by moving into the direction left foot is facing. Then when the weight is completly shifted to front left leg, right leg step forward.

I realised that if one's stance is long, consequently the wideth of leg become narrow, stepping in this stance do indeed put undue pressure on knees because knee and hip is not in line. But when we do this move, left knee only works as hinge joint eliminating the risk of knee injury, that is if student follow the insturction of teacher. Our way sure looks small and unattractive even ugly but hey, when did taijichun form became only about the looks?

[Vapour]

Originally posted by count
Vapour, Tai chi chuan is totally a secondary, side system for me. I don't know all the forms out there. I am very familiar with the differences in styles but I only know one, two-man, san shou form, and it is based exactly on the 24 movement yang form. It is also the basis for the sword form I know. If the san shou form you know is different, than where does that originate? CMC directly?

I'm just looking at a table of our San Shou A. there are 44 steps in this. As far as I know existence of this San Shou is a bit controversial. Firstly, it is definitely not invented by CMC. Some lineage of Yang style denies that it is a Yang, claiming that one of the student of Yang Cheng Fu invented it. Theose who maintain San Shou A/B and combined two persons forms as part of lineage counter it by claiming that other school didn't get true transmission. (Haven't we heard of this line before? )

All I can say is that it is a very cool form. It's a great form to learn sensitivity and counter. You can start off slow but once you get the hang of it, you can speed up. It's sometimes called fast form for this reason thouth we have another fast form called kwai taiji which is another yang. Kwai taiji is a yang version of cannon fist and pretty much every moves in the form is fa-jing (i.e. explosive movement). Only advance student learn this because this tend to mess up your taiji if you haven't got the understanding of relaxation. Sadly, I'm not one of them.

[GLW]

I know a few people who do Guang Ping but have not really dabbled in that variant directly. My Yang form is connected to Fu Zhongwen and that one method is more than enough for me to worry about .

However, I do spend a bit of time in comparative aspects of different Taijiquan styles...the bit of recognizing and learning the salient parts of the other methods. I figure that at this rate, I may actually know something by the time I am 90 or so...

The 32 posture sword is definitely a companion set to 24. It is a good routine in its own right...and a bit shorter than the traditional Yang sword...but a lot of similarities...so much so that when I switch from one to the other, I have to be 100% there mentally or I will start mixing the two...

In teaching beginners, one caveat I have seen is that as the instructor, you need to show it correctly..hence you have correct stance work and sink and all. Then the student tries to copy. Even if you say "You will not do you stances as low and don't try to...you work up to that..." about 1000 times, many will still try to copy the stnace lowness and not its ideas.

The nuances of Yang Chengfu's routine, to me are much more subtle and ...well maybe I am just lazy...but I prefer to try to go into them and do the refinement once the student already has a frame of reference instead of having to build the frame of reference at the time of the explanation.

It is not that you can't do it the other way. I started with te long form. Unlike many classmates, I would finish the learning part. Then, I would deliberately go back and join a beginner group and relearn it - looking for more and more details each time. I did the same thing with 24 and virtually every other aspect of Taijiquan I know. While my classmates were learning new things, I was rehashing the old for depth. I like to think that I got the better deal over the long haul...but that is my desire. I am sure they feel the did OK as well.

[TaiChiBob]

Greetings..

It seems there may be merit to most views presented here, it really is a matter of choice.. I originally learned 108 first, it took me (and i was weepingly slow) 10 months to complete the first pass of instruction.. but, i watched good people with obvious talents drop-out because they couldn't see the light at the end of the tunnel.. The short form would have given some a sense of do-ability and set much of the foundation work for the long form.. The short form is good place to drill principles so the long form can be a detailed refinement.. My Chen instruction was brutal, simply a repetition of one or two movements until the instructor was satisfied that it was correct and the main application was executed correctly (that could mean 3-4 weeks per move).. at the end of each class we would repeat what ever of the form we knew 5 times (near the end of the form it was punishing in the summer heat)..

Regarding stepping, it was my instruction and so i teach that you step no ****her than you are able to set your heel down without transferring ANY weight.. such that an attempted front leg sweep only launched the weightless foot/leg on a trajectory to a target.. the ability to sink (bend the knee, supporting a perpendicular spine) determined the length of step, and the width should never be narrower that a fist width between heels (when projected in the direction of travel) and frequently wider.. Much wisdom was imparted to me by insistance that i "feel" my toes connect to the ground, too many players let the toes "float" and so does their balance..

Anyway, it's not right, it's not wrong.. sequence of teaching 24 or long form is just a matter of preference.. in the end the dedicated student benefits from either approach..

Be well...