24 Simplified Set

[GLW]

As you say...it is a matter of preference and what works for your teaching and learning style.

My preference comes from how I started. Back as a teenager, I began with Wing Chun. I had a strict and traditional teacher. I spent a full year learning the first form and NEVER even saw the second much less third form during that time. With him, you did NOT ask to learn more - if you did, he would make you show what you had up until that point - AND rip it to shreds with pointing out all of your errors - leaving you with a statement like "Why do you press to learn new when you haven't got the old? - Aiyahhh"

I was lucky. I NEVER got that statement - I saw it happen once early on and made a mental note not to go there.

To this day, my first form is ingrained with little deviation. However, I had 6 or 7 classmates start with me. At the end of the year, I was the only one still there.

My final and current teacher is the opposite. Everything is by example, show a logical chunk and then refine it. If the desired target routine is at too high a level for the student, a similar but easier routine is taught first to lay a foundation.

In the second approach, people seem to get more benefits and stick with it longer. those with talent but lacking patience are around long enough to begin to teach them patience.

While in an old style martial sense, this may not fly, in a modern world, to keep with the old ways may mean that all of the arts are eventually lost...

Evolution....and choice. What a combination

[Vapour]

Originally posted by 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 .

GLW, is Guang Ping is the name of lineage which practice SanShou A/B? Or am I talking nonsence here?

Btw, it came to my attension that the speed in which one teach form differ significantly. It's took me about 10 month to learn 37 posture. I was attending lesson only once a week at that time. Plus it was done in university so you get one month Easter and another one month Christmas break. And when complete beginner join up, it tended to slow down the progress of the form learning.

I would say, in our school, it probably takes 6 months or more to learn the 37 steps form if one attend 90 minutes lesson once a week which include some push hand instructions.

For anyone who teach or have learned 24 step, how long did you take to teach or learn the entire 24 step form?

[count]

GLW,
I think the nature of learning anything to mastery is overlapping layers of refinement. I was curious how much you knew about the Kuang Ping stepping in comparison. From what I have seen of it, they show a lot more sensitivity in the stepping. Very effective at covering, feeling and trapping and/or sweeping with their feet than most other Yang styles I've seen. You know, I already know about your background in Tai Chi from the last 4 years or so of posting on this forum. I have seen some of the good descriptions of the differences come from you so I thought I'd ask. Sometimes your descriptions help me put my own thoughts into words. Anyway, to bring this back on topic...

Vapors,
I spent a little more than one year to learn the long form myself. Knowing that, I could learn the short form in less than a month even with the differences in stepping. I have shown the 24 to others with no experience in five sections, about one per month and a sixth month to clean it up. But that includes other training such as stance, drills, applications, pushing hands, chi kung etc. That's about the same amount of time I spent learning the Chen style short form and the sun style short form. Of course learning a form and performing it correctly are two different matters.

[Vapour]

I noticed that lot of Yang stylist practice CMC's 37 steps form, but from what I see, the 37 step form is performed as short Yang form rather than a distinct style. So I did bit of reading. Here is the differences between Yang style and CMC style.

As I said, CMC style has strong emphasis on keeping the width of the stance shoulder width. Plus weight distribution of substantial and insubstantial leg in CMC is 99/1 while in Yang, I'm informed that, it is about 70/30.

Moreover, in Yang style, one adjust the back foot by turning the ball of the foot making the stance longer whiel in CMC, the adjustment is made by the heel, keeping the length of the stance the same.

In Yang it seems that focus is streching your hip joint while in CMC focus is on relaxation of hip joint. Because we keep insubstaintial leg compeletely empty and width of stance are always kept at shoulder-width, turning of hip is initiated by relaxing the empty leg further. I noticed that when I have narrower and longer stance where my insubstaintial leg is not completely empty, I did find that I can only open or close my hip by pulling or pushing it rather than letting it open or close on it own accord.

Another thing which I've been often told is the wrists of open palms. I did notice that some student who done yang in our class keeps their open palm's wrist kinked while in our style, wrist is always straight. I noticed that when I do kink my wrist, my focus will shift from the tip of fingers to the centre of palm.

Moreover, there seems to be emphasis on analysing the applications of step in Yang. In our style, analysis of marital application of each steps is deemphasised and the form is regarded as a "posture" form rather than representing the particular technical application.

Adding to this is that exterior outlook of CMC form performed by a beginner (i.e. me ) is quite unattractive if not ugly. Because we have such extreme weight distribution rule, we have very small step and small movement even though physical strength involved in perfoming each steps is equally difficult if not more. When I perform long single whip and snake creep down sequence, I cann't really creep because my stance is short. I can just squate and my front leg is often bent, so I looks like trying to **** outdoor.

[RAF]

Regarding the 24 movement Taiji form with applications, see the old tape by Liang Shou Yu and Sam Masich. The form is played with deep postures and solid stances and the applications are very good.

I can see from his book and tapes where someone might feel very comfortable learning only the 24 movement, some warm-ups & Qi gong (see the book) and the applications with some two man drills (see the tape). Add a little pushing hands from Sam Masich's other tape plus the 32 movement sword with auxilliary exercises and you could be quite content.

A great way to teach most public students? Yes. Why? Because on average, most students last between 2-3 years, this can be taught and completed over that time period. When the student leaves, they are left with a sense of achievement and general feeling of completedness. When they leave, they leave with a smile on their face, which is your best sourece of advertisement i.e. satisfaction word of mouth!

For some people, thats all they desire and can get all they need from the 24 movement form/system. Surprisingly, many don't want to be "burdened" with the politics of whether my taiji is the original one or whether I am king of the hill and can kick your arse and everyone else's etc. etc. etc.. Its hard to believe that there are people like that out there, who take seriously the belief the mastering and completing a small part is better than have a large part uncompleted.

For others, like the posters here, it would barely wet our lips!

[GLW]

RAF summed it up pretty well.

There is the flip side of that too. Since I KNOW that each student makes a committment to my class (and other teachers have the same issue - mine included) on a month by month, maybe quarter by quarter, and for some even day by day basis, I KNOW that this class could be the last class they take.

This is not to say that they leave without a word. People get sick, new jobs, divorced, have kids, injured, lose interest, whatever. Some will stay for a long time. Others will learn "enough" and leave. My traditional Chinese mother-in-law can't understand why her daughter and I are still learning after so many years..."Haven't we learned enough for health yet?"

But, the flip side is KNOWING this, as a teacher, I want to make sure that when it happens, the person leaving has as much for life as I can give them...that they have spent their time in a worthwhile pursuit and that they understand what would be left in training should they decide to continue later. I also want to make sure that their basics are good enough that they can spot a BS artist/teacher and not waste their time should they resume.

It seems to work. I have had ex-students come back and say how they were practicing with others in a class and people asked why THEY weren't teaching instead of the person leading.

On funny note, every student I have ever had that was insistent in knowing what it took to have me say they were instructor level or that asked "how many years can you teach me before I need to find another teacher" has NEVER lasted through even a fourth of the classes. Impatience.

[draggin dragon]

Is the official 24 movement form useful for learning a foundation of martial TJQ, or only for exercise value?

[bodhitree]

That was the first form my Sifu taught me. after that we went on to the long form. I think Its a great form to practice when theres not a lot of time, and you can still get many of the same applications as the long form.

[GLW]

Got to take issue with the way the question is phrased....

There can be NO martial foundation for Taijiquan or any other form of Chinese Martial Art without first having a FOUNDATION.

Jibengong is what it is called...Basics.

Without stance and movement basics, nothing else is possible.

[Vapour]

Well, my instructor is of opinion that it is the hardest (worst) form to teach taijiquan due to the way sequence are structured.

I did post a thread while ago. The legitimacy of 24 is reccurent flamebait topic (Earl Mongegue is another one) so I abstain from voting.

[Brad]

Well, my instructor is of opinion that it is the hardest (worst) form to teach taijiquan due to the way sequence are structured.

I don't see how

[GroungJing]

I agree, but yet I don't....

I personnly do the 24 form with a Yang Famly style influence, rather than the beijing wushu flare we see in the 42, and the old 48 mixed form. It's mainly in the way Yang family style forms Ji(press) and a few other things too. (not a lot through.....much is really the same

Just something in all that Beijing hand flapping going on that in a martial sense I don't see a need for. (IMO)


Application wise they all are the same. Although, I could see this being a problem if someone isn't initiated in Taijiquan fighting theory.

So maybe it is hard for a newbie to learn...........

[GLW]

Hand flapping?

never seen that...at least if any routien is done correctly

What do you mean?

[GroungJing]

I've seen some Beijing Wushu influenced 24, 42 and 48 mixed forms that have really embellished the hand movements. Sometimes they have added a whole movement where there was none. I'm not sure as to what purpose these new hand movements represent other than embellishments. (looks to me like they got really into cloud hands I'm not sure where it's comming out of, Beijing or Hong Kong etc....

I don't think it will gain in popularity, it might though......

When you see it, you will know it.

They are not your typical compitition forms (It must be variations of the 24, 42 and 48 forms


Who's to say what is correct, but that is what I was refering to as hand flapping......

[Brad]

I think I know what you're talking about... I used to do that "hand flapping" when I first learned 24 form. Basically, it came from me trying to imitate the beautiful flowing like water look that I saw in the official video. My teacher corrected me though. Just sounds like some lazy teachers out there & inexperience, not any fault of the form itself I know my teacher doesn't do any "hand flapping" and he learned from the source.