So Why Is He Wrong???

[TenTigers]

Ok, so Lama P'ai Sifu brought up the point that Chen Man-Ching taught Tai=Chi wrong. I am really interested in hearing the reasons for this.
Of course this will bring up lots of cool heated debates, which is always fun as well as informative, so let's do it. Let's keep it mature, and simply not make any personal remarks
(especially from you stupid, immature, doodies! )

ok, I will start. I am guessing, but Chen Man-Ching changed the postures and created his short form. His postures were more upright as well as having a smaller frame. I am under the impression that he did this as a result of his fighting experiences. Wu-style also has similar postures and frame.
His shortened form was a teaching aid and he did this as he felt that there were too many repeated postures in the form, so by eliminating them and concentrating on key moves, he could give the student the foundation. Many of his students learned the long form later, as well as gim, broadsword,and spear.
He was a peerless fighter and his student, William CC Chen was ranked a top lightweight full contact champion in Taiwan. Chen went on to produce full contact fighters of his own, his son , or grandson? Max being one of them. Tiffany can also throw down, as well.

[Fu-Pow]

I think it has to do with oversimplification. No doubt that he had skill but it seems that the Yang line keeps losing stuff along the way that elucidates how to use Taiji to fight.

[hskwarrior]

wow,

fo pow's list of ingore's just keep getting bigger and bigger

[Lama Pai Sifu]

Rick, Tai Chi (Tai Gik) is comprised of spefic principles. If you look at the CMC version and show it to any mainlanders (heck, even WuShu players) they will all agree that it defies the very principles to which the art was created by. Their structure and form is off. Thier body posturing is just incorrect.

Compare it to every other type or line of Tai Chi. It is different. It's not an evolutionary difference, it's a de-evolutionary difference. Is it still Tai Chi? Well, if they want to call it Tai Chi, expecially based on the other thread, who can refute them?

Accourding to some people on the forum, NO ONE! No one can ever tell anyone else that their KF is right or wrong?!?!!! Since when did this trend start? Hang out with some 80 year old Chinese guys..they will have variations, but they will tell you if what you do it right or wrong, ...believe me. And they will not feel politically incorrect by doing so.

You know, you right on the other forum : "I will not be the generation that killed Kung-Fu." Can you tell me how you think KF can be killed? I think it is clear; STANDARDS. Let everyone do any technique, any way they want, let them justify it by saying it's 'the way we do it', as watch what happens. Forget about what happens...look at what is and has happened!

If this continues, there will be horses with feet super-wide, toes out, butt sticking out, etc. There will be a hundred ways to throw the same punch. (And try not to site the example of a boxers jab again...everyone's jab is different, but the same - that is an acceptable level of variation, you dig?)

Take care Rick.

[TenTigers]

Hi Mike,
could you elaborate on exactly where and how Chen Man Ching's structure and principles were off?

[Lama Pai Sifu]

Rick, I'm not a TC expert. I learned some from my Sifu's friend, Chan Wei-Gwun who moved in NYC in 1991/2. He unfortunately died a few years ago. He was the president of the Toi San martial arts association and was a very famous TC teacher. We talked about the CMC form, he said it was very wrong.

But even if you don't have major TC experience, you can see HUGE differences between the CMC versions and everyone elses. If you know any Chinese TC Masters (NON CMC), show them the CMC versions and ask them why they think it's wrong. That is your best bet.

If you know the CMC version and you want to stop by, I can show you what I mean in person, but I don't have the time to write a dissertation about it here on the forum.

good luck.

[Fu-Pow]

I've practiced Chen Taiji for almost 10 years and I've seen a little bit of CMC Taiji. I can tell you that I did not see any of the spirally motion that is typical of Chen Taiji. However, the Yang style in general shows less of the "silk reeling" type of motion.

As its been explained to me, Yang style is like a large flowing river and Chen is like the rapids. You see more of action of the river in the rapids then you do in the big river. However, the energy is more or less the same.

Learning Yang I think in someways must be more difficult because you are able to see less of what you are supposed to be doing. The circles are there but they are hidden.

What may have happened with CMC is that his circles were very subtle so much that his students did not see them and mistook Tajii strength for regular strength. The end goal of Taji is that the circle is there but cannot be seen. You have to start with circles though or you will not get it.

This problem happens all the time in my push hands class and my teacher must constantly remind people, to relax, stick and make a bigger circle/spiral. Taiji power is whole body spiral power and there can't be any "corners" in the motion or all the force will get "stuck" at the corner.

In other words, imagine you are drawing a circle with your hand and you suddenly cut across the circle. You just created a corner. In Taiji ALL movement of the body must be round without corners. That could be a circle or even a motion that is more eliptical.

[yutyeesam]

If the issue is that the physical structure of Taiji looks different, then that's not saying much. Grandmaster Feng ZhiQiang's Chen style doesn't look like what we typically see as Chen (eg, GM Chen Xiaowang or Adam Hsu, for that matter). GM Feng incorporated Xing Yi, because of the emphasis on intent and qigong training.

So it's hard to tell someone's doing Taiji "wrong" if they're doing tons of qigong and push hands along with their form. If you can't push them over or get them to overextend, their energy speaks for itself. Just like with some fighters, they might have shoddy form, but you really can only get the true picture when you touch hands.

I'm not saying that some structural ways aren't better than others, but true Taiji skill is more about the development, nurturing, and application of internal energy. And those things are best developed through qigong, then nurtured through form, and applied in push hands.

If anything, the biggest mistake that happened was to take out the qigong emphasis, IMO.

-123

[fiercest tiger]

The question is do you still feel the chi and can you move the chi?

Does it make you feel good and help the mind?

[TonyM.]

I believe people were disappointed that the Professor left still Chi Gong out of his curiculum.

[lkfmdc]

Cheng Man Ching is a can of worms.... people say he changed what his teacher taught him (that's hard to pin down).... his student William CC Chen changed a lot of what CMC did and openly disagreed with him on a number of issues. I'm not a tai chi person in the least, but CMC said Tai chi movement has no application, response is just sudden/natural. William CC Chen says every movement has an application. There's just tons of stuff to make you guy "wah?" over in that tradition

[Water Dragon]

We talked about the CMC form, he said it was very wrong.

This I'd like to hear. I'm betting this situation is similar to all the guys talking smack about CC Chen and then getting real quiet when he walks in the room. Typical

[T. Cunningham]

I'm not a tai chi person in the least, but CMC said Tai chi movement has no application, response is just sudden/natural. William CC Chen says every movement has an application. There's just tons of stuff to make you guy "wah?" over in that tradition

How often have our teachers refered to something as simplistic while we're still trying to wrap our brains around it? Maybe for CMC his level of skill is beyond delving into "finite" ways of applying his stuff and he's referring to a higher level of skill and understanding. For example, I had a calculus teacher in college that would draw a squiggly line on the board and ask us to name the function. We had no clue. What we missed and what he missed is that he applied his calc skill on a daily basis for over 20 years in government and private industry jobs. It was 2nd nature for him. Maybe its the same for CMC.

[fiercest tiger]

Fighting should be natural anyway he is right, so what anyone can break a form down and say you can use this for this type of attack or defense but when it comes down to fighting half the traditional arts are useless just need a few good boxing hands and kicks, strong clinch and grappling and you are set.

[Water Dragon]

Cheng Man Ching is a can of worms.... people say he changed what his teacher taught him (that's hard to pin down).... his student William CC Chen changed a lot of what CMC did and openly disagreed with him on a number of issues. I'm not a tai chi person in the least, but CMC said Tai chi movement has no application, response is just sudden/natural. William CC Chen says every movement has an application. There's just tons of stuff to make you guy "wah?" over in that tradition

When I was doing the CC Chen stuff, the 'application' was always the body mechanic. Good example: We were working on slipping a cross and coming back over the top with our own cross. I was having trouble, and my coach says to me: Just do single whip. And he was right! The part of the form where you rotate in and bring the hook hand into you was the same mechanic I needed for the slip, and the extending the hook out was the mechanic I needed to come back voer the top with a cross.

I'm not sure, but maybe that's what CC Chen meant. I don't see how that contradicts CMC because you already know that when you get out there in the ring, you're running mostly on reflex anyway. Not all the way, but mostly, and that's what I think the 'no application' part probably means.