Originally Posted by
TenTigers
everyone has a different theory and take on TSK. It is my personal belief, based upon my own experience that the stances introduced in TSK are in actuality the proper stance, meaning, that the large, leg locked, full chest bow stance is a training stance, which later becomes the sacrum tucked, rear leg un-locked, chest hollowed stance seen in Tai Ghik Kuen (Tai-Chi Ch'uan) and Fukien Siu-Lum systems. The horse is narrower as well, and if you look at most "internal," Northern, and Fukien systems, their horse is also narrower and more upright-hence, greater mobility.
(Again, this is just my personal findings, your mileage may vary.)
This is why Hung-Ga Sifus tell their students that their Gung-Fu changes after TSK.
The reasons for different names of the same movements or postures lies in application.
As you know, there are multiple applications for each movement. This distinguishes one from the other, hints at the application and codifies it.
To expand a bit upon what Rik said and base don my understanding:
Some teachers modified their TSK depending on the conditions that they were working on ( what physical attribute they were priortizing at the time) and depending on when a student was with said teacher, he learned THAT version.
Some teachers taught students the TSK in the way that best suited THAT student and that would lead to different ways of doing the TSK between the various students.
Not better or worse, just different.
Some times a teacher would have to modify the footwork because of space.
I heard that GM CHan's TSK has more stationary footwork because of the space issue withing his kwoon ( not sure how much truth there is to it).
The fact is that the TSK can be done in various ways depending one what the practioner is working on at the time.
Psalms 144:1
Praise be my Lord my Rock,
He trains my hands for war, my fingers for battle !