robert w smith vs chen man ching fight

[Syd]

Here's a few lines from Nigel Suttons book "Applied Tai Chi Chuan"...

"Cheng Man Ching did not regard his form to be any simpler than the long form; indeed he made many changes of such a nature that they ensure the form should be regarded as a seperate style from that of the Yang Family" Page 16 Ch 2

The second reason reason given regarding why Cheng Man Ching shortened the forms? The first was to popularize Taijiquan for his own Nationalistic purposes regarding health. I always thought that Yang Cheng Fu had done this already!

"The second reason was his own laziness: He wanted to get through his daily practice as quickly as possible, but without reducing the efficiency of the exercise." Page 15 Ch 2

I just posted the above in lieu of prior debate regarding Cheng and Yang style, which tends to back my thoughts on Yang vs Cheng.

Regarding Cheng and his relationship to Yang Cheng Fu?

"In the Far East, Cheng Style Taijiquan, as it is known, is seen as a completely seperate system than it's parent Yang Style" Page 14 Chapter 2

"... Cheng, however, was by no means one of Master Yangs most famous disciples, and in mainland China today his name is virtually unknown. Those who do recall his name, remember him as the young man who was constantly challenging, and constantly being beaten by boxers of reknown." Page 14 Ch 2

Anyway I thought these may be of interest to the general debate.

Best, Syd

[Repulsive Monkey]

Well yes but then every person who takes on a form taught to them by and large is creating or personalising their own form you could argue! Within the Yang family the different generations of Yang members are remembered for their distinctive take on the family forms.

As to laziness bit I'm not sure if this is reliable, you'll always get some saying it was laziness as to why he shortened things and others saying it was refinement/efficiency as to why he shortened stuff. Thing is he taught all his Taiwanese disciples the Yang family Long form untouched. He taught them what Yang Cheng-fu taught him.

It's no surprise that he was only a name in Taiwan becuase that's where his reputation spread, and thats where he spent a lot of his Taiji years, so that is correct. It's hard to say what his reputation would of been like if he had paraded his skills around China as a whole, but I don't think that was his mission in life. And the last bit about him being "constantly challenging, and constantly being beaten by boxers of reknown." sounds about right from his early years under Yang's tutelage, as I think Yang encouraged his pupils to challenges especially with members of different styles at times. Cheng was not the best fighter he was just up there with some of the greats, but by no means the best.
There is always someone who can beat someone else, surely this is the nature of peopole's gong-fu evolving and developing?

[Syd]

As to laziness bit I'm not sure if this is reliable

He (Cheng) actually alluded to this himself and it is discussed within the book where Cheng admits he would rush through his forms because of a lack of patience and lazyness. Grist for the mill however.

[Unmatchable]

who cares he's dead, and there is no video footage to show his fights (which all mma guys need in order to convince themselves an art is effective).

[Repulsive Monkey]

Do you speak from a knowledagble standpoint there? Thats odd because I'ven film fottage of him with a Hsing-i master trading punches.

[BAI HE]

Who was the Hsing-I master and where is the footage?

[Vapour]

at that period, dojo breaking and challenge match was not uncommon. So you couldn't make name for yourself unless you won fights. Vidoe footage is just matter of technology. Would you say Miyamoto Musashi was not a good fighter because his fight was not recorded in video?

As of CMC being lazy, you really have to remember that he made name for himself not just as a taichichuan master but master of five excellence in other arts such as poetry, calligraphy, painting and most importantly medicine. Most people could master only one or not master even one. And he was quite decent at number of other chinese arts such as chinese chess to Chinese classics publishing number of commentary. Not something a lazy lad could achieve. Western equivelant is like being a ranked boxer, an authority in Greek classics, renowned artist of classical painting & sculpture who has held number of private exhibits, published poet and a the same time being a medical doctor. No wonder people were impressed by him.

In gong fu where someone's skill could be easily demonstrated by challenge match, he clearly did excell at it. Not a small feat given that he was a small man even by chinese standard.

I believe that more realistic interpretation to his style of taichichuan is that he reorganised taichi training into specialised drill. So in the morning, he did staff to train fajing. And every 10-15 minutes he can find in his busy schedule, he trained his jing by doing his "short-yang" form or neigong. That is obviously different approach from traditional style where you train everything in the form.

Short form is excellent training tool if you want to focus on one aspect/principle of taichichuna. CMC is a style stripped down to bear minimum/essence so that you can specialsied in various aspet depending on your training focus. And I know there are few masters who simply repeat grasping sparrow's tail for their exercise. (And I'm guessing that some Chen stylist just do silk realing) So it is not realy about what form or style you do but what you do with it that matter.

[jun_erh]

coal in all your stockings

[Unmatchable]

Is there any clips of tai chi being used in sparring (not push hands) or competition fighting without looking like kickboxing? What proof do we have of his fighting abilities besides Robert Smith who is known to exaggerate people's abilities espoecially his teachers. And William Chen who studied under the man. Every martial art is filled with tales of unbeatable masters but only few have evidence to prove effectiveness.

[Repulsive Monkey]

Well how about his other Taiwan disciples and the those of the CMC opponents that he beat? I'll try and find some other documentation from a friend of mine.

[BAI HE]

I'm with unmatchable on this one and
I think CMC was known as more of a Push Hands guy than an actual fighter.

You missed the sixth excellence, drinking and popping off at the lip.

CMC stated that he defeated Chen Pan Ling and Wu Meng Xia. I doubt he would have lasted 10 seconds with either of them and there is no documentation to support his claims. A fight of that magnitude would surely have been documented.

But I suppose when your Madame Chaing Kai Shek's fair haired boy, you are above reproach.

[BAI HE]

Vapour,
Repulsive stated that he saw a clip.
I guess the technology was there (film?).

Some will take CMC and Smith's words as the truth, I take
them as words. That is what they really are.

[bamboo_ leaf]

(Every martial art is filled with tales of unbeatable masters but only few have evidence to prove effectiveness)

So what dose this have to do with your training, your effectiveness?

I think the main differences between then and now is that back then the same questions where asked, people sought out the answerers directly.

Now people want to see actions of others and whine on the Internet asking for confirmation of something that they should be trying out for themselves.

Yep it must work I saw it on TV

[Syd]

I must agree that the more I discuss Taiji on boards the less interested I am becoming in the activity. I never trained less because I spoke, but I think I plan to speak less in future and just train since the speaking seems to add nothing to my
proficiency in training but only my proficiency in speaking. The less I say the
happier I am... seems the wise sages knew this from day one...

I take my leave... Ciao

[Unmatchable]

Bamboo_Leaf,

most people today (including masters) aren't willing to fight to prove their own claims.