Gassho!
Yep, that's the Kyohan. And I'd be interested in that picture.
I read something about the backstory in this old Gassho article. It also has some pictures.
Kesshu,
______ Jan.
Gassho!
Yep, that's the Kyohan. And I'd be interested in that picture.
I read something about the backstory in this old Gassho article. It also has some pictures.
Kesshu,
______ Jan.
Jan Lipsius
少林寺拳法
Shorinjikempo
Humboldt University Berlin Branch
"An eye for an eye only ends up making the whole world blind." Gandhi
Sorry Peter - but that just tells me you don't actually know what the word 'objective' means. Your assessment is in fact the opposite of objective.
There is only one 'verifiable' lineage? Like I said.. hilarious. There is virtually nothing in CMA 'history' that is verifiable. And of course conveniently your 'one' lineage extends from Yang Luchan through his sons.. and ends.. where I suppose Wu 'took over'?
Like I said, I'll never understand the need to denigrate and belittle others - certainly not exclusive to Wu stylists, or Taiji or CMA - but it seems to be a real characteristic of Wu Taiji people.. and speaks to a real insecurity.
Oh and where did this 'one' verifiable lineage originate? Where did YLC magically acquire this 'pure' Taiji? Oh that's right.. Chenjiagou.. which you say never had any Taiji. While I'm aware of the disputes between Chen and Zhaobao, the murkiness of this history demonstrates exactly my point - there's nothing verifiable in CMA history, it's virtually all partisan oral tradition. But I hope it makes you feel better to claim exclusivity.
Re Taiwan - again, 'objective'? Hardly. Just because you may have never heard of Wang Shujin, Chen Panling.. many others, even *gasp* Zheng Manqing, doesn't mean others don't regard them as 'known great masters'. Like I said - perhaps qualify your statements that you are speaking specifically to *your* branch of Wu Taiji.
Hung Yixiang was a leading student of Zhang Junfeng. Like you were complaining about re Wang Peisheng - perhaps you might feel bold enough to dismiss Zhang or Hung as something other than 'great masters' who didn't gain his reputation through 'direct challenges and fighting', but I'm afraid you're only demonstrating your own ignorance. As I mentioned - Hung produced some VERY well regarded students (though mainly known for XYQ and BGZ) - Luo De Xiu and Su Dong Chen competed in SEA full contact tournaments.. and won.
And while you're looking into Dan Harden, Sam Chin, I Liq Chuan.. check out Liu He Ba Fa, Ziranmen, Liangyiquan, Wenshengquan... and all the other 'internal' arts out there.. before putting yourself forward as some sort of arbiter.
And FWIW, I have never studied Taijiquan, or with any Taiwanese teachers - I have done JMA only for some years now, and could not care less about your assessment of any CMA/teacher (or JMA for that matter)
But I would point out to any laypeople reading this thread that your opinions are your own, and should be viewed as such.
Ryan wrote: "No one 'attacks' with a wrist grab..."
They do, if you're a woman. Wrist, forearm, upper arm, and shoulder grabs are very common ways that women are attacked, particularly by male assailants. Just sayin'.
Last edited by Cady Goldfield; 7th February 2015 at 01:25. Reason: fixin' typos
Cady Goldfield
I see. You have obviously studied Taijiquan's history for years
Actually, no, you're quite wrong. There is actually only one _verfiable_ lineage in Taijiquan - verifiable as in trace-able through the ~165 years of its existence from Yang Luchan. The trace-ability for Taijiquan is actually _better_ than any other Chinese martial art because of the existence of its literature. No other CMA has as clear and as well-known artifacts that can actually be tested for age and traced than Taijiquan. And you're correct on one point - that's not saying a lot. But it is something. In any case, that literature gets you nowhere _before_ Yang Luchan. His master was old and dying when Wu Yuxiang went back to Chen Village to attempt to retrace. In Chen Village, the practice of Taijiquan was _not_ common. They had their family styles and not Taijiquan. Further, none of the _deep_ Taijiquan Classics comes from Chen Village, whereas the Zhaobao lineage is well documented and quite clear. Most likely the path is through Zhaobao through Chen Village. If we lived by scholarly and documentable rules, that would certainly be the consensus. The terrible "research" of a certain Tang Hao contributed to the confusion by virtue of his simply asserting his hypotheses and supporting only his view which later became politically correct. His history is clearly wrong and recognized by virtually all traditional groups as such.
As to masters - there have been only a tiny few with a reputation such as Yang Luchan. There is a difference between a recognized "great master" and those of lesser status that has to do with their achievements across a range of other systems. Yang Luchan has managed to stay in the books to this day as "Yang Wudi" because he beat virtually every great master in Beijing in the 1850s. This is not a small feat and he "blamed" the internal martial arts for his success. The only individual in question is Dong Haichuan, with whom he ended up friends and possibly even adding to the body of knowledge associated with the (then) new name of "Taijiquan" (a moniker which did not exist prior to his time having previously been called - shisanshi among other names previously). And I stand by what I said, there are no known masters of Yang Luchan's stature ever to emerge from this lineage and _especially_ not with respect to Taiwan - not a one. And, if you know anything about Chen Manqing and anything about Taijiquan - despite his American (and other western) students creating a god out of him, in fact he has no known real fights or other credibility to augment his achievements except for the dogmatic views of his students. Typically someone who is a great master has a proven track record of very public and very visible combats. Find me one and I'll find you a liar (by and large). Further, "good fighting" is no indication of Taijiquan skill. A great western boxer is likely to beat nearly any of said, "great masters of Taijiquan" - and if this isn't true, it is a point that needs to be proven. At least in our group, the point is a proven one.
Hello Peter,
First please let us know when the Tai Chi Classics book comes out and how to order it. I think there are a number of us here who would be very interested in ordering it. I am not trying to argue with you simply understand what you are saying.
First, no great masters in Taiwan (or from Taiwan). Seems to me if taking challenges is a large part of being great Wang Su Jin surely must qualify. What am I missing?
Also, although I have heard other people say Cheng Man Ching wasn't so great (I don't have anyway to judge one way or the other, but I do find it interesting that like Mas Oyama people started saying this after he passed away) wasn't he the primary teacher of William C. C. Chen who by all accounts fought very public and very visible?
No internal arts in Japan- Why are you excluding Tai Ki Ken which to my understanding is a synthesis of Yi Quan and Japanese Martial Arts?
OK the place I am really not following you: where are we going with good fighting not being a good indication of ones Tai Chi - seems to run opposite of Wang Peisheng could beat everyone, so his Tai Chi was on the highest level. Or are you saying your school has sound fighting ability and others don't? Or maybe good fighting ability only matter if developed within the context of sound Tai Chi principles? Does "proven point in your group" mean you guys could take Paul Spadafora if he challenged you or are you saying your group couldn't and it doesn't matter? Sorry maybe I am just slow but I really don't understand what you mean here.
Respectfully,
Len McCoy
What a surprise. You're welcome to your views Peter - if your version of 'scholarly and documentable' (sic) includes referencing a collaboration between Yang Luchan and Dong Haichuan, well.. all I can do is encourage other interested readers to do their own research and form their own conclusions.. The fabled meeting between DHC and Guo Yun Shen has also done the rounds for years.. and is equally 'scholarly and documentable'.
I'm guessing that the last line of your post is meant to imply that people 'in your group' have beaten 'great' western boxers? Care to name any names? Any footage to share? The last footage I saw of a 'challenge' fought by someone in the Wu branch of Taiji was.. infamously unimpressive.
As I said, I don't study Taijiquan, I don't really care about your assessment of any Taijiquan 'masters'. I specifically mentioned Zheng Manqing because he is an exemplar of someone who has produced numerous highly regarded students (William CC Chen mentioned by Len above, Ben Lo etc) but who by all accounts didn't really participate in any genuine fights - but has many people that do still regard him as a 'great' Taiji master. The insular and partisan nature of CMA training inevitably results in these type of petty back-and-forths. All I wanted to say was that your notion that there is only 'one' lineage of Taijiquan is your opinion only. If that's the case though.. why do people mention 'Chen' 'Zhaobao' 'Yang' 'Tung' 'Wu' 'Sun' 'Wu(Hao)' 'lines' of Taiji?
And if there's only ONE verifiable lineage of Taiji - through YLC.. how is the Zhaobao lineage 'well documented and quite clear'?
@Moderators: Can we please, please move this out of the SK forum now? Please!
JL
Jan Lipsius
少林寺拳法
Shorinjikempo
Humboldt University Berlin Branch
"An eye for an eye only ends up making the whole world blind." Gandhi
If this thread is to be left open, it must get back on topic. Please corral it and bring it back to Shorinji Kempo relevance if you wish to continue a discussion here.
Cady Goldfield
Ok, I've been a little quiet on here of late. Sometimes real life and not virtual life is more important
Anyway, as Cady just said, this is a forum for the discussion of Shorinji Kempo (the style created by Doshin So), so please get it back on topic or this thread will be closed or moved.
Fair enough - seemed like standard thread drift to me, but the dude abides..
Will do. Thanks.