Why can't we have nice things; A beautiful, circular, lively, round flowing form, which directly informs both health and martial arts?
Appledog wrote:For example, which posture is more useful; the fabled lo xi ao bu from Chen Xin's book (the one with the crane's beak behind the back) or standing in the actual yang (or chen) style version of brush knee? Many years ago Chen Quanzong, iirc, promoted this posture. He said it was even better than san ti shou. But this move doesn't appear in the form. You can even make an argument that most of Feng's hunyuan qigong movements appear somewhere in yilu. But this move, I don't see it. If you stand like Chen Quanzhong showed there is no way it can inform the application shown by Chen Zhonghua. I'm stumped.
Appledog wrote:Chen Fake demonstrated the form in two different ways, during forms practice and during application. If Hong Junsheng felt the need to change his form towards application does this suggest Chen Fake's normal forms practice does not inform the application practice? Does anyone else find this an impossible connundrum? Why can't we have nice things; A beautiful, circular, lively, round flowing form, which directly informs both health and martial arts? Do we really need 2 or 3 versions of the same form? Or worse, movements that don't really have anything parallel in the form?
Liu Rui wrote:From the beginning, the teacher could pass on what they liked to as many students as they wished, but the Cheng routine (Heritage Frame) was passed on only to one or two disciples. Why? We know that Zhaobao Taijiquan has the concept of three-harmonized-in-one and the Heritage Frame best displays this concept. The Heritage Frame is characterized by high postures and very smooth and gentle movements.
What is three-harmonized-in-one? It is form, push hands, and combat applications, you do not have to change the movements yet you can still use them as is.
Appledog wrote:This is with specific reference to something like Hunyuan Qigong or Feng's Silk Reeling Exercises. It has been mentioned in the past that at some point there is "not much left" to learn from the specific practice of these two because it is intended that they are absorbed by forms practice. I get that.
The question is, what do you do with non-informative practices?
For example, which posture is more useful; the fabled lo xi ao bu from Chen Xin's book (the one with the crane's beak behind the back) or standing in the actual yang (or chen) style version of brush knee? Many years ago Chen Quanzong, iirc, promoted this posture. He said it was even better than san ti shou. But this move doesn't appear in the form. You can even make an argument that most of Feng's hunyuan qigong movements appear somewhere in yilu. But this move, I don't see it. If you stand like Chen Quanzhong showed there is no way it can inform the application shown by Chen Zhonghua. I'm stumped.
Chen Fake demonstrated the form in two different ways, during forms practice and during application. If Hong Junsheng felt the need to change his form towards application does this suggest Chen Fake's normal forms practice does not inform the application practice? Does anyone else find this an impossible connundrum? Why can't we have nice things; A beautiful, circular, lively, round flowing form, which directly informs both health and martial arts? Do we really need 2 or 3 versions of the same form? Or worse, movements that don't really have anything parallel in the form?
Graculus wrote:@Appledog I think that was probably Chen Qingzhou. That position wouldn’t be in any of the Chen Fake derived forms (eg Chen Zhonghua) as it comes from the small frame variation of Chen. I think it’s possible that Chen Zhaopi (Chen Qingzhou’s teacher) bumped into Chen Zeming (principle small frame representative of the time) somewhere on his travels and picked it up from him (back in the 1930s). Chen Qingzhou may have promoted it on purpose as he knew none of the other Chen teachers in Chen village or the Beijing school used it, or perhaps just to preserve something, however minor, of the small frame system. Whatever the reason, he maintained it was valuable. To be honest, I don’t think it would inform the usage in the small frame form either.
Sorry this doesn’t address your main question, but I thought I would throw it in there anyway.
Graculus
https://ichijoji.blogspot.com
wayne hansen wrote:So does the guy with 100 forms do them daily
wayne hansen wrote:So does the guy with 100 forms do them daily
HotSoup wrote:There were people concerned with the same issue beforeLiu Rui wrote:From the beginning, the teacher could pass on what they liked to as many students as they wished, but the Cheng routine (Heritage Frame) was passed on only to one or two disciples. Why? We know that Zhaobao Taijiquan has the concept of three-harmonized-in-one and the Heritage Frame best displays this concept. The Heritage Frame is characterized by high postures and very smooth and gentle movements.
What is three-harmonized-in-one? It is form, push hands, and combat applications, you do not have to change the movements yet you can still use them as is.
Yes l agree
Coincidentally, Liu Rui’s form used the version of lo xi ao bu as in Chen Xin’s book, so I figure he solved all your problems decades ago
Chen version vs Zhaobao version mmm.Based on a Chen book.mmm
On a serious note, though, there’s no way to train some form of an “ideal” application in the form. Reality will always be different due to the factors the opponent is presenting. The ancient found an answer in using the moves perfect for training “jin”, and because of that a discrepancy became inevitable. It is what it is with all its benefits and downsides.
Return to Xingyiquan - Baguazhang - Taijiquan
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 42 guests