[taichibulldog]

Hi folks ,
i'll continue the discussion as a few more point need to be addressed.

I'll say this if u go to that site and actually read it mosty will be surprized at how much of wht they say is exactly what i was infering in the 1st. place .

I've researched the origins for at least a decade online and never saw this complete a version of the truth ( AS DEPEICTED ON A CHEN STYLE SITE ) of the origns of chen style taijiquan . they have it spelled out clearly though it still fudges a little and gives credit to the Chen family , where it should be credit to only Jiang Fa and Chen Changxing Yang Lu Chan's teacher .

they even say that the other members of the family continued to teach and practice the Chen family pao chui , not Taijiquan which the whole Chen clan in essence then moved/ evolved to later.

I'm still not sure if u can call it TAIJIQUAN EVEN TODAY, it stills seems contrived . internal style ok, but Taijiquan maybe not

i'll cut and paste and make issue with the prevailing history as it's the leading reason why people who don't no better believe the ORIGIN myth of Taijiquan being a creation of the Chen Family .
thx yall , shalom

This post has been edited by taichibulldog: 08 July 2008 - 07:22 PM

[taichibulldog]

i coudn't get the picture of the lineages to show, computers are not my strong suit, sorry.

heres the site link with the whole shabang; actually quite informative as you'll see below. I

f this was the main story told to the world i wouldn't have an issue to speak of , eccept for the tiny bit of folly that gives credit/pretends that most if not all of the chens learned & taught Taijiquan before Yang Lu Chans TEACHER WAS TAUGHT BY JIANG FA !

ALTHOUGH IT WAS WHT I CONSIDER A MATTER of economics the fact that there was never a correction of the actual truth concerning the family history and the fact they they benefited greatly because of that is just not tasteful to me.

I Do think chen family martial arts are indeed useful and practical.

what i'd really like to know is who started teaching the chens about the internal methods of Taijiquan when it was decided that thw whole clan would go in that direction that would really shed light on what they have and whether it could be considered as taijiquan .

don't forget just becuase an art is socalled internal doesn't automatically make it taijiquan , even if it loks that way when performed. like the master on youtuibe who was supposed to be performing lie he ba fa , but did more of a taijiquan form and still it was not tight enough ; it sure was pretty though.


There are two principal traditions of Tai Chi in the Chen Family. In both cases the traditions were a combination of the Tai Chi that was taught to the Chen Family by Chiang Fa with the traditional Chen Family Cannon Pounding (Pao Chui) art which had derived from the Shaolin Temple tradition.

One school of Tai Chi, the so-called Old Frame of Chen Tai Chi developed from Chen Chiang-hsing (who taught Yang Lu-chan) and his student, Chen Gen-yun. His student Chen Yan-xi taught Chen Fa-ke (1887- 1957, the foremost exponent of this style whose students are responsible for its spread.






The New Frame of Chen Tai Chi developed from Chen You-heng, another student of Chiang Fa and developed via Chen Chung-sang to Chen Xin [a.k.a Chen Pin-sang] (1849-1929), the foremost latter- day exponent of this style .

The Old Frame Chen Style of Tai Chi bears a close resemblance to the New Frame Chen Style and also to the Zhao Bao and Hu Lei styles. Apparently it is not based on the classic '13 postures' which are central to the Yang and Wu Styles of Tai Chi and so it varies considerably from them.


The Development Of Chen Taijiquan
The Chen Family Cannon Pounding Art (Pao Chui)


The Chen family assimilated all the arts they practiced and created their own version of the predominant art which they practiced, Cannnon Pounding (Pao Chui), derived from the original Shaolin Cannon Pounding art. Sung Tai Zhu Chang Chuan formed a major part of this new art and there were elements from Shaolin Red Fist in it.


What resulted is five routines of Chen family Pao Chui and one routine of `Short Hitting' (duan da) and the song formula stated a total of a 108 postures consisting the art. There is much confusion over this particular song formula but on closer examination the correct name should be 'Boxing Canon Complete Formula' and is only found in the later Liang Yi Tang Ben manual. By the time the Wen Xiu Tang Ben Chen family martial arts manual was written it was noted that the `second and third routines are lost'. The Wen Xiu Tang Ben makes no reference to an art called Taijiquan or '13 postures' or 13 anything for that matter. So it is an early reference to the state of the Chen family arts before the advent of the Taijiquan of the Chen family that we know today.


The Chen family was famous for the Cannon Pounding art for several generations and gained the beautiful name of `Cannon Pounding Chen Family' (Pao Chui Chen Jia) in the region around the Chen village.


The Simplification Of Chen Routines


Somewhere along the line the Chen Pao Chui art was simplified to just two routines. We have no evidence to indicated who was the one responsible for this simplification. The furthest that we can trace it back is to Chen Chang Xin, Yang Lu Chan's teacher. But even the Chen family geneology book does not indicate that he was responsible for this momentous change, only indicating that he was a boxing teacher with a nickname `Ancestral Tablet'.


We know for certain that two of the routines were already lost by that time and so only the 3 remaining could account for the final two routines. Whether there was an integration or that another routine was lost through time resulting in the final two is not certain at all.


The Advent Of Internal Boxing In The Chen Arts


When did the Chen arts become a form of internal boxing as opposed to to their parental arts which were external boxing?


Most of the Taijiquan lineages regard Jiang Fa as the one providing the input that transformed the art from the external Cannon Pounding to the softer internal art. Some have also credited his input as the reason why the transformed art was called Taijiquan, a name reflecting a Taoist origin and also the classification of the art as an internal one. The name, however, was not widely used for the art until Yang Lu Chan popularised it in the capital city of Beijing. From the early writings, we know that the form was originally called the '13 postures' and by that time the name Taijiquan was already in use as evidenced by the Taijiquan Classic of Wang Tsung Yueh and the Ten Important Discourses Of Chen Chang Xin1.

This post has been edited by taichibulldog: 12 June 2008 - 04:45 AM

[Juz]

I obviously have alot to leran.....

my sh!t is fake and now I'm scare...

[sdflyer]

So obviously tea recommendations didn't work...

[taichibulldog]

Ok, here is a point that you really ought to learn, understand, remember and put into practice:

When you are using someone else's words to make or support a point in any type of academic (or even non academic) debate on or offline, it is not only good manners and helpful to readers, but also in some cases legally necessary to cite your sources. You ought to be noting with quotation marks what was taken from someone else's (probably copyrighted) writing, and also noting the address of the source.. and the author. It is not only polite to the author, but also makes these statements more understandable by providing the context they came from.

What you shared here, are not 'facts' they are someone ELSE'S opinion. Being that, they are not reliable in any real history, nor are they any more or less important than any other opinion.

I could offer the opinion that Taijiquan is developed out of a mixture of fermented duck eggs, choudoufu, boiled pigs feet, and sitting meditation and it would be about as valid as a quote from some anonymous guy who is unnamed, you see?

Besides this suggestion, I am going to avoid venturing further into this debate, because what you are requesting be addressed is not scholarly, not factual, and not relating to any reliable reality... I am not getting the impression you are interested in any reliable factual information. I suggest you look up information from kang gewu, henning, and the recently found Li family documents if you have any interest in real information. Many people know more about that than I, but even I know that what you posted here is just amateur story telling .. like making assumptions about history.

Do some research, have some fun.

i thought i did place the link in the thread. i did before for the reasons u state above which btw i have a feeling you know i'm aware of ....

instead of dismissing so quickly why not deal with the points , u seem to be more into finding no so clever ways to avoid and discredit the whole idea.

which btw you can not . heres the link again so yopu can see it. but you don't want toi deqal with it anyway from what you say. http://nztaichi.com/...i/chenstyle.htm

so HERE IS THE LINK AGAIN . AS THE LAST TOME I PLACED IT HERE I'M NOT TRYING TO ACT AS IF THESE ARE MY WORDS.

IF U JUST COME INTO THE MIDDLE IT'S YOUR FAULT WHOMEVER U ARE NOT TO GO BACK TO THE BEGGINING , and see what's there .

Mo Ling isn't that why we don't always know what we are talling about alot of the times. we don't have all the info ...

[sdflyer]

to taichibulldog:

I want to see prove by induction

[taichibulldog]

Besides this suggestion, I am going to avoid venturing further into this debate, because what you are requesting be addressed is not scholarly, not factual, and not relating to any reliable reality... I am not getting the impression you are interested in any reliable factual information. I suggest you look up information from kang gewu, henning, and the recently found Li family documents if you have any interest in real information. Many people know more about that than I, but even I know that what you posted here is just amateur story telling .. like making assumptions about history.

Do some research, have some fun.

MoLing since you like to say things in the way you do, ( misleading on purpose ) and because now i know i was right about you after all; i'l add this cut and paste here:

so with no further interuption i'll paste the link here. no need to cut and paste the whole thing , but do read the whole thing please . i saw some stuff in there that i haven't seen b4 . though some of it i feel is fluff.
http://www.nztaichi....i/chenstyle.htm

i also ackowledged the source of my original find in the original thread . as far as i know u read it from what i can gather.

that being said Mo Ling u shame yourself yet again . by explaining to me the ins/outs of giving credit to who deserves it as if i neede to be told that by you, and you certainly weren't just being helpful either.

I KNOW NOW WHAT A SHAM YOU ARE IN PART LOL, thank goodness your taijquan is better than your weak ability to deal with me effectively . but i guess that was a bad choice of words, forgive me sir. since if u wanted to contribute to finding out the whole truth that my topic raised you already would have.

as such all you have done so far and i belive now in a contrived fashion is " think your cute and try to DERAIL THE TOPIC , with your flawed logic that even an orangutan could see through . normally i would say lol , but it's not funny MoLing it's said and i didn't expect it from you .

sometimes i guess you never really know whre a person stands until you disagree with them , i know life has taught me that.

if you do not want to add to finding out the truth as it means nothing to you at all ; THEN STAY OUT OF THE THREAD and mind your business real simple and you don't need an anouncement not to post just don't . btw your annoying on purpose and that makes you quite a different beast from me.

IF u or anyone else has a problem with searching for the truth stay as you are , keep quiet , and conserve your qi for better thing u care about. shouldn't be to hard lol.

you smell/sound aLOT LIKE the A. Y. admin after i ticked him off , i wonder why ? he was sneaky about his he said what he has to say in a pm so no one else could see. he has yet to get my reply , but i wil post it for all to see. exposing the truth is my personal job when anyone tries to hide the truth and then act as though the truth don't matter.


heres my last cut and paste that was above, funny i thought the link was there wheni 1st. did it. then i checked and didn't see it at all. sure it could have been my error, but have nevr done that before ; if thatr's the case and ui truly hope it is i'm sorryfor the error , but the words preceding whre the link should have been are very clear as to my intention .

MoLing read the post's and then speak on it, don't lie and don't pretend to be benign, helpful, or kind .

MY WORDS = " i coudn't get the picture of the lineages to show, computers are not my strong suit, sorry.

heres the site link with the whole shabang; actually quite informative as you'll see below. " THAT admin chose to ignore the truth that i had already posted too, then like you he chose to lie / mislead folks .

shame,shame,shame, on you MoLing if it were possible Chen Fake would be turning over in his grave if he only knew ( 1 for man, 1 for heaven ,and 1 for earth )

This post has been edited by taichibulldog: 13 June 2008 - 02:30 AM

[Ian C Kuzushi]

Do yourself a favor and chill. You are skating on really thin ice.

[taichibulldog]

hey Moling ,

i knew somehow because i couldn't post my last post that you would post something here that deals with me as usual not the topic at hand. u also said u wouldn't be bothered with this thread anymore.

How did i know u would post here again. If you were the man you pretend to be you would have joined in or not joined in for the reasons yopu stated in your post. that would have been easy enough to do.

so when u chose to reply as you did and i defended the honor of GM. Ma as i should have that seemed to have gotten the proverbial bal rolling. you are more transparent then you think Mo Ling . your zong ding on & concerning this issue is HUGE and easy to see and feel. ( how's that for the use Taijiquan termonology )

I saw you watching this thread while i was typing dude.! that seems mighty fishy to me sir??? and yes i know you are a MOD , here .

Now, why would you be watching this thread of all the threads you could watch

I mean since you already said your peace WHICH EQUALS =( that THIS THREAD isn't worth posting in or you being a part of because it's all lies/bullcrap), from your point of view anyway ?

so i'm saying u had no interest in this thread so why watch it, when only i'm in it at the time.

please feel free to answer the question honestly , not with misdirection sir.

i feel quite frankly you are secretly , maybe not so secretly trying to set me up now.

so BE CANDID MoLing; WHAT exactly did you say in my defense to the admin's and what admins were you speakingh with.

please tell us/me what the responses were from those admins that yopu spoke to.

This post has been edited by taichibulldog: 13 June 2008 - 03:24 AM

[taichibulldog]

hey Moling ,

i knew somehow because i couldn't post my last post that you would post something here that deals with me as usual not the topic at hand. u also said u wouldn't be bothered with this thread anymore.

How did i know u would post here again. If you were the man you pretend to be you would have joined in or not joined in for the reasons yopu stated in your post. that would have been easy enough to do.

so when u chose to reply as you did and i defended the honor of GM. Ma as i should have that seemed to have gotten the proverbial bal rolling. you are more transparent then you think Mo Ling . your zong ding on & concerning this issue is HUGE and easy to see and feel. ( how's that for the use Taijiquan termonology )

I saw you watching this thread while i was typing dude.! that seems mighty fishy to me sir??? and yes i know you are a MOD , here .

Now, why would you be watching this thread of all the threads you could watch

I mean since you already said your peace WHICH EQUALS =( that THIS THREAD isn't worth posting in or you being a part of because it's all lies/bullcrap), from your point of view anyway ?

so i'm saying u had no interest in this thread so why watch it, when only i'm in it at the time.

please feel free to answer the question honestly , not with misdirection sir.

i feel quite frankly you are secretly , maybe not so secretly trying to set me up now.

so BE CANDID MoLing; WHAT exactly did you say in my defense to the admin's and what admins were you speakingh with.

please tell us/me what the responses were from those admins that yopu spoke to.

[Mut]

jeez... this is not even amusing....


BAN HIM

....please

[Aksijaha]

so BE CANDID MoLing; WHAT exactly did you say in my defense to the admin's and what admins were you speakingh with.

please tell us/me what the responses were from those admins that yopu spoke to.

he said that you were a sincere fellow and you should not be banned when you did not understand that there was
a rule against multiple accounts.

I reluctantly agreed. Unfortunately you have once again created a problem by trolling Mo and basically being
a problem.

We are going to try this one more time. You are Warned and your ability to post is removed for THREE (3!)
DAYS. Your ability to PM will not be removed however. IF you register another account to attempt to
circumvent this discipline you will be banned immediately with no possibility of appeal.

You may PM me to state you understand your status.. or you may simply wait for your three days to be up.

I expect no further baiting of Mo. You have exceeded my patience for the last time. You will receive no
more warnings. Your next strike (once your 3 day posting holiday is over..) will be the last.

[Andy_S]

Well, as someone with a casual interest in Taiji history (ie someone more interested in the here and now, not the then and there, and with no real axe to grind either way) does anyone know the source of the NZ site's material? It reads like Peter Lim's stuff.

Also, he cites a book by one Chen Taiji expert, "Du Yu Wan" who, apparently, confirms Wu Tun-nan's thesis that Chen MA are not "real Tajii."

Anyone familiar with Du, or the book in question?


BTW, Taiji Bulldog:

Why are you so interested in insisting that Chen is NOT the original Taiji? Seems to be a priority of yours....

Just curious.

[taichibulldog]

"BTW, Taiji Bulldog:

Why are you so interested in insisting that Chen is NOT the original Taiji? Seems to be a priority of yours....

Just curious. "


MY PRIORITY IS Taijuqan history and how so many of us have to go backwards in time to find the source of Martial use.
it also makes a issue with me sense i include all styles , but origin styles are more important for research. physical and intellectual . make sense to yah . hope so. thx for asking.

i like to also add that another major reason I WANT TO FIND OUT THE TRUTH IS BECAUSE I KNOW THERE ARE VARIOUS WAYS/ROUTES to climb a mountain .

in chinese martial arts and martaial arts in general this is often true , So i'm real interseted in how the various Taijquan families made the changes to what they were originally taught & most importantly why they did it ( made thse changes). ( not to include the changes made to hide the real Taijiquan )

for instance beyond not having old yang style Taijiquan INTACT as he Yang Lu Chan DIDI IT SO WE CAN SEE WHAT ACTUALLY WAS DONE.

i have always wnated to se thw Wu Yu hsiang style BEFORE THE CHANGES MADE TO IT by either Li Yi Yu , or a member of the Hao family.

if anyone has any insight intoi this question please let me know. obviously film would be most revealing , but reliable info is also needed .

also the Northern Wu style as practiced By Gm. Wang Pesheng becuase as far as we know this was/is closest to what Wu Quan You ACTUALLY DID AS FAR AS i KNOW!


With my saying all this and thinking about it in various ways prior to your question I THINK I MIGHT EXPAND THE TITLE of the thread TO REFLECT my goals and reserch issues .

This post has been edited by taichibulldog: 07 July 2008 - 12:51 AM

[Grundle]

"BTW, Taiji Bulldog:

Why are you so interested in insisting that Chen is NOT the original Taiji? Seems to be a priority of yours....

Just curious. "


MY PRIORITY IS Taijuqan history and how so many of us have to go backwards in time to find the source of Martial use.
it also makes a issue with me sense i include all styles , but origin styles are more important for research. physical and intellectual . make sense to yah . hope so. thx for asking.

i like to also add that another major reason I WANT TO FIND OUT THE TRUTH IS BECAUSE I KNOW THERE ARE VARIOUS WAYS/ROUTES to climb a mountain .

in chinese martial arts and martaial arts in general this is often true , So i'm real interseted in how the various Taijquan families made the changes to what they were originally taught & most importantly why they did it ( made thse changes). ( not to include the changes made to hide the real Taijiquan )

for instance beyond not having old yang style Taijiquan INTACT as he Yang Lu Chan DIDI IT SO WE CAN SEE WHAT ACTUALLY WAS DONE.

i have always wnated to se thw Wu Yu hsiang style BEFORE THE CHANGES MADE TO IT by either Li Yi Yu , or a member of the Hao family.

if anyone has any insight intoi this question please let me know. obviously film would be most revealing , but reliable info is also needed .

also the Northern Wu style as practiced By Gm. Wang Pesheng becuase as far as we know this was/is closest to what Wu Quan You ACTUALLY DID AS FAR AS i KNOW!


With my saying all this and thinking about it in various ways prior to your question I THINK I MIGHT EXPAND THE TITLE of the thread TO REFLECT my goals and reserch issues .

Mo Ling gave you some excellent hints to finding the truth of the history of Taijiquan. What I don't get is that instead of researching what he gave you as alternative sources, you accused him of dancing around the issue. You are guilty of what you accused him of, and by allowing yourself to get all worked up about something so small you failed to see the good information he passed on to you.

I sense a remarkable bias when reading your article on the origins of taijiquan, but I will give you the benefit of the doubt. I think if you take a look at what Mo Ling brought forth your opinion on the origins of taiji will change significantly. This is not a new debate so I am sure that people will argue about the legitimacy of Chan San Feng, Chen family, etc. This is probably why Mo Ling has no interest in engaging you in this discussion.

[Aksijaha]

Grundle,


While your support of Mo is laudable... TaiChiBulldog will almost certainly not be reading your response.. as he has been Banned for being a BAD DOG.

[Grundle]

Oops, I guess I jumped into the mix too late.

Thx for the update Aksijaha.