There is no arriving anyhow ;)

Most of the low stance you see in public performance is targeted towards aesthetic concern. Although dramatic in appearance, it actually lacks the structural elements that make it practical and functional. The authentic functional low style is extremely strenuous and it is very sensible to avoid presenting this in performance; dripping sweat soaked clothing, grunting and suffering, for what? Most people cannot even see the difference. Add to that, the most practical approach for combative function is NOT low. Low stance is either for development (strength and connection) or the final position of throws. Most of the fighting method must be very mobile, therefore not so low.

why? what advantages do you get from yang style?

@@jonmanilenio what do you think yang lu chan got? There was a time i was disillusioned with all taichi chuan. Yang included. Now i see that its just rare for someone to grasp even the basics.Finding someone who has it is rare. Now my benefits are transformation

The authentic developmental practice treatise in especially Chen Taijiquan is absolutely not easy to find and get access to. Although now, with the reach of internet we see more of it than ever before, still most of what we see is not the actual tradition. Many who chase this art will fail, and fail to realize that until years have been spent. I was very persistent (still am) and also touched by destiny. Both are necessary.

@@Gongfutube true

Sometimes I am. We have a school in/near Paris.

This is absolutely Chen Family Taijiquan, from the direct line of Chen FaKe->Chen Zhaokui-> Chenyu. it is not related to 'practical method' as currently promoted.

Practical Method is an offshoot from Chen Fake's line, while this is probably the most 'direct' descendant of Chen Fake's line. They have some historical relationship but are not directly related.

@@Zz7722zZ The original so-called 'practical method' of Hong Junsheng was an idiosyncratic alteration of Chen Fake's art. It was redesigned in all aspects by Hong, a student who was certainly not at Chen Fake's skill level. In my view he was not skilled enough, nor entitled to change that art and the result cannot equal the original. At least it had a thread to that original source, so there is some relation. The "practical method" we see now, is again altered from Hong's version in nearly every aspect by another student who did not complete instruction from Hong. It is now third hand and altered at every juncture resulting in a great deviation from the source material. The relationship to traditional Chen Taijiquan is now quite remote.

We are active internationally

@@Gongfupoopas much as I don’t want to ruin a self satisfying moment, if you think Chou Doufu is weak you have not been to Beijing properly.

@@Gongfupoop Let’s see your, no doubt, high level of Gongfu. Please, we await.

Mahong did not start learning Quan until he was 43 years old, a very late start by Chinese standards. My teacher never said a bad word about him, as he had treated Chen Zhaokui so well and was close to the family. Mahong's Quan was more of a performance/drama & cultural approach. Traditional martial Taijiquan of this line is singularly difficult to learn and develop.

@@Gongfutube Thanks for the response, I have a great deal of respect for you as a person and value your input. I also like Yang Wenhu and Master Lingzhi An what is your knowledge or opinion on their taiji: same lineage as yours.

They are both legitimate students of their respective lines, LZA is a student of Chen Fake as far as I know. YWH a student of Chen Zhaokui. @@alfredowilliams4647

I provided translation for the lesson in a comment

We do have an online training forum that has been working extremely well for more than 2 years. Mix that up with more than biannual regional workshops etc and it's a very functional learning approach. It is not for everyone, nor is everyone admitted but at least now you know. members.molingtaiji.com/index.php?threads/training-area-application-information.476/