Taijiquan (Tai Chi Chuan): Comparison between Chen, Yang, and Wu/Hao Styles

[@tonbonthemon]

Before debates get too out of hand, here is some food for thought: There is an obsession in Chinese culture with what is "old". Teachers go to great lengths to say and prove that their art has connections to what is ancient, under the pretense that will make their art more "authentic". But truly, each generation evolves. Different methods develop over time to improve and survive; if they didn't, that would suggest the most ancient source is the best, while each succeeding generation is worse, meaning that the art is irreversibly in the decline, you are a bad practitioner and your students even worse! This often creates a culture of hero-worship and ultra-tight conservatism. Students get taken advantage of because their teacher is the "master". They try to do everything exactly as their teacher does, despite their teacher probably not having done the same with their own, and they will never succeed because they and their teacher have different lives, predispositions, and bodies. Since each generation evolves in its own way, each pracitioner will be different. They will learn, practice, and teach differently. The form will change shape. Generation 1 may teach a form, but 2A, B, and C may teach something (however slightly) different, and if they wish to prevent decline of the art, this will be in their best interest. So, in the end, (at the nitty gritty level, e.g. body method) we are not necessarily comparing different arts or lineages, but rather different practitioners. The comparison is too limited to say anything broad. Taking a small step back to look at choreography (which is my focus here), at most the comparison will point to different influences or emphases within a lineage's form practice; for example, we can see that these styles consistently perform Single Whip in a particular fashion which is distinct, but if you look at my video of YCF's 4 students or 4 Chen lineages, each person will have small but not necessarily insigifcant differences despite being in the same family art, and yet those differences don't necessarily speak to purity or skill level. This kind of comparing is just for nerdy fun :]. If we want to talk about who is more skilled, this is a very crude way to do so.

[@BobJohnson992]

Taijiquan is completely based upon *how* the body is moved, not upon a form. As Chen Xiaowang has publicly commented, if you know how to move the body correctly you can make up your own form. The hallmark of a Taiji form is its constant cycle between Open and Close, unbroken like a flowing river, from start to finish. In other words, the focus on "postures" is a minor issue compared to the constant cycle of movement, from Open to Close ... that constant cycle of movement is the reason for the use of the Taiji symbol ☯.

[@tonbonthemon]

Green and red apples are both apples, yet I can appreciate their similarities and differences nonetheless.

[@BobJohnson992]

@@tonbonthemon Sorry, but not every practice that calls itself "Taijiquan" is actually Taijiquan, so your red and green apples suggestion that everything is apples simply doesn't compute. For instance, in Taijiquan, if the body is not moved throught the Open and Close cycles with the dantian, it is not Taijiquan, despite all sorts of people who want everything to be apples. There is such a thing as reality and it should be taken into account, rather than ardent beliefs.

[@tonbonthemon]

@@BobJohnson992 Are you suggesting that some of what is shown in this video is not actually Taijiquan?

[@BobJohnson992]

@@tonbonthemon Are you suggesting that you don't understand what the criteria for Taijiquan may be? If there are no criteria, then everything is Taijiiquan. If there are criteria, then Taijiquan is definable. One of the basic criteria is moving the body from the dantian. Another criterion is using reverse breathing. Would you say that everyone in the examples you used is moving from the dantian? If you believe so, you will have told us a lot.

[@tonbonthemon]

@@BobJohnson992 Look, if you have an opinion, just say it. No need to be passive aggressive about it.

[@klazaro]

left chen is doing lao jia and right one going the 'modern' version xin jia I think :)

[@tonbonthemon]

Correct, though I think it's interesting to include both because the "Laojia" (Chen Zhaopi form) and the "Xinjia" (Chen Zhaokui form) are not only quite different, but Chen Fake was in Beijing alongside Yang style for a considerable amount of time, leading some Yang stylists to claim that Chen Fake took elements from Yang style to capitalize on its popularity; Dong Yingjie (student of Yang Chengfu and others) said he even pushed hands with Chen Fake. There is also the consideration that "Laojia" being truly "old" is debatable as well; Chen Fake, despite being portrayed as somebody who "changed the form", said that what he taught was his family method, and in fact Chen Zhaopi was his junior, and was the one responsible for inviting Chen Fake to Beijing based on his skills. The labels "Laojia" and "Xinjia" were created by the Chen Village students who had not had great exposure to their family's art due to famine in the 40s/50s, and so they presumed that Chen Zhaokui's frame was new altogether. Chen Zhaokui rejected the terms adopted by the village, and before that, "Laojia" usually referred to what we may call "Xiaojia". Regardless of what's true, I thought it would be interesting to compare the "Laojia" and "Xinjia" alongside the popular Yang form created by Yang Chengfu, and the possibly "older" form of Wu/Hao style, which stayed closer to the (geographical) source than Yang style did.

[@klazaro]

@@tonbonthemon thanks to share this!

[@sdflyer28]

Two Chen lineages? Both Chen Zhenglei and Zhang Maozhen learn xinjia yilu from Chen Zhaokui! The only difference is that Chen Zhengley initial training was via Chen Zhaopi

[@tonbonthemon]

@@sdflyer28 The main focus is the difference in choreography between Chen Zhaopi's and Chen Zhaokui's (or by extension his father's) form. However Chen Zhenglei and the other tigers had a lot of influence from Zhaopi, whereas Zhang exemplifies having considerably more influence from Zhaokui, not just in choreography but also expression, which is why I chose him over the other tigers for his expression of "Xinjia" (which is a misnomer).

[@sdflyer28]

@@tonbonthemon those are both so called new frames. Chen Zhaokui only ventured to Chenjiagou few times. So the only difference is time spent with the teacher. In this respect Zhen Maozhen has an edge

[@tonbonthemon]

​@@sdflyer28Chen Zhenglei is practicing "Laojia", i.e. Chen Zhaopi's form here, so in that respect he is representing Chen Zhaopi's "lineage", while ZMZ is representing Chen Fake/Zhaokui's.

[@sdflyer28]

@@tonbonthemon I actually studied with Chen Zhenglei in the past . Zhengeli practice/teach both lao jia (Chen Zhaopi's aka old frame) and xin jia (Chen Zhaokui's aka new frame). Chen Zhaokui formally never accepted "indoor students" in traditional sense. And so he never formally passed his lineage to anyone other than his son Chen Yu. Therefore those who studied with Chen Zhaokui called him "lao shi" instead of traditional "sifu" and formally don't have lineage. Nowadays "New frame" or "xinjia" is commonly referred as Chen Zhaokui frame. However, technically speaking both "old" and "new" frames are suppose to the same. Chen Fake/Chen Zhaokui frame is just more gongfujia version. Both Chen Zhaopi and his uncle Chen Fake practiced the same big/large frame of Chen family with same principle and fundamentals.

[@tonbonthemon]

@@sdflyer28 Yeah, I think they share a lot of similarities but plenty of differences which is why I would treat them as different lineages, or more specifically sub-lineages. I would do the same with Practical Method, even though that is rooted to Chen Fake in terms of lineage. Each teacher has their own focus and evolves the art accordingly.