Formosa Neijia

14 responses so far ↓

• 1 Casey // Dec 31, 2006 at 3:30 pm

  I also seem to recall that Du Yuze studied not only with Fake, but also with his father, Chen Yanxi–and Du’s Taiji is distinctly “Taiwanese.” How then can the “village people” say that a version coming straight from Chen Fake’s father is incorrect?

• 2 chessman71 // Dec 31, 2006 at 5:50 pm

  Good question.

  I haven’t heard that Du actually studied with Chen Fa-ke but maybe he did. But as you say, Du studied with Chen Yan-xi, Fa-ke’s father.

  Most of this is marketing and *some* students of CXW who want to tear down what they don’t understand. Afterall, the Chens have their last name to bank on and Taiji Disneyland in the village now, so that plus communist propaganda/mythmaking taken together has built a powerful product.

  I’m going to post more on this. I’m getting pretty sick of it.

  Have you noticed any remarks related to this?

• 3 Casey // Dec 31, 2006 at 7:30 pm

  I haven’t noticed as much as you, but since Taiji isn’t my primary art these days, I don’t pay as much attention to the various buzzes surrounding it. Zhou Laoshi wrote a good article in which he discusses “the three stages of gongfu training.” He says that the forms practice in the first stage must be very precise in imitating the teacher, but that in the 2nd and 3rd stages it can be increasingly altered to suit the individual’s specific training goals, body type, personality, etc. He even mentions Chen Taiji in this article, saying “many peoeple argue over which Chen Taiji form is correct– Laojia, Xiaojia, Xinjia, Huleijia, or Zhaobao Huleijia. What they don’t understand is that these different forms are the product of stage 2 and 3 training. The forms practice of those who can’t understand this is stuck at stage one.”

  I think a lot of times those who are real sticklers for “this is the ONLY correct way to do the form” are actually the ones who don’t really understand the forms at a deep level.

  There may also be politics at play. Both the PRC and Chen Village really want Chen Taiji to be the exclusive property of Chen Village–certainly not of a renegade province. To that end, some of the village teachers or their students may voice their opinion to their students that theirs is the only true, “correct” Chen Taiji. The students are then likely to parrot this idea.

• 4 Chad // Jan 1, 2007 at 5:28 am

  The very idea that a style can be “poluted” is asinine. A pure style that hasn’t change in 100 plus years is a dead style.

  I have to agree all this “original”, “pure”, “direct lieage” crap has got to go. A buddy of mine pushed hands with some chen villager at a tourney a few years back, just for fun, and knocked him on his ass. Probabally because the Chen dude figured a Yang stylist was no match and let his guard down. After that I guess they went at it for a while and had a lot of fun.

  I wonder if those that like the original old form of everything woulf like their teeth drilled with an “original” dentist drill…..

  Alright enough venting.
  Happy new year all.

• 5 Chenquestion // Jan 1, 2007 at 9:06 am

  I guess there’s a good side to this syndrome. (I haven’t followed the “real Chen” debate particularly, but one finds hints of it popping up… a new axe to grind in MA?) One, Chen style is spreading far and wide enough for “marketing” issues to even exist. Two, The PRC is - I gather - embracing Chen TJQ and other arts, instead of persecuting teachers and students (speaking as an American: all countries make mistakes…). Three, there’s a big Chen style presence in Taiwan which [also] makes some of these issues possible to exist…
  Four, you get the idea. Hope this comment isn’t too banal. I’ve been working on Chen study just 5 years, & I’ve seen so much increase in exposure! With this growth comes a few irksome side-effects. I don’t believe that parochialism will carry the day in the 21st century…

• 6 chessman71 // Jan 1, 2007 at 9:22 am

  “‘Original dentist’ drill”! I like that.

  I think Casey is right about the desire to make Chen village seem like the sole source for “authentic” taiji. Problem is, it ain’t gonna happen since Chen Fa-ke moved to Beijing and taught mostly people who weren’t surnamed Chen.

  That still sticks in the craw of the Chens.

• 7 Chad // Jan 1, 2007 at 2:59 pm

  A professorof Chinese history (William Hu ) had some damning evidence of the whole Chen debate. He claims the red guard were hidden by the villagers and so gain favor by the Communists and changed the whole ‘histoy’ as far as it was to make them the original Taiji village or what ever.

  I mainly train Yng style but took Chen from a student of Chen Zhao Kui. From that experience i see them as two very different arts. The whole thing of originalality is kinda a moot point for me. Every art has multiple sources of influence.

  Purity is for Nazis

• 8 Q // Jan 1, 2007 at 5:40 pm

  Chad, do you have a link to the professor’s article? I don’t quite understand why the red guards would need to be hidden as they were the ones persecuting others.

• 9 Chad // Jan 2, 2007 at 3:32 am

  Unfortunately I don’t. It was up for a while as just a weird single page thing a while back but it has since disapeared. i have lost contact with him as well (which is a shame because I still have a vcd he lent me). One of the things I remember was the original tombstones in the village were changed by the PRC. Before there was no mention of Taiji or martial art at all. He wasn’t claiming that was difiniative proof, but i found it interesting. The whole artical was very interesting in fact. He said he was going to publish it as part of a book, but I dont think that ever came to pass.

  I have found that it is almost impossible to accuately trace martial art to an origin so I don’t really concern my self with such things.

  Also I mispoke, it was just the communists before the take over, not the red guard proper. Appologies.

• 10 tim // Jan 2, 2007 at 5:39 am

  Um, Chad, didn’t Tang Hao do research into the origin of Taiji? He did his research during the Republican era, so I don’t think it was influenced by the PRC government.

• 11 Chad // Jan 2, 2007 at 9:27 am

  Tim,

  I have no idea who did research when or what methods they used. I’m only stating the opion of one scholar and the results of his research. I am not a martial art historian by any stretch of the imagination. What I know I gleened from teachers, students and materials in much the same way you might have. My point was that the histories are so cloudy and disperate as well as being influenced by hyperbole, apocryphal notions, and just plain old boastful fabrication actually attaining any historical certainty beyond the mid 1800’s is probablly a lost cause. Not to mention that martial artists of the qing dynasty were largely illierate, so the amount of acounts is necessarily going to limited.

  Creating sectarian divisions based on little more than heresay does no one any good. Rather than saying “that’s not the real stuff.” Why not look at things objectively, see what is the same, what is different and exchange knowledge or techniques to improve our own arts?

• 12 chessman71 // Jan 2, 2007 at 9:49 am

  I agree with Tang Hao about the origins of taiji in general. Thing is,though, Chen family village has been turned into Taiji Disneyland in order to bring in all that foreign money. China also has a long history of re-inveting or playing up something that legend supposedly said existed.

  They *might* have found the southern shaolin temple a few years ago. But before archaeologists could properly research the site, it was destroyed and paved over so the NEW southern shaolin temple could be built, complete with fake monks (again) so that the tourist dollars could flow.

  Needless to say, there’s lots of marketing around claim about Chen village. It’s a lot of hype in most (but not all) cases.

• 13 Thomas // Jan 3, 2007 at 8:32 am

  You’re all wrong. Jiang Fa brought taijiquan to the area, and Zhaobao got it first.

  Chenjiagou tried to slow down its Pao Chui to copy what it saw its neighbors doing.

  Rush Limbaugh is a big fat idiot.

  One of the three statements above is true.

  ;- )

• 14 Lee // Nov 2, 2008 at 1:11 am

  Thanks for putting up the 2 above mentioned videos. It’s wonderful to see these forms being displayed without the creeping rigidity that is becoming apparent in the techniques of the newer chen practicioners. I am not saying that there is pollution .but one gets the impression that something is missing with the newer artists.
  As for the lack of sources, throughout history in every civilization there comes a time when the records are deliberately destroyed. China’s history extends into the past and there have been many such burnings.
  One thing that should be remembered is that the Chinese are a pragmatic people with an unsurpassed sense of reverence for their culture,so, even in the past,Mongols,Huns and now in these times the Red Guards or Communists or whatever, it is quite possible that despite our impressions of their failings the PRC left many of these Artists alone.
  Some went to Taiwan,others went around the world and some stayed right there in China in peace.
  Chen village might be “Disneyland” but we should know the chinese by now and there is much not seen or known by Westerners.
  As the old saying goes the best protection of those who “KNOW”, are the frauds and fakes that pretend to be them. We laugh and dismiss them because of their “clowns “and so they stay free from trouble.
  I started out with Yang but switched to Chen because I prefer how it ” flows”.

Leave a Comment