So my last post caused quite a stir, as I thought that it would. But it seems that some people might have taken my meaning beyond what I intended.
First of all, I don’t consider ALL of Chen style taiji to be nothing more than wushu taiji. Please go back and re-read what I wrote in the last post. I tried to go out of my way to specify a specifc type of taiji that was being taught and then performed in a certain way that lead to a wushu-like result. I wouldn’t have put so many qualifications into the post if I felt that all Chen was like that.
I’m obviously NOT referring to what I and many other people do when performing Chen style. I and others may not go as low as we can, do flashy fajing that looks great, or do excessive silk reeling in every move. But that doesn’t mean that we aren’t doing REAL Chen style. Again, I get damn sick and tired of hearing that how wrong certain styles of taiji are when compared to some “big names.”
Second, I think many people are responding to what was written in the first or second paragraph and then letting that color their perceptions of the rest. If people can step back and read the whole thing objectively, I think they may see what I’m saying. I do, however, understand that people feel strongly about something that they may love. Nothing wrong with that. Please understand that what’s in the post may not apply to you.
Third, I certainly didn’t mean to imply that the Chinese government was behind everything wrong with Chen style. I only mentioned the government ONCE. That was it. I do feel that government WUSHU has had too strong an influence on village development, though.
I shouldn’t need to post pics that I have of one of the four tiger’s houses that shows a room literally filled from top to bottom with trophies from winning wushu competitions. I shouldn’t need to because anyone that even bothers to do the slightest bit of research will see that what I’m saying is true. If someone feels that competing in forms tournaments to that extent has no influence on the training, then I don’t know what to say.
Fourth, NOT ALL mainland teachers are teaching wushu-ified taiji. Chen Yu and Chen Qing-zhou were specifically mentioned in the comments and I agree that they are teaching the real thing, minus any wushu influence, as are other mainland teachers. But NOT all are like that.
Those of you studying from “big names” may also not be doing the type of wushu taiji that I described. But frankly, some students of those teachers are. And they aren’t very hard to find.
Fifth, I VERY clearly said that not all wushu taiji or external factors are bad. Once again, meeting external requirements in wushu taiji, Chen taiji, or any other taiji, for that matter, is crucial. Again, the problem is getting caught up in those requirements to the extent that nothing else takes precedence. This can happen if athleticism and doing multiple forms are stressed.
My final thought on this is that if you disagree with me, then write a comment and let me know. Debate is a GOOD thing. And if you disagree with something that I write today, stick around because you might agree with what I write tomorrow.
7 responses so far ↓
1 Chad // Mar 8, 2007 at 12:20 am
Dave,
Perhaps the problem here is not exactly the content per se but the implication. Some may find it a bit hypocritical to defend one’s self from attacks of “Your style is not real Chen style” and then saying “They’re style is not real Chen style”. I understand that you did not actually say this but the way the specific terms are used today, the implication is there even if it was not intended. Most poeple who study ‘traditional’ martial art look down on modern wushu (even some of it’s champions) and the negative connotations with the word for this particular audience should be taken into account.
Obviously the internal/external argument is long standing, controvesial, and wil not be solved here on this or anyone elses blog. But, I believe it was correctly mentioned that the one thing we can agree on is that the internal/external definitions are wide ranging and largely subjective. That being the case, it is not fair to interpret either side of the argument using these terms, since their use has not realy been estabilished.
Also, value judgments are always subjective. Weather one ses what they do as “valid” or not will largely depend on their personal goals for doing that thing. If a peson is getting into taiji because of a wish to become more athletic, strong, or fit, the very things you describe would be the things that they would be looking for. And really, why do we do tis stuff anyway? Do we need it for defence against attackers, most of us would happily answer “no”. If that is the only consideration, surely there are more effecient ways to achieve safety on the street. But, as my teacher was often fond of saying “A gun will not improve your health.”
Martial art is a strange thing. CMA is in some ways stranger than the rest. The reasons we do CMA will be as numerous as there are practioners. I can’t say that I do not see where you are comming from in your expose, I most certainly do, and to a certain extent I do agree with you. But reason tells me that these are minutia and only applicable to my decision making process. I think that other than deriding injurous trraining, sectarian stances on styles and schools and such is one of those traditions with which we can, and must, do away with.
2 GrahamB // Mar 8, 2007 at 7:29 am
Hey, you can’t please all the people all the time - it’s not worth trying
3 chessman71 // Mar 8, 2007 at 8:18 am
Good points there. Some I didn’t think of. No, I don’t like having what I do labeled “not taiji” so others won’t like having what they do labeled “wushu.” That’s only fair, I suppose.
You’re right about doing something moer athletic to get in shape. I think wushu taiji prepares the body for higher level stuff very well. But to me, that’s the foundation, not the goal. But you’re right that to most people, this is minutia.
Graham is also right, can’t please everyone. But i guess I’m gonna try sometimes. Haha.
4 Hermann // Mar 8, 2007 at 11:25 am
Very interessting points of all of you.
What makes me wonder, is another side aspect of the wushu tendencies, I watched in my native Germany:
Suddenly, there a so many mailanders with high duan-degrees from strange wushu federations, giving I don’t know how many student grades and ranks, dressed in artifical silks, standing low, doing pure wushu and having little knowledge of traditional martial arts, even unable to read a little archaic chinese.
Also, some German teachers are very proud of their 3rd duans, without ever having understood the whole scope of IMA, having learned only wushu forms, never done any inner training.
And they tend to ask me for my duan or teachers certificate, not for my abilities with my learnings or achivments whatsoever.
So, I fell that behind this discussion, there is also the question of wushu as a sport vs. traditional approaches of IMA as an art.
But of course, no way to solve this problem here, still, everybody should know about the differences.
5 internalartsia // Mar 10, 2007 at 1:36 pm
Hi Chessman,
I think you have tackled a very interesting subject here, which could probably be approached from a hundred or so different angles, at least a few books worth of consideration. Check out this angle on the question of “classifying” Chen style as “internal or external”, from the point of view of Chen Fake! (As you can see, the post was written by Chen Zhonghua on February 21, so maybe it put something into the “air” to inspire this current wave of interest:~)
http://pullupachair.wordpress.com/2007/02/21/whats-in-a-name/
You’ll notice Chen Fake had a purely pragmatic way of dealing with the debate, demonstrating his simple assuredness and confidence in the validity of his own art.
Of course, if we probe some of the other perspectives you have raised, I would find one avenue to be particularly valuable for further consideration. That would be to define exactly what we mean by the term “internal”. Then the next question would be to establish the importance or necessity for defining something as internal or external. Finally, the question would be, to establish why one is “better” than the other?
I have found Chen Zhonghua’s approach to these dilemmas to be most refreshing and liberating. Like his master Hong, and Grandmaster Chen Fake, before him, he consistently espouses the pragmatic approach. Hong’s Chen style form is its own application; the method is about the applications. The functional value is what determines what is “right” or “best”. So any “theory” is investigated by applying it and verifying whether it works. It worked for Hong, it works for Chen Zhonghua. It is systematic enough, so that when he teaches to his students (if they apply it correctly), it works for them too!
Thank you very much for digging into a very stimulating topic and sharing your insights as you have. Your passion and exposition of the subject is most enjoyable.
6 silkreeling // Mar 10, 2007 at 11:45 pm
i think you have to investigate when the term “internal” and “external” was coined and what the motivation was at that time.
if chen taiji is external then i would say only meditation and ling kong jing is internal if you apply the same logic across the board.
7 chessman71 // Mar 11, 2007 at 8:23 am
We’re missing the point somewhat by focusing on the labeling of styles internal and external in a historical sense. This isn’t what I’m talking about. I will try to write another post to clear up the disticntion.
Leave a Comment