Can anyone tell me about Cheng Man-ch’ing’s Yang style of Tai Chi Ch’uan and its differences and such to the other styles like Yang, Wu, Hao, T’ung.
I am going to meet a Tai Chi internal boxer next week as well as some other internal arts like QiQong.
Regards
What I’ve read…
I’ve heard that CMC’s taiji altered Yang’s a bit. Specifically, in the step back and repulse monkey (I think that’s it, it’s the one where you are stepping backward and striking forward) he adjusted the feet so that they stepped parallel to each other.
It removed the twisting of the back foot, like in normal bow stance. CMC said the point of doing that was to improve the health benefits/qi flow (something like that) by removing the twist.
Given that, I would expect that CMC’s taiji had a larger stance, one that had an emphasis on movement and yielding – rather than grounding or issuing power.
If I remember where I read it (it was on an internet site), I’ll post it.
-crumble
CMC’s version of tai chi, is basically a shortened (to about half), easier version of yang style tai chi.
basically; do all the postures the eazy way; higher stances, feet closer together. omit some of the postures with more blatantly obvious martial applications, and put a heavy emphasis on push hands, and call that fighting.
(* have you ever noticed how no matter how young the practitioner of cmc tc, they move like an old man, when doing the form?)
“You can always get someone to do your thinking for you.” - Gordie Howe on why he never wore a helmet during his 30-year pro hockey career, but always wore a cup.
Ma Fu Yee…
One interesting note:
Yang Chengfu is the one who created the routine that most of the world calls the Traditional Yang Style Taijiquan.
He spent some time re-working what his father, uncle, and grandfather did into this routine.
He was quoted after completing the arrangement of the routine as saying (rough translation) that he had made the set as complete yet brief as he could and that to remove any technique or to make it shorter in movement or duration in any way would be disastrous.
When I first read this quote, I was struck by its simplicity yet impact.
Given that this was Yang Chengfu’s opinion on his creation and that CMC lists Yang Chengfu as his teacher, what does this say about CMC’s changes…?
Whether or not you like or practice CMC style or not, or whether or not you think CMC was good or not, this is a curious item.
(I believe the quote was in one of Marvin Smallheiser’s Tai Chi Magazine issues about 1 or 2 years ago - from translations form either Yang Zhenduo, Fu Zhongwen, or Fu Shengyuan quoting his father, Fu Zhongwen’s, writings.)
a bit disrespectful to CMC students
I attend seminars with Willie Lim whenever possible - a very well known MA in many different styles btw
His form looks very relaxed and laconic - until you realise that it is all internal. There is an argument that it is too soft, but having tried to hit him I can say his ability is exceptional.
Just because someone doesn’t match your expectations of what taiji should look like doesn’t mean it isn’t good taiji.
It’s an internal art so why should it be externally obvious?
“If ignorance is bliss, why aren’t more people happy?”
kaitan;
cmc had TONS of students… i’m sure some were really exceptional. (i have seen some fine teachers from that lineage.) - i was making a broad generalization, regarding a lot of people who study cmc style taichi. (i’m probably referring more to students of students, of cmc’s. - but, i’m sure he had some terrible students too, being that i don’t think he turned away too many people.)
i won’t mention any specific names, but, i have seen more than my fair share of cmc lineage (supposedly) teachers that made me want to puke. - (but to be fair, i have also seen people who are good. - which do you think is more common?)
i am not trying to disparage cmc, nor his talented disciples. (but, i don’t mind making fun of those that suck.) - i merely meant to point out a phenomena that often occurs, where students will try to mimick their role model, even to the point of adopting the characteristic movement of a much older person. - i think they do this unwittingly. - mistakenly believing those attributes to be an integral part of the form.
“You can always get someone to do your thinking for you.” - Gordie Howe on why he never wore a helmet during his 30-year pro hockey career, but always wore a cup.
glw;
yeah, he may have said that, but, that doesn’t necessarily make it true. (it can be, but not necessarily.)
tcc is also supposed to be great for your health, but look at ycf. - he was obese, and died at around the age of 50.
and, i’m sure that when ylc created tcc, that he didn’t think to himself, “i think i’ll put some useless repetition in the form, and make it unnecessarily long…”
you can’t take everything at face value.
“You can always get someone to do your thinking for you.” - Gordie Howe on why he never wore a helmet during his 30-year pro hockey career, but always wore a cup.
People I’ve talked have often said that chen man-ching’s tai chi puts too much emphasis on push hands, and not enough on real fighting. I don’t take cmc’s tai chi, that’s just what I’ve heard.
Cheng’s form is very short, requiring only about 10 minutes to practice, if even that long. He cut out some moves he felt were either useless or repeated too many times, leaving in what he felt was just right. It is still good for health…somewhat, at least if you are pretty ill to begin with. Remember that when Cheng was cured of TB, it was by training in what Cheng-fu taught him, not by practicing what he himself developed. Anyway, I don’t particularly like the form, though I used to practice it. It has some sections that feel incomplete to me (as does Cheng-fu’s form, too, though) and I am used to the lower postures and more difficult movements anyway, so deleting or altering them just doesn’t do me any good, though if I were arthritic or chronically ill it might.
Anyway, I’d say it could make a good intro to Taiji in general, but I have always recommended people start with the more difficult and longer forms and get right into it without wasting time.
As a little side note here, I also do Step Back and Repulse Monkey with the front foot turned parallel to the back one. I never learned it that way, I just prefer to do it that way. Also, not turning the back foot in does not ground you as much as if you do turn it in. While this may not be important in a style that is mainly health oriented, I think of it as important.
I have paraphrased Cheng-fu’s statement about not altering the form any more several times here, usually in reference to Cheng’s form or the new shortened forms, and it is something I agree with. All the rest seem to be missing something.
If I remember correctly, Yang Cheng-fu died of “yin dullness.” It was either him or Cheng Man-ching anyway. In my notes for how to do the Taiji postures as qigong from when I first began learning, I have ones listed for gaining and losing weight. The posture Fist Under Elbow, from the Old Yang form, is for losing weight. The posture Fist Under Elbow from Yang Cheng-fu’s form is for gaining weight. It makes sense to teach malnourished and underweight Chinese how to do it to gain weight, but at the same time he was gaining himself.
Also, Yang’s original form was not quite as repetitious as many people think. Yang Cheng-fu’s is, yes. But the Old Yang style has only a little repetition. Where things are repeated exactly the same way in the newer form, in the old form, things were done a bit differently each time. There are several examples of this. And each time, it is for a reason.
As another little side note here, I have been thinking about how a lot of us say that these shortened forms are easier to learn and practice. I have had people quit after one day of qigong training (and I didn’t even make them do the stance for the whole time, I just gave them a taste). I’ve had other people who I tried to teach one movement to (Wave Hands) for qigong purposes, and they became frustrated and gave up, too. They always said it was just “too hard.” I’m going to have to change my point of view about them if people keep quitting before I’ve taught them anything more than the easy stuff. 
“I put forth my power and he was broken.
I withdrew my power and he was ground into fine dust.”
-Aleister Crowley, The Vision and the Voice
Cheng Man-Ching was famous for his fighting ability and his student, William Chen was Taiwan full-contact champion. I think that says something for his TCC. Teachers have different training for different students. Some teachers teach noodle tai chi to the granola heads, and have an inner circle of hard-core fighters on an entirely different curriculum.
Thanks guys…I welcome the input.
The reason I ask is because the guy I am visting is an old Chi Dap Ch’uan sifu which is an art that I studied way back and I am looking to step back into for some research and training but he is also Tai Chi player and if I hook up with him I will expected to do Tai Chi Ch’uan.
What is good is that I know he REALY stresses the combative aspect of Tai Chi Ch’uan including a lot of heavy duty free sparring and the other martial stuff one does not see to much in relation to Tai Chi and self defense due to the new age pard district classes that always pop up.
I believe he also teachers Wu style as well and I know that the GDS has a Tai Chi line but I can not remeber for the life of me what it was.
From what I have heard and it connects to what one of you stated is he stresses relaxation very much and maybe this has to do with the Cheng/Yang Tai Chi.
If you are interested I will keep you up to date when I see him and keep the comments coming if you have studied the system.
Regards
I used to do the CMC form, and then changed to the 24 step. While I find the body mechanics of the 24 step superior and better for application,I miss the flow I used to get from the CMC form, and there were a couple of postures in it I really liked.
“Weapons are the embodiments of fear,
the wise use them only when they have no choice”
Lao Tzu
sam;
what the hell is ‘yin dullness’?
haha! fist under elbow to lose/gain weight?!?!
that’s the first time i’ve heard that one…
“You can always get someone to do your thinking for you.” - Gordie Howe on why he never wore a helmet during his 30-year pro hockey career, but always wore a cup.
Comparing the two…CMC and people like Fu Zhongwen and even Yang Zhenduo, there is a major difference in the qulaity of movements… (there is an interesting film of CMC doing the entire Yang Chengfu routine…FZW and others show much more awareness and spirit as well as keeping the internal in there)
However, whether he said it or not, the question is was CMC qualified to do what he did. FZW felt that he could best preserve his art by trying to faithfully maintain the Yang Chengfu routine unchanged. He was much closer to YCF than just about anyone else…so there are some questions there.
For example, when is it OK to create a shortened form of your teacher’s art…at what point are you qualified. What do you do when you abandon your teacher’s lessons in favor of your newer short version for almost all of your students?
There is a benefit to being the first to show publicly…as CMC was. Would his methods be as accepted today as they were then if say a FZW had been first?
All of these are valid questions…and I am not proposing any answers. All answers fall into the realm of personal opinion on these questions. If a person asks…and then is fine with their own conclusions..great. but it is a waste to never question.
I learned the CMC and also the yang form. I have found the CMC form and practice to be very different from the yang from I learned. The version of yang form I learned was taught to me by one of the students of Sifu Tung Kai Ying.
I favor the CMC from. I learned the CMC style from Sifu Ben Lo, a direct student of CMC. He emphasized the usage aspects and as I understand was noted for his usage abilities.
I always thought the really doing any type of TC within the TC guidelines that many talk of is quite difficult. Also that the form was just a medium to gain the internal usage and understanding.
My question to the many here. Are their forms of TC that promote or diminish the internal usage and understanding or is it the players’ ability and teacher that determine this?
enjoy life
bamboo leaf
If you’re learning any kind of Yang style (be it Zhongwen’s, CMC’s, whoever) for combat usually the emphasis is on single movement training rather than the form.
I don’t know if that is an exact translation or not, but it has something to do with being too yin. Anyway, the old Yang form leaves me feeling energized and Cheng-fu’s forms makes me want to take a nap every time I do it. So I kind of believe that about him.
Anyway, many of the postures from the Taiji form have self-healing applications. White Crane Spreads Wings, for instance, heals the spinal column and works on the reflexes. Grasping the Sparrow’s Tail heals the colon, while Bagua Fishes (Fishes in Eight) heals the lungs. Fist Under Elbow for some reason helps people to gain or lose weight, depending on the way it’s practiced. I don’t think it’s so much the posture or movement, but what it does to your mind. Doing it the Yang Cheng-fu way seems to make people a bit less inclined to do anything after practicing, while doing it the Old Yang way (a fa-jing movement) makes you want to go out and do something. I think it just makes you more or less prone to do more exercise depending on the way you do it. For instance, after doing Yang Cheng-fu’s form, I always feel like taking a nap. I’m just that mellow afterwards. But after doing Yang Lu-chan’s form I feel like taking on the world, and usually go straight into my Sanchui form or some other fa-jing forms. Anyway, you get the point, I guess.
“I put forth my power and he was broken.
I withdrew my power and he was ground into fine dust.”
-Aleister Crowley, The Vision and the Voice
CMC
The true Tai chi does not come from who did what how. That is the world of the man made. To understand the Nature of things, to know the seeds is what is important.
GLW:
I guess I’d ask whether Yang Zhenduo and his grandson are qualified to teach what they teach. Yang’s form varies not only from his grandfather’s form, but also from Fu Zhongwen’s.
Besides which, I think Cheng changed his form and its principles sufficiently to qualify as its own style of taijiquan. The following article (with illustrative photos) can be found at http://stltaiji.tripod.com/compare.htm
"A COMPARATIVE STUDY BETWEEN TRADITIONAL YANG STYLE OF YANG CHENGFU
AND CHENG MANCHING’S STYLE.
By J. Justin Meehan
At the July, 1990 Taste of China seminar in Winchester, Va., America received the rare opportunity to study the standard Yang style of tai chi chuan from Yang Zhenduo, the third son of Yang Chengfu. Yang Zhenduo, who is 65 years old (in 1990), began studying from his father, Yang Chengfu (1883-1936), when he was six, but only spent four years under his famous father’s tutelage. However, he also studied from his elder brothers and probably some of his father’s senior students.
It was evident at the seminar that Yang Zhenduo intended to teach his father’s form exactly as it had come down to him over the years and with special emphasis on justifying each and every posture with accompanying photos and ink drawings of his father’s movements. In comparison with these sources, I noticed only slight variances which may be explained either as result of family style practice or may be even attempt to slightly differentiate his style from that of his father’s leading students, such as Yang style authority, Fu Zhonwen, who is greatly respected among tai chi practitioners around the world.
Standardization
But the message is clear: it can now be stated that the Yang style has been clearly standardized as a form. Many American Yang style practitioners will be forced to recognize that their form has varied somewhat from the original. Some have overemphasized hidden potential applications, while others have over emphasized the passive chi gung experience. To the extent that these people recognize they are using the form for their own purposes, there should be no problem. However, they will be forced to realize they are practicing a variation of the standard Yang family style.
Sung
In the case of the Cheng Manching style that has recently been erroneously referred to as the Yang style, this seminar proved there may be less room for confusion between the two internal styles. In fact, Yang Zhenduo went to great lengths to diferentiate between the types of movement exemplified in the Cheng Manching and his father’s style; and he made it clear that wanted to highlight essential requirements of his father’s style. These stylistic differences can be summarized by the difference in interpretation over the Chinese word “sung.” To the Cheng Manching stylists this word has always contained the ideas of being sunken, relaxed and empty. Yang Zhenduo, however, emphasized the characteristics of being open, extended and full.
To Yang Zhenduo,the Cheng Manching style would appear weak and collapsed. To the Cheng stylist, the Yang style might appear too overextended or external.
Yang Chengfu
Yang Zhenduo
Cheng Manching
Stances
By way of specific examples, the Yang style front stance purposefully straightens the rear leg in opposition to the force used in the bent forward leg, which pushes back against the forward thrust of the rear leg.
In the Cheng style, the rear leg is bent so that the knee of the rear leg hangs in a direct line below that leg side’s shoulder. Furthermore’, the Cheng style does not allow a dynamic tension to exist between the forward and rear leg. As a result, the Yang stance is much longer than the Cheng stance. Also, the Yang style advocates a forward incline of the upper body in the front stance. In the Cheng style the upper body is maintained in a straight up-and-down position, perpendicular to the floor.
In terms of the rear or back stance the Yang style allows 30 percent of the weight to remain on the front foot. The Cheng style advocates the emptying of the weight or the forward leg and the complete transfer of all weight to the rear foot. The Yang rationale is contained in the yin/ yang (double fishes) diagram. Seventy percent of the weight on one leg represents yang within, which also has an element of yin, while 30 percent weight on the other foot represents yin with an element of yang. As with the front stance, the Yang style advocates a dynamic counter-tension between the two legs, while the Cheng style does not. In both styles the upper body is straight up and down, not inclined, over the rear base leg.
Arms
Similar differences exist in the arm formations. The Yang arm is opened out and extended with the appearance of being straightened but not straight, while the Cheng style arms maintain" more of a 90-degree angle at the elbow. In both styles the shoulder is sunk, not raised, and the elbow points down. In such forward arm movements as the press, push or punch, the Yang style extension allows the hands to go beyond the forward foot, while the Cheng style hands flow no further than the forward foot. The Cheng style palm formation, called the “beautiful lady’s hand,” is a relaxed palm with no bend at the wrist. The Yang hand formation is somewhat between a palm formation 'and a “willow leaf” palm edge formation, with wrist pronated. (i.e. sink or “sit” the wrist).
Footwork
One of the major differences between the Yang and the Cheng styles involves footwork. In the Cheng style form, one begins by completely shifting his weight from one foot to the other and then steps out with the empty foot to form the lead leg in the new direction. The rear leg then pivots on the rear leg’s heel to create the proper 45-degree angle for the new front stance rear leg, base of support.
In the Yang form there is no rear leg adjustment. Prior to moving, the new base leg is put in a position to eliminate the need for any subsequent or simultaneous adjustment of the rear base leg, while extending the palm or fist.
Also, in the Yang style kicking sequences and in the movement of “golden **** stands on one leg,” the base supporting leg is almost straight, while the Cheng style favors a more deeper, bent knee position.
Peng
As a result, in its front stance attacks, the Yang style appears to be relying upon the biomechanical structure of the body to maximize the potential of carrying upward through an aligned body the force of pushing off the ground and conveying that force directly to the point of contact.
By comparison, the Cheng style appears to be consciously striving in its form postures to maintain a relaxed neutrality in all its postures to be in position to change passively from a yang to yin position to neutralize. I believe the Yang postures emphasize its peng or supportive positioning in each posture and in all major body parts involved in the posture. Also, that the Cheng style loosens rather than extends its postures to be more sensitive to the slightest variance or change in an opponent’s response, emphasizing neutralization over peng strength.
According to Yang Zhenduo, the eight energies (known to many as ward off, roll back, press (squeeze), push, pull down (pluck), split or separate, elbow and shouldering, and the five directions (forward, backward, turning right, turning left, and maintaining the center) are incorporated in every movement of the form, at least potentially. This cannot be possible without both peng and central stability. Perhaps we can say that the peng aspect is expressed more clearly in the Yang style and hidden in the Cheng style.
Yang Zhenduo continually tested the proper formation and final position of the form practitioner’s posture by providing resistance to the formation of posture and pushing against the practitioner’s hand positions in the completion of the final posture. For example, in the push posture, Yang would push back against the practitioner’s extended palms to see whether the practitioner had his body properly aligned. It appears that a Cheng stylist would be more interested in his body’s turning from or neutralizing such resistance, using only four ounces of force, rather than creating impenetrable peng resistance.
Postures
While most know that the Cheng style is a reorganized and shortened version of the Yang style choreography, the Cheng style has also changed the manner in which certain postures are performed.
The most notable change is in the single whip posture. In the Cheng style the hips are squared forward and the rear “hook” hand is only slightly behind the right hip at about a 1O0 degree angle to the forward palm. In the Yang style the right hip is opened outward (the tantien faces the camera) and the two arms near a 160 degree angle. In Cheng’s the tantien faces the front in the same direction of the front left foot. In Yang’s the left arm is extended, the wrist is settled and the fingertips are lifted with the palm extended. In Cheng’s the left wrist is straight and the left elbow is not extended out. Yang’s left elbow is extended out and aligned above the left knee; and the back leg is bend in Cheng’s and straight in Yang’s.(see above: Stances)
The hips are also more open in the Yang style left ward off and fan through the back movements.
Cheng Manching admitted to changing the footwork of the “step back and repulse monkey” sequence for health reasons, with feet stepping back in a parallel formation.
The Yang style steps back into a 45 degree narrow stance and then readjusts the front foot to face forward. The Cheng style steps straight back as if the feet were traveling on separate railroad tracks, with both feet pointing forward a shoulder width apart. The purpose for such unusual stepping was related to opening the lower spine area between and just above the buttocks so that the “chi” would more easily flow upward. While none of these changes in the manner in which the standard Yang form postures are done in Cheng’s form violate the Tai Chi Classics which set out the fundamental principles of tai chi chuan, it is clear that there are clear stylistic differences between the Yang and the Cheng styles.
Spirit
With such substantial stylistic differences of approach between the two, it is also understandable that the manner and spirit in which these styles are performed also vary. While both styles move slowly and continuously, their appearance is qualitatively different and observable.
Yang Zhenduo exhibits a much more outward martial appearance while Cheng Manching’s later appearance is much more inward directed andtranquil. This appearance goes beyond knowing that many of the photos and films of Cheng Manching were taken later in his life as he grew older. It also goes beyond the physical body types of the leaner Cheng Manching in comparison to the more stocky and robust appearances of Yang Zhenduo and his father.
As previously mentioned, the hallmarks of the standard Yang style are openness, expansiveness and roundedness.
There also is a great emphasis by the Yang family on Spirit not in the sense of spirituality as we have come to think of it in tai chi chuan, but more in the sense of vitality and martial spirit. Yang Zhenduo, quoting from the Classics, emphasized that the mind of the tai chi chuan practitioner should be on the spirit and not the “chi.” He said the spirit of the form should be observable in the manner in which the postures were presented (i.e. presentation) and especially in the eyes of the performer, which should be open and manifesting the spirit of the martial performance. He added that the eyes should resemble a cat about to pounce on a rat or a falcon poised before seizing its prey.
Chi
Many tai chi chuan performers tend to concentrate on what they perceive as the “chi.” Yang Zhenduo took special pains to separate the Yang-style approach from what might otherwise be considered a chi gung approach, with eyes mostly closed and looking inward. He clearly advised against this internally directed focus, leaving it to the fields of chi gung exercises and not to intrude upon the standard Yang style. I felt a great deal of expressiveness and spirit in Yang Zhenduo’s presentation. The Classics state that the chi should be stimulated. Yang Zhenduo said this would happen naturally as one actually imagined; while practicing the form one should actually confront an enemy who was preparing to attack.
The Cheng Manching school would perhaps admonish us to consider the foregoing Classic’s following sentence that “the spirit of vitality should be retained internally.”
Breath
While on the subject of chi, the practice of breathing (which is closely associated) should also be compared. In both styles the beginner is urged to breathe naturally and not be too concerned "with matching movements with breath. However at a later stage Yang Zhenduo stated that all outgoing movements such as punches, pushes, and kicks should be accompanied by an exhaling of the breath and that all incoming movements should he done while inhaling. This is a very natural expression when issuing force.
Several schools of the Cheng style advocate the opposite. Psychologically I believe that this might indicate a more inward or “yin” orientation of the Cheng school and a more outward or “yang” orientation of the Yang school.
Is bigger better?
Clearly, the Yang and Cheng style should be separated when discussing separate various schools of tai chi chuan.
Does this mean that the Cheng style is automatically inferior to the Yang style? I would say no. The Cheng style has proved its right to distinction. The fact that its outward appearance is different does not say much by itself. Yang Chengfu’s “big” style appeared different from his elder brother, Yang Shaohou.
Before that the Yang family art was practiced in a “small” style by Yang Banhou and a “medium” style by his brother, Yang Jianhou, who learned from their father, Yang Lu chan.
As everyone knows or should know by now, Yang Luchan learned the art from the Chen family and then changed the form to make it easier for others to learn.
A Cheng style practitioner could easily point to the Tai Chi Classics saying attributed to Wang Chung Yueh that one should first seek open and expanded postures. and later make them smaller and more compact.
In defense of the Cheng style
The Cheng Manching style has much to offer in its simplicity. brevity and compactness with emphasis on total relaxtion. It is a much more accessible style for the aged or infirmed, the person with limited time, and women or men who do not prefer large open stances. ln terms of following Yang sequencing, it tracks the Yang style much more closely than the Chinese government’s simplified 24 postures (which is more akin to playing musical scales rather than melodies). And it certainly is among the most popular styles of tai chi chuan in the U.S.
Cheng Manching was one of the few acknowledged tai chi chuan masters known to the West to have emerged from the Yang Chengfu school. And his students, including William C. C. Chen, Ben Lo, Abraham Liu, Robert Smith and even T. T. Liang, have all achieved respect and a place of honor in the American community.
Competition
In terms of competition, Lenzie Williams must be recognized as one of the foremost push hands competitors in the U.S. He has achieved this position not because he is big or knows certain competitive push hands techniques. In speaking with those who have competed against him and in pushing with him myself, I have learned that his skill, like his personality, is based upon intelligence, sensitivity, softness and dedication to tai chi principles. He is living proof of the viability of the Cheng style and brings great honor to his teacher, Ben Lo, and his teacher’s teacher, Cheng Manching. While the Cheng style has not garnered much acclaim in form competition, this may be more a result of having Cheng competitors compete under the Yang style Division. Because of the popularity of the Cheng style and its pointed differences between the Yang and Cheng styles, I would advocate the addition of a Cheng style forms division in all future tai chi forms competitions.
Martial practicality
In terms of martial practicality, William C.C. Chen, my first tai chi chuan teacher, has perhaps done more than anyone in America to prove the martial effectiveness of his art (which although it grew out of the Cheng style has evolved into something both unique and original). Besides having proved the effectiveness of his style in the “street,” he has also worked closely with Western-style boxers. Whether in the gym or “street,” most accomplished fighters advocate a narrow stance bent at the knees, as in the Cheng style. Furthermore, bent arms and legs store potential power. Thus, the Cheng stylist can certainly justify his stance’s practicality from a realistic perspective. It is interesting to note that William C. C. Chen also advocates a forward upper body bend prior to issuing his explosive power.
Two styles, one art
The Cheng style is not alone in evolving into a more compact and formless style. Other noted styles of a smaller frame include the respected Wu style created by Wu Yuhsing and the Sun style created by Sun Lutang. We can only conclude that the differences in style between the Yang and the Cheng are merely two paths attempting to achieve the same objectives. Both styles justify their efforts through recourse to the classics; however, each style has its individual interpretation and manner of expression. The Yang and Cheng styles are indeed different, but both equally worthy of respect. In the end both are one tai chi chuan."
Thanks for a very interesting and informative post.
After reading, it would seem that you could practice one or the other but not both?
I would like to read you thoughts on this.
I met my first teacher in the CMC style, after having learned the long yang style. He went about changing everything that I had done up to that point. Both forms seem to be very different, I prefer the CMC style myself.
again thanks for some good info
enjoy life
bamboo leaf