Please tell me your opinion on the origin of Tai Chi. I believe that the creator is Sanfeng but this contradicts many student’s lineage and also complements other student’s lineage. I also believe that too much research into this subject can make an individual stray away from the truth, due to different styles of tai chi wanting to make their style seem like the initial style for the purpose of popularity. Therefore I would appreciate it if you could give me an instinctive answer. Please share your opinions and don’t argue. Thank you.
I’m a Qi Jiguang/Chen Wang Ting guy, myself. I’m all into historical accuracy.
Let me ask you, out of curiosity, why you believe Zhang Sanfeng is the creator of taiji? I’ve never seen or heard of anything to suggest that this is actually true.
It is due to three main things. Yang manuals referring back to Sanfeng down the line, if I remember correctly somebody taught the yang family, who was taught by some one else and who was taught by Sanfeng, lineage of my of very experienced students, and research into the village in which Sanfeng is said to have creator this art. I.e. him creating it and many villagers believe he is the creator. This is just my belief; I am interested in yours if you would be so kind.
I believe it was Zhang San Feng, However as you have mentioned many people claim a different story to the origin of tai chi chuan (was still known as nei chia - ‘inner/internal school’, up until its present name was given c.1850 AD when introduced to the beijing public apparently)
Many Chen stylists claim it was Chen Wang Ting a former general in the military at the time, during the ming dynasty (San Fengs story dates to c.1100 AD during the Sung dynasty.)
There is a point where the two link however… Zhang San feng is regarded as the original teacher of wudang tai chi chuan (wudang wushu), who later passed these teachings to Wang Chung-yueh. Who had two diciples considered to be imprortant to the origins of the various styles of tai chi.
One went to south china while the other named Chiang-fa resided in the north and eventually became the teacher of Chen Wang Ting from the honan province. Becoming the founder of CHEN STYLE TAI CHI
Although the Chen tai chi family kept thier style secret for many years eventually Chen Chang-hsing broke the mould and tought Yang Lu-shan who eventually derived yang style tai chi from his knowledge. This is all i could gather from reading various sites, I found it hard to find anything else challenging or giving proof of anyone else being the true creator of tai chi.
Though it could be open to debate about chen wang ting recorded in chinese history to have practiced taichi, whereas san feng could only be believed by word of mouth due to no offical documentation of him. This could be why many believe chen wang ting created it as there is no stamping evidence of chen san feng ever existing and many claim he is just a myth and popular folk story.
Though the style taught may have been different from tai chi learnt today i belive it formed the base of the various styles we call tai chi chuan.
soul
It is kinda dificult..
Many Chinese Arts associated a famous Person as the founder of the Art.
I heard a different story that Sang Feng invented “Neijia Chuan” (now extinct style), and that the internal principles from there influenced other styles and arts.
Internal principles can be found in many Arts not just the internals.
Many also believe that it was Jiang Fa that internalised the styles that became aler kown s TJQ.
Being a Chen stylist I am going with their History at the moment.
Personally, the Sang Feng theory is too nice and clean to be accurate.
Regardless of what is written, I don’t believe that we can credit one single Person with creating TJQ or even the internal concepts.
Cheers.
Shadow Dragon- Yes your right about it being hard to credit one single person, but from small acorns giant oaks may grow and if san feng was responsible even for the philosophical interpretations tai chi uses of daoism then that is what I can credit him for although I believe he created nei chia which would later lead onto original daoist tai chi (also known as wudang tai chi). Whether this be the interpretations of his students or not, he formed the foundation on which it was built.
soul
I think you are confusing mythology with history. I’ve been through the topic of this thread a number of times. When I get back to my desk I’ll be happy to send you an article or two if you like. Or try a web search using Stanley Henning and Taiji/tai chi.
In a nutshell, Chang San Fen as the founder of taiji quan is a myth. If you choose it as your belief, fine, but at least realize there is no historical foundation for this theory.
Chen Wang Ting developed the first systemized approach to martial arts which later became known as taiji. Yang Luchan learned from the Chen family while an indentured servant. Even the modern Yang family representatives acknowledge this.
But hey, I could be wrong. Great thing is, you can believe what you like, and so can I.
Indeed I agree. I also believe that to call SanFeng a myth is very arrogant. Indefinitely tai chi is an extremely old art form. Due to this fact and also the nature of research from china which is translated to the west. By this I mean a large number of documents being burnt, and what not. Research I am not going to go into at the moment. The research which suggests that SanFeng is not the founder is questionable. A relatively accurate why to find the truth is to look into lineage, since lineage is passed down to a selected student and is not disrupted by politics in China. Also another way to find the truth would be to go to China its self and to the village where SanFend was sad to have created this great art, thus avoiding all the *****iness between styles so predominate in the west. For example Chen style is the First style, no its Yang.
Here is the Henning article…
Why would it be arrogant to call SanFeng a myth, when it is already known that Yang first learned from the Chens in Chen village? It is a Chen village art, the village actually exists and today still holds many of the family lineage holders?
Here is the Henning article:
http://www.nardis.com/~twchan/henning.html
The evidence is clear in terms of who learned from who.
It makes even more sense that Chen village used this system of combat to protect their village among other things.
Would it be arrogant to call Santa Claus a myth? 
Originally posted by Malcolm
Indeed I agree. I also believe that to call SanFeng a myth is very arrogant. Indefinitely tai chi is an extremely old art form. Due to this fact and also the nature of research from china which is translated to the west. By this I mean a large number of documents being burnt, and what not. Research I am not going to go into at the moment. The research which suggests that SanFeng is not the founder is questionable. A relatively accurate why to find the truth is to look into lineage, since lineage is passed down to a selected student and is not disrupted by politics in China. Also another way to find the truth would be to go to China its self and to the village where SanFend was sad to have created this great art, thus avoiding all the *****iness between styles so predominate in the west. For example Chen style is the First style, no its Yang.
Malcolm–I may be a skinny white guy who knows just a couple of chinese people, but I can say you don’t know much about the way Chinese work (no real disrespect). Lineage is the worst way to find out if the Sanfeng myth is indeed a myth. It is very typical for Chinese to attribute systems to famous, ancient personalities–it gives the art a certain credibility. Chinese generally like “tried and true” over “new and improved”.
The fact is, there is nothing that suggests Zhang Sanfeng was the creator of taiji other than the claims by students of the Yang family who wanted to place taiji on a pedestal. An ancient immortal on Wudang Shan is a whole lot cooler than a military general (Qi Jiguang and Chen Wang Ting).
hehe
Geez, this is going to be interesting…
Brace yourself for the flame war extravaganza 
taijiquan_student, I get what you mean about schools placing folk legends as their founders and what not.
However contrary to what you have said there are a few leads in the case that suggest that San feng was the creator. Again you can question the authenticity of these leads, but then you cn do that with any colliding stories.
From a source i’ve read san feng created nei chia (the title of this section of the forums), although some call it wudang wushu, wudang tai chi or daoist tai chi, but the fact reamains that there WAS a man who studied the dao in the wudang mountains at the time and developed a style using these daoist principles and his own previous knowledge of shaolin from his younger days, making soft movements and realising from watching a snake and a crane attack eachother (the famous animal stories which inhabit many MA histories) that a small force can topple a large force if used correctly.
Hereby developing the first ‘soft’ system.
Now whether Nei chia led on to taichi chuan we know today is very hard to pinpoint, but a few sources i’ve read have suggested he passed his teaching to Wang Chung-yueh, who passed them to many including Chiang fa, who eventually passed these to Chen wang ting - which i mentioned in an earlier post
(want a link -
here you go )
Now I dont claim that San feng CREATED tai chi chuan as we know it today, but I believe he provided the base from which it was formed/refined down the line.
Again this is just my opinion…
When people say that chen wang ting MADE tai chi chuan, I would agree to a certain extent…but I would say he was taught san fengs principles and refined or organised the style of tai chi as we know it today.
Quite similar to the story of wing chun, although tai chi is much more vast in content, you can pin the ideals, principles and initial concept on san feng and the organised style and ‘curriculum’ you know today on chen wang ting .
Although people claim Nei chia to be ‘extinct’ There are still people who practice forms of wudang/daoist tai chi…
but the fact reamains that there WAS a man who studied the dao in the wudang mountains at the time and developed a style using these daoist principles and his own previous knowledge of shaolin from his younger days, making soft movements and realising from watching a snake and a crane attack eachother (the famous animal stories which inhabit many MA histories) that a small force can topple a large force if used correctly.
How is this fact? That website even states at the very top in big bold letters:
Legend attributes the creation of T’ai Chi Chuan to Chang San-feng,
a Taoist who studied at the Shaolin Temple in his youth.
Legit research requires more than piecing together a story from a few websites and people repeating a legend. The whole watching a snake and crane thing reads and probably is nothing more than a fanciful folk tale like many other CMA origin stories.
Let me see…
You have a monk in New York who drinks “Special Water” (alcohol) and meat and has been taken in for abusing a GIRLFRIEND and has a small baby (and you wondered where new monks came from)…yet with all of this, people flock to his school to buy into the Shaolin mythos.
You have people who are more than willing to buy into Yue Fei being the creator of at least 6 different styles of Martial Art - he was famous after all and no one really knows for sure what style he did…but it is good press and a number of VERY famous teachers in the US and Hong Kong proliferate this idea.
Now you also have Zhang Sanfeng, Jiang Fa, Wang Tsungyie…going form most dubious to least…but still doubtful.
So we should all be surprised when folks like to attribute what they do to a 7 foot tall Taoist “Immortal” who had a huge forehead and a back like a turtle…from the accounts…and these same people also talk about the 250 year old man…who disappeared when people finally decided to really go look for him…
Not surprising. P.T. Barnum TRULY KNEW human nature.
So…are you willing to be Barnum or the sucker?
If you think scholarly research into the historical record connected to the person whose name you used, Chang san Fen is arrogant, then we don’t have much to discuss.
The basic premise of scholarly research is objectivity, collection of ALL available data, review of said data, and then interpreting the data in a fashion that makes sense. You may want to familiarize yourself with the phrase Occam’s Razor.
I have to say I don’t get the feeling the Chang San Fen proponents are being objective, they have not looked for all available data, and they have not intrepreted the data in a way that makes sense. And ad hominem attacks are never a sign of a well reasoned argument.
We have been down this road many times before. Believe what you want, call me what you like. It won’t effect my life or my training. And if you want to come here and ask questions just so people will agree with you, then say so at the onset.
Main Entry: myth
Pronunciation: 'mith
Function: noun
Etymology: Greek mythos
Date: 1830
1 a : a usually traditional story of ostensibly historical events that serves to unfold part of the world view of a people or explain a practice, belief, or natural phenomenon b : PARABLE, ALLEGORY
2 a : a popular belief or tradition that has grown up around something or someone; especially : one embodying the ideals and institutions of a society or segment of society <seduced by the American myth of individualism – Orde Coombs> b : an unfounded or false notion
3 : a person or thing having only an imaginary or unverifiable existence
4 : the whole body of myths
Main Entry: his·to·ry
Pronunciation: 'his-t(&-)rE
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -ries
Etymology: Latin historia, from Greek, inquiry, history, from histOr, istOr knowing, learned; akin to Greek eidenai to know – more at WIT
Date: 14th century
1 : TALE, STORY
2 a : a chronological record of significant events (as affecting a nation or institution) often including an explanation of their causes b : a treatise presenting systematically related natural phenomena c : an account of a patient’s medical background d : an established record <a prisoner with a history of violence>
3 : a branch of knowledge that records and explains past events <medieval history>
4 a : events that form the subject matter of a history b : events of the past c : one that is finished or done for <the winning streak was history> <you’re history> d : previous treatment, handling, or experience (as of a metal)
Greetings..
Most likely scenario.. as told to me by a chinese “GrandMaster”..
Hundreds of years ago an Emperor feared martial arts in the hands of the people, so he forbid the people to practice martial arts.. the people continued to practice, but when government officials or snitches were around, they slowed the forms down and called it a villiage “dance”.. Certain medicine men (QiGong) noticed the special effects and began studying them in depth.. Patron Saints of Tai Chi are most likely those that organized the previous work of others into family styles.. The argument as to who is the originator is most likely lost in antiquity.. and completely irrelevent to the Arts today..
Be well..
Just curious, a taiji grandmaster?
The existence of documents supporting the Chen family claims, including the acceptance of this claim by the Yang family representatives belies your “lost in antiquity” assertion.
And as I type I’m thinking, who cares? Even the person who started this thread appears not to be interested in an answer unless it conforms to his pre-conceived notions.
I have spent too much time and energy on an issue that is of dubious importance and long settled in my mind.
Like I said in my first post, you believe what you like, and I’ll do the same. It seems no one picked up on that part of my post.
Walter
Greetings..
No, a Kung Fu Grandmaster.. and, yeah, who cares.. it is my humble opinion to be grateful for the Arts as they exist.. and i just offer my respect to ALL that have come before me to make it so..
Brad,
At this point all I can do is research via the internet, there is no other way of me researching as I cannot travel to china (no funding:( )
But the quote you mentioned was not reffering to the site mentioned, that site was to give a link to the lineage that I mentioned between san feng and chen wang ting…
The other info was from various sites I’ve looked up … though I cant give you the link to all of them, you should look it up yourself!
Wudang history states this, and its the closest your going to get to a fact at this level as no other documentation was made at this time…
So who else do you suggest made the first soft style ?
Like I said before im not claiming san feng MADE taichi chuan as we know it today, but had a very strong role/influence in the making of its modern form.
Plus, calling someone a legend does not mean that its more likely they are a folk story and myth than an actual person.
Wong fei hung was labelled a legend and we all know he existed, Just because we mainly only have word of mouth to believe in san fengs existence does not mean that it is invalid…
walter joyce,
yes you have your opinion and I have mine, but these forums are about expressing opinion are they not?
So when you nievly say “who cares” , maybe it may not matter to you but it is a topic of interest to me and im sure many other people.
Ockhams razor by the way (william of ockham c.1300-1349)
I do not feel is neccessarily appropriate in this scenario, as in my mind it promotes a kind of laziness toward research, the whole notion of not multplying beyond neccessity would just point us to chen wang ting right?
But if there is information that is not as apparent when searching and may require a more indepth approach, then this concept is just a way of accepting what is on the dinner table infront of you when you know the menu is much larger.
I mean to almost everyone the earth was flat until proved otherwise, what if Christopher Columbus had used Ockhams razor, saying “oh theres no point believing the world is round because i dont want to multiply thing beyond neccessity, call the voyage off!” , so many things would be left uncovered if this theory became a household belief.
lol
soul
Souljah
As I understand it we have more than word of mouth or oral history. There are the imperial records and the local gazeteers. Based an historical analysis of these preserved written records, there is no support for Chang San Fen as even being connected to the practice of martial arts until well after he lived.
In other words, this theory seems to be a later attempt to credit him for something for which he received no credit during or even in the period directly after his lifetime. Given his importance in chinese history, his efforts in martial arts would most likely have been recorded in the record during his lifetime.
I think I’m done with this. Enjoy your research.