In terms of ZhaoBao style taijiquan, Zhaobao village and those that practice taiji there also have their own political motivations for claiming the history that ROLLBACK is stating. It is however well known outside of as well as inside of zhaoboa village that the originator or “zhaobao” style taijiquan learned xiaojia from Chen village which is very near, then took it back to Zhaobao village. This is fairly common knowledge, that is why zhaobao is often noted as a branch of Chen taijiquan. There is little point to argue this stuff really, people believe and accept what they want to or have a reason to.
In terms of FU POW’s question:
he said:
"The other styles of Taiji seem to have lost these external elements over time. Chen seems to have lost them to some extent too ie the missing long fist set. But still retains them in the Pao Chui form, etc. Perhaps they are not crucial to understanding the internal elements?
The question remains as to where the Internal Elements of Taiji Chuan came from?"
The problem with this question is that it is based on preconceptions that are inherently flawed in their view of the Chen family art and “internal” and “external.” To assert that Taijiquan is “internal” and other arts such as chen paochui are “external” is skewed. The Chen art does not make that distinction, instead training a set #1 that is both hard and soft with more emphasis on soft and containing body training methods that made it known as internal. The Paochui set #2 is as well both hard and soft though with more emphasis on hard, and containing the same body training methods that made it known as internal.
Paochui, connon pounding in Chen taijiquan is equally as internal as the other forms and methods, it uses exactly the same body methods as the other forms, though with more specific intent towards hitting and expressing power, this power comes directly from the internal training of the other sets as well.
Have other branches have actually lost the element of power expression and striking with force that all martial arts including internal must have to actually fight a real opponent? I really dont know, but it is this interpretation of “internal” as meaning soft or unable to strike that is creating the confusion. If one wants to strike, they are going to need power, if one wants to change and use an opponents force against them they are going to need softness.
These two elements can be explained as a type of yin&yang cycle that really should and historically does exists in Taijiquan. However, neither one of thse elements is what defines this art as “internal,” it is the UNION of these two elements and the body&breath method of Taijiquan that defines it as internal.
To separate the elments of yin and yang and then define the yang elements as “external” is to not clearly grasp the Yin&yang concept within Chen or really any taijiquan. Beyond that, to question beyond the limits of historical availablity only asks for speculation.
In the end it just does not matter, if you want to accept facts in their limited availablitiy you can form a basic opinion based on them, if you want a complete history, or one that suits your needs, you willl have to speculate and invent, which many people have no problem doing.
I personally would suggest to beginners and seekers that they accept what is available and practice hard, because neither historical fact, nor ego and speculative legend will give you gongfu, take what you read with a grain of salt and find a good teacher if you can and practice hard.
M
www.taijigongfu.com
I’mjoking,not serious)