Hee hee
Stephen:
Nice to hear your reasoning voice fronting for the National Neigong Research Society again (as one of its co-founders and vice-chairpersons).
Stephen wrote:
>Feng was a Xingyi ringer, and there is some controversy over how much time Feng actually spent studying with Chen (I think I’ve heard numbers as low as 6 years). In any case, it seems that Feng was the designated “defender” of Chen Taiji’s reputation in Beijing when Chen passed away.<
“Xingyi ringer”? His xingyi teacher, Hu Yaozhen, recognized the deep gong fu and excellence of Chen Fake’s taijiquan and provided the introduction and encouragement for Feng to study with Chen Fake. Hu took Chen Fake’s son, Chen Zhaokui, under his wing to teach him neigong principles . . . which Chen Fake did not teach, because he did not ever formally study them, although his taijiquan reflected neigong principles more deeply and profoundly than perhaps any other martial artist publicly teaching in Beijing at the time. Hu recognized Chen’s excellence, and the opportunity for a genuine fusion, or rather refusion, of neigong and high-level internal martial art to take place with the exchange of students. Chen Fake also recognized the complementary nature of the teachings and sent his own son to study with Hu Yaozhen.<
>Don’t forget that Chen ZhaoXu (Chen XiaoWang’s dad) was also Chen Fake’s son and had access to Chen Fake’s instruction.<
And, I might add, Chen Xiaowang had the diligence and ability to follow up on the tremendous opportunity being born into the family gave him.
>Wujidude:
quote:
Chenjiagou partisans tend to emphasize their “authenticity” by virtue of their last name, and to develop their market niche by resurrecting the practice of Lao Jia as essential to the development of true taijiquan skill.
In contrast, Feng has created the Hun Yuan Qi Gong set, lots of Silk Reeling Exercises, the 24 Hun Yuan Form, the 48 Essence Form, the 24 Cannon form to complement his somewhat baroque Xin Jia forms. I think this is at least partially the Xingyi influence, since Xingyi seems to have more basic gongs and short movement drills than Chen Taiji.
In any case, I don’t find the emphasis on lao jia Yi Lu contrived, since that is the form that the Yang and Wu styles are clearly based on. And from what I’ve seen, folks who train only in Xin Jia tend to have problems maintaining jin integrity - the lao jia yi lu is very nice in that it simplifies the task of learning to keep your jin correct. Feng compensates for it with an emphasis on basic gongs and ramping people up from gongs to simple forms, to baroque forms.<
Feng’s methodology doesn’t compensate for anything; it is a superior method to simply learning the Lao Jia yi lu form as a way to develop, express and apply the basic jins. I agree that diving headlong into xinjia is a mistake for 99% of beginners. At the same time, oversimplifying the development of basic jins is a mistake as well (that’s why Yang stylists’ jins often never seem to develop, even after years of careful practice).
Feng is quite clear that his xingyi training influences the methodology he uses to teach taijiquan. Xingyi uses the wuxing forms to teach basic jins. Feng uses his 30-plus chansijin forms to do the same thing. I wouldn’t want have learned xingyi’s 12 animal forms or linking forms without solid training in the wuxing first. Similarly, I wouldn’t want to learn xinjia without solid training in taiji’s basic jins first, as exemplified in Feng’s chansijin drills.
Chen Xiaowang uses his (simpler) chansijin exercises as a grounding for training in his forms. Chen followed Feng’s lead in creating first a 38-movement form, then a 19-movement form for beginners. Feng had earlier put together a 48-movement form (essentially just eliminating repetitions) as an intermediate form to be learned before learning the more elaborate Yi Lu of the xinjia forms. Feng later created the 24-posture form for beginners (which is simply the first 21 movements of the intermediate 48 form, with a few from the end of the 48 form). Feng’s forms do not require learning something only to throw it away later as more advanced forms are learned. His forms are a logical sequence.
Interestingly, though, I think Feng would agree with your point about the danger of losing integrity of jin if a beginner dives headlong into xinjia forms. He has recently revised his 24 beginner form to distill out some of the xinjia curlicues and whirls, and to emphasize the flow between postures. This is based directly on feedback his own students, and their students, have provided.
Still, characterizing Feng’s other taijiquan forms as “baroque” is meaningless criticism; they are xinjia. Chen Zhenlei and Chen Xiaowang both acknowledge the value of xinjia forms in developing the basic jins, and also in adding effectiveness to applications. Chen Fake created and believed and demonstrated the value of xinjia; it’s what he taught Chen Zhaokui.
>Actually, the NNRS mostly fronts for Chen QingZhou, who is not really from Chen Village (though he studied with Chen ZhaoPei). Chen QingZhou’s sons however have more ties to formal Chen Village training.
. . .
Most of the Chen Village folks are aggressively expanding and they compete against each other for the almighty US Dollar.<
Economics creates politics, and Chen taijiquan is full of politics. ;- )
>The basic question though is this: having shelled out your $$$ for that seminar, have you come away with something you can use and build upon?<
Absolutely. Even with over 100 people in attendance, it was one of the very best martial arts seminars I’ve attended. Feng had a number of very skilled senior students accompanying him, and there were 4 excellent translators (also skilled in Chen taijiquan)circulating who could help with the explanations. His senior students, even those who did not speak English, were very friendly, approachable and helpful in their hands-on instruction. Feng himself wandered among the students, translator hovering, to offer clear correction and opportunity for push-hands contact. During breaks he was quite affable, and offered critique of individual form. Additionally, Feng had a number of sessions for his teachers outside of the regular seminar, which offered more in-depth training.
I got much more out of this seminar than, for example, a Chen Qingzhou seminar. Part of it was simply a superior teaching methodology, part of it was the skill level of the translators and senior students accompanying the main guy. I happen to like Chen Qinghzou, by the way. He’s quite skilled.
>Or were you just spending some money on hype, and a chance to be in the presence of celebrity?<
That’s not my nature, Stephen. I didn’t even ask to have my picture taken with Feng. ;- )
Speaking of “a chance to be in the presence of celebrity” (your words): even though as you say NNRS “mostly fronts for Chen Qingzhou” (your words), you have NNRS co-founder Tony Wong rather shamelessly trying to link himself with Feng Zhiqiang.
Wong originally studied Chen style in the Bay Area with Zhang Xuexin, Feng’s senior student in the U.S. Later, Wong broke with Zhang (along with a number of other students). Part of that was the marketing opportunity presenting itself with “original Chenjiagou taijiquan”–the Lao Jia crowd. Part of it was personality differences. Recently, Wong traveled to China and had pictures of himself taken with one of Feng’s groups practicing in a Beijing park. Wong could not approach Feng through his old teacher Zhang, so instead of attending Feng’s seminar in San Francisco sponsored by Zhang, he tried in other cities. Politics . . .
I don’t need to say anything more. Hope your training is going well.
