Hi SM,
is this the standard history of Zhaobao? I mean, are there other histories that are not the same? I am copying what you write, and I’d like to put it into a context.
Tia,
Esteban
Esteban:
If you go back last year or so to the Tai Chi Magazine there was a two part series laying Zhaobao’s system and their take on history.
Looks like more Village Squabbles to me.
I agree with RAF…
Chen Village and Zhao bao have argued for years about the origins. In the past, all records and dutiful historians that looked into it ended up agreeing with Chenjiagou. This, obviously, did not make Zhaobao happy.
In recent years, there have been fewer really top notch historians working on this. Many seem content to either write down legends and then look for ‘facts’ to support them or worse yet, attempt to make a name for themselves by rewriting history or refuting more well established sources that DID do a large amount of in depth research.
The keys for BS detection : when they start throwing around Zhang Sangfeng… No proof that such a person ever existed.
Jiang Fa - so many people in different eras have laid claim to this person as either a teacher or a student.
Books found in salt shops…, scrolls, etc… Old Taoist hermits, take your pick.
At this point, if you go back beyond about 400 years, all you get is myth and legend…and those attempting to do it have consistently shown themselves to usually be much less than objective.
GLW:
I pulled an earlier post because I really don’t want to see another flame war. My experience with Hu Lei Jia (Hu Long Jia) and private footage (1990) from Zhaobao Village area leads me to conclude that it came from Chen system but I am in no position to offer anything but an opinion.
Wujidude:
There was also a historian Xu Zhen who also corroborated some of Tang Hao’s “speculation”. I guess we in the West only got Henning, Wile, and Kang Gewu. What the heck!
However, we do know that Yang Lu Chan learned in the Chen Village and there is nothing else solid to speculate regarding on what Yang Lu Chan did to change it. Everything about what he did is speculation. I think the safest and most sound conclusion is that Yang’s taijiquan is derived from Chen’s taijiquan.
Interestingly, one of my martial arts associates thinks that much of the Yang Cheng Fu form is closer to the original Chen’s taiji than the current Chen versions on the market. So rather than arguing why Yang’s doesn’t look like Chen’s, it goes to an opposite observation: Why don’t the current Chen forms look more like the Yang forms? Assuming that the Yang form is more closer to the original Chen taijiquan. Interesting way to look at it.
Let me end on this factual note:
“Martial arts use of Yin-Yang theory can be traced back as far as the story of the Maiden of Yue in the Spring and Autumn Annals of Wu and Yue, a book written around 100 C.E. about the history of the ancient state of Yue (fifth century B.C.E.).” Henning, "The Origin of the Name “Taijiquan”, Taiji Journal Winter 2001.
IMHO, taijiquan is not as special as we have made it to be. Many Chinese martial arts system employ yin/yang theory, breathing (neigong, qi-gong), etc, etc. Its a good system but not necessarily superior to other systems.
The History is mainly from Du Yuan Hua …who wrote “Authentic Taijiquan” early this century.
To put it into context, to revise Post 1 :
Yang Lu Chan claims in his own writings that although he learned TJQ in Chen village he mastered it in Zhao Bao, this means something must have been different or gained there for him to have mastered it there : If one considers how Yang flows and chen flows the differences are easily visible. Zhao Bao shares the shape like chen but only the execution like Chen in a different frame training method for the sake of developing certain skills.
Wu Yu Xiang even acknowledges the Zhao Bao influence.
I am not doing anything but elaborating on our families TJQ and its histories, stories etc… as they are not properly known as yet.
Chen Style is said to have not only incorporated Shaolin into their methods but even Xin Yi Liu He Quan. Some say that it was because their understanding was incomplete of TJ£Ñ£®
£Í£á£ù£â£å¡¡£ô£è£é£ó¡¡£é£ó¡¡£÷£è£ù¡¡£Ù£á£î£ç¡¡£Ì£õ¡¡£Ã£è£á£î¡¡£÷£å£î£ô¡¡£ó£å£å£ë£é£î£ç£®£®£®£®£®£¿£¿£¿£¿£¿
Interesting, although I have yet to hear of any direct writings from Yang Lu Chan. Never seen them in quoted articles. Are you sure Yang Lu Chan was literate? About 90% of the Chinese population at that time was illiterate.
However, the very first level of Chen training is playing the form (lao jia, Chen Yenxi) in the same tempo and slowness as Yang’s taijiquan and without fajing expression, except for kicks, and Fu Zhong Wen clearly documents that even Yang Cheng Fu in his earlier days also expressed his kicks with fajing expression.
My own speculation (hypothesis) is that there is a link to Emperor Song’s Tai Zu Quan regarding slowness in training and breathing and that is what influenced the training level in Chen’s taiji.
However, as pointed in Fu Zhong Wen’s own history of Yang style, Yang Lu Chan’s flavor is very much in line with Chen style flavor. Public forms were changed and it appears that Yang Cheng Fu even furher reduced expressions of fajing. So the tempo that the Zhao Bao claim was given to Yang Lu Chan’s form is not what he played, if you believe Fu Zhong Wen. That is, Yang style tempo of today is a relatively new invention: Yang Cheng Fu’s 3rd iteration around the 1930s.
I think the public form tempo of the Yang style is simply the first training level, kind of like moving stance work but this is purely conjecture on my part. (in all the Northern Chinese styles I have studied so far, there is always some type of training level with a form that focuses primarily on stance and alignment trainng. Even in bagua I have seen the use of static 8 mother palms in the standing post horse stance used as qi and structure training).
As far as pao chuei, Fu Zhong Wen son does single moving postures with fajing expression, taught similar to what Jou Tsung Hwa taugh in the early 1980s. This correspondences to Chen’s 2nd level and although it is not a form, I find single moving postures in just about every old training style of Northern Chinese martial arts. Link up the single moving postures and you got a pao chuei form. It is my undocumented understanding, that forms are modern luxary and single moving training was key to training troops and individuals in the older days. It naturally fed into two man applications.
The writings of the ZhaoBao holders, to my knowledge, have yet to be evaluated by the taiji community at large and that is very important in assessing the validity of their claims.
If and that is a big IF, we believe the stories, Yang Lu Chan went seeking out challenges to prove his martial arts prowess. And yes, he went seeking only to return to the Chen Village for more training (12 to 18 years if you believe the stories).. Even the Yang lineage holders accept this (perhaps the Zhang Man Qing holders of Taiwan do not,).
I have yet hear of any Yang lineage holder ever espousing this linkage to ZhaoBao, but if true, would lead to some interesting changes. But its troubling to hear that the ZhaoBao’s lineage is founded on assertions of people who most likely never existed or simply existed in myth.
Until then, its still Village Squabbles for me and ZhaoBao, Hu Lei Jia all come from Chen’s.
The burden of proof lies with ZhaoBao researchers to test their claims to peer review and documentation outside their own Village. Its their job to put out the documentation and have the historical community sort it out.
Their reliance on Zhang Sang Feng as a founder further convinces me that they want their share in the Taiji market. Who can blame them, right?
ZhaoBao and Hu Lei Jia stand in their own right as martial arts systems regardless of where they came from or who formed them.
I wouldn’t get to caught up in using its oral history as a marketing ploy to assert the “superiority” of the ZhaoBao system. Don’t fall for the crass commercialization of martial arts and learn from Temple at Songshan.
Wujidude:
Thanks for the info and great post. Actually whether Chen Wangting did or did not invent taijiquan is not as interesting as the ad hoc speculation of what Yang Lu Chan did to what he learned from Chen Changxing. Everyone seems to pile on with why their Yang’s taiji is so different and so superior to Chen’s and I just can’t see it.
My Yang’s version (Li Jing Lin–>Zhang Xiang Wu–>Liu Yun Qiao) is no better or worse than most but we do have a tornado kick, a closing posture similar to Chen’s, and a interesting Dan Bian which follows our own Chen’s version. This version of dan bian involves a block, and a collapsing palm strike (ta zhang) to the heart. My own Chen’s version takes most of its frame from Du Yu Ze (Chen Yenxi), hu lei jia (Liu’s relationship to a zhao bao master, Wang ShuShen and Du Yu Ze) and Fake’s form (1930s, Wang Meng Bi, which he called xiao jia and Tony really liked because of its simplicity, small frame but low postures) and Liu’s exchange with Fake in 1928, Beijing).
So I guess some would refer to me as a Baastaaardyzed (W)hore but I have long given up on purity and virginity and I am an outcast in most Chen circles, except one of Ma Hong’s formal students liked my form.
However, Liu’s arrangement of the 3 levels of abstractions in Chen’s was done in the 1970s, long before the commercialization and popularization of Chen’s. It was done as an honest attempt to help preserve a great martial art. He also didn’t believe modern practitioners would have enough time to really dedicate to the traditonal long forms and abstractions would help give them a taste and maybe encouragement to continue deeper into the system.
Interestingly, our 3rd level of Chen’s abstraction begins with snap front kick and then Buddha pound mortar and I saw Feng Zhiqiang perform this opening in his younger years (on film). This is what I originally went to Tony Yang for in 1988 and is what I have practice and know best in his system. You can guess, long before my computer arrived, I spent a lot of years looking, reading and focusing in the taijiquan side of the Wu Tang. (from previous posts you know most of my time is now taken up in bagua but I never forget my first love and visit her often).
As was indicated in a PM, one of Feng Zhiqiang’s formal students also practiced baji, which I personally is a great fit (basic training) with Chen’s taiji (Xing Yi also seems to be a good fit–the basic training complements each other).
So I really appreciate the information you add. I also have seen some of the Zhaobao style and would like to learn more (I have one of the Zhaobao tapes of a master given to me as a gift. Its interesting but they played Western classical music in its background and it drives me nutz). The 1990 private footage was given to me by someone who visited the Village and its also interesting.
So, I am not here to flame Zhaobao style or any teacher.
Thank you too Shaolin Master.
Some interesting notes here…
Some comments:
Tang Hao was NOT exactly a PRC hack. He was researching the origins and history of Taijiquan way before the existence of the PRC government.
While NOT all of his conculsions are correct, he is truly important because he was the first person to look into this stuff and NOT accept the verbal history and the “Because my teacher said so” and the “Well everyone KNOWS this to be the truth” as fact and actually look beyond that for supporting records. That he may or may not have been fooled by hucksters in believing a document or two were legit is not surprising. He also bought himself a load of threats and enemies because he debunked a number of closely held myths.
He is also important in being a mentor to people like Gu Luxin. Gu personally attributed some of his beginning work and interests to Tang Hao’s influences. (Not to mention that Tang Hao was a good calligraphy teacher …but that is another story).
As for the Yang Luchan writings…I find that highly suspect. Yang was from a poor family. Although some of the history stories have been changed…the original line …NOT often repeated by the Yang family due to some level of embarrassment due to their humble beginnings… was that Yang was SOLD as an indentured servant to the Chen family. At that time, this was QUITE common. A poor family would secure a position for their child with a well off family as a servant. The family would get some money to help them live and the child would be taken care of by the rich family as a servant…but would only be set free from the bond if the money was paid back. This indenturing was also seen in the US with many immigrants paying for their passage to New York this way. Problem is that it is VERY hard to make and save enough money to pay the bond…so the servant becomes a servant for life…and that translates as legal slavery.
Anyway, no one would spend time teaching a servant to read and write. Records of Yang’s sons are sparce but it has been noted by many sources that Yang Chengfu was illiterate…smart and talented…but not educated.
It is extremely unlikely that a family where the parents are literate would produce a son that is not… So, logically speaking, it is not likely that Yang Luchan was literate. Not likely that an illiterate man would end up with literate sons unless he worked at it…and the relationship between Yang Luchan and his sons has been noted as ‘harsh’…and Yang Chengfu has been noted as illiterate…so…
I doubt that the writings are personally from Yang Luchan.
Now, this does NOT mean that he could not have transmitted the information orally to a literate person, friend, or student…but the family would have records of this.
Fu Zhongwen’s early work mention many of thes items about Yang Luchan and such…but in later editions, the story has been edited and made to make the Yang family look better off. Personally, I feel that starting from such a point and rising to a level makes you even MORE respectable…but that is my take.
Actually, we are not that far apart. I am simply maintaining that pople liike Tang Hao, byt the very fact that they attempted to bring a method to looking into the background, deserve a bit of thanks.
As for his political leanings, I can tell you that EVERY college level history class I ever had…and political science and even psychology were infiltrated with the professor’s political viewpoints. It made for some interesting classes when you had a profssor that was a socialist teaching with an extreme my country right or wrong type… But, you did learn to read between the lines and ask WHY would someone draw a particular conclusion.
Never met an historian who got it anywhere near all correct…
By 400 years, I am saying back to about 400 years you can say that Chenjiagou did their stuff. you can also say that Yang learned from who…and all.
As for WHO really created it, where it came from and such…prior to that you can’t say much of anything. Even the records much older tha 150 years begin to be very very suspect in all things.
We can definitely say, though, that many of the versions of history are less than believable… I mean Zhang Sanfeng…who buys that one? 
History in all its forms is purely revisionist. US history from one professor to another is different. Even accounts of the whats and whys of things within my lifetime have been altered by many. So, I find that you have to look at it with a very broad brush…and see patterns but hold nothing too dear.
To actually have to admit that one doesn’t have the foggiest notion…that is indeed scary to a lot of people.
And believe it or not, lawyers are trained in objective thought, it is critical to success. But like all humans, including historians, we still carry our biases with us, both personal and client related.
What’s nice to know is that human nature is a constant: Even the great masters and their students of the past squabbled over lineage, forms, and “Truth”.
“My, oh my, you mean my martial arts won’t let me stand above this fray??? I can’t transcend my humaness! Dahhmn” (tongue and cheek).
Imagine if they had computers and a kungfu forum.
Where would we be?:rolleyes:
Wujidude,
Those Michuan clips were very interesting. The old jian form was certainly very different from other taiji sword forms I’ve seen (I thought it looked quite powerful), and I hadn’t considered the similarity between Fishes in Eight and Fair Lady prior to seeing the solo clip. The AYMTA site is also very informative.
If its not too much of a tangent, could some of you (RAF? GLW? Wuji?) discuss your understanding of this tradition?
Cheers.
RAF :
on rereading your post a way back…I tend to agree with your opinion about Zhaobao and Chen…but again, other than sources that we have both mentioned, I don’t have anything more than an opinion.
dedalus:
As for the question about a tradition…I am not sure what the question is… Please be more specific.
As the AYMTA articles indicate, there hasn’t been much attention paid to the Michuan tradition until quite recently. I’m somewhat curious about whether the history offered by the lineage holders is corroborated by other sources (although I guess that’s bound to be difficult with a secret tradition).
One thing I found curious was the fact that Yang Shao-Hou was not mentioned at all in the formal account of training in the Yang household under Yang Jien Hou. There is an explanation offered as to why Cheng Fu did not receive the michuan transmission, but what about his brother?
It is quite possible that this mystery will be resolved by someone pointing out my misunderstanding of Yang history. So far this thread has been most educational 
I actually don’t have much of an opinion at this point. It caught me off guard, although I do know someone from Taiwan who claims to practice a Yang Jian Hou lineage form but doesn’t call it michuan.
I am generally very skeptical about those claiming a secret transmission (for example, my own line also claims Song Wei Yi learned directly from Yang Lu Chan but as I pointed out, Yang Lu Chan died when Song Wei Yi was 14 and I don’t believe it).
I may not have read enough on the websites, but I would like to know what it is about the “secret” transmission that makes it secret. I saw one quote about the claim being: “We are not saying the secret transmission is superior to the public form.” and my question is why all the hype? Look at how many claim to have secret or original forms? It gets to be a bit much.
None of this is to be read as a flame (I think some of my posts are initially read as being antagonistic but that’s how we do it in the old Halls of Academe) but I would be more interested in someone from that group laying out a comparison of the secret transmission and the public transmission. What’s missing?
As far as secret transmissions go there is some truth to that even though I said its a bit much. I read secret transmission as complete system transmissions.
Differences in forms mean little as I personally believe that “Masters” frequently change forms at various intervals over their life. Personal experience in another system holds true and it often leads to big political debates as to who has the “authentic” transmission and who is right.
I am more interested in what auxillary exercises did they or others learn. Personal experience in taijiquan of a big name master who often holds back vital training information in public seminars and teaches it to a few select students privately. I understand why this is done, but this is what will eventually kill what I call traditional martial arts. I don’t know how you resolve this paradox in the world of commercialization and politics but if it isn’t done, the traditional arts of China will die and forms will become more like a 60s hippie dance (remember Easy Rider).
I am somewhat shocked (in a good sense) at the size of this group and the fact that they do not promote their tapes in a more commercial magazine. I think Robert Smith wrote of their teacher and concluded, although good, his skills paled in comparision to Zheng Man Qing (a bit of a shot wrapped in a )political).
Their sword is interesting and resembles in flavor what we play as a taiji sword. We tend to use a lot of twist stance postions and one legged thrusts (which has been criticized by some Yang taiji purists I exchanged with, and is okay with me). However, I have yet to find a source documenting how and when the Yang Jian was introduced into the Yang taiji lineage (I don’t believe Yang Lu Chan played a jian form, simply spear and dao and I don’t believe the Chen family had a jian form until 1920s. Never heard of Chen Fake playing a jian form but his daughter,s routine was given in the old Chen Journal),
Its early morning here and I see I am drifting from your initial question.
I would like to read and see more about michuan and like to know specifically what makes their form different from public forms of taiji. There are a lot of “Village Squabbles” out there and I don’t know how all of those claiming authentic, original, or secret forms can square this with each other.
Having said that about the form, I am less interested (not disinterested) in forms as I am in learnng about their auxillary training methods So I would love them to lay out their system but I guess if you did that what would be secret? LOL.
So I say, more info, more writing and less hiding.
PS. I am increasingly becoming skeptical about what Yang Lu Chan said or did. Seems there is a lot of embellishment going on without some solid anchoring.
RAF - different lineage…similar feelings
I agree with a lot of what he wrote.
In my experience, it seems that just about every ‘Strange’ version of Taijiquan about 5 or so years ago tied their lineage to Yang Banhao. Given that he was reputed to have only taught about 4 people, I guess many folks have begun doing the exponential math and moved away from this claim. Since not much is known of the Yang offspring that died ‘early’, I would guess that a number of people will also tie their lineage that way.
Do NOT misunderstnad me. I am not flaming or insulting people. What they do may very well be legit and could even be from the lineage they claim…I just find it questionable.
Then you have a half dozen or more factions claiming that THEY teach what Yang Luchan did while his own family lineage does not. While I guess that IS possible, it is also highly unlikely. What those folks do may be well and good and may be legit Taijiquan…but the lineage they crow about is still questionable.
There are only so many ways to move a human body. There are core principles in Taijiquan. As long as a method does not violate the core principles and move the body in a damaging way, it is valid…then you have to figure out if it works…and that is a different question.
I have seen quite a number of ‘Secret’ Yang forms. To date, none have ben anything more than a different routine…and MAYBE they added a bit of fajing. Also, in many cases, the teachers teaching those secret forms were using them to get studnets to come to them, pay more money, or get some recognition in a magazine or such.
While this is not wrong per se…it does not make the ‘Secret’ forms a big deal.
It also does not take into account that MANY teachers teach according to a students physical strengths and abilities. So, if you have 10 students form one teacher learn the same routine, you will get 10 variations…and ONE may actually be like the teacher’s. You also may have a teacher who teaches a tall student one way and a short one another…When they go off and teach, they may have a ‘Secret’ form that only they learned - for that reason. And after a generation or two, the methods they and theirs teach is distinctly different from the original.
No big thing…as long as all of the parts are there. Also, there is a very big difference between a teacher teaching a student to be a teacher. teaching them to be able to do the art, and teaching them to be their successor. There is also a difference between being a student and being Tudi (Disciple). So, many will claim to be one thing but how many Tudi’s does one teacher have?
Bottom line : if you get value from it…great…but keep an open mind…at least I TRY to until I see some folks do things that is just simply NOT Taijiquan…
Training for use and flow…well, to soften, you first have to go through the hard part…you can’g get SONG until you work the legs and body to handle it. It is so with just about everything. The hardest lesson it seems to learn is to complete the movement.
GLW reminded me of something I forgot: Instructing students v. tudi (disciple) or preparing them to teach.
Most students receive an incomplete system but NOTE CARFEULLY, that does not mean what they learn is wrong or inferior.
I will divert and use my baji system as an example. Liu Da Kai (6 big openings) which is a basic form from which other forms are built upon has 3 levels. The first level has no pigua techniques. The second level has some baji techniques combined with pigua techniques. The third level has even more refinement of the baji/pigua techniques. These 2nd and 3rd levels are primarily for those who are tudi and are teaching the lineage as full-time career and have the power (jings) developed well enough that the techniques are effective. I have seen them demonstrated but will probably not learn them (although I may get one or two). That does not make anything I have learned in baji/pigua less authentic, less valuable, less useful, less effective (unless I meet someone at the 2nd or 3rd level) etc. etc. etc.. That’s simply the way the tudi hierarchy runs and if my teacher or others were teaching publicly, they would never teach this. So maybe that’s what people refer to as a secret transmission but I simply accept it as part of my position in the hierarchy and that does not necessarily hinder traditional martial arts development.
As long as I have the basic training, basic ingredients, advanced forms are nothing more than icing on the cake. I also know for sure that without the basics trying to fill in at an advanced level doesn’t work: you become merely a forms collector and use this as your market for the title of “Master”.
So forms mean very little unless they are essential to the basic training and development of a system.
You can be very good in a system without these advanced forms or even great and people are not being ripped off if they are not taught at this level.
Also to reach these levels where advanced forms and techniques make sense, you need real strong dedication, intense practice, and career commitment. For most of us, this isn’t going to happen and it doesn’t make what you learn any less real or useful. You can still get all the benefits of a system if you are trained well in basics. Furthermore, there are many levels to basics and advancing to a new level makes sense only if you have mastered or are effective with the material of the previous level (judged primarily by structured alignment, 6 harmony in your movement, and power. Inferences about jings can be made also and includes two man interaction).
Not everyone can make it to this level for a variety of reasons and one being nature doesn’t conform to our cultural definitions of equality. Genetic endowment plays a role (it runs across race so please don’t misunderstand what I am saying. Mastery is not exclusive of any race). That also doesn’t mean that we cannot improve upon what we are initially given.
I enjoy history, mythology and lineage (Jarek’s site is a plus for much of this as is Gene Ching’s magazine and others). However, the bottom-line, for me, is basics. Believe me, I, along with a few others, spent the early years (5-6 years) searching for the magic, secret form that would transform us into masters. It doesn’t exist. Some never caught on and still measure their progress by the number of forms they collect or how well they can mystify the system in qi gong terminology.
Michuan may be a secret form, but what do you have train in to make it an EFFECTIVE “secret” form. That is where the gold lies and what I would like to see them write about.
Same goes with Zhao Bao, Hu Lei Jia or any system. Talk about lineage, mythology etc. and that’s okay. Talk about how you train and why and now we are on to something.
FYI:
If anyone is interested in some of the basics of Hu Lei Jia you should pick up a copy of Adam Hsu’s Hu Lei Jia tape. He also has footage from the Village where Hu Lei Jia originated.
Regards.
I’m not sure but RAF may be writing my thoughts…:
Jibengong…basic work…it is the most disliked aspect of training for just about every student of any martial art…and the most important. Without it, nothing else really matters.
When you ask my teacher what it takes to be considered good, the answer is always “Gong Fu, Gong Fu” (work…and more work) and it is never tied to anything else.
The amazing thing is that I have been in classes over and over again where one thing was said and STRESSED and virtually no one heard or understood. Asking the teacher later yielded that the statement was the teachers responsibility, the listeing and understanding the students.
Now that I am teaching for a while, I find that I explain more than my teachers ever did…but the end result on the how’s and why’s with the students is not that much deeper. It really does boil down to the fact that some people are predisposed to ‘get it’ some CAN ‘get it’ with work, and others simply never will.
All of the ‘Secret’ transmissions in the world will not affect the last type of student. They will only affect the second type of student if they hear it or see it at the right time and MORE than once…and the first type of student may actually figure it out before you say it.
And basic work is the key.
Of course basic work is the key and then more and more … and then what ?
There are basics in everything, everything is basic and everything is advanced. When you are correcting a movement of a newcomer to that of a 5 yr student or a 10 yr student, your are still correcting basics but at various degrees.
Training points:
Note in Zhao Bao push hands is practised differently to other TJQ the emphasis is on one touch and remove, we don’t practise single push hands too much if at all (different teachers different levels of progress). The emphasis is on comprehending the incoming energy and neutralising or dispersing it at the same instant. Some Taiji styles wait then neautralise in Zhao Bao we are in constant motion with the ability to attack or defend at any moment of the motion. Stepping is vital as well and this is emphasised, rooting is that of constantly readjusting equilibrium without the facet of incoming forces…etc…
In fact, therer are significant differences in our frames so that although Zhong Jia and Da Jia are the same some movements are altered significantly so from the outside it can look quite different but on the inside the energy is the same. In Da Jia there are over 70 kicks and The are done at top speed or with focal it changes always, everyday it is different same but different.
All the changes, all the movements ups an downs ins and outs forwards and backwards…etc become as one…comprehending the totality of the Taiji… so the external manifestation differs but the internal remains the same.
We also contain various whole body Peng force training using Bai He Liang Zhi, Sinking methods with Pi Pa Shi etc…,…against instruments with stepping and energic emphasis leading from simple comprehension to a more advanced one.
Anyways, at least it brings up conversation amongst the peeps.