Daniel J came up with some interesting ideas on Erle's Old Yang Style taiji which agreed somewhat with my own suspicions, although I'd decided it was related in particular to the 'Orthodox' taiji propogated by Wang Shu Chin in Japan and by Chen Pan Ling in Taiwan. Co-incidently there is a post on the Tai chi discussion board by some-one in Japan seeking verfication on the authenticity of this style.

Learning an internal martial art is hard enough without having to worry about whether you're learning the genuine thing or participating in someone's martial fantasy. Personally I've come across three different versions of the Old Yang including Erle's, four different versions of Yang Chengfu's New Yang form and another three versions of the eighty-eight application form. All claim to be the original, but what is there to measure/compare against?

The Chen style as a counter example has numerous high level exponents who travel the world giving seminars and whom seem to be genuinely trying to establish/maintain a high standard and quality. They also appear to be more open and not holding back 'secrets' for indoor disciples only. Even their written articles reflect a committment to getting across their real art.

The Yang's and associates on the other hand seem content to sit back and rely on the efforts and reputations of the first three generations. However as time passes its easier to dismiss their feats as mere fiction not fact, or as skills that died with them. As a result the Yang style is now almost totally dismissed as a serious martial art amongst serious martial artists and is reduced to a health art/dance. What future does this once great family martial art have?

I confess as a Yang practitioner who likes to think that he is open minded and reasonable, I definitely had to pause before replying. Its true that when Yang Sau Chung died, there really was no one truly qualified within the Yang family to pick up the banner (As I understand, you'd need to talk to the chinese government about who became recognized as the inheritor of the style if you agree with me.)

My sifu, Chu Gin Soon, still teaches Yang Chen Fu's long form (As illustrated in any number of books, 124 movements) and methods, but the more I read and talk to those I trust, the less I can argue about Yang Chen Fu when it come to fighting ability. (Is it true he actually had a body guard?)

And your right again, the Chen practitioners are stronger in number, presence, and openess of teaching methods. While I do believe my sifu and his sons possess internal skill and power, they are not as well known, they do not travel like the Chen exponents, and on a simple level, there are less of them, just in sheer numbers.
I do NOT believe that these representatives (The Chu family)of the Yang style sit back and rely on efforts and reputation of the first three generations, and I do not believe that Fu Zhongwen did either while he was alive.

They teach daily, 6 days a week, and Vincent (Fong) Chu also travels globally to both study and teach, but he is by nature a very low key person. (The school doesn't advertise or even have a sign out front.) Gin Soon, the father, has taught openly in Boston for 30 years, and has produced a number of qualified and skilled tai chi players. The youngest son Gordon, also has committed himself to carrying on the family tradition.

I am generally not comfortable myself with debates about suepriority of style, but I felt that as a student of the Yang tradition, I should respond.

This is not so much an argument over superiority of styles or for that matter of individuals themselves, a discussion board is not a place for that, but rather on the proliferation of Yang styles that claim authenticity by direct lineage/linkage to various Yang family members and disciples both past and present.

The apparent lack of family standard bearers or of a standard curriculum or something like that allows for open or critical evaluation (at the moment to gain some legitimacy all you seem to need to do is establish some tenuous link to a 'recognised master'), enables the Erle Montaigues of this world to fill the void left. I'm really talking here not about the New frame Yang Chengfu styles but about the various Old frame (small, medium and large) and Yang Chengfu's secret 'Long' style etc. Are they merely persistent rumours of the past kept alive to solicit unwary students or hidden jewels that are only to be viewed by the 'worthy'. Isn't it time the veil of secrecy was removed and they be allowed to survive or die on there own merits as martial systems?

Hung men,
I agree to an extent about what should and should not be, i.e. when you wrote,"This is not so much an argument over superiority of styles or for that matter of individuals themselves, a discussion board is not a place for that, but rather on the proliferation of Yang styles that claim authenticity by direct lineage/linkage to various Yang family members and disciples both past and present."
I do find this a bit inconsistent with when you wrote,
"The Yang's and associates on the other hand seem content to sit back and rely on the efforts and reputations of the first three generations."
My point is that there are teachers who follow a standard curriculum, and have for three decades, the Chu family in Boston, and they do trace their lineage directly to the Yang family.
If you care to view their curriculum, then visit this site: http://www.gstaichi.org/
Good training,
Walter

I've haven't been to the Chu's site for a while, nothing much has changed, but I'm specifically interested about Yang style elements pre-Chengfu.

There is plenty of good information around including the Chus on basic Chengfu forms, push hands, da-lu ,applications etc but then they leave out the 'good' stuff like the 'Long' form saying its for dedicated students, just give out a few 'teasing' general pieces of info. But my point is, by keeping 'secrets' they allow oppurtunities for someone else to take advantage of that secrecy, or give the impression there is something to hide. There is no basis for valid comparisons.

If the Chu family dislikes publicity, why give out any information at all? At the moment this neither here nor there attitude seems to reflect a deeper uncertainty as to taiji's role and roots (health art, meditative art, martial art esoteric, practical etc). Someone needs to stand their ground and make a public stand, put it all on the line and out in the open, then the pressure will be on for everyone to lift their game. Then Yang taiji might regain a more serious audience.

Hung-men,
Where can I find the Tai Chi discussion board? Thanks.

My mistake its actually The Tai Chi Message Board, page 1, about a dozen or so lines from the top. Got it mixed up with Klein's old board.