PDA

View Full Version : Taichi and Aikido


Please visit our sponsor:
 

AikiWeb Sponsored Links - Place your Aikido link here for only $10!


JAMJTX
02-25-2006, 11:11 PM
Does anyone think that practicing Taichi will help my Aikido?

ccain85
02-26-2006, 12:25 AM
I practice Tai Chi and Qigong. I like to believe that they compliment my aikido quite a bit. but, thats for you to decide, not me.

:ai:

Mark Headleand
02-26-2006, 04:00 AM
Does anyone think that practicing Taichi will help my Aikido?
Not as much as practicing more Aikido would... :) (Although it shares some aspects of the art so the best idea is to try it out and see for yourself)

Qatana
02-26-2006, 10:42 AM
My tai chi practice definitly helps my aikido. Of course my tai chi teacher is my aikido sensei so he does tend encourage us to find the similarities in both arts.In my threee years of training I am getting a glimmer of how a tai chi application can be integrated into aiki technique, if needed.

SeiserL
02-26-2006, 12:01 PM
Does anyone think that practicing Taichi will help my Aikido?
IMHO, while cross-training can support and compliment, it can never replace. Therefore, the same principles you hope to learn in Tai Chi, may better be learned withing the state-specific context of Aikido training.

OTOH, if you are training to cross-train, which I am a great fan of, than train on.

JAMJTX
02-26-2006, 05:49 PM
Thanks for the opinions and advice.
Obviously the time I spend in Taichi is that much less time doing Aikido, which in theory can subtract from the Aikido.

I saw the similarities between Taichi and Aikido as soon as I started Aikido. I have been teaching Doshinkan Aikido here at the Parks Dept. For those of you not familair with it, the simple answer is that Doshinkan is essentially Yoshinkan. I was teaching Shumatsu Dosa, and someone looking in thought it was a Taichi class.

I'm actually going to be taking over the Taichi class at the same rec center. So I have to spend more time practicing that. I will have to work it into my personal Aikido time.

I have read where instructors have said that Taichi helped improve thier Karate and other arts. I never knew anyone that did both Taichi and Aikido.

Thanks again.

louiev
02-27-2006, 12:25 AM
The following site might be of interest.

http://www.santarosaaikido.com/sugawara.html

Mark Uttech
02-27-2006, 01:44 AM
Practicing aikido will help your aikido.

batemanb
02-27-2006, 04:29 AM
I used to study Tai Chi alongside Aikido, did so for almost 3 years. I think that there is a lot of common ground between them, and that they do help each other to a point. I eventually came to th econclusion that I would have to choose between them though, and for me Aikido was my choice. :)

rgds
Bryan

koz
02-27-2006, 06:50 AM
Practicing aikido will help your aikido.

Actually, I've found that often to not be the case at times. :straightf

doronin
02-27-2006, 07:04 AM
Practicing aikido will help your aikido.
Haven't practiced tai chi yet, but from common sense standpoint, when one feels stuck with X, whatever that X is, just doing more X doesn't usually help.
This approach looks like more of a frontal linear attack on the problem, as an opposite to "blend, and redirect". We're in Aikido, aren't we? ;)

ian
02-27-2006, 09:12 AM
I think doing aikido initially helps you to understand tai-chi and to feel the movement better. Since doing a little tai-chi I've also found my balance has improved (there is a fair bit of standing on one leg). Also, its interesting to see how similar many of the techniques are.

Practically, I dount if it will improve the way you do aikido techniques, just the way you understand them.

JAMJTX
08-05-2006, 05:23 PM
Practically, I dount if it will improve the way you do aikido techniques, just the way you understand them.

Just following up on this old post.
The above statement turned out to be very true. I don't think that my Aikido is better because of doing Taichi. But I do have a better understanding and a whole different view of Aikido.

The similarity in not only technique, but basic principles has me looking at Aikido as essentially Japanese Taichi. The comparison between our Aikido (Yoshinkan) and our Taichi (Ba Men) is much like comparing different flavors of Aikido. They are more similar than different.

Ken McGrew
08-05-2006, 07:31 PM
Any discussion of Taichi and Aikido should mention Suguara Sensei who has written two or three books comparing Japanese and Chinese arts and has developed several Aikido Taichi forms.

Ken McGrew

Mike Sigman
08-05-2006, 09:05 PM
Does anyone think that practicing Taichi will help my Aikido?If you do real Taiji with qi and jin in the movements it will help real Aikido that has ki and kokyu in the movements, but if you do bogus "Tai Chi" as a "form" it will not help your Aikido, particularly if your Aikido doesn't have ki and kokyu in it. :D

Mike

statisticool
08-05-2006, 09:27 PM
Does anyone think that practicing Taichi will help my Aikido?

Yes, and also vice versa.

Ken McGrew
08-05-2006, 11:22 PM
http://www.sugawarabudo.com/sbudo_about.html

Sugawara and Xing. Aikido and Chinese Martial Arts. Volume 1: Its Fundamental Relations

JAMJTX
08-05-2006, 11:42 PM
I'm looking into the work of Sugawara Sensei.

I do "real Aikido", Yohsinkan, with Kokyu and my Taichi (Ba Men) is more than just forms.

What I like more than anything is how I feel after Taichi practice. Aikido leaves my knees swollen and aching, but I like the training. After Taichi I always feel really good - no joint pains. So Taichi a couple days a week gets me beneficial training that helps my Aikido with less trauma to the joints and saves wear and tear on my knees.

It's a great combination.

Thanks for al lyour valued input.

David Orange
08-06-2006, 12:15 AM
I do "real Aikido", Yohsinkan, with Kokyu and my Taichi (Ba Men) is more than just forms.

Jim, I agree that tai chi is a great complement for aikido. I'm not familiar with ba men style, but I've done 24 Step and some Chen for many years. Both aikido and tai chi enhance my life and I think that's good. But maybe even more complementary than tai chi is baguazhang. Have you tried any of that?

Best to you,

David

clwk
08-06-2006, 12:52 AM
If you do real Taiji with qi and jin in the movements it will help real Aikido that has ki and kokyu in the movements, but if you do bogus "Tai Chi" as a "form" it will not help your Aikido, particularly if your Aikido doesn't have ki and kokyu in it.I'm confused. Wouldn't bogus Tai Chi help bogus Aikido by preventing you from becoming suspicious that something might be missing? This would ensure your continued enjoyment of bogus Aikido - which would only be jeopardized by 'real Taiji'. Or . . . maybe I'm confused about what bogus Aikido's goal might be.

-ck

Mike Sigman
08-06-2006, 08:50 AM
I'm confused. Wouldn't bogus Tai Chi help bogus Aikido by preventing you from becoming suspicious that something might be missing? You're taking the negative connotation of "help", Chhi'med. Bogus Taiji doesnt "help" bogus Aikido get any better. ;)

Mike

Mike Sigman
08-06-2006, 08:52 AM
I do "real Aikido", Yohsinkan, with Kokyu and my Taichi (Ba Men) is more than just forms. I've never heard of Ba Men (Eight Gates) Taiji. It's not one of the recognized traditional styles. ;)

Regards,

Mike Sigman

Tony Wagstaffe
08-06-2006, 11:40 AM
Try doing your aikido waza without a partner except do it far slower then you'll get the jist! All martial arts have common roots how the hell to defend yourself in time of need! there is so much bull out there its just incredible!

Tony Wagstaffe
08-06-2006, 11:44 AM
Sorry, just had to get it of my chest! :D

dps
08-06-2006, 12:01 PM
Try doing your aikido waza without a partner except do it far slower then you'll get the jist! All martial arts have common roots how the hell to defend yourself in time of need! there is so much bull out there its just incredible!
Absolutely correct on the slowing down of Aikido waza ( connect the techniques together in a constant flow) and the bull.
Wait for it, here comes the bull. :)

JAMJTX
08-06-2006, 09:38 PM
Jim, I agree that tai chi is a great complement for aikido. I'm not familiar with ba men style, but I've done 24 Step and some Chen for many years. Both aikido and tai chi enhance my life and I think that's good. But maybe even more complementary than tai chi is baguazhang. Have you tried any of that?

Best to you,

David

I have some introduction to baguazhang through attending a few seminars. I always did feel that it was very Aikido-like. I have some books on Chen and a 24 Step video.

Ba Men is not one of the "recognized styles", that is that it is not Chen, Yang, Wu and there are a few others that I can't name off the top of my head. But it should be accepted as it is pre-Yang.
The founder passed the art on to the Chen family, then eventually on to the Yang family and to the rest of the world.
The original Taichi Chuan is based on the "13 Postures". That is comprised of "8 Gates" (Ba Men) and "5 Directions". Then it was expanded as Chen combined it with thier other arts.
Ba Men is the heart of Tai Chi, it is probably as close to the original teachings as you can get. I don't know if there is any connection to Chen, but it seems to be pre-Yang. It has been in the U.S. since 1930 and possibly earlier. My guess would be that it has roots in San Francisco and spread along the railroad lines to the Canton, OH area.
I never heard of it before I started training in it. But I loved it right away and having some background in Taichi, I saw nothing out of place in it. After I had been teaching for a while, I had some students who moved into town and trained for a few months with a Chen instructor who was raised in China and trained there. These students told me that they looked all over town and could not find a satisfactory school until they found me. They said that our forms had less movements, but all of the principles they were learning were addressed in the shorter form.
I also teach the Ba Men at rehab centers and senior centers and have been seeing remarkable health benefits for my students. One case of sciatica cleared up, one stroke patient moving his arm arm again, several with lower blood pressure.

My intention is to have all students, Koroho, Karate and Aikido learn the Ba Men forms (there are 4). I am also using the Yoshinkan Shumatsu Dosa in my Taichi classes on occasion.

DaveS
08-07-2006, 11:17 AM
But maybe even more complementary than tai chi is baguazhang. Have you tried any of that?

From the little I did of it, I thought hsing yi (or however you want to romanize it) would be a nice complement to aikido - it seems to have similar foundations but very different content. On the other hand, I suspect that finding a really good hsing yi teacher (or a ba gua teacher for that matter) might be like finding an honest politician.

Mike Sigman
08-07-2006, 11:35 AM
Ba Men is not one of the "recognized styles", that is that it is not Chen, Yang, Wu and there are a few others that I can't name off the top of my head. But it should be accepted as it is pre-Yang.
The founder passed the art on to the Chen family, then eventually on to the Yang family and to the rest of the world. Hmmmmmm. Can you see how that might be a little bit of an insult to the Chen family if it's not true? One of the problems with sticking that comment about the Yang family in there also is that the Yang family now publicly states that the Yang Taiji is directly derived from the Chen's taiji (something that is pretty obvious to anyone who takes a good look at them both).

So while interesting claims about the origins of one's Taiji are cool, leaning that claim (without any supporting evidence; and I hope to goodness you're not thinking that Wang Tsung Yueh was a real person) against other styles while denigrating them is not really the most diplomatic thing to do.

Regards,

Mike Sigman

JAMJTX
08-07-2006, 01:38 PM
All I really came back to do was report back on some findings after the original post and to thank everyone for thier input.

I did not intend for the thread to be about taichi politics or exercising egoes. I guess it's just time to close this one out unless someone has more useful and meaningful information to add.

Again thank you to all who have made meaningful contributions. Even those who have a different opinion on mixing Taichi and Aikido training raised questions and made me look harder at my ideas and contributed something to my learning in this area.

Mike Sigman
08-07-2006, 01:47 PM
I guess it's just time to close this one out unless someone has more useful and meaningful information to add.
Heh. Good one. ;) Makes some remarks that get questioned and then "close this one out". That should be a added to Jun's rules I guess. And then if someone doesn't like the way the moderator decides, one can always come back under a different pseudonym while using the same ISP, eh?

Regards,

Mike Sigman

statisticool
08-07-2006, 01:51 PM
Jim is correct.

Ron Tisdale
08-07-2006, 02:14 PM
Actually, I know Jim, and have trained with him, but in this case I think Mike's point is very valid. I don't think dismissing his objections as " taichi politics or exercising egoes" is accurate.

Sorry Jim, no malice a forethought, just my opinion.

Best,
Ron

Upyu
08-07-2006, 05:35 PM
Jim is correct.
ohhh...poop :rolleyes:












justiinne so cuuute :D

JAMJTX
08-07-2006, 05:37 PM
No problem Ron. I just saw this melting down into that.

The validity of the Ba Men Taichi and it's origins have been shown to me and even debated on other web sites. Some will accept it and some will not.

What I know about the origins of the Ba Men form was taught to Mr. Andrew Tamper by one Yee Chong in the 1930's. I don't recall if Yee Chong was an old railroad worker or the son of a railroad worker.
What I do know is that the family came over in the late 1800's.

When I first heard this story, I thought someone had seen too many Kung Fu episodes. I now know several people who trained first hand with Mr. Tamper in the 1970's. These people were already advanced Karate teachers (maybe 4th Dans at the time) and thier opinion was the Mr. Tamper had clearly been training for a very long time. It would have have been coming up on 35-40 years at that point. I also know that Mr. tamper had some connecttions to the late Shogo Kuniba - a reknowned teacher of Motobuha Shito Ryu Karatedo. My teacher was a student of Shogo Kuniba and introduced the 2. Kuniba Sensei was very taken by Mr. Tamper and they spent much time talking and comparing arts. Kuniba was very knowledgeable of aisan martial arts in general and recognized also accepted Mr. Tamper as someone with many years of experience.

I have also seen some evidence of the existence of the Yee Chong family in the Canton area. Although there are no public records of the training that was done. There was no school open to the public. Mr. Tamper was trained in private, as a way to say thank you to the family that was so kind to a chinese family after they received such poor treatment from so many.

I do not believe that Yee Chong had any connection to Yang or Chen Taichi. From what I heard, this was taught in his family pre-Chen. My assumption was that it was either learned from a student of Chen or perhaps was even there pre-Chen.

The bottom line is that even without a known link to Chen or Yang forms, this was taught in the U.S. in the 1930's. I always felt it may be pre-Chen because there are no weapons and supposedly it was the Chen family that added the sword work.

In comparing what was passed down to Mr. Tamper in the 1930's to what was taught to other Taichi teachers I know who learned in the 1970's, there is extremely little difference. There is enough evidence to support what Mr. Tamper said about his early training and no real way for anyone to prove that there was no Yee Chong.

It's just a matter of who you believe. There some who put politics over history and will never accept the art Mr. Tamper learned as being authentic Taichi no matter what is presented. I'm sure that iff in the 1930's, Mr. Tamper could have predicted that his life wouldf be questioned on the internet in 2006 he would have asked more historical questions. But he didn't care about that and had no knowledge of the politics. So all I have is what he told his students and they have told me.

Upyu
08-07-2006, 05:44 PM
The original Taichi Chuan is based on the "13 Postures". That is comprised of "8 Gates" (Ba Men) and "5 Directions".

Jim, would you mind expanding on the 5 directions?
I swear this isn't a nitpicking question a la our favorite Justine :D
I was just expecting 6 directions, or maybe 8.

David Orange
08-07-2006, 08:20 PM
The original Taichi Chuan is based on the "13 Postures". That is comprised of "8 Gates" (Ba Men) and "5 Directions".

Hmm. I had read that the 13 Postures comprise the 8 trigrams and the 5 elements.

Respectfully,

David

JAMJTX
08-07-2006, 08:33 PM
I've also seen it written as "8 Entrances" and "5 Steps". But it's fundamentally all the same.
I guess it just comes down to who is translating/interpreting the Chinese characters.

Mike Sigman
08-07-2006, 08:35 PM
The bottom line is that even without a known link to Chen or Yang forms, this was taught in the U.S. in the 1930's. I always felt it may be pre-Chen because there are no weapons and supposedly it was the Chen family that added the sword work. If there is no known link to the Chen or Yang forms, why even mention them in the context of somehow being stepdowns from the style you are a proponent of? Why not just say that you teach a style of non-traditional Taiji that was passed on to an American in the 1930's? Your discussion of a mysterious precursor style that you teach which somehow (you didn't offer any explanations how) cures people of maladies doesn't sit well in more clinical discussions, TBH. Not that discussions bother me... what bothers me more is the possibility that your style can't really cure anything more than any other low-impact, low-aerobic exercise, yet you publicly offer it as a potential curative to people who are looking for something with an urgent need.

Regards,

Mike Sigman

Mike Sigman
08-07-2006, 08:37 PM
I've also seen it written as "8 Entrances" and "5 Steps". What are the "8 Entrances" or "8 Gates", if you don't mind me asking? What are their names?

Regards,

Mike Sigman

JAMJTX
08-07-2006, 08:53 PM
"If there is no known link to the Chen or Yang forms, why even mention them in the context of somehow being stepdowns from the style you are a proponent of? Why not just say that you teach a style of non-traditional Taiji that was Ipassed on to an American in the 1930's?"

This is the political BS I said I did not want to get involved in.
All I did was mention the name of my art. You called it non traditional.
I do not say that I teach a non -traditonal art because I teach a very traditional art. The only reason you see it as non-traditional is because of your politics.

Since you know more about taichi than I do, I guess there's no point in trying to answer questions. You already know that everyone is wrong and you are right.

Like I said before, it's time to cut off the thread since it moved from cross-training in Aikido and Taichi to taichi politics, which I refuse to get into any further.

Mike Sigman
08-07-2006, 09:14 PM
This is the political BS I said I did not want to get involved in.
All I did was mention the name of my art. You called it non traditional.
I do not say that I teach a non -traditonal art because I teach a very traditional art. The only reason you see it as non-traditional is because of your politics. Well, hold on a minute... you're the one that began making the claims:

Ba Men is not one of the "recognized styles", that is that it is not Chen, Yang, Wu and there are a few others that I can't name off the top of my head. But it should be accepted as it is pre-Yang.
The founder passed the art on to the Chen family, then eventually on to the Yang family and to the rest of the world.
The original Taichi Chuan is based on the "13 Postures". That is comprised of "8 Gates" (Ba Men) and "5 Directions". Then it was expanded as Chen combined it with thier other arts.
Ba Men is the heart of Tai Chi, it is probably as close to the original teachings as you can get. I don't know if there is any connection to Chen, but it seems to be pre-Yang.

Now you're using the word "traditional" loosely and not in the common context, as far as I can see. When you begin to claim that the style of Taiji you teach cures various maladies, of course someone has the right to question those claims. I don't see your style as "non-traditional" for the simple reason that it IS non-traditional. The so-called "traditional" styles are Chen, Yang, Wu, Hao, and Sun. Yours isn't one of those five, ergo it is non-traditional and doesn't require some accusatory comment about "politics".

I wasn't paying much attention until you claimed that this style of Taiji, which I never heard of, cures people. That happens to be a hot-button of mine. I like Taiji a lot. I respect it, its history, its skills. I think it's special. Someone loosely using the art I happen to care about is going to get some questions from me because it happens to be one of my major arts and I don't want it diluted with bogosity. It's that simple. Once you claim to "teach taiji" (or any other art, e.g. Aikido), it's YOU that opens yourself to question... people questioning your claims is an accepted thing. I don't try to drag personalities, your "posting style", your "politcis" or anything else into the discussion... I ask you direct questions about your claims or the subject you introduced. That should be fair enough in an honest discussion.

Regards,

Mike Sigman

Upyu
08-07-2006, 09:20 PM
Jim,
putting the politics aside, I was wondering if you could elaborate on the physical properties of the 5 directions? Personally I think there's a huge difference between whether it's "steps" or "directions".
The 8 gates you mentioned, would you mind elaborating on what they physically refer to?

JAMJTX
08-07-2006, 10:32 PM
Robert, I sent you PM with a link to go into some more detail to address your questions.

As far as Ba Men being traditional, again, it only called "non traditional" for no other reason than politics. I can just as easily say that since our style came about prior to the Yang style, that means Yang is not traditional.

Taking this argument out away from Taichi and apply it to Aikido - I've had Aikikai people tell me that Yoshhinkan is not true Aikido or traditional Aikido. I've had people tell me that Motobuha Shito Ryu Karatedo is not traditional Karatedo. It's all politics.

I've seen first hand the health benefits of this training. I am also quite convinced the same benefits can be derived from other Taichi styles. I have one student who could not move his arm, now he can. That's a fact. I started having students keep records of thier blood pressure, some are seeing declines. I had one student who came and said he doesn't have sciatica any more. These are facts. If you can not answer questions for your students, send them to me, I'll gladly answer them.

I don't doubt that you love taichi. So do I. Unless you are now going to say that I don't, then I guess that is just another area where you know better than I and I really don't love it. But to the best of my knowledge and understanding, I can say that I love taichi. I am also concerned about "bogus" styles, which is why I checked this out before I continued. I even took over a class that was started by a guy who read a book and started his own style.
It caused a lot of problems when I started making corrections to what they were doing. Some got mad and quit. Others started realizing that I was right.

I've seen more than enough evidence to support Ba Men as an authentic, legitmate, traditional form of taichi, pre-dating most if not all of the styles you listed. I'm not sure about the Chen, but it is surely older than Yang. And I am not going to change my mind just because some politician on the internet questions what i have been told and my supporting research.

Your main claim to Ba Men being bogus is that you never heard of it. That is not only arrogant, it's stupid. I can just as easily say that since I never heard of you, then you certainly must be bogus too. Let's see some credentials and proof that you are not bogus, then MAYBE your words will carry some weight.

Upyu
08-07-2006, 10:39 PM
Ouch...

Jim, before you commit forum suicide, I suggest you use the search function.
I'm pretty sure Mike knows what he's talking about.

Most of the foundational stuff in the Ki/Qi/Jin paradigm overlaps, and you've given no indication that you have any idea that you know what you're talking about.
To put it harshly.

Anyways, I'm with Mike in that, it's not the style that anyone's questioning, it's the knowledge you've demonstrated so far. I wouldn't doubt that blood pressure went down. Anyone and their grandmother doing 24 step incorrectly would see slight benefits. But anything else?? I'll have to stay the burden of proof is on you.

Mike Sigman
08-07-2006, 10:53 PM
I can just as easily say that since our style came about prior to the Yang style, that means Yang is not traditional. Actually, you can say just about anything you want. The history of Taiji is pretty well known though, so I doubt you could support your contention that your style came about and was senior to Chen or Yang. I'd be willing to make a reasonable wager to that effect, BTW. Do you have any facts you can relate about the founder of your style, etc.? Taking this argument out away from Taichi and apply it to Aikido - I've had Aikikai people tell me that Yoshhinkan is not true Aikido or traditional Aikido. I've had people tell me that Motobuha Shito Ryu Karatedo is not traditional Karatedo. It's all politics. Maybe so. The thesis of the thread revolves around Taiji and Aikido, so it's a legitimate point. I personally don't have any quarrel with Yoshinkan, a well-known offshoot of Ueshiba's art, being called Aikido. If someone said they did "Ba Men Aikido" and it comes from before Ueshiba's Aikido, I'd certainly be asking for more details and hope that I was given some straight answers about the exact history. Sort of like I'd love to hear who the founder of Ba Men Taijiquan is... as long as it's not someone fictitious like Wang Tsung Yueh. ;) I had one student who came and said he doesn't have sciatica any more. These are facts. If you can not answer questions for your students, send them to me, I'll gladly answer them. I don't have any students; I'm just an amateur.I'm not sure about the Chen, but it is surely older than Yang. And I am not going to change my mind just because some politician on the internet questions what i have been told and my supporting research.

Your main claim to Ba Men being bogus is that you never heard of it. That is not only arrogant, it's stupid. I can just as easily say that since I never heard of you, then you certainly must be bogus too. Let's see some credentials and proof that you are not bogus, then MAYBE your words will carry some weight.Maybe I AM bogus, who knows? But I wonder how the topic suddenly got to me personally instead of the Taiji we were discussing? It's odd how conversations do that, isn't it? However, the issue that was under discussion was not yours or my bogosity, but the assertions you've made about the history, validity, and credentials of your style... which I've never heard of. My point was that real Taiji, using bona fide qi and jin skills, would add to real Aikido which used bona fide ki and kokyu skills. At the moment we're waltzing around some unknown-to-me style of Taiji about which you've made extraordinary claims and I'm trying to find out more about that style, regardless of whether I'm a bogus sort of guy or not. ;)

Regards,

Mike Sigman

statisticool
08-07-2006, 11:01 PM
I don't try to drag personalities, your "posting style", your "politcis" or anything else into the discussion...

A search of your Usenet posts from like the mid 90's and on shows you regularly do drag personalities into it.

*grabs more popcorn*

Upyu
08-07-2006, 11:45 PM
A search of your Usenet posts from like the mid 90's and on shows you regularly do drag personalities into it.

*grabs more popcorn*

oh ...

he pooped


again :D

statisticool
08-08-2006, 04:26 AM
Calls em like I sees em.

Mike Sigman
08-08-2006, 07:41 AM
I dunno. Justin is now stalking me around various threads. Is there a reason for this?

Mike Sigman

Ron Tisdale
08-08-2006, 08:08 AM
Yes. He obviously has little to contribute, so he's doing his best impression of a gadfly. ;)

Best,
Ron

Mike Sigman
08-08-2006, 08:31 AM
Yes. He obviously has little to contribute, so he's doing his best impression of a gadfly. Oh, I think I'm beginning to see it. I just looked at his webpage and he's a cult-follower of the Cheng Man Ching persuasion, so he's flipped out at any negative reference to his gods, like Robert Smith.

Justin has a section of his webpage speculating that Cheng studied with Yang Cheng Fu for 6 years, but with nothing other than speculation for the proof backing it up. The believers have done a lot to try and prove that Cheng was legitimate, despite the fact that most mainland Yang experts never heard of him.

The real problem with the claims that Cheng was a direct student of Yang Cheng Fu is that he is not listed in the rolls of students that are still kept by the Tung family. Secondly, Fu Zhong Wen and Tung Ying Chieh, actual challenge-takers for Yang, stated in the past the Cheng was not an actual student of Yang but was a member of the general class, and then for only 8-11 months.

Regardless of whether Cheng was or was not a student of Yang Cheng Fu, he did the unthinkable by making up his own form without his teacher's permission. He himself was careful to not call it a "Yang" form, but many of his students call it the "Yang Short Form", even though there are quite obvious differences in the the postures. The major difference is spotted by many Chinese at a glance and that difference is that the Cheng Man Ching form is not "expansive".

Now this bit about being "expansive" gets into a common portion of training (yes, a Taiji form is for training the body and the movement; the applications are only secondary). The part about the "expansion" deals with the same principles that Rob John is talking about with some of Akuzawa's methods of extenison in training.

You can also find elements of this same principle in Abe Sensei and others of Ueshiba's students in the almost too-pronounced stretch they often do... the giveaway is how straight they are and you can see the head held up very much. This is the major fault most experts in China have mentioned when they first see the Cheng Man Ching form... it doesn't have the "expansion" that is a written dictate of the form. There's a reason that has to do with the development of the ki/qi as the basis for why this is so important.


Justin... don't stalk me anymore. It's embarrassing that someone with supposedly a masters degree in applied sciences is acting like a teenager. If you have something to say, take it to pm or come show up at my front door so you can show me the error of my ways. ;)

FWIW

Mike Sigman

statisticool
08-08-2006, 05:06 PM
Walter, if you're jealous of what Smith and others accomplished, I suggest you follow your own advice and take it up with them.

Maybe write a book instead of internet posts.

Re:


Justin... don't stalk me anymore.


If you believe replying to posts directed at me constitutes stalking I warmly suggest you alert your local law enforcement office so they can laugh you to your senses.

I will continue to put forth my opinion and facts on topics that interest me, on any board I like, whether that gets you or anyone else in a tizzy or not. Count on it.

Your other poisoning of the well comments are ignored.


Very warmly,

Justin

statisticool
08-08-2006, 07:30 PM
I don't expect Walter to respond to any of this, but here goes:


I just looked at his webpage and he's a cult-follower of the Cheng Man Ching persuasion, so he's flipped out at any negative reference to his gods, like Robert Smith.


Not at all. But I can understand your incentive to demonize what you dogmatically perceive as the opposition (that is, opposition = people who put questions to you or disagree with your beliefs).

I'd have hoped you wouldn't be so defensive when talking about your peng jin belief and the Teacher Test, and rather just have presented facts (for example, a video of someone doing your Teacher Test so we can discuss it without all of us having to go to a seminar- its a physical thing, should be easy enough to put it on film, and a cite of the book(s), not your recollections or recollections of others, talking about qi being a 'ground strength vector' that you claim you saw).

To sumarrize, it would be nice to see:
a) video of Teacher Test
b) cite of book where qi is translated as 'ground strength vector'


Justin has a section of his webpage speculating that Cheng studied with Yang Cheng Fu for 6 years, but with nothing other than speculation for the proof backing it up.


Well, it was meant to be for discussion, as noted, not any statement of definite fact. Just like we take your words with a grain of salt, or words by anyone on the internet, take mine with one too. But, we do understand that:

-Zheng's wife makes a statement to that length of time

-Chen Weiming, whom Zheng referred to as "classmate" encouraged Zheng to publish Zheng's works, and wrote preface for his works. Chen Weiming was, you wouldn't disagree, a direct student of Yang, and of Fu Zhong Wen.

-Zheng wrote a book with/for Yang

-Zheng reportedly cured Yang's wife

-Wile believes (at that time of personal communication, can't speak for present day) the photo be be Zheng. Note, the person appears in roughly 7 of the years

-We know, and you even admit, that Zheng has at least studied some time with Yang. I'd think a year with Yang would be worth a lot more than a much longer time with some teachers today. ;)

-many people, already martial arts experts, came to study with Zheng: Huang Hsinghsian, Ju Hongbin, Herman Kauz, Lou Kleinsmith, and many others

-the quality of generations of students, William CC Chen, for example. TT Liang. Napoli besting a Chen stylist at their own Chen Village push hands contest ;)

-Zheng was director of the Hunan Martial Arts Academy, teaching taijiquan. To do this, you actually have to know taijiquan.

-Zheng created his 37 posture form in 1938, after Yang passed away (1936)

-Zheng taught and had many students. You think that if he didn't have skill, that Yangs students would show up and drive him out of town?

-Robert Smith, martial arts historian, close friend of Donn Draeger, martial arts historian, wrote several books (Masters and Methods, T'ai Chi, Martial Musings) and many articles about Zheng in the Journal of Asian Martial Arts...never once contradicted by published counter-articles.

-http://ejmas.com/kronos/NewHist1900-1939.htm a page maintained by Joseph Svinth, martial arts historian, states that


Cheng was a physician who had practiced martial arts since the 1920s, and who began studying Yang-style tai chi chuan with Yang Cheng-fu in 1932.


-hundreds and hundreds of sites, books, and articles saying Zheng was a disciple or student of Yang

-the page http://www.longfei-taiji.co.uk/news/vol3iss3/yang.htm remarks that


Professor Li De-Yin remarked that Cheng laid the foundation for all the Taiji teachers that have followed him to the west.


-Zheng first taught the standard long form. No one learns this entire form, and then learns well enough to teach students, in 8-11 months


And to counter this massive convergence of evidence, we have someone who admits they are an amatuer and not a taijiquan but a body mechanics teacher, and a few other people, who disagree with these facts, putting their statements on the Internet. I leave it to the reader to decide what is more persuasive.

And yes, for a good discussion of the differences between typical Yang and Zheng form, read http://sataichi.com/compare.html

Note, that a Yang stylist could call Zheng style collapsed, while a Zheng stylist could equally call Yang style too extended. I'll note that either could call Chen style modified Shaolin. ;) The outside postures don't mean much as it is the principles that count. Taijiquan 101 here.

From the article


Does this mean that the Cheng style is automatically inferior to the Yang style? I would say no. The Cheng style has proved its right to distinction. The fact that its outward appearance is different does not say much by itself. Yang Chengfu's "big" style appeared different from his elder brother, Yang Shaohou.

Before that the Yang family art was practiced in a "small" style by Yang Banhou and a "medium" style by his brother, Yang Jianhou, who learned from their father, Yang Lu chan.

As everyone knows or should know by now, Yang Luchan learned the art from the Chen family and then changed the form to make it easier for others to learn.


Also check out

http://www.wuweitaichi.com/articles/Master_Koh_Ah_Tee.htm

From it:


Let me tell you in the early days no book or publication about Yang style listed or recorded Cheng Man Ching as having anything to do with the Yang family. He was not well-known although he had already devised his 37 posture form. Then in more recent years once he had already become famous, then the Yang family started claiming him as one of their own. When Yang Zhenduo came to Singapore he said that Cheng was his older brother.


Interesting!... just as interesting as your claims of the recollections of Fu Zhong Wen and Tung Ying Chieh, but they are just that, recollections. While interesting, we ultimately have to go on facts.


The real problem with the claims that Cheng was a direct student of Yang Cheng Fu is that he is not listed in the rolls of students that are still kept by the Tung family


Can you show us these rolls? Or are you going on recollections? If you can produce them, the martial arts world would enjoy looking at them. What if we could find someone else that is recognized as good but not listed in the rolls? What would that prove?


Sincerely,

Justin

Upyu
08-08-2006, 08:08 PM
Dude,

If you had ANY inkling of what you were talking about, you'd be able to discuss the body mechanics we've been talking about.
In your own words.
Like I just recently did when I posted the thread about "Training the Body for Martial Movement".

Let's see something substantial from you, and maybe just maybe your words won't sound like you're
p
o
o ping

them out :rolleyes:

statisticool
08-08-2006, 08:16 PM
If you had ANY inkling of what you were talking about, you'd be able to discuss the body mechanics we've been talking about.
In your own words.


Your "if" statement is not valid.

One doesn't have to present anything in their own words about body mechanics if they're not making any claims about body mechanics, peng jing, Teacher Test, not making any claims about being a teacher on body mechanics. This is logic 101.

Mike Sigman
08-09-2006, 11:30 AM
To sumarrize, it would be nice to see:
a) video of Teacher Test
You obviously don't want to see it badly enough to come visit and ask personally, do you? Besides, what has this got to do with the current thread? And basically, as far as anyone can tell, you're some guy with zero Aikido experience, not much Taiji experience, and you're demanding that someone show you something. Not to mention, your posts are simply insulting. What is the BS of the snide "Walter" stuff, when you know full well how I'm addressed? More childish stuff, right? b) cite of book where qi is translated as 'ground strength vector' Pardon me, but I haven't seen any claim by anyone that there is a book using that term. Nowhere. Go look at my posts from the beginning of last year and you'll find where I have commented that the term is my own. So far, you've shown you don't even have enough understanding and background to realize that "peng jin" is a *basic* term, used in Chen Xin's book, Fu Zhong Wen's book, Yang Cheng Fu's book, and you are obviously totally unable to rationalize why Stephen Goodson and Robert Smith don't know what they are. You need to quit while you're behind. As it is, it's pretty obvious you've been only feeling and searching for ways to attack personally, for weeks. A typical Keyboard Kommando.
-Zheng's wife makes a statement to that length of time Really? And her support is????? Where are the scrolls showing the Bai Shr between CMC and Yang? -Chen Weiming, whom Zheng referred to as "classmate" encouraged Zheng to publish Zheng's works, and wrote preface for his works. Chen Weiming was, you wouldn't disagree, a direct student of Yang, and of Fu Zhong Wen. Chen wrote a book and, typically, was very glowing of CMC.... but Fu Zheng Wen was one of the people that laughed at the claims that Cheng was a student of Yang. Weird that the claims by some western cult-followers aren't backed up by the diplomas, isn't it? That's why diplomas are considered so important in the martial arts world, Justin. But you may not understand that.-Zheng wrote a book with/for Yang Yes, he did, in conjunction with Chen Wei Ming. But that doesn't prove that he was a student of Yang's, either. Although it's a point. However, Cheng may have just been someone currying favor. We don't know that it proves anything one way or the other.-Zheng reportedly cured Yang's wife And reportedly he didn't. I've heard several versions of this from the Chinese I've run across. The point is that he gave her some acupuncture treatment. Again, it tells us nothing.
-Wile believes (at that time of personal communication, can't speak for present day) the photo be be Zheng. Note, the person appears in roughly 7 of the years So? Wile and I have talked about this. No one is sure if a blurry photo is Cheng, in a group picture, or someone else. Wile has also said that Cheng's general travels are well documented and that Yang's general travel schedule is documented. They were not in the same places at the same time enough for Cheng to have studied for any length of time.-We know, and you even admit, that Zheng has at least studied some time with Yang. I'd think a year with Yang would be worth a lot more than a much longer time with some teachers today. ;) Who knows? I doubt it, though. Remember that Tung Ying Jieh, the man who was one of Yang's top students for 17 years and who accepted numerous challenges for Yang (remember... Yang Cheng Fu was not much of a fighter and was laughed at by many people; he dodged many challenges), finally left Yang after 17 years partially because Yang would never show him the deeper stuff. Tung was not family. Why would some wannabe, Cheng, be shown anything special, do you think???? -many people, already martial arts experts, came to study with Zheng: Huang Hsinghsian, Ju Hongbin, Herman Kauz, Lou Kleinsmith, and many othersHuang (who by the way, beat Hong Yi Xian in a fight when they were in their 20's) was a White Crane fighter. The dough is in Taiji. Huang taught "Taiji" for years in Malaysia after he left Cheng, but his power was by all reports from his White Crane. And so on. I have met some of your other "experts" and I'd call them more enthusiasts... you and I probably have a different standard for "expert". An expert, would be someone like Tu Xin Wu who put Cheng in the hospital for 3 months. Bear in mind that Cheng was known as a painter on Taiwan, the teacher of Madame Chiang Kai Shek... other truly skilled martial artists were not allowed to challeng Cheng, even though they would have loved to. -the quality of generations of students, William CC Chen, for example. TT Liang. Napoli besting a Chen stylist at their own Chen Village push hands contest ;) You really are over your head and just parrotting stuff. Why don't you do some research. Napoli entered the festival-tournament that the Chinese governement requires Chen Village to loosen the rules in.... so no big name Chen stylist will enter it. When Chen Village tried to change the rules to real Taiji, Chinese Wu and Yang stylists complained to the government. It's considered a low-level brawl that brings in tourism dollars. Grow up.
[[snip... I'm getting tired of this.... you're simply trying to make unrelated points]]. Where are the documents? Go see Tung Kai Ying in Los Angeles and ask to see the rolls and ask if Cheng was really a student of Yang Cheng Fu. Notice that when it comes to this hard fact, the CMC cultists don't really want to make the extra effort. Show me the facts. -Robert Smith, martial arts historian, close friend of Donn Draeger, (snip) Donn Draeger studied some with Wang Xu Jin and had a feel for what real Chinese martial arts bad guys were... he thought Smith was looney about Cheng and Draeger never thought Cheng was all that good. Smith had a snit about it, and you can see more details of this story in his last book on "Martial Musings".

That's it.... it's obvious from what you're posting that you personally don't know anything about Taiji and that you simply parrot the standard BS that I've seen over and over again. Show me the diplomas... no Chinese would get rid of them... show me the rolls. If Cheng was a student of Yang Cheng Fu it would be documented. Period. Show the documentation, not the hand-waving, guesses, blurry photo's, woulda-coulda-shoulda.

Most of all, show something, anything, to show that you have any knowledge at all of the basics of jin, etc., as it applies to Taiji and Aikido. I have no intention of getting into some silly "could be" Taiji discussion with some nut that follows me around from thread to thread on an Aikido forum, making negative insinuations.

Mike Sigman

statisticool
08-09-2006, 07:57 PM
You obviously don't want to see it badly enough to come visit and ask personally, do you?


You obviosuly don't know if I have or haven't met with people claiming peng jin is the basis of some martial arts.


Not to mention, your posts are simply insulting.


Going by your own posting history, you should be in familiar territory.


Pardon me, but I haven't seen any claim by anyone that there is a book using that term. Nowhere.


From

http://www.iay.org.uk/internal-strength/related/interview.htm


I remember reading a book about Qi when I was about 18-20 and taking Okinawan Karate: the book had several sections about this kind of Qi and that kind of Qi: under the heading of "Martial Arts and Qi" I remember it started off saying that "in the Martial Arts, Qi is best translated as ground strength".


What book was this?


So far, you've shown you don't even have enough understanding and background to realize that "peng jin" is a *basic* term, used in Chen Xin's book, Fu Zhong Wen's book, Yang Cheng Fu's book, and you are obviously totally unable to rationalize why Stephen Goodson and Robert Smith don't know what they are.


Again, if you have beef with Goodson or Smith, feel free to write an article that totally demolishes their points and publish it.

As peng jin being a term, sure, I don't doubt that. As far as claims of it being the basis for certain martial arts, that is the claim that one is right to be skeptical about.

For example, from

http://www.itcca.it/peterlim/pjcf.htm


We note that in Gu's last book in 1985 'Taijiquan shu', he no longer equates Peng Jing with Internal strength nor does he repeat that statement. In fact, Peng Jing in that book is no longer stressed as being pre-eminant.


and


If you look carefully at the article, the author says that that last line is inaccurate. To read it out of context like this would be tantamount to an attempt at misinformation. The whole article which speaks against regarding Peng Jing as the core jing or pre-eminant jing can be found on this website. This would recommend that we examine the context in the information contained in the Peng Jing FAQ and whether they have been taken in context and in the original meaning of the sources.


and


If there was only Peng Jing then wouldn't it be clearly stated in the Classics and the works of early noted masters? This emphasis is a late phenomena not in line with the earlier material from all schools of Taijiquan.


and etc.

Re:


Where are the scrolls showing the Bai Shr between CMC and Yang?


You made the claims about the scrolls, so why don't you present your evidence for your claim?


Chen wrote a book and, typically, was very glowing of CMC....


I wonder why though, since Chen was a disciple of Yang and all. If Zheng did lie about being a student of Yang, one would think a disciple of Yang (all those 'challenge takers' you talk about) would correct him, teach him a lesson. Instead, he praised his work.

One would think ANY Yang practicioner, as soon as Zheng said or wrote that he was a student of Yang, would have corrected Zheng or taught him a lesson, until he retracted. That didn't happen though.


but Fu Zheng Wen was one of the people that laughed at the claims that Cheng was a student of Yang.


Where did Fu Zhong Wen laugh, as you claim?


Weird that the claims by some western cult-followers aren't backed up by the diplomas, isn't it?


I'm starting to think that "cult followers" must mean "the majority", which includes respectable and accurate martial arts historians, to you.

Chen Weiming's praising Zheng's work doesn't need a diploma to back it up, and neither is one needed for many reliable martial arts historians to state that Zheng was a student of Yang.


Yes, he did, in conjunction with Chen Wei Ming. But that doesn't prove that he was a student of Yang's, either.


It is quite good evidence because if Zheng wasn't a student of Yang, but claimed he was, you think a disciple of Yang would teach him a lesson (or one of the 'challenge takers' you go on about)? Chen didn't, but did praise his work.


However, Cheng may have just been someone currying favor.


Now you're making disparaging remarks about Chen Weiming!

hehe.


The point is that he gave her some acupuncture treatment.


It seems no member of the Yang family has corrected the statements made by Zheng, his wife, his students, and many historians. I wonder why?


No one is sure if a blurry photo is Cheng, in a group picture, or someone else.


Yes, I agree.

As mentioned to you already, the pictures were offered as discussion, not definite proof.


... you and I probably have a different standard for "expert".


Of that I am certain.


An expert, would be someone like Tu Xin Wu who put Cheng in the hospital for 3 months.


Please show evidence for this claim.


... other truly skilled martial artists were not allowed to challeng Cheng,


Please show evidence for this claim.


..the Chinese governement requires Chen Village to loosen the rules in....


Please show evidence for this claim.


Go see Tung Kai Ying in Los Angeles and ask to see the rolls and ask if Cheng was really a student of Yang Cheng Fu.


You made the claim about the rolls, so why don't you provide the evidence for your claim.


Donn Draeger studied some with Wang Xu Jin and had a feel for what real Chinese martial arts bad guys were... he thought Smith was looney about Cheng and Draeger never thought Cheng was all that good. Smith had a snit about it, and you can see more details of this story in his last book on "Martial Musings".


Being skeptical is natural, but one would think Draeger, a martial artist and historian with a knack for accuracy, would have corrected Smith in print, but that didn't happen.


Most of all, show something, anything, to show that you have any knowledge at all of the basics of jin, etc., as it applies to Taiji and Aikido.


If I made claims stating that I do have knowledge about those things, you would be accurate in asking me to show you something. There's no need for me to respond to claims I haven't made.


The current list:

1) where is a video of the Teacher Test

2) what is the book where qi is best translated as ground strength

3) where did Fu Zhong Wen laugh re: Zheng

4) evidence for Tu Xin Wu putting Cheng in the hospital for 3 months

5) evidence other truly skilled martial artists were not allowed to challenge Cheng (although, this seems to contradict d) above)

6) evidence the Chinese governement requires Chen Village to loosen the rules in the push hands tournament

7) evidence the Tung scrolls exist, that they are meaningful to determine if someone was a student or not, and that they don't show Zheng


Regards,

Justin

Upyu
08-09-2006, 08:46 PM
GONG SAU!
Rofl

Now that would be entertainment.
<sits back grabs popcorn>

shodan 83
08-09-2006, 09:10 PM
I'm looking into the work of Sugawara Sensei.

I do "real Aikido", Yohsinkan, with Kokyu and my Taichi (Ba Men) is more than just forms.

What I like more than anything is how I feel after Taichi practice. Aikido leaves my knees swollen and aching, but I like the training. After Taichi I always feel really good - no joint pains. So Taichi a couple days a week gets me beneficial training that helps my Aikido with less trauma to the joints and saves wear and tear on my knees.

It's a great combination.

Thanks for al lyour valued input.

Jim can you define "real aikido" for the group?

shodan 83
08-09-2006, 09:40 PM
Jim can you define "real aikido" for the group?

Please ignore this, I stepped into a three page thread where I saw only one, too many Coronas.

Mike Sigman
08-09-2006, 10:56 PM
You made the claims about the scrolls, so why don't you present your evidence for your claim?
[[snip]]
Chen Weiming's praising Zheng's work doesn't need a diploma to back it up, and neither is one needed for many reliable martial arts historians to state that Zheng was a student of Yang. (except you don't know Chinese culture in this respect)
[[snip]]
You made the claim about the rolls, so why don't you provide the evidence for your claim. Last time. Let's get it straight... *I'm* not making claims about Cheng.... *you* are. Prove them. All you have is speculation. Any knowledgeable Chinese is going to say that same thing... "where is the proof?". You're speculating that Cheng was a student of Yang's. It's nowhere in any records. Two of Yang's students have publicly stated he was not. The ball is in your court; not mine.

You have done nothing but argue, using no proof, only speculation. You just jumped in and shot a thread to hell, despite a number of people warning you off. Either come up with the records or admit you don't have them (seeing your ethics so far, I doubt this means much to you).

Mike Sigman

Mike Sigman
08-09-2006, 11:05 PM
You obviosuly don't know if I have or haven't met with people claiming peng jin is the basis of some martial arts.

http://www.neijia.com/PengJingSources.doc

Mike Sigman

Mike Sigman
08-10-2006, 07:37 AM
To drag this thread back toward the topic of Taiji and Aikido, those sources are a few we compiled back in the days of the old Neijia List. There are others that have been published in a number of magazines, etc., since then, but the point is that "Peng Jing" is being used in the same sense and for the same physical skill as "Kokyu" in Aikido.

In the same way that many people in Aikido don't have any kokyu skills and who think that "kokyu" solely means "breath" or "timing", there are many Taiji people who think "peng" just means "wardoff". A glance at a number of translated-by-westerners-who-think-they're-experts of some famous Taiji books will show that "Peng Jing" is still often translated as "Wardoff Energy". Immediately upon reading someone indicating that they don't know even this basic factor, "peng jing", we know that they don't even know the basic movement principles of the so-called "internal" skills.

As was seen in some of the quotations, no peng jin; no Taiji. It's the same comment, for all practical purposes by Ushiro Sensei: "no kokyu; no Aikido". The same is going to be true of a number of other martial arts, all of them Asian.

FWIW

Mike Sigman

statisticool
08-10-2006, 04:20 PM
http://www.neijia.com/PengJingSources.doc


The page I linked to

http://www.itcca.it/peterlim/pjcf.htm

is critical commentary about some of those comments from your link above.


Justin

statisticool
08-10-2006, 04:23 PM
A glance at a number of translated-by-westerners-who-think-they're-experts of some famous Taiji books will show that "Peng Jing" is still often translated as "Wardoff Energy".


Translation doesn't mean that much. For example, many people translated taijiquan as "supreme ultimate". But that doesn't mean they didn't know what taijiquan was.


As was seen in some of the quotations, no peng jin; no Taiji. It's the same comment, for all practical purposes by Ushiro Sensei: "no kokyu; no Aikido". The same is going to be true of a number of other martial arts, all of them Asian.


And we've also seen critiques of those comments.


Justin

statisticool
08-10-2006, 04:28 PM
*I'm* not making claims about Cheng.... *you* are. Prove them.


I stated facts, yes.

But you did make claims. Here they are:

1) a martial arts book states that qi is best translated as ground strength
2) Fu Zhong Wen laughed re: Zheng
3) Tu Xin Wu put Cheng in the hospital for 3 months
4) truly skilled martial artists were not allowed to challenge Cheng
5) the Chinese governement requires Chen Village to loosen the rules in the push hands tournament
6) the Tung scrolls exist, and they don't show Zheng


You're speculating that Cheng was a student of Yang's. It's nowhere in any records. Two of Yang's students have publicly stated he was not.


There appears to be convergence of evidence, many sources, including martial arts historians, saying Zheng studied with Yang, and at least one disciple of Yang praising Zheng.

The only counter-arguments you seem to have are verbal statements that you apparently don't have any permanent record of, and rolls you claim exist and are meaningful but can't produce.


Justin

Upyu
08-10-2006, 04:53 PM
/yawn

I'm itching for GonG SaU

(popcorns gettin cold)

Mike Sigman
08-10-2006, 06:09 PM
Three things are apparent, Justin:

1. You just totally glossed over a variety of checkable sources on "peng jin", the term for the basic jin that is also the essence of the kokyu force in Aikido. You have shown completely that you don't know what it is. It's not high level... it's the BASIS of Taijiquan, Aikido, Karate (like Ushiro's), etc. Therefore you don't know even the basics of Taiji, so you shouldn't be trying promote a conversation where you're reduced to saying "prove it", "source" and all the other childish BS that would get you bannished from any serious discussion list.

2. I say it again... YOU are the one making the claim that Cheng studied with Yang Cheng Fu. You need to come up with the traditionally accepted proof, not a bunch of woulda, coulda, shoulda. Notice, for instance, how Yang Zhen Duo and the Yang family today is very careful how they word their remarks about Cheng Man Ching... it was a surprise to them when China opened up that some westerners thought CMC had been some big Yang student. You offer at best some circumstantial items in which you obviously leave out any circumstantial evidence against your position. In other words, you're essentially dishonest in your presentation, whether someone wants to attribute that to your cult fervor or not.

Don't be a sap and tell me it's my job to prove a negative.... either you can show the official documents and rolls or you can't.

3. Your statements are that you have gone back reading websites about me, old conversations on the Usenet Newsgroups, etc., etc. You're tracking me around in threads on this forum just to interject silly negative comments. I.e., you appear to be exactly the kind of nutty cult-follower that the Cheng Man Ching group is known to foster, without any doubt. What is your beef with me? You want to "get" me, in some bizarre sort of way by this bizarre behavior?

Instead of trying to attack me personally anymore, why not post a little more about yourself and your qualifications to even be in this conversation. It's on record now that you didn't know even the basis of Taiji, peng jing, so other than "belief", what are your credentials for being in any of these conversations? Where do you live? Who's your teacher? You want to start calling me "Walter" and other silliness, put out your own personal stuff to keep it even.

And yes, I'm fully aware that I'm helping extend the conversation a little bit, but I don't think it hurts for people to see what a real "Cheng Man Ching'er" is like. Just like I don't think it's a bad idea for people to see another nutcase like Goodson, continue to publicly state that there is no such thing as "peng jing".... thereby helping destroy his teacher's (Robert W. Smith) reputation. Insanity is interesting to watch.

Regards,

Mike Sigman

Mike Sigman
08-10-2006, 06:23 PM
The page I linked to

http://www.itcca.it/peterlim/pjcf.htm

is critical commentary about some of those comments from your link above.As Douglas Wile noted about Peter Lim, he deliberately tells his version of Taiji and leaves out all facts that counter his own preferred version. He's not just an amateur historian; he's a deliberate liar. Look at his comments on Wang Tsung Yueh being in Chen Xin's book.... Lim knows full well that the chapter referring to Wang Tsung Yueh was added *after* Chen Xin's death by a man in Zhaobao Village who "bought the rights" to the book; the Chen family of Xin was too poor to even bury Chen Xin.

It's this deliberate twisting of the truth that puts me off of Peter Lim. One of the reasons he got bounced from the Neijia List was that even though he was forced to admit that he was printing errors, he would still print them in places like his bogus-history "website".

I.e., he's a deliberate fraud in some parts of his "history", thereby making the whole website of any questionable usage, even though I think there are some good things in it. Too bad he fouls his own nest.

On another level, look at Lim's claims for his own studies. They far embellish the amount of Taiji and the length of time he studied. Ask Nigel Sutton about Peter Lim's taiji, sometime. They've met.

Once again..... you simply don't know what you're talking about. Time and again. You hear what you want to hear and, dishonestly, you print only the things that support your point of view instead of being willing to have an honest discussion.

Mike Sigman

statisticool
08-12-2006, 06:55 AM
... it's the BASIS of Taijiquan, Aikido, Karate (like Ushiro's), etc.


That is your repeated claim, yes. It is somewhat odd that the BASIS of taijiquan would be left out of the taijiquan classics.


I say it again... YOU are the one making the claim that Cheng studied with Yang Cheng Fu..


My only "claim" is simply reporting that others, MANY others, have said that Zheng is a disciple of Yang, that there is plenty of convergence of evidence to this fact.

Your claims, on the other hand, are things that you directly stated, with no backup whatsoever:

1) Fu Zhong Wen laughed re: Zheng
2) truly skilled martial artists were not allowed to challenge Cheng
3) the Tung scrolls exist, and they don't show Zheng


Your statements are that you have gone back reading websites about me, old conversations on the Usenet Newsgroups, etc., etc. You're tracking me around in threads on this forum just to interject silly negative comments.
[/quiote]

Walter, you are posting on the internet. Expect your comments to be read. If you have a problem with that, simply don't reply. Since you have replied, you obviously have no problem with it.

[quote]
Just like I don't think it's a bad idea for people to see another nutcase like Goodson, continue to publicly state that there is no such thing as "peng jing".... thereby helping destroy his teacher's (Robert W. Smith) reputation. Insanity is interesting to watch.


And again, for the 3rd time, if you have beef with Smith or Goodson, feel free to publish an article totally demolishing their ideas on taijiquan.


Justin

statisticool
08-12-2006, 07:11 AM
Once again..... you simply don't know what you're talking about. Time and again. You hear what you want to hear and, dishonestly, you print only the things that support your point of view instead of being willing to have an honest discussion.


Not at all. I simply pointed out that some examples of your cites of peng jin being the basis are not at all undisputed. Not to mention, your attempted demonizing of people who have a different take (and many, many people do have a different take).

For example http://www.itcca.it/peterlim/lunjing.htm


Saying "Taiji is peng jing, movement goes in spirals", is even less accurate. How can Taijiquan be totally explained by peng jing! If we say that Taijiquan is sinking jing (chen jing), that is also a way to get a taste of it; if we way it is sticky jing (nien jing), we see that it is not necessary wrong either.


and


The myrid other jings, all are just different uses of sticking jing.

And http://www.itcca.it/peterlim/neijing.htm


There is a current movement that uses the term Peng to denote Jing and who regard Peng Jing as the core Jing in internal martial arts. This emphasis on Peng Jing did not come into being until the 1963 work by Gu Liu Xin and Shen Jia Ren on Chen style Taijiquan. This emphasis is absent from all works on Taijiquan and internal martial arts prior to that and so it is a new innovation and not a traditional one.



Justin

Gernot Hassenpflug
08-12-2006, 08:00 AM
Mike, this is a very educational discussion for me, its a diatribe that's devolved into a useful discussion :) for people like me who wouldn't be able to tell whether a resource was good or poor, in the absence of better-informed people to help us out. Hence, and I hope I am not presuming too much when I include most aikido people in this group, for ignoramuses as far as CMA goes (having just escaped from total ignorance in JMA!) this is precious gold. After all, even if all we end up knowing is that some people's materials are severely flawed, that is good information. I hope more people will follow your lead in examining critically what's out there linking Asian arts - a bit of talent and hard work does help, but interest is the starter - and this is as good a forum as any to light a few bonfires (of interest, not flames).

Mike Sigman
08-12-2006, 09:13 AM
That is your repeated claim, yes. It is somewhat odd that the BASIS of taijiquan would be left out of the taijiquan classics. It's not left out of the so-called "classics" (remember that the "Taijiquan Classics" are essentially the invention/compilation of some Yang-stylists and do not reflect to full compendium of "old sayings", while at the same time inventing a few new sayings that were never part of the original Taiji literature). "Peng jin" is the "jin that originates in the ground/feet, is controlled by the waist, and is released in the hands". This is the basis of Taiji. It is stated in the so-called "classics" and, now that you think about it, you realize it's true, right? In other words, you missed the obvious and you should be wondering if you even have the right to be asking questions.

The "ground" question is really not something anyone other than a neophyte is going to ask, because it's all over the place. Look at the comments Smith *reports* by Lin Kuo-Chung in the "Masters and Methods" book, for instance. Because he *reportedly* says that the qi comes through the sole of the foot to the navel, do you miss that he's talking about the same thing? A beginner might, but anyone with experience just shrugs because it's simply another of the many ways that the same thing is said.My only "claim" is simply reporting that others, MANY others, have said that Zheng is a disciple of Yang, that there is plenty of convergence of evidence to this fact. Give me the names of one of those "many others" *after* you substract the names of Cheng Man Ching practitioners, his wife, or anyone that potentially owed him a favor. Doesn't leave you with much, does it? Your problem is that you're too arrogant to simply say "some people, mainly Cheng Man Ching practitioners" think that he was a disciple of Yang Cheng Fu, but there is no definitive proof". You could have said that and no one would bother to argue the point. And you simply don't won't to say out loud that there is no concrete proof he was a disciple. You've ignored the fact that he and Yang weren't in the same places at the same time, etc., that there are no class roles that show him, no disciple papers (this is what kills your whole argument... those papers would have been so important that Cheng would have shown them to everyone). Worst of all, Cheng himself *never* claimed to be a disciple of Yang's... he would only say he was "taught" by Yang Cheng Fu. Drop the conversation and quit telling me what your fellow believers think.Your claims, on the other hand, are things that you directly stated, with no backup whatsoever:

1) Fu Zhong Wen laughed re: Zheng
2) truly skilled martial artists were not allowed to challenge Cheng
3) the Tung scrolls exist, and they don't show Zheng
All these things have been reported in other places, Justin. No one takes the CMC cult's claims seriously. The Tung family laughs... you can visit the grandson, Tung Kai Ying, in L.A. He either has the rolls with him or he can get them from Hawaii. Quit with this monomaniacal insistence... go get some proof. Doug Wile has said quite simply "there is no proof". You, who know nothing about Taiji, insist on something with nothing backing it but belief.
Walter, you are posting on the internet. Expect your comments to be read. And you're simply using a keyboard to insult someone who has a reputation for showing up in person. Don't put anything in writing you wouldn't say to someone's face.


Mike Sigman

Mike Sigman
08-12-2006, 09:22 AM
For example http://www.itcca.it/peterlim/lunjing.htmJustin, don't use Peter Lim's personal "guesses" as any basis for argument. He was highly embarrassed by what he didn't know, while he was on the Neijia list. He denied there was such a thing as peng jin. Then when he was hit with a list of very prominent experts saying there was and that it was the entire basis of Taiji, he was doubly embarrassed. He was laughed off the list. At best he can write things to impress beginning westerners... and those are the people who use him for a source. No serious martial artist I know of is not familiar with Peter Lim's made personal responses to any and everything. He is a non-stop talker, going on for pages. His belief system is of the southern Chinese variety the tries to claim that the Yang style, etc., is separate from the Chen style and that there was a Wang Tsung Yueh. There are numerous holes in the story he presents (as I said, he will not mention anything against his theories). But all of his baloney is laid to waste by the simple fact that the Yang family members have now publicly come out and said that the Yang style is derived from the Chen styly. End of story. Peter Lim is a liar who has been exposed. Anyone who believes what he writes is an ignorant beginner.

I hope that after all these bogus claims and insults that you're going to assure me that you have some martial skills and are not a complete beginner, Justin.

Mike Sigman

Mike Sigman
08-12-2006, 09:56 AM
Mike, this is a very educational discussion for me, its a diatribe that's devolved into a useful discussion :) for people like me who wouldn't be able to tell whether a resource was good or poor, in the absence of better-informed people to help us out. Hence, and I hope I am not presuming too much when I include most aikido people in this group, for ignoramuses as far as CMA goes (having just escaped from total ignorance in JMA!) this is precious gold. After all, even if all we end up knowing is that some people's materials are severely flawed, that is good information. I hope more people will follow your lead in examining critically what's out there linking Asian arts - a bit of talent and hard work does help, but interest is the starter - and this is as good a forum as any to light a few bonfires (of interest, not flames).Well, the heart of the argument is really a common problem.... there are a LOT of people out there in the martial arts world who claim to "have the goods" and who will provide it for the beginners (usually at a cost, but often just to make themselves into a status figure). In the case of Peter Lim, a number of us wrote him off years ago... he's bogus. Basically he's a Taiji/m.a. enthusiast who happens to be a Singaporean Chinese. He can read and write the Chinese literature and that tends to buffalo a lot of westerners. His problem is that he tried to slip a lot of bogus stuff in on the old Neijia List and suddenly a bunch of native Chinese jumped on him and showed where he was lying. Without the other Chinese doing that, imagine what would happen on any typical western martial-arts forum. All the beginners will believe what someone like that says. Justin Smith is one of those beginners.

In terms of Cheng Man Ching, I think he had some skills, but I think Robert Smith sort of put Cheng into a tricky position in the West because he over-glorified Cheng. Cheng was famous as a painter, not as a martial artist. And yes, he did have the gumption to go challenge some "name" fighters when he was younger, but he got beat. I know Tu Xin Wu hurt him badly. Dan Miller, the ex-publisher of the Pa Kua Journal, saw another newspaper clipping of some other fight where Cheng had challenged and lost. There were others.

Personally, I don't have a beef with Cheng Man Ching. I think his Taiji was OK, although I don't think it was top-level by any means (neither do most Chinese, so I'm not going out on a limb or giving a personal opinion that will get me in Dutch with any real experts). I have a beef with the New-York attitude that so many of his western students developed. There's a certain nastiness in approach, as can be seen by Justin's posts. Or on the website of Stephen Goodson (what normal person would keep a vendetta going that long? Only a nutcase).

But overall, I consider the Cheng Man Ching people simply to be one of a number of factions in the Taiji world, just as there are a number of factions in the Aikido world. I don't spend any time thinking about the Cheng people... I simply suggest that they go tell it to the Chinese and not so much to each other. There are realistic martial artists in Aikido (and some pretty good guys, at that) and there are some New Age factions equivalent to the CMC Taiji'ers who make it up as they go.

Even as more knowledge gets out there, there tends to be a continued separation between the people seeking substantive information and the "legend believers". The people who are looking for the real roots of Aikido or Taiji will go one way. The wannabelieves of Aikido, Taiji, or any other art will always stick by their beliefs, regardless of what they can really show.

One commonality I notice between Taiji and Aikido is worth mentioning. Many Taiji people noticed that they couldn't even do well in simple push-hands competition (they really thought that who "won" was the point... "jin" actually had nothing to do with it, as far as they knew). So they started taking whoever could kick their butt (lots of big guy, judo guys, etc.) and proclaiming that what these guys did was Cheng's Taiji in "push hands". That's how dumb it got (still is, but I don't follow those groups any more).

The same thing has a tendency to happen sometimes in Aikido. Aikido that "doesn't work in a fight" for many people (maybe they just don't really do Aikido very well?????) is making some people turn to Systema, MMA, karate, etc.

In the case of Taiji, few of the already-established teachers and students can accept the idea that they don't really already know 99% of Taiji. In the case of Aikido, karate, ju-jitsu, etc., the same thing is true... no one can even fathom the idea that jin/kokyu might be something very basic, very big, and very important that they don't know. So maybe they start reaching for "what is missing" in some other art, when the real answer is that they need some basic change in their core practice. I personally think that Aikido could be a very adequate martial art when done by someone with heavy-duty skills in ki/kokyu power skills.

Maybe the trick is to accept that there's more out there and go look for it. Not just sitting around defending the legends/religion/cult beliefs. And being nasty to anyone who doesn't buy into your version of things. ;)

Regards,

Mike

Ellis Amdur
08-12-2006, 03:53 PM
Came on this thread today - and there is little I'm qualified to write about. Except this.
[QUOTE]Being skeptical is natural, but one would think Draeger, a martial artist and historian with a knack for accuracy, would have corrected Smith in print, but that didn't happen[QUOTE]

Donn was also respectful of his friends. a) Mr. Smith's devotion to CMC was not central to the history of Chinese martial arts, and the only reason to disagree in print would be to argue publicly with a friend. b) Donn did not start writing about Chinese martial arts until the latter years of his life, leaving that to Smith, but when he formally established a working relationship with certain martial artists in southeast Asia, and saw them as possessing information not yet available to the West AND willing to provide it, then and only then he began writing. Earlier, he studied several years with Wang Shu Chin (and they had a tremendous mutual respect - I heard this not only from Donn but from Wang) - but he did not go deeply into his work. Wang would have taught him, I believe, but Donn would have had to commit fully to THAT study, walking away from his other pursuits.

Now, as to t'ai chi. Donn was very kind to me and, in fact, gave me my introduction to Wang in 1976. On that day, he and I spent an afternoon talking about internal martial arts. At that time, he had high respect for xingyi and bagua, but little for t'ai chi, having not seen anything he respected as a fighting discipline. I asked about CMC, and he ruefully mentioned to me that he and Smith had some distance between them because of his skepticism about CMC. He told me that Smith had invited him to challenge CMC, but "Ellis, what am I supposed to do. He's a little old man. I don't want to hurt him. I'm not going to fake it to make him feel good, so I'd rather not get into it." He stated that the research he was able to do was not able to establish claims Cheng made, adding that he'd done this out of curiosity, that he had no goal to publicly debunk a teacher his friend was devoted to, but he wouldn't go along, on a personal level, with Smith insisting CMC was the consumate best and Donn couldn't see it.
He stated then that Smith then proposed that he challenge CMC's top student, "Huang, this guy in Malaysia, who also did white crane boxing. So I took Robert up on it the last time I was in Malaysia."
"What happened?" I asked.
"Well, he had a really good push. I must have flown ten feet. Except I had ahold of his shirt, and took him over in a tomoenage and choked him out."

However, in Malaysia, Donn did meet some t'ai chi practitioners for whom he had the greatest respect, and this, he told me, changed his whole attitude towards the potential benefits of studying t'ai chi. One, Lee Bian Lei, nicknamed the "Butcher," (his profession) got in a "sparring match" with Donn in the former's room, and like a John Wayne movie, it ended up with a sink being ripped out of the wall and thrown at the other, chairs demolished, and finally vows of eternal friendship. One of his students has recently informed me that Lee speaks with the highest respect and affection for Draeger and nostalgically recalls their "games" together.
Donn also mentioned a group of what he believed were Chen t'ai chi practitioners, with a cadre of young men, all well over 200 pounds, who were doing push hands interspersed with round house kicks, all the while maintaining form and connection.

Sigh, story telling once again.

Anyway, I can absolutely attest to the following. Donn stated that CMC was highly respected as an artist (painting, calligraphy, medicine, etc) and that he had such devotion to t'ai chi only added to his merit. However, as a fighter, Donn considered him not to be of top level.
I have written of this elsewhere, but I found Smith's writing about Donn in Martial Musings, in which he describes Donn as unable to see the excellence before him, unable to comprehend the "soft," to be a shabby "getting the last word in" because Donn was already in the ground, and unable to reply.

Best

Mike Sigman
08-12-2006, 05:07 PM
Interesting anecdotes, Ellis. Functionally, when all the Smith stories about Cheng are put to the side, Cheng did provide a few interesting nuggets about jin and qi, so an Aikidoist looking for clues about how the kokyu power and ki work could probably use those nuggets.

Off the top of my head, the comments Cheng made in his book "Thirteen Chapers" (or "Thirteen Treastises") about jin are very good. He describes how jin/kokyu power actually has a lot to do with levers/pulleys and, in my opinion, is a very good insight indeed. He also describes briefly the traditional view of how qi/ki is related to fascia/connective-tissue, although that part doesn't tell you much. Like so many books on these topics, the idea is more to say "I know the secrets" rather than "here is how you do the secrets".

There are a few other nuggets scattered through the Cheng-related material, but to me the Cheng stuff is just one area containing scattered flakes of gold among many other sources. So really there's not enough there to spend a lot of time with the Cheng information over a number of other sources.

Personally, I think Cheng had some skills, but they were overblown by Smith and are way overblown by his adherents. T.T.Liang was tossed out of the group for daring to say at a party that Cheng had a sizeable ego, but William C.C. Chen and Ben Lo have, at various times, obliquely referred to the same thing. I.e., overall Cheng appears to be quite human, neither to be worshipped nor to be denigrated.

FWIW

Mike Sigman

statisticool
08-12-2006, 06:50 PM
... there are a LOT of people out there in the martial arts world who claim to "have the goods" and who will provide it for the beginners (usually at a cost, but often just to make themselves into a status figure).


Couldn't have said it better myself.


I know Tu Xin Wu hurt him badly. Dan Miller, the ex-publisher of the Pa Kua Journal, saw another newspaper clipping of some other fight where Cheng had challenged and lost. There were others.


Can we see these newspaper clippings you claim exist?


There's a certain nastiness in approach, as can be seen by Justin's posts.


I'm not the one calling people "dippy", "cult" members, and nor do I have a ~10 year history of doing this, or try to intimidate with 'come and see me' type of replies to requests for text information. Try again.


Justin

statisticool
08-12-2006, 06:53 PM
Justin, don't use Peter Lim's personal "guesses" as any basis for argument.


I can use whatever I'd like, of course.


He is a non-stop talker, going on for pages.


It is probably more useful to address his arugments instead of his personality.


I hope that after all these bogus claims and insults that you're going to assure me that you have some martial skills and are not a complete beginner, Justin.


Your acceptance of me is not my concern, the evidence for your claims is, however.


Justin

Mike Sigman
08-12-2006, 07:05 PM
I can use whatever I'd like, of course. Unfortunately, you seem to use only the verbal equivalent of rubber chickens. So far you have not shown that you have the foggiest knowledge of either Aikido or Taijiquan.... or even much about your cult-god, Cheng. The way to win an argument is to show that your facts are better, not how well you can try and drag someone into tangents.

Mike Sigman

Mike Sigman
08-12-2006, 07:42 PM
I'm not the one calling people "dippy", "cult" members, and nor do I have a ~10 year history of doing this, Actually, I *do* have a lengthy history... but it has to do with basically calling a jerk a jerk *after* he takes a few shots at me. If you're so self-absorbed that you're totally ignoring the comments from other posters that you were being deliberately insulting, then there's not much to talk about.

You pick a fight and then you try to blame the other guy when he responds and calls you out? Please. Take a look at your posts. Look how much information you've posted versus your continued sniping. And now look at your whines now that someone is not treating you right. You Cheng-Man-Chinger's tend to act a lot alike. Take some responsibility. You picked a fight and you got one. Now show us what you know or just accept the fact that your sniping backfired on you.

Regards,

Mike Sigman

statisticool
08-12-2006, 07:49 PM
"Peng jin" is the "jin that originates in the ground/feet, is controlled by the waist, and is released in the hands". This is the basis of Taiji. It is stated in the so-called "classics" and, now that you think about it, you realize it's true, right?


The term 'peng jin' is apparently not found in the old literature. Why is that?


The "ground" question is really not something anyone other than a neophyte is going to ask, because it's all over the place.


That may be, but I'm asking you for the cite of the specific book that you claimed says qi is best translated as ground strength. What is its title and author?


Doesn't leave you with much, does it?


Except with plenty of obvious convergence of evidence painting the picture that Zheng was a student of Yang, and considered highly.


Your problem is that you're too arrogant to simply say "some people, mainly Cheng Man Ching practitioners" think that he was a disciple of Yang Cheng Fu, but there is no definitive proof".


You've leaped to the assumption that I said that this is "definitive proof", which I did not. In fact, I've repeatedly said it is for discussion and is evidence. Evidence is different than proof).

Evidence, such as Yang considered Zheng highly (Zheng wrote a book for his taijiquan, reportedly cured his wife), Chen Weiming considered him highly (praised him in prefaces), Cui Yishi family does too (lists him on their website as disciple of Yang http://www.yongniantaiji.com/contents/newpage2.htm , number 20), martial arts historians do (Smith, Draeger, Svinth, and many more), hundreds of books, sites, and articles do, and Zheng taijiquan is probably the most popular in several countries.

And your counter to this convergence of evidence (which is a list still growing, and soon to be on a webpage) is the claimed lack of Zheng's name on scrolls that are claimed to exist, that are claimed to be meaningful, that you cannot provide. And that's your strongest argument I believe.


You've ignored the fact that he and Yang weren't in the same places at the same time, etc.,


You assert that, but is that true? It appears that both were in Shanghai in 1928. The same Shanghai.


, no disciple papers (this is what kills your whole argument... those papers would have been so important that Cheng would have shown them to everyone)


It doesn't kill any argument- but if you truly believe it does, you don't need to reply to me any longer.

It doesn't kill any argument because you said these rolls exist, and are implied to be meaningful. You can substantiate your claim if you choose. I'm not going to assume that martial artists everywhere, especially in modern times, keep scrolls, nor that they are complete, nor let you pass your claim off to the Tung family.


Worst of all, Cheng himself *never* claimed to be a disciple of Yang's...


This is just a terminology issue, not a real issue IMO.

However, we do have, from Cheng Man-Ching, Master of Five Excellences (translated by Hennessy)


"...In 1932, P'u Ch'iu-chen introduced me to Yang Chengfu. After accepting me as a disciple, I received the Master's oral teachings on Internal Martial Arts..."


Re:


All these things have been reported in other places, Justin.


That may be, but I'm asking you to substantiate your claims:

1) Fu Zhong Wen laughed re: Zheng
2) truly skilled martial artists were not allowed to challenge Cheng
3) the Tung scrolls exist, and they don't show Zheng

I'm trying to establish if you have actual evidence, of if you're just repeating these "reported" things..


Quit with this monomaniacal insistence... go get some proof.


You made the above claims, not the Tung family; please don't pass it off to them. If you make the claims, you will be the one asked for evidence.


Justin

statisticool
08-12-2006, 07:54 PM
You pick a fight and then you try to blame the other guy when he responds and calls you out? Please.


Asking for substantiation of claims is picking a fight. That's a new one. :)


Justin

statisticool
08-12-2006, 08:04 PM
So far you have not shown that you have the foggiest knowledge of either Aikido or Taijiquan....


You're the only one in this exchange who has claimed to have knowledge in those areas.

...Which is entirely tangent to the issue of providing sources, of course.


or even much about your cult-god, Cheng.


Sour grapes is a pretty good explanation. :D

I guess Zheng was Chen Weiming's cult god, Yang and Yang's wife's cult god, Cui Yishi's cult god, the Hunan Martial Arts Academy's cult god, Svinth's cult god, and hundreds of books, articles, and websites's cult god. Who knew!

Actually, looks like you're the only one elevating Zheng to god status.


Justin

Mike Sigman
08-12-2006, 09:31 PM
You've leaped to the assumption that I said that this is "definitive proof", which I did not. In fact, I've repeatedly said it is for discussion and is evidence. Evidence is different than proof). So you have no proof of your assertion, other than the circumstantial "maybe's", which you like to mention, and the circumstantial "maybe not's", which you assiduously avoid mentioning. Cheng never claimed to be a disciple... it is some BS tomfoolery that the CMC cult came up with only in recent years. Show me the people who have definitively used the term "disciple"... I hope you understand that this is a formal arrangement and does not mean just "student". Why don't you take the claims of "disciple" to the Yang family, if it's so important to you? Yang Jun is in Seattle, Washington. I have seen no proof. Most people I know, including me, don't really care much about the Cheng Man Ching BS, except for the fact that it tends to attract weird people.

Mike Sigman

Mike Sigman
08-12-2006, 09:38 PM
Asking for substantiation of claims is picking a fight. That's a new one. :) Let's not forget... you began hounding me in various threads with snide posts. People called you on it. I called you on it. You seem to be shocked at the idea that you insult someone and get called on it. Of course, with your incredibly superior Cheng Man Ching training, I am taking my life into my hands in even daring to ask you to stop... as I did. So what are you going to do? Continue to dodge the questions asking for substance? Your current pretense seems to be to ignore your purposefully insulting comments that have gone of for some time and pretend that you're "just asking innocent questions". I don't think anyone buys it but you.

What is your point, I'm asking again? So far you're living up to the standard "pick a fight and get upset when someone asks you to put up or shut up". But then again, I think you're doing a wonderful job of reinforcing the fairly common perception of a Cheng (Zheng) Man Ching cultist.

Mike Sigman

statisticool
08-12-2006, 10:27 PM
So you have no proof of your assertion,


It was presented as evidence. Never claimed to be proof, as you assert.


...other than the circumstantial "maybe's",


Not exactly maybes, but evidence. For example:

-The introduction in Thirteen Treatises by Madame Zheng says "For six years he studied with Master Yang everyday and his body became healthy and strong", and describes Zheng as Yang's "disciple".

-Zheng Manqing himself in Thirteen Treatises says "I followed Professor Yang for seven years and only one chin was difficult to learn".

-The book T'ai Chi: The "Supreme Ultimate" Exercise for Health, Sport, and Self-Defense, by Zheng and Robert W. Smith, says "The author of this present text, Cheng Man-ch'ing, learned personally from Yang for nearly a decade and today is spreading the Yang style of T'ai-chi throughout the world".

-Zheng also reportedly cured Yang's wife of an illness, and Ms. Yang was said to have asked her husband to teach Zheng taijiquan. This has apparently never been disputed by Yang family members.

-Zheng also wrote a taijiquan book for Yang, which I imagine Yang would not have allowed unless Zheng was considered very highly, whether he was a public or private student.

-Chen Weiming, a disciple of Yang, also praised Zheng's work, even writing preface for Zheng's work. He states the following in his preface found in both Thirteen Chapters and The New Method of Self Study: "When Master Yang Ch'eng-fu came south (i.e. Shanghai), he (i.e. Prof. Cheng) studied T'ai Chi Ch'uan with him for six years."

-This webpage ( http://www.yongniantaiji.com/contents/newpage2.htm )from the Cui Yishi family lists the "Inner Door Disciples" (Pai Men Ti T'zu) of Yang Ch'eng-fu, and has Prof. Cheng ( 郑曼青 ) listed as the 20th disciple of Yang Ch'eng-fu. Cui Yishi was an early senior student of Yang Ch'eng-fu in Peking. He started learning from Yang in 1909 and accompanied him to Shanghai in 1928.

-Many people, already martial arts experts, came to study with Zheng:

-The undeniable quality of generations of students: William CC Chen, TT Liang, Napoli besting stylists at their own Chen Village push hands contest, for example.

-Zheng was director of the Hunan Martial Arts Academy, teaching taijiquan. To do this, you actually have to know taijiquan.

-Zheng created his 37 posture form in 1938, after Yang passed away (1936). This is being respectful of your teacher.

-Robert Smith, martial arts historian, close friend of Donn Draeger, martial arts historian, wrote several books (Masters and Methods, T'ai Chi: The "Supreme Ultimate" Exercise for Health, Sport, and Self-Defense, Martial Musings) and many articles about Zheng in the Journal of Asian Martial Arts, all never contradicted by published counter-articles.

-A page ( http://ejmas.com/kronos/NewHist1900-1939.htm )maintained by Joseph Svinth, martial arts historian, states that "Cheng was a physician who had practiced martial arts since the 1920s, and who began studying Yang-style t'ai chi chuan with Yang Cheng-fu in 1932."

-Hundreds and hundreds of sites, books, and articles say Zheng was a disciple or student of Yang.

-In the text of Yang Ch'eng-fu's earlier book written in 1931, T'ai Chi Ch'uan Shih Yung Fa, Liu Yongchen (Liu Yung-ch'en) is listed as a senior student of Yang Ch'eng-fu. In an interview conducted by William C.C. Hu and published in Black Belt Magazine in January 1965, Zheng says that he was introduced to Yang in Beijing by Liu. So we have another student of Yang Chengfu interacting with Zheng.

-In Cheng Man-ch'ing: Master of Five Excellences, Zheng writes "In 1932, P'u Ch'iu-chen introduced me to Yang Ch'eng-fu. After accepting me as a disciple, I recieved the master's oral teaching on the internal martial arts."

-K'uang K'e-ming reportedly convinced Yang to publish his teachings which we have in the 1934 text. K'uang also is listed as a senior student of Yang's in the 1931 text. Yet another Yang Chengfu student interacting with Zheng.

-This interview ( http://www.wuweitaichi.com/articles/Master_Koh_Ah_Tee.htm )with Koh Ah Tee states "Let me tell you in the early days no book or publication about Yang style listed or recorded Cheng Man Ching as having anything to do with the Yang family. He was not well-known although he had already devised his 37 posture form. Then in more recent years once he had already become famous, then the Yang family started claiming him as one of their own. When Yang Zhenduo came to Singapore he said that Cheng was his older brother."

-The claim of rolls (that is, a formal list of students and disciples of Yang) kept by the Tung family existing, and Zheng supposedly not being on them, is offered, but never shown to exist, and never shown to be relevant.

-This webpage ( http://members.fortunecity.com/pengluchian/youngcheng/ )shows some pictures of a Chinese man in a 1929 photograph of 4th anniversary gathering of the Chih Jou Tai Chi Chuan Association, which appears in the book Tai-chi Touchstones: Yang Family Secret Transmissions, by Wile, that resembles Zheng Manqing.
I emailed Wile the above mentioned page in ~1/1/03, and he responded 1/7/03 saying that he believes that this is indeed a picture of Zheng, and confirmed that in addition to the fourth (1929) anniversary photo, the same figure shows up in the second (1927), third (1928), fifth (1930), and eighth (1933) anniversary photos. The webpage (mentioned above) author's teacher does not think these are pics of Zheng. Yang died around 1936. The time from 1929 to 1936 is about the 7 years time.


Justin

statisticool
08-12-2006, 10:33 PM
Let's not forget... you began hounding me in various threads with snide posts.


No one takes your hounding claims seriously, especially when you reply to me, repeatedly, and ask me questions.

If you feel you should not be replied to, or cannot be bothered to provide evidence for your claims, I suggest you don't post on the internet and make claims.


So what are you going to do?


What I've been doing. Keep giving you opportunities to provide evidence for your claims:


-What book says qi is best translated as ground strength?


-What are actual details re: Fu Zhong Wen laughed re: Zheng?


-What truly skilled martial artists were not allowed to challenge Cheng?


-Provide evidence the Tung scrolls exist, they are relevant, and they don't show Zheng


...reinforcing the fairly common perception of a Cheng (Zheng) Man Ching cultist.


I guess Zheng was Chen Weiming's cult god, Yang and Yang's wife's cult god, Cui Yishi's cult god, the Hunan Martial Arts Academy's cult god, several other high Yang students' cult god, Svinth's cult god, and hundreds of books, articles, and websites's cult god. Who knew!

One of the most popular styles of taijiquan in many countries. I can understand the sour grapes..


Justin

statisticool
08-12-2006, 10:59 PM
Let's not forget... you began hounding me in various threads with snide posts.


Yes, let's not forget that, actually, our first encounter on this board was me pointing out, after you claimed that all internal arts are incomplete without certain skills (peng jin probably), that I never read that in any of Ueshiba's writings. I asked for information. You were the first one to get somewhat snippy, with this reply:

http://www.aikiweb.com/forums/showpost.php?p=139674

Just for the record.


Justin

Mike Sigman
08-13-2006, 08:56 AM
-The introduction in Thirteen Treatises by Madame Zheng says "For six years he studied with Master Yang everyday and his body became healthy and strong", and describes Zheng as Yang's "disciple". You know, there is a sort of quiet attempt to not be the person to pop this Cheng Man Ching bubble, but you need to quit speculating out loud and go ask the Yang family and ask to see the Yang family rolls. I've told you where to go. Even Robert Smith was aware that Cheng was probably fudging his claims about Yang and mentions a mild confrontation with Cheng about the matter in which Cheng did not pull out any proof or scrolls but just said "I learned it from Yang". You are probably already aware, as many CMC stylists are, that Cheng actually got a lot of his training from Chang Ching Ling... yet you don't mention it. The problem is that Cheng's claims to studying with Yang were apparently fudged to a fair extent. Wang Yen Nien mentioned this in a book after Cheng died... but no one wants to say about a dead man.... "he lied and his friends coddled him by vaguely lying, too". Cheng had *some* personal interaction with Yang, but Yang's personal students and their families pooh-pooh anything more than the limited instruction that I told you about. Cheng himself would not mention Chang Ching Ling to Robert Smith, but when he was about to die, Cheng was more upfront about it.

Your problem, and the problem of your schoolmates, is that you have taken a sort of polite lie about learning from Yang and made it into a claim for "discipleship". It won't fly. People have asked the Yangs exactly that question in private. Fu Zhong Wen was asked. The Tungs were asked. No body wants to write in a book that a dead man lied, so no, there are no ISBN numbers for you to reference.... but you need to just take a clue.

Cheng did not ever claim to be a disciple of Yang. The rolls are maintained by the Tung family. The Fu family... Fu Zhong Wen is dead but his son Fu Sheng Yuan will be glad to tell you exactly what I've said, but with worse terms. Tung Kai Ying in L.A. pushed hands with Cheng when Tung was 17.... the story is well known. It's not that people are bad-mouthing Cheng and you guys are getting defensive... it's that you guys just don't know when to shut up and let sleeping dogs lie.

Mike Sigman

Mike Sigman
08-13-2006, 09:06 AM
No one takes your hounding claims seriously, especially when you reply to me, repeatedly, and ask me questions.
No, it was worth it for a while so that your attitude, which is typical of CMC people, could be seen. But you don't answer any questions, you ignore things like Douglas Wile saying that Cheng and Yang could not have been in the same place long enough for Cheng to ever study for any lengthy time together (therefore making your whole premise null and void)... you just conveniently drop without answering those things. So you're dishonest.

I gave you facts. I was polite. You're dishonest and insulting. One well-known American coach asked Fu Zhong Wen, before he died, about Cheng studying with Yang. Fu turned and spit on the floor. That coach was someone totally removed and neutral about the whole Cheng question and he speaks fluent Chinese . You know enough to go start making up other dreams because your current one doesn't pan out. Get a grip.

Mike Sigman

statisticool
08-13-2006, 06:14 PM
, that Cheng actually got a lot of his training from Chang Ching Ling... yet you don't mention it.


Other teachers Zheng may have studied with simply aren't relevant here in discussing Zheng's relationship with Yang.


Cheng had *some* personal interaction with Yang, but Yang's personal students and their families pooh-pooh anything more than the limited instruction that I told you about.


Wait wait wait. A few posts ago you said


You've ignored the fact that he and Yang weren't in the same places at the same time, etc.,


that Yang and Zheng weren't even in the same area at the same time. Now you say that Zheng had some interaction with Yang. Which is it?

As far as personal students of Yang, Chen Weiming poo-pood him by writing prefaces, and the Cui Yishi family poo poos him by listing him as a disciple of Yang on their webpage.


No body wants to write in a book that a dead man lied, so no, there are no ISBN numbers for you to reference....


So you have no actual evidence then. No record of these 'reports' and no newspaper clippings, just stories of newspaper clippings, and stories by practicioners who may have not been in the loop, may have been jealous, and on and on.


The rolls are maintained by the Tung family.


Yes, you, again, mention these rolls as existing and imply they are relevant. And I again will reply that you provide evidence of them since they are your claim.


Justin

RonRagusa
08-13-2006, 06:22 PM
Justin -

What's with the Walter Sigman moniker you keep using? I don't have a clue as to which of you is right in this debate but at least get his name right.

Mike Sigman
08-13-2006, 06:33 PM
Other teachers Zheng may have studied with simply aren't relevant here in discussing Zheng's relationship with Yang. Sure they are. There's a pattern of lying here. Wait wait wait. A few posts ago you said that Yang and Zheng weren't even in the same area at the same time. Now you say that Zheng had some interaction with Yang. Which is it? Nope. I've said that Cheng studied in the general school for 8 to 11 months, depending on the version told by the Tung family or the Fu family (Fu was the de facto head of the Yang family until Yang Zhen Duo took over). But that's not even close to the "possible" 6 years you're trying to foist off.... Yang and Cheng were not in the same area for that length of time. As far as personal students of Yang, Chen Weiming poo-pood him by writing prefaces, and the Cui Yishi family poo poos him by listing him as a disciple of Yang on their webpage. More than offset by the fact that the leading disciples of Yang said no way, isn't it. You've only got hearsay and you pick and choose that, don't you? You're basically not even partisanly picking and choosing... it's closer to lying outright. Notice how you said that Doug Wile said the picture might be Cheng (and that's all he said, "maybe"). Wile was never a student of Cheng's. Ben Lo, who WAS as student, has said outright that the picture is not Cheng, yet you don't mention that. That pretty much tells me your ethics, very clearly. So you have no actual evidence then. No record of these 'reports' and no newspaper clippings, just stories of newspaper clippings, and stories by practicioners who may have not been in the loop, may have been jealous, and on and on. The *evidence* is up to you. You're claiming Cheng was a disciple, do NOT ask me for evidence to prove that he was not. That's up to you. This BS where you keep asking me to prove the negative is insane.Yes, you, again, mention these rolls as existing and imply they are relevant. And I again will reply that you provide evidence of them since they are your claim. See above. I think part of your problem is that you think "student of" and "disciple" are the same thing. "Disciple" is a big, big deal. Cheng was technically a "student of" Yang for 8 to 11 months, even if he only went to the general class which was taught by senior students and Yang only made a show once in a while. Being a "disciple" is a whole 'nother thing, but you seem to be unaware of it. Besides, I notice on the "Tai chi talk" forum that you've had indications that a lot of this history is not true. You seem to be a bit of a Peter Lim.... presenting to the public ideas which you know don't fly. And yes, I know you cover yourself with "it's only for discussion", but you don't seem to know much about ethics. Sort of like you don't realize how self-absorbed it is to present a "graph of your GPA" on your website.

Mike Sigman

Mike Sigman
08-13-2006, 06:36 PM
What's with the Walter Sigman moniker you keep using? I don't have a clue as to which of you is right in this debate but at least get his name right.No, my full name is Walter... he got it from some pretty ancient internet archives, which goes to show you the amount of venom driving him. ;) However, since he obviously thinks that it's some sort of "gotcha", he's giving away just how childish he is. "Walter" doesn't bother me... but I knew it would be confusing, an sure enough...


Mike

Upyu
08-13-2006, 06:46 PM
*poop*

on Justin's mouth fu.

All this wrangling from this kid reminds me of something my polish mantis boxing teacher used to say back in the day:

random nitwit:"Oh my teacher studied with so and so, and did this and this, kicked everyone's asses and was ht3 uB3ER!"

him "That's awesome. So what can you do?"
<extends hands>
"Let's see how much that training taught you"

Now where's that ignore button?

statisticool
08-13-2006, 06:53 PM
But you don't answer any questions,


-What book says qi is best translated as ground strength?

-What are actual details re: Fu Zhong Wen laughed re: Zheng?

-What truly skilled martial artists were not allowed to challenge Cheng?

-Can you provide evidence, for your claims the Tung scrolls exist and they don't show Zheng?


you ignore things like Douglas Wile saying that Cheng and Yang could not have been in the same place long enough for Cheng to ever study for any lengthy time together


"Lengthy time" is pretty subjective. 4 years might be lengthy to some, not to others. There is no objective cutoff.


One well-known American coach asked Fu Zhong Wen, before he died, about Cheng studying with Yang. Fu turned and spit on the floor.


Yes, but all we get are things like this but no real substance. Who was this coach? Where did this occur? What was the specific question that was asked? Where was this reported? Did the coach or Fu Zhong Wen or the reporter of this event have any personal beefs? Who knows.

You might take these apparently unverifiable stories as gospel... but 1 such story out of easily 1,000 cites of Zheng being a student of Yang doesn't really do much to establish facts.

And yes, I'd hope he asked Fu Zhong Wen before he died... :freaky:


Justin

statisticool
08-13-2006, 06:55 PM
*poop*

on Justin's mouth fu.

All this wrangling from this kid reminds me of something my polish mantis boxing teacher used to say back in the day:

random nitwit:"Oh my teacher studied with so and so, and did this and this, kicked everyone's asses and was ht3 uB3ER!"

him "That's awesome. So what can you do?"
<extends hands>
"Let's see how much that training taught you"

Now where's that ignore button?

Left click my name, hold down, and select Ignore. Since you're the only one not contributing here, you might want to use it.


Justin

Mike Sigman
08-13-2006, 07:02 PM
-What book says qi is best translated as ground strength? Beats me. You went back to an interview 10 years ago and read that... nothing from this current board. Unfortunately, when I read that I was 18 and in a library on Okinawa. It made a big difference by saving me time. I didn't write down the ISBN number.

Now I've answered a number of questions, but you're not answering any. Who is your teacher and where do you practice? I may just be interested enough to see if you or your teacher have any skills. Virginia? Near Stephen "Didn't Show Up" Goodson?

Mike Sigman

Ron Tisdale
08-13-2006, 07:16 PM
Nice post Ellis, thanks for that.

Justin, DONE.

Best,
Ron

statisticool
08-13-2006, 07:17 PM
Sure they are. There's a pattern of lying here.


No, they aren't relevant. We're not talking or even discussing Zheng's other teachers, but his relationship with Yang.

For example this page you keep refusing to address: http://www.yongniantaiji.com/contents/newpage2.htm


More than offset by the fact that the leading disciples of Yang said no way, isn't it.


A bunch of stories that run like: this one guy with Fu in this one place, at some date, apparently said that Fu spit when mentioning something about Zheng. Those "facts"?


Notice how you said that Doug Wile said the picture might be Cheng (and that's all he said, "maybe").


Wile wasn't about to say it definitely is Zheng. You seem to have some confusion between "evidence" and "proof".


Ben Lo, who WAS as student, has said outright that the picture is not Cheng, yet you don't mention that.


Please show me an actual source for Lo's statements that you claim he said and I'd be happy to add it to the page.


You're claiming Cheng was a disciple, do NOT ask me for evidence to prove that he was not.


You claimed the scrolls exist, imply they are relevant, and say they do not show Zheng. Please don't not pass this off on the Tung family. You made the claim.


you think "student of" and "disciple" are the same thing.


These are not the same thing, nor have I ever said they are the same thing. You're welcome to provide a source if you believe I have actually said otherwise.


Sort of like you don't realize how self-absorbed it is to present a "graph of your GPA" on your website.


What don't you understand about a personal webpage? The whole thing is self-absorbed. Oops, backfired on ya didn't it?

I'm sure you'll find a way to talk about the actual issues and not the person or any other red herrings. Maybe.


Justin

Upyu
08-13-2006, 08:37 PM
Left click my name, hold down, and select Ignore. Since you're the only one not contributing here, you might want to use it.


Justin

LOLOLCOPTER
Now that is funny, coming from you. ;)

I refuse to contribute to crap.
But I'll partake in hurling crap at crap :D


poop on you

Mike Sigman
08-13-2006, 08:44 PM
Wile wasn't about to say it definitely is Zheng. You seem to have some confusion between "evidence" and "proof".No, I've talked to Wile. You said he thinks it is. He thinks "maybe". There's a difference. You start weaseling, after presenting all your one-sided information and say it's "out for discussion". You're a liar and a weasel, then. If you have proof that Cheng Man Ching was a "disciple", show it. The "scrolls" would be the scrolls showing the discipleship... they would be very, very important. Show them. If you say "student" and you say for a number of years, you need to go get the "rolls"... the Tungs have those. They have already told people that Cheng is not on the official rolls.... but if you want notarized evidence, why don't you and a notary go ask the Tungs for permission to see the rolls. Other than that, all you have is a bunch of sheer speculation, some of it quite embarrassing and possibly misconstrued (yes, I'm being polite in order to allow some of these people to escape the overdone trap you're making for your own side). If you want to posit that Cheng was a disciple of Yang , post the documents. If you want to try to be ethical, post on your webpage that it's sheer speculation and you don't have the Bai Shr documents or the school rolls to establish the point. Nor has any CMC'er had the balls to go ask the Yangs directly, yet they freely toss about the Yangs' name.... zero ethics.

If you think CMC was a bona fide disciple, go get their stamp of officialdom on it. Don't go by the "let's keep the coffers full and tell the CMC'ers what they want to hear"... get the official word on it.

Lastly, remember that Cheng personally challenged people in the martial arts world because it is an accepted thing to do in the martial arts world.

Mike Sigman

statisticool
08-13-2006, 10:25 PM
No, I've talked to Wile. You said he thinks it is. He thinks "maybe".


Perhaps he changed his mind. If I hear from a reliable source (not from someone who has a long history calling Zheng style practicioners cult members and Zheng a cult god) that he did, I will gladly modify my page.


If you have proof that Cheng Man Ching was a "disciple", show it.


Why would I have proof for one of your strawmen? :) You're continuing to argue your strawman. Nowhere did I claim Zheng was a "disciple".


If you say "student" and you say for a number of years, you need to go get the "rolls"


That's false. "Student" does not imply the need for scrolls. Just like you confused proof with evidence, you confused student with disciple.


They have already told people that Cheng is not on the official rolls.... but if you want notarized evidence, why don't you and a notary go ask the Tungs for permission to see the rolls.


You were the one making the claim about the scrolls, not I, not the Tungs. Therefore, if you are asked about your claim, you have the responsibility to provide evidence.

Since you haven't yet, and have been provided ample opportunity to do so, your claim can safely be dismissed until further (any!) evidence is presented.


Nor has any CMC'er had the balls to go ask the Yangs directly,


Obviously, you couldn't possibly know that.

Here are some points you are avoiding:

1) The term 'peng jin' is apparently not found in the old literature.

2) Number 20 at http://www.yongniantaiji.com/contents/newpage2.htm

3) What book says qi is best translated as ground strength?

4) What are actual details re: Fu Zhong Wen laughed re: Zheng?

5) What truly skilled martial artists were not allowed to challenge Cheng?


Justin

Mike Sigman
08-14-2006, 08:27 AM
You're not answering any questions. Trying to avoid questions while throwing out tangents for me to answer is, as I told you before, a common trick the pseudo-knowledgeable play on a some near-scholarly list, but this is one of them and you're not knowledgeable enough. There is a whole stack of questions you've avoided.

It's pretty clear that your mission is not to find out the truth about Cheng but to simply make assertions (among western wannabe's) and then start a personality gig against people who don't conform. If you haven't even made the effort to ask the obvious people, the Tungs and the Yangs, if there is any support for your theory, you're not even making an amateurish assertion. You're just a group of children playing at "here's my theory".

Why are you talking about peng jin?.... back in the 80's that discussion was laid to rest. You simply don't know what it was, do you, or you wouldn't be asking these kindergarten-level questions. Yet you can't say that, can you? You want to carry on this charade of asking questions about a subject you really don't know about. Show my you know something about it before you ask anymore questions. Frankly, your teacher should have told you.... if he'd known.

Last, I want to know who your teacher is and where you practice. If you can snipe but you can't give me the information, at least let your teacher know that I'm coming to see him about the talk of one of his students.

Mike Sigman

RonRagusa
08-14-2006, 10:09 AM
Last, I want to know who your teacher is and where you practice
Interesting. Mike, many times on these boards you have been asked to provide information regarding your aikido teacher(s) and, to my knowledge, have to date refused to do so. Your reasons are your reasons. I respect your right to keep that information private and I'm not asking that you reveal that information now. I am wondering why you feel that Justin must be held to a different standard regarding the same information.

Regards.

Mike Sigman
08-14-2006, 10:19 AM
Interesting. Mike, many times on these boards you have been asked to provide information regarding your aikido teacher(s) and, to my knowledge, have to date refused to do so. Your reasons are your reasons. I respect your right to keep that information private and I'm not asking that you reveal that information now. I am wondering why you feel that Justin must be held to a different standard regarding the same information. And if I had personally gone out of my way to insult you and you wanted to see if it was just keyboard talk, I'd make arrangements to meet you, Ron. If I dodged meeting you and just stuck to the nasty attitude approach, I would certainly not be surprised if you asked more clearly where I studied and who my teacher was. I would have enough sense not to pretend that I hadn't been deliberately offensive and I would be able to recognize it coming when I saw it.

In other words, this is not idle chat about someone's teacher. Do you want to get involved? I remember the tone of some of your comments. I should be out on the east coast within the next few months and will be happy to meet with you. I've often found that meeting people personally gets the discussions away from the easy personal shots/ripostes that the internet seems to invite because of the safety of distance. It becomes much more human when martial artists meet face to face and it encourages productive "dialogue".


Regards,

Mike Sigman

statisticool
08-14-2006, 06:03 PM
And if I had personally gone out of my way to insult you ..


I encourage anybody to count the number of times I've insulted you vs. the number of times you insulted me. It would be quite educational.


Justin

statisticool
08-14-2006, 06:17 PM
You're not answering any questions.


As discussed, several questions are strawmen. For example, you asked me about Zheng being a disciple, but I never claimed he was a disciple. You talk about proof but I never said proof but evidence.

Now, the following aren't strawmen... they are questions about what you actually said:

1) What book says qi is best translated as ground strength?

2) What are actual details re: Fu Zhong Wen laughed re: Zheng?

3) What truly skilled martial artists were not allowed to challenge Cheng?

Questions 2) and 3) relate directly to Zheng. How you can claim them to be off topic is something of a mystery.


, at least let your teacher know that I'm coming to see him about the talk of one of his students.


I'm sure the teacher would say something like "Why did you travel all of this way if you cannot even answer questions online?", or maybe "Why do you post online asking questions and soliciting answers if you are so easily offended by everyone who dares disagree with your opinions?", or probably ask you to use your peng jin in a UFC-rules type of match. Who knows.


Justin

Mike Sigman
08-14-2006, 06:20 PM
I encourage anybody to count the number of times I've insulted you vs. the number of times you insulted me. It would be quite educational. Yeah, Justin... that's why people have been making those weird comments to you; because you're such a nice guy.

Reminds me...... I suddenly remember something from long ago on the Neijia list that we used to point out to guys that said Cheng studied a decade, 7 years, or "six years", like you asserted. Cheng's own writing says that he did not meet Yang Cheng Fu until 1932. Yang Cheng Fu died in 1936 of blood-poisoning in a hospital.

I.e., your "six years" is bunkum. Even stretching it, you need to shift your made-up story to a more realistic "3 or 4 years". It's not that most people have anything against Cheng, BTW... it's that so many people have gotten tired of the overblown claims of the Cheng cult.

Another bit of info I'm just remembering is that there was a book published by Tung Ying Jieh in 1932 that had the list of all of Yang Cheng Fu's current students. Cheng Man Ching was not one of them. I also remember that the story through the Tung family was that actually Cheng learned for a while from Chen Wei Ming, outside of the school... although I have to put that one in the bracket of "I don't fully trust the source" (a student of Tung Kai Ying, though). Necessarily, I would have to question the coincidence of CMC claiming to not have met Yang or become his student until 1932.... knowing that the Tung family named who was and who was not a student at the time just before 1932. But that one would be pure speculation.

Mike Sigman

Mike Sigman
08-14-2006, 06:24 PM
I'm sure the teacher would say something like... We'll see, won't we?

Mike Sigman

Upyu
08-15-2006, 07:25 PM
Awww...no gong sauu..??
(*ノ_<*)エーン

statisticool
08-15-2006, 09:32 PM
We'll see, won't we?


Really? The world will see you in a UFC-type of match?


Justin

statisticool
08-15-2006, 09:45 PM
Yeah, Justin...(snip)


Folks, we see more non-answering of questions.


..... I suddenly remember something from long ago on the Neijia list that we used to point out to guys that said Cheng studied a decade, 7 years, or "six years", like you asserted. Cheng's own writing says that he did not meet Yang Cheng Fu until 1932.


Then your "Neijia list" ignored the fact that Zheng, in Thirteen Treatises, says "I followed Professor Yang for seven years and only one chin was difficult to learn", and the book T'ai Chi: The "Supreme Ultimate" Exercise for Health, Sport, and Self-Defense, by Zheng and Robert W. Smith, says "The author of this present text, Cheng Man-ch'ing, learned personally from Yang for nearly a decade and today is spreading the Yang style of T'ai-chi throughout the world".


... it's that so many people have gotten tired of the overblown claims of the Cheng cult.


It is more like people have gotten tired of people thinking that overblown claims are being made. Saying someone X was a student of Y when hundreds of sources say X was a student of Y is not an overblown claim...but probably reality.

Does your whole irrational 'cult' argument really just boil down to 'since there is some minor debate between 4 and 6-7 years, therefore there's a cult' ? Looks like it.


I also remember that the story through the Tung family was that...


People 'remember' and repeat a lot of stories. The difficult part is getting any details out of them.


Justin

Mike Sigman
08-15-2006, 10:10 PM
Then your "Neijia list" ignored the fact that Zheng, in Thirteen Treatises, says "I followed Professor Yang for seven years and only one chin was difficult to learn", and the book T'ai Chi: The "Supreme Ultimate" Exercise for Health, Sport, and Self-Defense, by Zheng and Robert W. Smith, says "The author of this present text, Cheng Man-ch'ing, learned personally from Yang for nearly a decade and today is spreading the Yang style of T'ai-chi throughout the world". No, we didn't miss those at all. Cheng fled to Taiwan with the Kuomintang and mainland China became sealed off.... forever, as far as many of the Chinese on Taiwan knew. Wild claims came from many of the Taiwanese martial artists (one particularly I liked was their claims that since they came to Taiwan, there were no real martial arts left on the mainland... something laughably untrue). Cheng's claims of longer times with Yang were after mainland China was shut off.... perhaps he figured he could get away with the claim since no one could cross-check on the mainland? Why would he have previously claimed that he only met Yang in 1932? Where are the discipleship scrolls or the class attendance rolls? You're simply unwilling to give it up, Justin. You're a fanatic. Notice how it was *me* that had to bring up the 1932 stuff written by Cheng, not you. Your proclivities for dishonesty, perhaps? I got an email saying that this 1932 portion was mentioned on a Tai Chi list you're on, but you didn't bother to mention it in the arguments on this forum? Disappointing.

Here's a post someone sent to rec.martial-arts, repeating some comments by Fu Zhong Wen's son, Fu Sheng Yuan:

Xref: netcom.com rec.martial-arts:158502
Path: netcom.com!ix.netcom.com!howland.reston.ans.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in1.uu. net!news.u.washington.edu!carson.u.washington.edu!brianmac
From: Brian MacLeod <brianmac@u.washington.edu>
Newsgroups: rec.martial-arts
Subject: Chen Man Ching's truth revealed
Date: Wed, 6 Dec 1995 16:50:58 -0800
Organization: University of Washington
Lines: 28
Message-ID: <Pine.PTX.3.91j.951206162428.13276B-100000@carson.u.washington.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: carson.u.washington.edu
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

This Is what I personally heard from Fu Shen Yuan inheritor of the
Yang family style.He said that his father the late Fu Zhong Wen saw Chen
Man Ching study with Yang Cheng Fu for only six months not six years like
he has told everyone.He was not Cheng Fu's close disciple he was just some
guy who wanted to learn Tai Chi to help his tubercolosis.Plus any student
of Cheng Fu's would not be stupid enough to change the form for any reason.
Chen Man Ching must have learned all his legenary powers from that secret
daoist monk,he did not get is fabolous powers from Cheng Fu.Chen Man Ching
is like the guy in class who says they are this guy's best student
when you know he's not.
One time when both Fu Zhong Wen and Fu shen Yuan traveled to America
they stopped to say hi to Man Ching when both Zhong Wen and Man ching decided
to have a friendly match of push hands.From what I heard from Shen Yuan his
father several times pushed Man Ching on a chair not to hurt him in the
"freindly" match of push hands.Now there are two different factors we should
look at.
number one, age:at that time they were around the same age give or take a few
number two, humbleness:There would be no reason for Man Ching not to be
humble if he was Cheng Fu's favorite student why didn't he be the inheritor
of the Yang style?Rivalry's last forever no matter who you are.
I think the reason Man Ching is so popular is becuase his students
make him sound no less then a god.In america people thought his Tai Chi was
the best(who else at that time was teaching good Tai Chi to the public
except for the old man teaching at the local park) there were some but not
in the New York area, best to my knowledge. I'm sorry for teacher bashing
but I think It's time for the truth to come out.

statisticool
08-15-2006, 10:41 PM
No, we didn't miss those at all.


In 13 Chapters says 7 years was the length of time he studied with Yang.

The best one can say is that there is a different amount of time stated in different places, then try to really understand why.


Where are the discipleship scrolls or the class attendance rolls?


Who knows. Am I claiming disciple as you keep implying? Go back and read and you won't find me saying that I think.

You will also find me saying that since you claimed anything about rolls, class attendance, you need to do the work and find them to present your case. I could care less about your claims of rolls or class attendance existing or being relevant.


You're a fanatic.


Disagree with opinion on taijiquan = dishonest, weasel, dippy, fanatic cult member who worships a cult god. You must know that that approach to debate doesn't work?


Notice how it was *me* that had to bring up the 1932 stuff written by Cheng, not you.


Notice how I brought up 1932 already in http://www.aikiweb.com/forums/showpost.php?p=150124&postcount=82

It helps my argument that Zheng was a student of Yang.


I got an email saying that this 1932 portion was mentioned on a Tai Chi list you're on, but you didn't bother to mention it in the arguments on this forum?


Yes. Most people realize that they are not mandated to mention anything they do to you or to this forum.


(snip usenet story)


More unverifiable stories. Unimpressive as they ever were.

The


Plus any student of Cheng Fu's would not be stupid enough to change the form for any reason.


part gives it away immediately as an obvious joke, as forms have been modified all throughout history, Yang's included.


Justin

statisticool
08-15-2006, 10:56 PM
Wild claims came from many of the Taiwanese martial artists ...
Cheng's claims of longer times with Yang were after mainland China was shut off....


If the majority of martial artists relocated from China to Taiwan at that time overstated their claims of studying in China, and that was verified, you might have a point. You indeed did say "many"- can we see your evidence?

To look a little closer at that usenet post..


Subject: Chen Man Ching's truth revealed


We'll see what passes for "truth" on the internet..


This Is what I personally heard from Fu Shen Yuan inheritor of the
Yang family style.He said that his father the late Fu Zhong Wen saw Chen Man Ching study with Yang Cheng Fu for only six months not six years like he has told everyone.


Some guy on the internet, says he heard a story from Fu Shen Yuan, who said his father Fu Zhongwen told him Zheng Manqing studied with Yang for only 6 months.

So it really reduces to heresay of heresay of heresay of a possibly biased claim, probably claimed many many years after the events occured. Not exactly "truth" IMO.


Justin

Mike Sigman
08-16-2006, 08:12 AM
part gives it away immediately as an obvious joke, as forms have been modified all throughout history, Yang's included. Er, actually, that comment, particularly from someone claiming Cheng was a close student of Yang's, shows how little you understand about traditional Chinese martial arts.

However, IIRC, Cheng never called his form the "Yang short form"... only his students did. Cheng would have known that it would be a direct insult to claim to be a student of Yang's and to modify the form. If anything, Cheng's is so different from Yang's form and so much closer to the way that Zhang Ching Ling *performed* his Yang Ban Hou style, that it supports the idea that Cheng actually learned a lot of stuff (unofficially) from Zhang Ching Ling.

Wang Yen Nien, who also studied with Zhang, has said that Cheng also studied with Zhang, and that Zhang taught Cheng how to do push hands. All of this information about Cheng Man Ching has been out for years, yet the CMC crowd pretends that the days of Robert Smith's embellished stories are still the present.

Zhang was actually a student of Yang Ban Hou, which would explain the difference between the "traditional Yang form" that Yang Cheng Fu devised and the smaller, more compact postures that CMC used in his own form, BTW. Instead of insisting on the Cheng Man Creed as you believe in it, you should do a little research. Particularly, you should learn enough about Taiji in order to argue more than history.... if Cheng Man Ching was your god and he's so great, you should have a superior knowledge of Taiji. You don't. ;)

Regards,

Mike Sigman

statisticool
08-16-2006, 05:12 PM
Er, actually, that comment, particularly from someone claiming Cheng was a close student of Yang's, shows how little you understand about traditional Chinese martial arts.


I do understand that the word "peng jin" is apparently not in the classics.

But back to the quote. One just has to read what the usenet poster wrote more closely:

He wrote:


Plus any student of Cheng Fu's would not be stupid enough to change the form for any reason.


For "any reason". If this person truly believes that forms cannot change for any reason, they are incorrect based on empirical evidence that forms do change, even in the same family line.


Cheng would have known that it would be a direct insult to claim to be a student of Yang's and to modify the form.


That may be the case while Yang was still alive, and only if Yang disagreed. Although, Yang seemed to think highly of Zheng, you know, Zheng being his student, having a part in writing Yang's book, and reportedly curing Yang's wife and all. Considering these things, it doesn't seem sensible to think that Yang could be insulted by him, ever. Chen Weiming, a disciple of Yang, didn't seem to be too insulted either... writing preface for Zheng and all.

So this "direct insult" seems to vanish. Actually, it seems to never have existed in the first place.

In any case, Zheng's 37 posture form was created after Yang passed away. There are also things emphasized in Zheng's taijiquan that are not in other styles: http://www.wuweitaichi.com/articles/Master_Koh_Ah_Tee.htm

Disagreeing over current practicioners calling the 37 posture the 'Yang short form' seems to be one of those disagreements like arguing over people translating taijiquan as supreme ultimate. Obviously Zheng style is closer to Yang than Chen in practice and appearance, and Zheng has Yang Cheng Fu, and students of Yang, connections, which make the 'short Yang form' arguably justifiable even if technically not accurate.

But there's also people that have been calling it Zheng style for many, many years now too.


Wang Yen Nien, who also studied with Zhang, has said that Cheng also studied with Zhang, and that Zhang taught Cheng how to do push hands.


No one has ever disputed that Zheng also studied with other people, but those issues are irrelevant to the question of if he studied with Yang.


Cheng Man Creed as you believe in it, you should do a little research. Particularly, you should learn enough about Taiji in order to argue more than history.... if Cheng Man Ching was your god and he's so great, you should have a superior knowledge of Taiji. You don't. ;)


I was waiting for you to teach but you don't seem able or willing to answer the questions put towards you.

If you do locate a martial arts journal where one is allowed to call people cult members, you should submit your opinions.

Really.


Justin

Mike Sigman
08-16-2006, 05:40 PM
I do understand that the word "peng jin" is apparently not in the classics. This is why I get irritated with the endless-loop sort of arguments you guys do.... the "classics" that you're talking about I already mentioned earlier... they are a hodge-podge of writings from Yang-style loyalists. Not even particularly old and certainly made up to some degree, particularly in the case of "Wang Tsung Yueh". So before you start one of your straw-man support-your-own-position posits using the "classics", at least have the grace to admit that the "classics" are probably a limited source at best.

Once again, if you are trying to leave the impression that Cheng Man Ching's teaching is somehow superior, how about laying it on us instead of these endless bickerings where you don't seem to know what "peng jin" is, even though the term is widely used even in the Yang style. Why is it that you (and Peter Lim) don't seem to even know enough about this basic term (it's the same thing that kokyu-power in Aikido is based on) that you can't just say what it is and how it's used? Why all this argument over a simple term that describes the "jin that is rooted in the feet, controlled by the waist (hara), and expressed in the hands"???? Oops... that's in the classics, yet you seem to not understand the relationship for some reason.

Bicker on.

Mike Sigman

Upyu
08-16-2006, 08:54 PM
To quote one of my friends...

" i just think it's funny to use "heuristic, dialectic and rhetorical errors"
in a post about beating the crap out of people"
:D

gdandscompserv
08-16-2006, 09:38 PM
This is why I get irritated with the endless-loop sort of arguments you guys do
Bicker on.

Mike Sigman
Yeah! :p

statisticool
08-17-2006, 06:46 PM
This is why I get irritated with the endless-loop sort of arguments you guys do....


"you guys".. might just be referring to people who ask questions that you refuse to, or are unable to, answer.


Once again, if you are trying to leave the impression that Cheng Man Ching's teaching is somehow superior, how about laying it on us instead of these endless bickerings..


I never said that Zheng's teaching is "superior". If you are trying to leave the impression that I did, you'll need to actually cite a quote.


Why is it that you (and Peter Lim) don't seem to even know enough about this basic term (it's the same thing that kokyu-power in Aikido is based on) that you can't just say what it is and how it's used?

Why would I need to say something about something that you believe is essential?


Why all this argument over a simple term that describes the "jin that is rooted in the feet, controlled by the waist (hara), and expressed in the hands"???? Oops... that's in the classics, yet you seem to not understand the relationship for some reason.


Because the specific term, peng jin, appears to not be emphasized in early writings, either in taijiquan or aikido, at all, and definitely not to the incredible heights that you pretend it has.

Not finding something claimed to be the basis of martial arts in old writings about the martial arts is some evidence against it being the basis.


Justin

Mike Sigman
08-17-2006, 06:53 PM
"you guys".. might just be referring to people who ask questions that you refuse to, or are unable to, answer. I've answered plenty of questions, Justin. You simply dissemble. Personally, I hope that you're so convinced of your beliefs that you never really look into peng jin. All those experts that mentioned it... you should keep laughing at them and take comfort in the fact that you and your fellow Cheng-Man-Chingers know better than so many others whose sources I cited.

Regards and Good Luck,

Mike Sigman

statisticool
08-20-2006, 11:51 PM
I've answered plenty of questions, Justin.


You neglected to mention these:

1) What book says qi is best translated as ground strength?

2) What are actual details re: Fu Zhong Wen laughed re: Zheng?

3) What truly skilled martial artists were not allowed to challenge Cheng?


Justin

Upyu
08-20-2006, 11:55 PM
shut up justin.
before CMC poops on u from his grave.

:)

statisticool
08-22-2006, 06:35 AM
If he can't answer, he can't answer.

Upyu
08-22-2006, 09:52 AM
If he can't answer, he can't answer.

!!!
wiseman speaketh
:rolleyes:

statisticool
08-24-2006, 05:17 PM
!!!
wiseman speaketh
:rolleyes:

Robert, quit stalking me! ;)

But back to the topic of the thread after it was sidetracked with discussions of something not being a traditional style, as if that has any bearing on the question of practicing taiji helping aikido and practicing aikido helping taiji.

From the connections I can make, balance, flexibility, and relaxed strength are some common elements. I don't see how practicing one cannot help the other. And then falls and rolls would supplement taijiquan and a few kicks and strikes would supplement aikido.

After reading Kiss. Ueshiba's Spirit of Aikido, what comes to my mind is something like taijiquan is Chinese aikido and aikido is Japanese taijiquan. Not literally, of course, but just kinda the feeling I get from these two wonderful martial arts. :)


Justin

roninroshi
08-26-2006, 09:47 PM
It's all one taste...

Luc X Saroufim
09-07-2006, 08:22 AM
Haven't practiced tai chi yet, but from common sense standpoint, when one feels stuck with X, whatever that X is, just doing more X doesn't usually help.


this is certainly true when you're working out muscle groups.

can the same hold true for martial arts? it's an open ended question, and not a dispute to what you're saying.

while what you say makes complete sense, i also keep hearing about how you can never reach perfection in any art.

statisticool
09-07-2006, 06:10 PM
Here are some important issues Walter has still not addressed from this thread. These are important to clear up, since he makes many claims about taijiquan.

I'm sure with his internal strength expertise he will encounter no problems providing clear and consise answers to each number.

To make it easier on readers, I've provided blanks Walter can simply fill in.

1) What is the relation of this to Yang Chen Fu? What does the title on this page say? http://www.yongniantaiji.com/contents/newpage2.htm What does number 20 say?

The relation to Yang Chen Fu is _______
The title on the page says ______
Number 20 says _____


2) What book says qi is best translated as ground strength as is claimed ( http://www.iay.org.uk/internal-strength/related/interview.htm )? What is the title and who is the author?

The title is _______
The author is ________


3) What are actual details re: Fu Zhong Wen laughed re: Zheng? Does one have anything besides a story?

My non-anecdotal evidence is ________


4) What truly skilled martial artists were not allowed to challenge Cheng as is claimed?

My non-anecdotal evidence is ________


5) Where is evidence that Chen Weiming was 'courting favors', as is claimed, as an explanation for him praising Cheng Man-ching's work?

My non-anecdotal evidence is ________


6) Where are all these newspaper clippings, that are claimed exist?

The newspaper clippings can be found at ______


I look forward to reading the answers, which are bound to be educational.


Justin

statisticool
09-07-2006, 06:29 PM
I've answered all of Hunter's questions in that thread (which has nothing to do with this thread).


Justin

dps
09-07-2006, 07:48 PM
To make it easier on readers, I've provided blanks Walter can simply fill in.
To make it easier for Walter to answer why don't you make it multiple choice? :)

Mike Sigman
09-07-2006, 09:53 PM
See my post #124.

We had a Cheng Man Chinger come to our push-hands group in Boulder. First he hung around the edges at a couple of meets and then gradually did a little bit, but he didn't want anyone to be too competitive. Made it a point that he didn't like a lot of the assholes that got competitive and didn't "feel for the center" and "use complete relaxation"... all the "One with the Tao" stuff. Gradually, he actually began to do some pretty good push-hands and started getting a feel for how to use jin. Became one of the better, regular participants. But an odd thing happened.... as he found out that he could beat people, he suddenly turned into exactly the kind of asshole that he'd originally said he despised... really liked to beat people and do a bit of bullying. No one else of the better players developed that kind of attitude; just him. But it's exactly the kind of mean, nasty behaviour that I've seen so often in Cheng Man Ching people that I've come to expect it, more often than not. Sort of a self-righteous nastiness. Kind of people that would stalk you around the internet while at the same time convince themselves that they're superior dudes. :rolleyes:

Mike

statisticool
09-07-2006, 10:05 PM
We had a Cheng Man Chinger come to our push-hands group in Boulder. First he hung around the edges at a couple of meets and then gradually did a little bit, but he didn't want anyone to be too competitive. Made it a point that he didn't like a lot of the assholes that got competitive and didn't "feel for the center" and "use complete relaxation"... all the "One with the Tao" stuff.


Another unverifiable story. Anyone sense a pattern?


Sort of a self-righteous nastiness.


All this time I've been thinking what is nasty is those who make claims they have no intention of backing up, especially 3, 4, 5, and 6, which you assert and provide no documentation whatsoever when questioned.

If you make some outlandish claims, and you do along with some regular ones, expect to get questioned on them.


1) What is the relation of this to Yang Chen Fu? What does the title on this page say? http://www.yongniantaiji.com/contents/newpage2.htm What does number 20 say?

The relation to Yang Chen Fu is _______
The title on the page says ______
Number 20 says _____

2) What book says qi is best translated as ground strength as is claimed ( http://www.iay.org.uk/internal-stre...d/interview.htm )? What is the title and who is the author?

The title is _______
The author is ________

3) What are actual details re: Fu Zhong Wen laughed re: Zheng? Does one have anything besides a story?

My non-anecdotal evidence is ________

4) What truly skilled martial artists were not allowed to challenge Cheng as is claimed?

My non-anecdotal evidence is ________

5) Where is evidence that Chen Weiming was 'courting favors', as is claimed, as an explanation for him praising Cheng Man-ching's work?

My non-anecdotal evidence is ________

6) Where are all these newspaper clippings, that are claimed exist?

The newspaper clippings can be found at ______


Justin

akiy
09-07-2006, 10:11 PM
This thread has seemingly degenerated into just the kind of personal attacks that I do not care to see propagated on my site. Thread closed.

-- Jun