Announcement

**Kaitain** · 18 May 2006, 08:23 AM

Mo - I'll answer the bits that merit answering, Im not going to get into an argument with you - since you decided to have a go at me on this forum, I shall answer you.

Three different people that were there told me about the match. Robin's own account states he got hit repeatedly in the face. I also stood and watched Robin teaching a push hands class - I draw a lot of my opinion from that. He has my respect for fighting, and my respect for realising he needs to work on things.

I suggest you look at the history of John Ding and why he chose to become disciple to Ip Tai Tak. Most YSC lineages do not train in a way that I consider to be effective. Chu is not someone I would choose to train with, and getting the hump about someone else's comments in a magazine is stupid - there are better things to do with one's time don't you think? Oh wait...

I have no trouble believing that Dan could handle me with ease, I have trained with John and know he can handle me with ease. As long as the teacher I am with can do that, I dont care what someone else is doing. I have looked all over the UK for other teachers - when I moved to Brighton I looked for other taiji schools but found nothing that I wanted to study. Consequently my teacher told me I should start teaching and build my own training partners from that. I've touched hands with around 30 different taiji teachers and none of them have had what I have with my teachers - that doesnt mean they are no good, just that I have my own idea of what a good teacher should be able to do to me, and none of them could. All 3 of my teachers can. That's not to say there are no teachers that can, I just couldnt find them.

As for snide remarks regarding "you were expecting that" - I suggest you either say what you mean, or zip it. Dan's guys have a certain set of skills, some of which differ greatly to mine - some of their interpretation of taijiquan differs greatly from mine. However, when pushing hands with them I could feel that what they do works - it isnt the path that I'm on, but that's neither here nor there. It works. I suggest you go to a DD school and see for yourself - I did. Incidentally, he would probably be impressed with a BJJ move - he likes realistic methods and tells it how it is.

Regarding what I performed not being taijiquan - let me lay this down very clearly. I train with a yang family master - I have 7 years of hard training with proper guidance. I have trained privately on a weekly (when possible) basis with my teacher for the last 3 years. You train with a Shaolin Sifu who copied his taijiquan from a book but thinks it is better than nearly everyone else's (from his own words). Why do you think you are qualified to say what is or isnt taijiquan? Please explain what you think Taijiquan is, paying particular attention to the classics (a good measure for 'what taijiquan is' dont you think?). How about some video of your striking power using fa-jing? Or a clip of your form?

Please explain in detail what is you see in my video that shows that Im not doing taijiquan. I'll put it on Empty Flower where all the other cluless IMA's that liked it can see. You can also tell John Ding (1st disciple of Ip Tai Tak, the applications specialist of the YSC lineage (RIP), 1st disciple of YSC) that his striking methods aren't taijiquan. I'd also look at the posture "Lady Weaves Shuttles" and then look at the striking I was using in the video. Likewise with the applications against a lead punch, I'd suggest looking at Single Whip and Deflect, Parry, Punch. You might also see Golden Cockerel and Snake Creeps Down in there if you know how to look. To me it's just the 13 methods at work - read my reply in the Shaolin forum for a proper explanation of this.

Regarding Sun style - the point is that he developed an art using aspects of other arts. Often Bagua masters would make their students train XingYi and vice versa so that they were complete. Many CMA's train more than one style. Tim Cartmell is a BJJ BB and a master of Xingyi, Bagua, Sun and Zhaobao taijiquan - he must have a lot of holes in his arts eh?

Lastly - I am more than happy for any Wahnam taiji people to come and see me for an exchange of views and some friendly training. I'll even come along to the Brighton taiji club and show people there if requested. I have guys from different taiji styles come and train with me in the martial class - so my school is not a closed one, I will train anyone from any style.

Paul

**Jonny Say** · 18 May 2006, 12:00 PM

Hey Paul,

I should really do some work, but there was a couple of points in this one!

There is so much in your post and this thread and I think it would be worth discussing them all, but these points stuck out:

You train with a Shaolin Sifu who copied his taijiquan from a book but thinks it is better than nearly everyone else's (from his own words).

nb The "book" is the various Tai Chi Classics, that once you are a master, I believe you can understand in much deeper ways than us meer mortals!

You said this point above. When Sigung talks about Wahnam Tai Chi Chuan being better than other styles he is refering to the predominant number of Tai Chi schools being Tai Chi Dance. He is not refering to every style. You said yourself that you couldn't find another school which sufficed and this is the sad state that many schools cannot fight with their Tai Chi Chuan;

Originally posted by Kaitain

I've touched hands with around 30 different taiji teachers and none of them have had what I have with my teachers - that doesnt mean they are no good, just that I have my own idea of what a good teacher should be able to do to me, and none of them could. All 3 of my teachers can. That's not to say there are no teachers that can, I just couldnt find them.
Paul

You state here how difficult it is to find good teachers.

The difference with Wahnam Tai Chi Chuan and many Tai Chi Dance schools (a few I have visited) is that Internal force and a systematic combat methodology are emphasised in our school and are lacking from many. Of course there is some Shaolin flavour. Im not qualified to talk about this area in detail as my training is Shaolin so Ill leave that to anyone else.

Regarding Sun style - the point is that he developed an art using aspects of other arts. Often Bagua masters would make their students train XingYi and vice versa so that they were complete. Many CMA's train more than one style.

For me the reasons they mix so well is that they are all internal styles, and almost like specialisations on certain aspects. It would seem illogical to me to incorporate external styles in there. (I know we talked about this before and Im not saying you are doing this

)

Lastly - I am more than happy for any Wahnam taiji people to come and see me for an exchange of views and some friendly training. I'll even come along to the Brighton taiji club and show people there if requested. I have guys from different taiji styles come and train with me in the martial class - so my school is not a closed one, I will train anyone from any style.

Many of my brothers have suggested a friendly meeting, and hopefully this will occur. As Mark Sisook mentioned if you are ever in Edinburgh we would be happy to meet up and have a friendly discussion. As you have said often words cannot convey what you wish to show.

All the best

**Jonny Say** · 18 May 2006, 12:23 PM

Also see http://shaolin.org/taijiquan/wahnam-taijiquan01.html for more info, if you haven't already.

Best regards

**Kaitain** · 18 May 2006, 01:34 PM

J - because you dont study Taijiquan this is a bit of an odd discussion. There are aspects that Im discussing that only taijiquan people would get.

I expect that after this post I won't be welcome here anymore, but I think things have run their natural course now anyway. I feel it would be hypocritical not to lay my cards on the table.

The classics are good texts once you have what they talk about already - if you dont have it, you'll never infer it from them. They're more like a health check for the art rather than a guide - in a few of the classics it is specifically stated "find a reputable master or you will never find the secret"

I find it strange that people can believe they are studying what the masters used to study, but there is no root for the art they are studying. There is no link from the old masters to what you are doing other than a Shaolin teacher's interpretations of Taijiquan texts.

From the video I have seen, what is being studied is not taijiquan according to the principles I have been taught. Fundamental aspects are not present in the movements shown - this from your Sifu down to his students. I have discussed many of the clips with other artists from other styles of Taijiquan, guys who are living and training in China with recognised masters of family styles. People who are recognised by the IMA community as 'having it'. All of them agreed that it wasn't taijiquan.

I can link to videos ot taiji from your site that shows bad fundamentals in practice. All of this is to be expected when the training methodology you follow is understood - learning a taiji form in a week is not possible. You may well learn shapes, but never the core movement - and this is why you look to the outward appearance for application.

The simple facts are that you have a teacher who has never been taught Taijiquan, claiming to teach and know its secrets. I have no way of knowing if this is true, but I can judge on what is shown. If the Shen Fa (body method) of taijiquan is not present, then it is impossible for any of the skills that are built upon that Shen Fa to be present. From the videos I have watched, the Shen Fa is not present.

So to echo MoMoJuice's original post - I think you're wasting your time if you study this method of Taijiquan. I don't expect it to change anyone's opinions, and there's no point discussing it further - I just felt it right to make it clear why I hold the opinion I hold.

I shall go back to wasting my time with my art, you can do the same with yours.

Paul

**Maxime** · 18 May 2006, 01:52 PM

Hello,

Originally posted by Kaitain

I find it strange that people can believe they are studying what the masters used to study, but there is no root for the art they are studying. There is no link from the old masters to what you are doing other than a Shaolin teacher's interpretations of Taijiquan texts.

Those words from my Sifu are coming to my ears:

"Once you have the map , all routes become clear"

For example, there is an example here in this forum which proves that Sifu has been able to master Hsing Yi in a matter of hours.

Oh, and don't forget that Tai Chi Chuan has evolved from Shaolin.

Best regards,

Maxime

**Luo Lang** · 18 May 2006, 02:19 PM

"Once you have the map , all routes become clear"

Ha my French brother, guess who really like this statement as well?

Roland

**Maxime** · 18 May 2006, 02:28 PM

Dear Sihing,

I think I can guess

Cheers,

**Antonius** · 18 May 2006, 02:29 PM

Sifu Paul,

I think you're missing a few things. Please take a step back and see if you can look from another perspective for a moment.

Ask yourself why people from all over the world, people who already study with recognized taijiquan masters, would fly to Malaysia and pay a thousand dollars to learn from Sifu Wong. If you simply conclude that they're nuts, then you're going to continue missing it. Try to look a bit further.

What if, just maybe, there really is something to Sifu Wong's taijiquan? What if he is able to help people breathe life back into their art, an art that you yourself admit is often lacking today. What if Sifu is able to teach people in 1 week what they had not previously learned in 10-20 years?

This raises another question -- the question of a direct link. It's true that Sifu cannot claim lineage to any great Taijiquan masters, but this doesn't mean there is no link. In fact, he may be linked to more linages than any Taijiquan master in history -- through his students.

Over the years, Sifu has taught many students from other lineages, but he has also learned from them. He has pushed hands with them, watched their forms, etc. And in the process, Sifu took what these students had, digested it, and breathed life back into it. Of course, the resulting art was heavily influenced by not only Shaolinquan, but this is to be expected.

Sifu originally started to teach Taijiquan because his students -- some of them with decades in the art -- begged him to teach. They literally begged him. Sifu finally agreed to teach after seeing a video of a famous Taijiquan master, a video that showed that sad state of Taijiquan today.

This is what I think you are missing. There must be something to Sifu's Taijiquan if so many people from so many recognized lineages want to learn Taijiquan from him. This is not to say that his taijiquan is the best in the world (he has never claimed that), but it is to say that his taijiquan is good.

Don't you think his Taijiquan students have heard your argument before? Do you really think this is new to them, and that we are suddenly going to kick you off the forum for your words? Don't make the mistake of assuming that they are naive. They've heard this all before, and yet they STILL choose to learn Taijiquan from Sifu Wong.

What does that tell you? If it tells you that they're nuts, then I think you're still missing it.

Best,

**Kaitain** · 18 May 2006, 03:29 PM

Antonius,

I have been consistently awed by the droves of people that will train in a bad martial art because they dont know any better. I'm shocked at the rubbish that is passed off as taiji, but it is a sad fact that there is very little good taiji about.

I assume you're aware of the experiment where a group of people sit and insist a blue card is red, and the numbers of test subjects who eventually just agreed that it was red? Lots of people saying something is good is not proof of anything.

The state of mind of some posters here is naive - a guy who did 3 years of XingYi showed it to your Sifu, and suddenly your Sifu mastered it? It's ridiculous and fanciful and reeks of hero worship. Like standing post in taiji, if you dont spend years doing San Ti, then your art is nothing. A 3 year student of anything is in no position to do anything but train hard. I would be amazed if your teacher would claim to have mastered XingYi after being shown a beginner's interpretation of XingYi.

Without people stepping forward saying "I trained with Master X in X style for x years", it's not anything I'm going to pay attention to. It's no better than saying "I knew a guy who trained with a really well known master, but out of respect I cant name him, and he says Sifu Wong's taijiquan is great".

People dont like having their beliefs challenged. Often the challenge will elicit a hardening of the current position rather than a desire to check the veracity of the criticism. It's easy to sit in the ivory tower and insist that you have the real deal - it's hard to go out and look for yourself. The fact that they've heard these arguments before should lead them to seek out the people making them and ask them for evidence. For example, I read Dan Doherty's criticism of Yang style and my lineage - initially I just slagged off what he was doing. Then I went and looked for myself. There were things that they were doing that I was not, and vice versa - but I made my opinion on the basis of what I saw.

I've seen enough on video and in person to make my opinion of Wahnam Taijiquan - I find that there are fundamentals lacking. Now if anyone in the UK is open-minded enough to want to see what I'm talking about, I'm happy to show them. They may well decide that they like what they are doing and that's fine, but at least it's from a position of knowledge, not defensiveness.

So basically - you show me the taijiquan people with Sifu Wong that have done 10-20 years in another style of taijiquan, I'll verify what they are saying, and we can move on. If one of them comes through as a member of a lineage that I consider to be valid, I'll be impressed. My way of testing said validity will be to ask the people I know about the teachers named, then I'll contact the teacher named and ask them if they had a student of 10-20 years called X. Simple enough?

As a side note, I've had people join my club with 10+ years in other styles that wondered what the hell they've been doing - there is a lot of really bad taiji out there, I wont be surprised if someone had done taiji for 20 years and it was rubbish. It makes me sad that people get away with it.

Whilst I may be critical of the taijiquan in your system, it is pleasing that some of you are testing it. I have had a few people come through my door telling me that "after 10 years of doing the form, you can defend yourself from anything" - you dont have to spar or do anything martial apparently. I wish I knew that style - I'd be undefeatable in 3 more years

Anyway

Paul

**Maxime** · 18 May 2006, 07:25 PM

Dear Sifu Paul,

thank you for taking your time in reading our posts and answering them.

Originally posted by Kaitain

I assume you're aware of the experiment where a group of people sit and insist a blue card is red, and the numbers of test subjects who eventually just agreed that it was red? Lots of people saying something is good is not proof of anything.

So why are you participating to several forum discussions? Some people think that Saturn doesn't exist, because they haven't seen it. You don't see fresh air neither, yet you are surrounded by it everyday

The state of mind of some posters here is naive - a guy who did 3 years of XingYi showed it to your Sifu, and suddenly your Sifu mastered it? It's ridiculous and fanciful and reeks of hero worship.

As for me being naive, I take this as a compliment. But I would suggest that you reconsider your way of commenting on my Sifu's deeds and acts. Maybe you didn't intended to be disrespectful, but your words were.

Now that we are sharing our knowledge about true martial arts, it is not the first time in history that a Grandmaster shows such ability. O Senseï Morihei Uyeshiba, for example, learned the Great Hallebarde (sorry I forgot the japanese name of that weapon, which looks similar to the Chinese Kwan Dao) in one night; but what you will find interesting is that ... nobody showed him! One night, O Senseï Morihei Uyeshiba went into deep meditation and asked for a higher being to teach him that weapon. The very next day he performed during a Nô representation, and a female Grandmaster who specialized in that weapon was in the public; she proclamed that this was the beautifullest demonstration of that weapon she had never seen.

There is another world beyond your eyes... yet you cannot see it without your Heart.

I've seen enough on video and in person to make my opinion of Wahnam Taijiquan - I find that there are fundamentals lacking.

It would be great to expose what you consider to be Taijiquan fundamentals.

On the other hand, I think your statement is quite inappropriate, coming from someone who, in my opinion, is lacking some of those fundamentals.

For example, someone who admits that internal force is not in his paradigm (no doubt that internal force was an essential component in Classical Taijiquan) is lacking an important fundamental. Or someone who lacks proper respect in refering to a well known Grandmaster (no doubt that past Grandmasters put great value in Wu De, Martial Art vertue; there are historical case reports of this) is also lacking an important fundamental. Words like 'stupid' (in another thread) or 'ridiculous' when refering to masters are certainly not Taijiquan fundamentals.

Now if anyone in the UK is open-minded enough to want to see what I'm talking about, I'm happy to show them.

I respect that.

Best regards,

Maxime

**Tapio Raevaara** · 18 May 2006, 07:40 PM

Dear Sifu Paul,

Originally posted by Kaitain

Like standing post in taiji, if you dont spend years doing San Ti, then your art is nothing. A 3 year student of anything is in no position to do anything but train hard. I would be amazed if your teacher would claim to have mastered XingYi after being shown a beginner's interpretation of XingYi.

San Ti is a form of Zhan Zhuang. As far as I know, Sifu has been practising Zhan Zhuan daily for some 50 years. Perhaps not San Ti, but close enough. I'm sure that for Xingyiquan purposes, 50 years of horseriding stance would easily correspond to, say, 25 years of San Ti.

I have no experience of Sifu's Xingyiquan skills, so I'll pass that.

However, you seem to have no idea of the scope of Shaolin Kungfu (which you have basically admitted yourself). Well, it's closer to Taijiquan than you think. And I wouldn't be surprised if every single Xingyiquan technique and principle were found in Shaolin Kungfu too.

People dont like having their beliefs challenged. Often the challenge will elicit a hardening of the current position rather than a desire to check the veracity of the criticism. It's easy to sit in the ivory tower and insist that you have the real deal - it's hard to go out and look for yourself.

Exactly. This is why it's so hard for so many to accept what we are practising. Luckily some people do manage to go out to look for themselves - many of them have finally ended up in here!

I've seen enough on video and in person to make my opinion of Wahnam Taijiquan - I find that there are fundamentals lacking.

Please, point them out! That should prove to be a very interesting discussion!

**Antidote** · 18 May 2006, 08:51 PM

Hello All

2 Comments that I find interesting to this thread

Wahnam Taijiquan and Noodle Making

http://shaolin.org/discussion/emiko.html

Wahnam Taijiquan and Noodle Making

Teaching from the Heart and Inspiring by Example

http://shaolin.org/comments/leslie.html

genuine traditional taijiquan, tai chi chuan

Blessings

Antidote

**Jeffrey Segal** · 18 May 2006, 10:08 PM

let tranquility and spontaneity be the source

Dear Sifu Paul,

First Kai and now Sifu, you’re having a good week.

You’ll be happy to know that we also consider Zhan Zhuang an essential aspect of our training. It’s the second thing we teach our students and without it, all other training lacks meaning and substance. Reading your posts, I find no mention either in the words you write or in your general attitude that you yourself believe much in the first thing we teach our students.

More than any difference in sparring methodology, correct forms or “authentic” lineages and other aspects of Taijiquan, I believe this explains a lot of the dialogue between you and many of our forum members.

I have a question for you.

Can you manifest your internal power also for healing purposes? One of the (many) benefits of my training with Sifu is that the same internal force I use for sparring can be used to open points on my students and help their own energy flow more smoothly, often without physical contact. I'm finding this particularly useful as a student of Chinese Medicine.

Best regards,

**Kaitain** · 19 May 2006, 08:14 AM

A few responses,

1) Show me a taijiquan classic that even uses the term "Internal Power". Let alone one that discusses using it for healing purposes. You're confusing labels with ability. Taijiquan discusses Yi, Shi and Ching - not "internal power".

2) Standing Post is not the same as San Ti - not even close. The only thing they have in common is they involve outwardly standing still. There are things that a XingYi practitioner does in San Ti that a Taijiquan practitioner doesn't do in ZZ, and vice versa - having been taught both I can say that. Horse stance is utterly irrelevant to either - there's a reason ZZ is trained at no more than hip width. These things do not cross over.

3) Shaolin is not in anyway close or similar to taijiquan. It's not even worth discussing this - Taijiquan is not derived from Shaolin, they have never been linked or related, check any history of taijiquan by any scholar. They use different body mechanics and different principles. If you do taijiquan with Shaolin flavour, it's Shaolin - and vice versa.

4) Internal Power - this is a label that your school applies. The term is meaningless to anyone else unless you describe and show what you are doing. I've yet to see any sort of fa-jing from your taijiquan students- that's what I consider to be internal power, that's what my teachers consider to be internal power (we just dont call it that). It's one of the most important martial skills in Taijiquan - it can only be achieved through a high level of Sung. Do you train it? Is there video of it? You've seen my use of it.

5) Maxime - I was disrespecting your statement, not you and definitely not your Sifu. The notion that he would suggest he had mastered XingYi seems unlikely, the notion that if he did say that he would say it after copying a 3 year XingYi student is ridiculous. Maybe you should ask him.

6) Maxime - Yang Chen Fu once stopped a bird taking off from his wrist because his Ting energy was so good - do you believe that? I can give you a hundred stories of the exploits of Chinese masters, most of them are hugely exaggerated or just plain untrue - they are used to get an important message across, not as historical fact. So Ueshiba, being an extremely pragmatic martial artist, probably did not pray one night to learn the Halberd and suddenly he was a master. He was a fantastic martial artist through his own hard work and intelligence, not through prayer. People have their own agendas in these things, and some people love to believe the old stories. I can fully believe he picked up the weapon and used it with skill, and consequently I can see how that would become "he mastered it". In any case, that is not the same ballpark as mastering XingYi, San Ti et al from watching someone who was a beginner.

7) Fundamentals that I see lacking - the crown raised as if from above; Sung; the six harmonies; distinguishing full and empty; waist/hand connection. This is from video and images supplied by Wahnam people, images purportedly showing Taiji Sifu's. The video of your Sifu shows fantastic form from his Shaolin mastery, but that's all that's being shown when he does taijiquan - fundamentals like keeping the arm bow, leg bow are not present, the hand waist connection is also not present. These are fundamentals of taijiquan but I assume in Shaolin they are not - I've never seen any Shaolin artist working with these principles (this is not a criticism - different systems and principles).

8) as for the links - in the case of the lady, she doesnt name her teachers, just claims a root to Yang Chen Fu. Im not sure why the link to the guy was put up - can someone explain?

9) I don't happen to believe that masters or grandmasters are immune from criticism when they make mistakes (which Im sure they would all happily admit to making). If you found out that one of your Taiji Sifu's arrived at my school uninvited with a lot of students with him/her because of something I had written, what would you say? Does it matter whether they "win" or not - surely the behaviour itself is the problem? I think the action was stupid and it has lead to Chu no longer teaching in the UK, despite living here, which is a shame.

To me it is pointless to get riled by someone else's words - "Invest In Loss" is the taijiquan way, and I live by it (and sometimes I fail). Wu De is a lot more complex than "dont disrespect a master" - but it is a different set of values for a different world. Start with a basic martial code and some core human values, live by that. I have my own code - it may not match yours, but it works for me. Criticising an art or a system is not breaking my code, being abusive about it is - note that I dont resort to name calling/personal insults and I criticise actions and statements, not individuals. If i have directly insulted someone ("you're an idiot" etc) then I apologise, that was impolite.

In any case - this was the reason I didnt want to discuss this. Noone here is going to countenance the statements Im making as you have too much invested in what you're doing - unless someone comes to see me so i can show them, this is going to be a fruitless discussion. Instead of discussing the points Im raising, the conversation is now moving to my personal character and issues unrelated to my criticism. If we can stay on the specifics, rather than the personal, then that's great - otherwise it's just mud flinging and I don't see why any of us would want to engage in that.

Regards

Paul

Announcement

A discussion about Wahnam Tai Chi Chuan

A discussion about Wahnam Tai Chi Chuan

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment