Talk:Chen-style tai chi

Irrelevant Link

In the first paragraph there is a sentance: "The five traditional family styles tend to retain the original martial applicability of tai chi teaching methods." The word "martial" links to a poet rather than any kind of discussion of the martial arts.

List of Wikipedians by martial art add yourself!

Wikipedia:List_of_Wikipedians_by_martial_art

Old romanization and expansion

I know you guys want to keep main TaiJiQuan article in old romanization.

The Chen styles is relative new to the west, and most new literature is in PinYin. Unless you all wildly complain I will be using that to explain alot of things.

And allready alot of temrs in the article is in PinYin like Chenjiagou, henan etc.

I am going to expand this article greatly, and make more emphasis on the style and less on the persons who teach it and their lineage. It will be an too great task to find old romanization for all the chinese expressions. This should not be an article for curious Yang stylists(as I feel it is now) only, but a general article about the Chen martial art styles.

A human 04:28, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I started it a long time ago, hoping a Chen stylist would come along and fill it out a bit. I'm a Wu stylist, though, myself, so it would be great to get some first hand input. While technical info would be interesting, we have to remember what Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, and not get too much like an instruction manual. Biographies of famous Chen family teachers would be very welcome at the redlinks in the article, too. Cheers! --Fire Star 05:13, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

This has been discussed at length here: Talk:T'ai chi ch'uan#Romanization / Naming Revisited. Unfortunately the consensus was not reached to move to pinyin (taijiquan), as most other Chinese martial arts have done. This is because although most well learned practitioners and professionals of the martial art refer to it in the pinyin form, the majority of references to it are still in the Wade-Giles form. Consensus was thus reached to at least use the accurate Wade-Giles form, if at all, since the spelling "tai chi chuan" is too ambiguous as in turn one could, for example, also write "chi" (for "qi") instead of "ch'i", and making it appear to be the "chi" in the name (tai chi chuan), etc. This consensus has allowed for correctness while following WP guidelines of adopting the most common usage.
In turn, in all related articles it's to be made immediately clear that "t'ai chi ch'uan" is interchangeable with "taijiquan" (eg writing "t'ai chi ch'uan (taijiquan)" or "taijiquan (t'ai chi ch'uan"), while on the t'ai chi ch'uan page, a write-up is going to be made to reflect that officially, taijiquan is preferred. For the sake of avoiding unnecessary fragmentation, all the family styles are being renamed to "t'ai chi ch'uan" as well. The shift of common usage is slowing moving toward pinyin and in time the change will be made to it, but for now the current usage in it's correct form is what seems best to use and, of course, to avoid confusion through naming fragmentation, it's best to have all sub-pages in-line with the main t'ai chi ch'uan page. I hope this doesn't upset anyone and you all understand the necessity for the current position that has been taken. InferKNOX (talk) 18:05, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

External links that promote organizations

There are 3 link now, they all go to association homepages. Allthough those pages have some info on style and history they are plastered with commercials to buy courses, books and DVDs. And also to show how great their particular teachers are. I am going to remove them all and replace them with links to sites that write about the styles not the people who train them.

A human 05:47, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Variants

I am initially going to add the list of variants to the main article, but I feel they should later be expanded and put in seperate articles.

A human 05:47, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

im pretty sure there are other forms in chen style taiji quan. They are not as popular and historical as the main forms explained here, but perhaps we could list them here as just a generic list of other forms much as has been done with the weapons --Blckavnger 17:25, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

What other forms are you talking about? VanTucky 00:14, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

in particular i was thinking of the 38 section form supposdly created by Chen Xiaowang combining xin jia and lao jia movements. Also there are competition forms that are standarized in some parts of the world. However, since i do not know how much they are practiced im not sure if it should be included. I am most familiar with lao jia and i know the 38 section. i do not know if the 38 is practiced enough to be listed; i dont think there should be a description, just a mention along with competition forms (with a little note that they are not traditional). --Blckavnger 17:09, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Similar to the original tai chi article, I added a "modern forms" section. This can be added on to include any shortened or competition forms. though the article should continue to focus on chen family (and their disciples) teachings, just like how yang style page focuses on the yang family origins. VanTucky 19:17, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

HuLeiJia 忽雷架(Sudden Thunder Form) created based on ZhaoBaoJia is also a variant which may be found in Taiwan (Only recently appear in Main land China). This art is lost in China during the Cultural revolution. I think it was created by Master Li Jin Yan (Student of Master Chen Qin Ping).

At what point does a sub-style break off and become a recongnized sub-style, rather than the particular take on the same teachings by a certain teacher? Is it simply the act of a particular teacher breaking away and declaring a new style? Back in the day, there was no video recording or youtube, so there must have been a lot of divergence simply because it was impossible to set a benchmark. But now we should be able to document the current state of the art, and comment on future variations, and reference archive material in articles. danielpoon

The Xin Yi Hun Yuan section seem too big, and out of place. It is listed along side sub headings, such as 'The Xiao jia Tradition'. If I understand it correctly, Xin Yi Hun Yuan is still part of the Xin Jia style, and does not warrent an entry. Im pretty new to wikipedia, so I don't know if I should just go and delete it. Im going to move it into a sub-heading under 'Xin jia'. daniel poon

At this point, Hunyuan Taiji is a pretty distinct style, with higher stances and more emphasis on internal cultivation over weapons and martial application. I think is till deserves a section.Herbxue (talk) 05:15, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

The Chenjiaguo people

I do realise that the Chenjiaguo people like Chen Bing, Ren Guangyi and Chen Xiaoxing are very visible in the US., has published many english language books and websites. But in China they are not considered anything special. So there is no reason to call Chen Xiaowang: "the standard-bearer for the Chen family's 19th generation" and similar propaganda. Repeating it a thousand times does not make it so. A human 15:39, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually they are quite well thought of in china. The four tigers/buddas draw huge crowds at there seminars. They all posess high official rank within the national martial ranking system. Chen Bin (chen zhenglei's son)told me they enjoy celebrity status in china. The billboards showing the group of them in varous postures that take up 3 to 5 stories of space seem to bear this out (yes I saw this with my own eyes when visiting). However, I agree with you on the standard-bearer nonesense. mlmalone 19:10, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Its is also regional. China is a big place. For example, in Beijing where Wushu is big, Chen Village may have such a big name. Resident Beijing Tai Chi experts will tend to get more press there. Regarding standard bearer - there are two aspects. One is that the standard bearer should be the most skillful person of their generation. The other is the position of that person within the socio-political organization that is the traditional Chinese family. We are all going to have differing opinions about who has the best skill, but the position held in the family by certain Chen Village names is pretty clear. I was in Chen Village for a year, and in my time there, there was a large ceremony at Chen Fake's grave. The person leading that ceremony was the so-called 'standard-bearer', though I don't know if he uses that name himself danielpoon 22:31, 5 March 2007

No mention of silk reeling

We've got a mention weapons.... But shouldn't we also say something like "[Chen style] places special emphasis on the silk reeling Chi-gung exercise set to strengthen the body"?

Also, should we include something like "[Chen style] is the most external of the internal t'ai chi styles, with many martial applications of the forms obvious to complete beginners to a greater extent than other t'ai chi styles."?

Triponi 13:31, 4 July 2006 (UTC) $Insertformulahere$

First, an internal art is an internal art because it trains the internal chi (I don't remember what the exact classification of this chi is). This means that an art either is internal or is not internal no degrees. Second, if you are focused in on the obvious application then you have missed dozens of other in the same move. mlmalone 19:30, 1 march 2007 (UTC)

Yang and Chen

So I guess I am yang stylist somewhat confused by the chen claim to be the original form, i always understood that the yang family practised a guarded internal style that was very effective and a servant learned by stealth and he was allowed to teach to the ROW? Correct me if i am wrong?

The one thing most agree on is that Yang Luchan learned from Chen Changxing starting around 1820 or so. There are many legendary stories about that process, with actual surviving records of Yang's career dating from 1850 or so, when Yang began teaching the Manchu Imperial family and bannermen in Beijing. --Fire Star 火星 01:54, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

External Links

wikipedia is not a link farm, and though many of those are interesting personally, I plan on scaling down the external links section. One or two examples of each form is sufficient. my criteris for which versions to include will be video technical quality and compelteness as all are good examples of form. VanTucky 18:43, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup is finished, please do not add any external video links. Please discuss before replacing. I kept most of the applications videos b/c they all show different versions/ways to apply the form. I deleted the free sparring bit b/c it looks choreographed (it is a PRC government documentary remember?). The fa jin video is already on the linked Fa Jin page. Thank you. VanTucky 20:37, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

The videos you removed are all the most recognized and high level teachers in china. Why not have a large number of video links? It showcases many different teachers as opposed to the promotion of one and specifically it demonstraits personal preferences/differences in the same forms. The comparison of multiple teachers demonstraiting low middle and high frame and the differences that I have found by close comparison have greatly accelerated my own practice. The Fa jin video is specifically of a chen master and in my opinion belongs on the chen page as well as the fajin page. What do you think?

I suppose it depends on how expansive and informative we want the Chen Tai Chi entry to be. Mlmalone 2/23/07

Its not about expansion. External links are not expanding the enclyclopedic content of the article. Too many videos of the same form or repeated videos from other subject pages is not allowed. VanTucky 21:24, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

If I explain the difference people should be looking for and the relevance to the practice it would expand the reference value of the article. Video links of masters do expand the encyclopedic content of the articles because this is a physical art which words cannot do justice to and most modern/electronic encyclopedias include extensive video content. Could you provide the link to the video content rules? Mlmalone

the guidelines for external links can be found at WP:EL. notice the first four suggestions...

1. Links should be kept to a minimum. A lack of external links, or a small number of external links is not a reason to add external links. 2. Rather than creating a long list of external links, editors should consider linking to a related category in the Open Directory Project (also known as DMOZ) which is devoted to creating relevant directories of links pertaining to various topics. (See {{Dmoz}}.) If there is no relevant category, you can request help finding or creating a category by placing {{Directory request}} on the article's talk page. 3. Try to avoid linking to multiple pages from the same website; instead, try to find an appropriate linking page within the site.

wikipedia is not a how-to guide. descriptions of the subtle differences in style between the contemporary masters is not what this article is about. its an informative guide for those who know little to nothing about makes Chen style, Chen style. Also to be considered is that videos on YouTube are often copywright violations. VanTucky 00:01, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

10/3/2007 I change the link for xinjia yilou from Chen Zhenlei to old footage of Chen Xiaowang. Full disclosure - I studied with Chen Xiaowang. However I though as a performance it was a good reference, since it shows the form in a very raw state - not a public demonstration, nor a instructional video. It also shows the form before Chen Xiaowang really starts to make it his own.

Your personal preference has no bearing on the selection, besides that the original is better quality video, and if you look closely it says at the beginning of the video that its Lao Jia. I personally think that is correct, just looking at his postures.but to be safe lets stick with the first video that is clearer. also, like I mention in my edit summary, Feng Zhiqiang's style is a STYLE recognised by other Chen masters as a separate facet of the Chen arts not just a part of the Xin Jia routine. VanTucky 04:27, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Feng's style is recognised as a seperate style within chen style (same type of difference as the old and new frame) but it is also recognized as an offshoot of the Xin Jia large frame. So it should really be in the big frame tradition section but as a seperate style entry right below the Xin Jia entry. Also note that Feng classifies it as big frame in his quote within the Hun Yuan section. Mlmalone 17:36, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Zhaobao style on the other hand is not considered part of the chen family's tai chi tradition and is not linked to the official chen tai chi lineage in chen village. It has its own page and its link to chen is a substyle of a substyle which is very far to link as a substyle of chen. The Zhaobao page also states that the style has chen family influences but this doesn't mean it was created by a chen master which is the requirement for a link into the chen lineage. Anyone disagree?

Zhaobao is linked on the page not bc it is a Chen form, but bc A: it is established as a part of Chen Qingping lineage. and B: As a style that is obscure to Westerners, it is often mistaken to be Chen. So for the point of differentiating it, we keep the mention and link. VanTucky 15:39, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

p.s. please remember to sign your statements with four tildes.

Ok lets make sure that the entry says that though. Mlmalone 15:49, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

There is already a link and a mention of Zhaobao in the chen village section. It doesn't merit its own section within chen because it has its own page. This seems more appropriate as zhaobao is not considered a chen art by the chen family. Mlmalone 20:32, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

This historical vidio clip of Chen Zhaokui may be worth including http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WrAczAE66w0 . Its short, but its the only bit of footage I know of from way back. Could do with some still photos of Chen Fake as well. danielpoon

its very interesting, but it might better be included in a Chen Zhaokui bio stub. We already have plenty of links showing the forms. VanTucky 22:26, 21 March 2007 (UTC) p.s. please sign your edits with four tildes

Hi guys, my first entry here but I have been following discussions/edits for the last 6 months. I too believe the video links section is getting out of hand. Neutrality principle seems to be being compromised with over representations of certain figures. Also I note the arbitrary replacing of perfectly adequate pre-existing video links on well-intentioned but dubiously subjective grounds. While the occassional honest "self disclosure" is heartening it doesn't really make the situation any more desirable. A couple of suggestions I am thinking of: limit direct video links to verifiably internationally influential 19th generation Chen Masters (comparisons are good); move these to another page - perhaps coming off the generic http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Tai_Chi_Chuan_forms page.Blue Horizen 10:47, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, thats a good idea, but the list page shouldnt have much external links on it. The truth is: if you look at WP:EL it advises against using links to YouTube and similar sites bc of the ease of copywright infringement. Its not really good to have all those form links. I think I'll be downsizing it. VanTucky 16:53, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Youtube links

Oh, just checked out WP:EL again and it seems that the newest policy is that the video is expressly in copywright infringement per a complaint by its owner, then its okay. I dont think that the Chen family members being in the videos are compromising neutrality, they are just the best examples of full form videos available on the net. VanTucky 17:00, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Re new WP:EL that makes a lot of sense. Youtube (or similar concept) is here to stay, the common people have voted with their mouse-clicks. I am sure we are quite capable of recognising and rejecting infringement video links. For Tai Chi forms/Master appraisal Youtube is an amazing international breakthrough in search for knowledge. Blue Horizen 22:54, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

New Page for Chen Master Video Links?

I agree, the page is starting to have an EL area that rivals the body! All the same I believe we still need to reference the influential Chen 18th/19th gen masters somewhere and guide readers to learn/compare forms/masters for themselves. If I get a bit of time over Easter I'd like to create a new page devoted to this which can be referenced from a single link here. It is very hard for Chen newbies to sort out who is who, who has high credibility/influence and what is mainstream and what is not. Blue Horizen 22:54, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality of External links

Re "neutrality" above looks like I didn't express myself well. The guys listed there already I have no prob with whatsoever (though 20th gen Chen Ziqiang may be a worthy but "thin edge of the wedge" trip into subjective choices, i.e. if him why not another ten 20th gen members as well). Blue Horizen 22:54, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

What I really meant was an imbalance of spread - almost 50% of the links refer to Chen Zhenglei. I think he is great, but the numeric over preponderance suggests strong promotional editing bias has occurred. What is to stop me going thru and again replacing all these with ZTC (my Chinese wife is his indoor disciple) - and the war goes on. Also, while it is great to see ZTC down representing Small Frame I find that strange. Of course he is worthy of it but this tradition is not his chosen specialty and Small Frame Chen Village Masters are surely worthy of this honour - something ZTC himself would probably advise if asked. So that's what I really meant by some absence of neutrality there. Blue Horizen 22:49, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

As far as space goes, the general suggestion is that if you feel the article is imbalanced in some content areas, the goal should be to expand those in need of it and not just whittle down other areas. As to neutrality, I totally see your point about replacing them/vandals. thats just part of stewarding WP unfortunately. But the CZL videos (and I dont think he's that great, in fact I think his fa jing sucks compared to many of his peers) are there just bc alot of his instruction videos have been released on the net and are high quality demos. That seems to be it. If you can find high quality vids that are complete and not of CZL or CXW (maybe replace the Xinjia with Ma Hong, thats what he's famous for anyway) then go ahead. VanTucky 23:34, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I put CZL videos up because they were available (Though, I do study with him). I put ZTC in small frame because he was the only recognizable demo I could find. As for Chen Ziqiang it was the most physical throwing someone to the ground fast, nonteaching type demo, of push hands I could find. New video is regularly being made available so if you find something better or have something you can post to youtube which is better, please add or replace it. Van: I'd withhold judgement on CZL's fa jing. Mlmalone 19:34, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Since some have discussed wanting more diversity of demo vids, I replaced some of the CZL vids and some others for diversity and quality. The hard part was finding complete vids instead of part 1 and 2 ones. I made the laojia er lu of chen bing. I made the xinjia yi lu the cool 10 yr old student of wang xian. I think most everyone could agree this kid is just as good or better than alot of older Western students, and its good to show that taiji is for everyone not just the old and infirm. I replaced the xinjia cannon fist with wang hai jun bc its a more complete and closer up camera angle than the one of chen yu onstage. any objections? VanTucky 22:42, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I delete 'chenstyle.com' as it says 'this account has been suspended'. Ancos (talk) 00:49, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

new section

I created a new section discussing martial application. I tried to keep it down to why Chen tai chi focuses on self-defense and what general types of technique are used commonly. Feel free to expand it of course, but I hope we can keep from getting into "how-to guide" territory in describing techniques . VanTucky 20:17, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Form Confusion

There seems to be some confusion in regards to "Old Frame" Form for with "New Frame" and "Cannon Fist" form. From what I understand "New Frame" and "Cannon Fist" are NOT the same form.

The Video Example section on the unarmed forms has to be reorganized. Its simply mismatched and confusing.

-Bill

January 4, 2007

The organization is correct: The old and new traditions both have a second form nicknamed cannonfist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.195.19.41 (talk) 20:37, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Citations

Hello everyone. There are a lot of mentions of anecdotal or legendary stories in the article, but few secondary (or even primary) sources. I've added a couple, but we need one for practically every legend if we want it to stay in the article. Cheers! --Bradeos Graphon (talk) 15:21, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Removal of a Section of The Chen Family Origin Story

The following information is removed because it represent original research "Additional information has recently come to light regarding a possible connection to the brothers "Li" who were sworn brothers of a religious order along with Chen Wangting. They are all said to have learned various martial and health arts at the temple they attended. The three of them are credited in the Li family history with having created a practice system called, "Taiji Yang Sheng Gong", meaning "Taiji" (yin-yang flux) life energy cultivation practice approximately. They were said to have begun to tech this to students saying they could be come lions or tigers at their will; Probably meaning the road to martial art skill would be open to them. As with much of this type of regional Chinese history, nothing is absolutely certain, but the Li family even though not too far from Chen Jiagou does not retain any martial arts at this time." I could not find any reference to this information. Please add the appropiate information if you want to put this informaton back into the article. ottawakungfu (talk) 13:29, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

The following references can be used if you want to re-insert this interesting research:

http://www.bgtent.com/naturalcma/CMAarticle30.htm
http://www.literati-tradition.com/chen_camp.html
Blue Horizen (talk) 08:50, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Reference to Chen Changxing or Chen Wanting

While improving the readability of the second paragraph in "Other Origin Stories", I see that the point is made that Jiang Fa may or may not have been connected to Chen Changxing. However, the closing sentence kills this argument by saying that there is no evidence that Jiang Fa and Chen Wangting were connected. Wait a moment here: wasn't the text talking about Chen Changxing?? So I took the liberty to change Chen Wanting to Chen Changxing.

Can anybody confirm that this is a good change? Bruno talk 20:16, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Good work but the relationship is between Jiang Fa and Chen Wanting. I have corrected the paragraph and added the reference. Thnkx ottawakungfu (talk) 21:07, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. The old narrative was really muddled. The new one makes things explicit and clear.Bruno talk 20:41, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Improving lineage trees

Key:

NEIJIA

Solid lines

Direct teacher-student.

Dash lines

Individual(s) ommited.

(王宗岳) Wang Zongyue* 1733-1795 TAIJIQUAN

Dash cross

Branch continues.

Dot lines

Partial influence /taught informally /limited time.

(陈王庭) Chen Wangting 1580–1660 CHEN-STYLE

(蒋法) Jiang Fa Zhaobao-style

(陈汝信) Chen Ruxin 2nd gen. Chen

(陈所乐) Chen Suole 2nd gen. Chen

(陈大鹍) Chen Dakun 3rd gen. Chen

(陈大鹏) Chen Dapeng 3rd gen. Chen

(陈光印) Chen Guangyin 3rd gen. Chen

(陈申如) Chen Shenru 3rd gen. Chen

(陈恂如) Chen Xunru 3rd gen. Chen

(陈正如) Chen Zhengru 3rd gen. Chen

(张楚臣) Zhang Chuchen 3rd gen. Zhaobao

(陈善通) Chen Shantong 4th gen. Chen

(陈善志) Chen Shanzhi 4th gen. Chen

(陈继夏) Chen Jixia 4th gen. Chen

(陈节) Chen Jie 4th gen. Chen

(陈敬伯) Chen Jingbo 4th gen. Chen 4th gen. Zhaobao

(陈秉奇) Chen Binqi 5th gen. Chen

(陈秉壬) Chen Bingren 5th gen. Chen

(陈秉旺) Chen Bingwang 1748–? 5th gen. Chen

(陈公兆) Chen Gongzhao 1715– after1795 5th gen. Chen

(张宗禹) Zhang Zongyu 5th gen. Zhaobao

(陈长兴) Chen Changxing 1771–1853 6th gen. Chen Chen Old Frame

(陈有恒) Chen Youheng 6th gen. Chen

(陈有本) Chen Youben c. 19th century 6th gen. Chen Chen Small Frame

(张彦) Zhang Yan 6th gen. Zhaobao

(陈耕耘) Chen Gengyun 7th gen. Chen

(杨露禅) Yang Luchan 1799–1872 YANG-STYLE

(陈清萍) Chen Qingping 1795–1868 7th gen. Chen 7th gen. Zhaobao

(陈延熙) Chen Yanxi 8th gen. Chen

(武禹襄) Wu Yuxiang 1812–1880 WU (HAO)-STYLE

(他招远) He Zhaoyuan 1810–1890 8th gen. Zhaobao Zhaobao He-style

Li-style

(陈发科) Chen Fake 1887–1957 9th gen. Chen Chen New Frame

WU-STYLE

SUN-STYLE

(冯志强) Feng Zhiqiang 1928-2012 10th gen. Chen

(田秀臣) Tian Xiuchen 1917–1984 10th gen. Chen

(洪均生) Hong Junsheng 1906–1996 10th gen. Chen

(陈照奎) Chen Zhaokui 1928–1981 10th gen. Chen focused on Chen New Frame

(陈照旭) Chen Zhaoxu 1911–1960 10th gen. Chen

(陈照丕) Chen Zhaopi 1893–1972 10th gen. Chen focused on Chen Old Frame

Wudang-style

"4 Tigers"

(陈瑜) Chen Yu 1962–Present 11th gen. Chen

(陈小旺) Chen Xiaowang 1945–Present 11th gen. Chen

(陈正雷) Chen Zhenglei 1949–Present 11th gen. Chen

(陈小星) Chen Xiaoxing 1952–Present 11th gen. Chen

(王西安) Wang Xian 1944–Present 11th gen. Chen

(朱天才) Zhu Tiancai 1944–Present 11th gen. Chen

CHEN-STYLE

YANG-STYLE

WU-STYLE

SUN-STYLE

WU (HAO)-STYLE

I'm working hard on improving the lineage trees for the main taijiquan page and for all the family style pages. Please comment on the this tree where you feel improvements can be made and help me by posting information on individuals that aught to be included in the tree and the reason for their significance so that a detailed Chen-style tree can be produced. All individuals to be added that are approved upon (via consensus of course) will be added, unless they threaten to make the tree excessively large whilst adding little value to the overall tree.
The tree on the main page is to focus on the gate keepers of the styles in order to show each family style's lineage without making it excessively large, while the trees on the family style pages are to be more focused on the particular styles, showing a more in depth view of it's development & connection to other family styles. I hope to hear from as many of you as possible & will continue making edits to the tree here as feedback comes in. Thanks. InferKNOX (talk) 22:36, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks to the help of many individuals (outside of Wiki) and research on my part, I've hugely increased the size of the Chen-style tree. Please review it and comment on any errors, improvements or other amendments that should be made. Thanks. ~ InferKNOX (talk) 15:53, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

With assistance from shifu Chen Bing & shifu Chen Xiaoxing, I think this is ready, unless there is contestation here. ~ InferKNOX (talk) 14:48, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

If you want, you can complete Tian Xiuchen's lineage with his disciples: Ding Dahong (1936), Tian Qiutian (1933), Tian Qiumao (1945) and Tian Qiuxin (1942). Tian Qiutian's lineage continues with [Wang Xiaojun] (1968), and Wang Xiaojun's lineage continues with Félix Castellanos (1965) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emmanuelem (talk • contribs) 04:43, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

References

I corrected the first reference which listed Stephen Berkwick (sic) and Jose Figueroa as co-authors of Ren Guang-Yi's book. The ISBN and flyleaf of the book grants Stephen Berwick and Jose Figueroa copyright, but does not list them as co-authors (though they may well have been translators?) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Swandodger (talk • contribs) 08:53, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Recent edits by Leon taichi

Please can someone review the validity of the recent edits made by User:Leon taichi, especially the added "Places to go" section. I've manually undone and corrected some of their edits. ~ InferKNOX (talk) 22:20, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Comment on Grandmaster Ma Hong

On David Gaffney's Blog I read that Grandmaster Ma Hong passed away last month. So he sadly doesn't fit into the list of "Other well known Chen teachers active in China or overseas"

References

Removed section

My comments -

I have removed this section -

"==== Big frame/small frame split ==== Around the time of the 14–15th generation, Chen Village practice is said by some to have differentiated into two related but distinct practice traditions, which are today known as big frame (sometimes called large frame) and small frame. The various practise routines embodied in big/small frame traditions modified and assimilated Chen Wangting's seven set corpus and the original practice routines are now said to have been lost. (Though recent claims are being made that Chen Wangting's 108 form has been rediscovered from two possible sources: senior Beijing disciples of Chen Zhaokui; Chen relatives back in Shanxi Province)

There are conflicting claims about which of these two traditions came first. Western theories and most of the famous masters from Chen Village (see Chen Zhenglei's English language book) tend to favor the view that big frame tradition came first (noting that "small frame" tradition was originally called "new frame"). There is a minority view from outside of Chen Village that tend to favor the reverse view.

There are also conflicting stories about the reason for the differentiation into these two traditions. Zhu Tian Cai comments that small frame tradition routines tended to be practiced by "retired" Chen villagers (and mimicked by younger children). It seems this was because the more demanding leaping, stomping, low frame, and intensive Fa jin of the advanced big frame tradition routines have been eliminated and the retained movements emphasize the training of the soft internal skills. Keep in mind that this is only a tendency and a master of the principles may use them to add fa jing, leaping, stomping, and low frame back to the small tradition at will. Just as a master of the large frame can perform the set small, large, smoothly, with fa jing in every movement, low, middle, or high. The traditions are only significantly different because the elder practitioners tend to focus on longevity and may develop injuries if they practice in the same manner as the younger practitioners.

Other authors, however, say that "big" does not simply mean large exaggerated outer movements and nor does "small" simply mean confined/close outer movements. They argue that in small frame both large and small motions are used—with the smaller motions considered to be more advanced. It is also useful to frame the discussion in terms of human physiology. The large and small frame traditions have similar training methods and are training the same tai chi principles (clear movement of qi, shifting the weight, relaxation, etc.) it is only the external presentation that confuses beginners.

In the book "Chen Style: The Source of Taijiquan" the explanation is given that both the large and small frames were developed at the same time, by two related masters, as distillations and simplifications of the existing routines.

Keep in mind throughout this discussion that no literature of Chen-style before 1932 appears to mention anything about New, old, big or small styles . As with so much of Tai Chi history complete comprehension and certainty is hard to find.

It is important to understand that currently what is called "small frame" or "large frame" are not necessarily accurate representations of past practices, nor past labels. What we have now are actually separations of style, whereas the ideology of "small" and "large" frame originally referred to the relative size and method of movement practice within one style. This is to say that the size and method of practice could vary but the style itself was the same. In today's versions of what is often called small and large, the major difference is that of style and method, which are radically different even down to the basics. Regardless of stylistic divergence or political factions, the original concept of large and small frame practice within any one stylistic method still exists in modern Chen Taijiquan methods."

- Cannot source or reference any of those statements - most of the text is considered to me personal opinion. - so I cannot incorporate this text without compromising the structure of the article.

ottawakungfu (talk) 00:12, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

I have modified this section due to the same considerations as above. I have replaced it with text that is more concise and have external references.

Big frame tradition

Chen family traditions were kept secret from the public until around 1928 when the big frame routines were taught openly for the first time. This was started in Beijing by Chen Fake's nephew and then by the legendary Chen Fake himself.

Big frame encompasses the methods handed down from the late Chen Zhaopei, which came to be called "old frame" by Chen village residents in the 1970s, the reason being that it was all that generation had been exposed to in the village due to the line of Chen Fake having been in Beijing for decades. This method from Chen Zhaopei was not called "old" until Chen Zhaokui was called back to the village to teach due to a fear of the art dying out in the village after the death of Chen Zhaopei. At this time the locals of that generation being newly exposed to the methods of Chen Fa Ke through his son Chen Zhaokui reasonably saw it as "new", to them.

Regarding currently popular labels, between "laojia" (old frame) and "xinjia" (new frame), which one is actually older is questionable at best. So-called new frame is also said by some lines to contain very old methods that were not present outside of the leading family line of Chen Fa Ke.

Big frame encompasses the classic "old frame" (lao jia) routines, one and two, which are very well known today. It also includes the "new frame" (xin jia) routines, one and two, which some say evolved from the classic Old Way/Frame routines thanks to the work of Chen Fake in Beijing in his later years (1950s).

Xin yi hun yuan tai chi is an offshoot of the new frame (xin jia) tradition and blends in material from Feng Zhiqiang's Xing Yi background.

Lao jia – old frame

The Chen lao jia (old frame; 老架) consists of two forms yi lu (1st routine) and er lu (2nd routine) It was taught privately in Chen Village from the time of Chen ChangXing—the 14th generation creator of these routines. These were the very first Chen tai chi routines to be publicly revealed. This happened in Beijing from 1928 onwards—being taught by Chen Fake and his nephew.

Yi lu (the first empty hand form) at the beginner level is mostly done slowly with large motions interrupted by occasional expressions of fast power (Fa jing) that comprise less than 20% of the movements, with the overall purpose of teaching the body to move correctly. At the intermediate level it is practiced in very low stances (low frame) with an exploration of clear directional separation in power changes and in speed tempo. The movements become smaller and the changes in directional force become more subtle. At the advanced level the leg strength built at the previous level allows full relaxation and the potential for Fajing in every movement.

The second empty hand form, "er lu" or "cannon fist" is done faster and is used to add more advanced martial techniques such as advanced sweeping and more advanced fajing methods. Both forms also teach various martial techniques.

ottawakungfu (talk) 20:05, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Chen-style t'ai chi ch'uan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110129061452/http://www.cstjq.com/ to http://www.cstjq.com/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:29, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Chen-style t'ai chi ch'uan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://archive.is/20130222055604/http://www.tiancaitaiji.net/ to http://www.tiancaitaiji.net/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110125182331/http://www.silkreeler.com/drupal/node/21 to http://www.silkreeler.com/drupal/node/21
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110208002231/http://home.exetel.com.au/peterwutaichi/ to http://home.exetel.com.au/peterwutaichi/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:18, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Potential renaming under discussion

Editors interested in this topic are politely asked to participate in the discussion here: Talk:Tai chi#Consistency among Tai chi-related articles. SilverStar54 (talk) 06:21, 12 June 2023 (UTC)