Long Form Not “complete”

[Anonymous]

I had hoped that the “Old Yang Style Tai Chi Edition” would be the complete, definitive treatment of the traditional, classical Long Form.

It had been described as such,
“The tai chi section will show you a complete Old Yang Tai Chi form.”

Through the First 3rd of the form it seemed like it would be.
Bruce’s treatment was definitive and in-depth.
I could see the influence of T.T. Liang.
However, I was skeptical because Liang’s form has 150 Postures;
how could Bruce possibly cover this much ground in 18 months?

Now at Month 14, the most recent June installment, I can see the problem.
In Lessons 25-36 Bruce treats “Step Forward Downward Punch” but his
“Overview Walk Through of the Second 3rd of the Form,” at Lesson 39 stops at “Punch Down.”
Bruce admits that he’s made the Long form “medium.”
MEDIUM!
Not Long.
Now I don’t object to leaving out some of the repetitious Postures.
The Long form is really, really long with a lot of these repetitions (at least 105, sometimes more.)
But, after “Punch Down” every Long form that I know continues the Kicking Section with “Kick Upward with Right Foot” and “Strike with Both Fists,”
(sometimes called “Box Ears” or “Strike Opponent’s Ears with Both Fists,” or “Attack The Ears with the Fists” (Shuang Feng Guan Er) or “Strike Opponent’s Ears with Fists.”)
Master Jou’s book includes the picture drawings of Yangchenfu, himself (the developer of the Long form) doing Shuanfengguaner at Posture 52.

Bruce has left out “Box Ears.”
His treatment is incomplete.

Why my big fuss?

I teach most sincere beginners the standard Yang Style 24-Short Form.
The “24” is taught throughout the world.
In the U.K. Master Chen Xiao Wang has “Box Ears” as Posture 14.

Unfortunately, every beginner does this Posture incorrectly.
The biggest mistake is leaning the torso forward (not keeping it upright) to reach the opponent’s temples.
There are many variations of both the footwork and the hand work in this movement.
Hard to say how Yangchenfu played it.

I wanted guidance on the definitive way to teach beginners this Posture.

Perhaps, Bruce can reopen the Second 3rd of the Form to include “Box Ears.”

(I don’t know how he’s going to treat the Third 3rd of the form in just 4 more installments.
But as a minimum it should include the other Postures in the 24-Form–“Part Wild Horse’s Mane,” “Snake Creeps Low,” “Rooster Stands on One Leg” and “Fair Lady Works the Loom.” )
Although I’d love to see his take on “Lotus Kick,” too.

Nevertheless, Bruce’s material is super.
Nowhere else will you find such in-depth treatment of the 4 energies and 16 neigong in the Yang Style Tai Chi Chuan.

[Anonymous]

Maybe it is “complete.”

My assumption was that Yangchengfu taught the Old Yang Form.

This may not be so.

Bruce just put up a webinar on Facebook.
He said something that indicated that although Yangchengfu was Yang Lu chan’s grandson he changed the Yang form considerably.

So “Box Ears” may not have been in the Old Style.

[Anonymous]

I think Robert, that your conclusions are correct ( the last 3 lines of your post – Bruce’s material IS super). You also quote what everyone was told right at the start if this particular teaching….” The Tai chi section will show you a complete Old Yang Tai chi form”.

Bruce has done precisely what he said he would do. I don’t believe at any stage that it was stated or suggested that this would be a teaching of a long form. At different points in some months Bruce references the long form, noting how a particular posture would be done one way at one time, a different way elsewhere in the form.

I gather from some of your other posts that you have been studying Yang Chengfu’s long form for some considerable time. I also started studying such in the late 1980s, and started teaching it in the mid 1990s (after receiving teaching certifications from an excellent teacher). At that time I was also given a teaching certification to teach a version of the Old Yang Style – I later came to question the authenticity of that form.
At the time, and despite considerable hard work and further study with other teachers, I didn’t have REAL knowledge of the depth of internal material in the form, and didn’t really start to gain that knowledge until I started studying in person with Bruce in 2011.

Bruce’s Old Yang style EATC presentation has given everyone, from beginners to more advanced practitioners, a unique opportunity to learn the internal material which was found in the Old Yang style (and which should still be in the form of Yang Chengfu… but which is largely missing, because few teachers of that style understand or teach the depth of internal material which Bruce has presented).
You acknowledge this in your post, as I noted at the start.

The form which Bruce has taught us is energetically “complete”, and that is the critical point. Personally, I couldn’t give a damn if some postures taught elsewhere are “missing”. The Old Yang style which I was taught, which I practiced for many years, and which I taught to some other people ( but which I no longer teach), had a large number of postures which Bruce didn’t teach.
Because the form which Bruce taught is energetically complete, in my view, that overrides every other consideration.

You mention “Box ears”is missing from the teaching. One of Yang Chengfu’s main disciples was Fu Zhongwen (later the “leader” of Yang style in mainland China, until his death in the early 1990s). In his book, translated by Louis Swaim, published by North Atlantic Books, “Box Ears” is the 41st posture ( not 52), and is called “Twin peaks strike the ears”. Elsewhere I have seen this posture called “Phoenix punch” and “Double wind through ears”.
You are obviously a serious student and a teacher of the form of Yang Chengfu – see if you can still purchase Fu Zhongwen’s book. Jess O’Brien, a long term student of Bruce, was involved in the production of the book.

Why the concern about the presence or absence of this posture or that posture in the from which Bruce taught?

For me, what I have really gained from this, and other EATCs, and from spending time in live teachings with Bruce, is being able to gain unrestricted access to the “real thing” (more than I can digest), and being shown how to use that throughout my practice, while teaching students, and in wider life.

The Old Yang form which Bruce has presented in the EATC is not a long form (at no stage was this suggested), but unlike a version of the OYS which I was taught years ago (which was a long form – it was longer, and different to the form of Yang Chengfu which you have studied), the OYS form Bruce which has taught IS energetically complete, AND it provides access to a depth of material which can then be introduced into one’s practice of any other style/form (including the long form of Yang Chengfu) – that is an objective which Bruce stated throughout his presentation, and that is MORE than enough for me.

Paul Parramore.

[Author]

Posts