Talk:Cheng Man-ch'ing

Untitled
There's no Senate in Taiwan--Jiang 10:15, 12 November 2003 (UTC)

I think there is a problem with some historical accuracy. CMC was not a MD. He was a doctor of Chinese medicine. He had a lang disease which was later described as tuberculosis. To claim/imply that taichichuan cure tuberculosis is irresponsible, IMO. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FWBOarticle (talk • contribs) 00:18, 25 August 2004 (UTC)

Right, no Senate... it's called the National Assembly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.44.123.166 (talk • contribs) 17:34, 22 April 2005 (UTC)

Another correction: To say that no Yang style teacher recognized Cheng's changes to the form is incorrect. Chen Wei Ming, the author of the famous Tai Chi Chuan Ta Wen (Questions and Answers on Tai Chi Chuan), one of Yang Cheng-Fu's most senior students, not only recognized Cheng's contributions, but wrote the preface to his first tai chi book. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lucien148 (talk • contribs) 17:34, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Strangely this page hardly mentions the Chinese students of Cheng (perhaps out of ignorance?) There were many serious and skilled senior students of Cheng in Taiwan who continued to spread his tradition.

Many of Cheng's direct students (particularly those who were Chinese and learnt from him in Chinese) consider that they do Yang style, and that Cheng's form is a Yang style short form. A few still do the 108 form passed down from Cheng as well as the 37 form. This article uses Cheng style throughout and does not acknowledge that the concept of "Cheng style" is something that has come about after Cheng's death rather than from Cheng.

Cheng's 37 form has obvious differences from 108. The article assumes that these are defining characteristics of "Cheng style". No evidence is provided that Cheng thought this. Also some "defining features" of the supposed "Cheng style" are common in other Yang style schools. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.89.41.138 (talk • contribs) 12:45, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * That's not quite accurate. I've read at least few Taiwanese lineage stating that Cheng Taichiquan is a distinct style. It may be the case that "earlier" students of Cheng may consider that they are practicing Yang style or abbrebiated Yang style. Anyway, there are many style of Chinese kung fu where the "so-called" founder never claimed a distinct style. Rather, all lineages evolve and become distinct over time. For example, can we be certain that Yang Lu-ch'an practiced Yang "style" of taichiquan? I would say that he probably practiced modified Chen style. Does it mean there is no such thing as Yang style? Or should we say Yang style was founded by the Yang Ch'eng-fu who removed the vigorous Fa-jing, energetic jumping, heavy stepping, and other abrupt movements? Considering that Yang lineage do not recognise CMC style of taichichuan as a part of Yang, I can't see why there is a problem in saying CMC style? If it's not a yang style, it's a separate style. CMC is the founder of CMC style which is an off shoot of Yang style. Vapour 13:05, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Dear Vapour, I would be careful to base an opinion on some writings. I had the pleasure to have been instructed by 4 Chinese direct students and 4 US direct students. I have understood from all of them that I was studying Yang style. For me that is more authoritative. SimpleTC (talk) 10:33, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

BTW, I have a clip of CMC performing his entire form from the begining to the end. Is there any way to upload it on this article? Vapour 13:07, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


 * If you upload it onto Youtube or Google video and then provide an external link to that page on this article that should do the trick. There are lots of public domain Tai Chi videos on those sites already, so it may save you some time to search for uploaded CMC videos on those sites first. --Fire Star 火星 15:17, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

major revisions
Hi-- I've made some major revisions to this page based on cited books and articles, and have done a bit of cutting and pasting to try to make it read more smoothly. Will add some more books when I have time. Ruguo 06:45, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Ghost Writing?
There needs to be a second source verification of the claim that Yang Cheng-Fu's book was ghost written by Cheng. Otherwise I will delete. VanTucky 01:37, 8 January 2007 (UTC) If you read the Chinese (Original) version of the book you would know that the liniage for Zhengmanqing is extensive, far more than Yang Chen Fu's, this is because Yang Chen Fu was illiterate and Zhengmanqing wrote the book. Why would Yang Chen Fu write such an extensive liniage of Zhengmanqing, the answer is he didn't. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.207.65.251 (talk) 19:38, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


 * In the first chapter (with the title The Evolution of the Yang school of Taijiquan) of the Yang Zhendou book (Yang Style Taijiquan: ISBN7-5054-0123-8/G.0009, 2nd edition 1991, Morning Glory Publishers, Beijing) it literally says: "In the book A Manual of Taijiquan compiled by Zheng Manqian in 1934 for Yang Chengfu, there were 104 photographs." Although the first chapter was written by Gu Liuxin, I can not imagine the Yang family publishing a book that acknowledges the involvement of Zheng Manqing if they would disagree with it. SimpleTC (talk) 22:44, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
 * This is one of the few times that I will write from personal knowledge rather than using a citation. I studied with teachers who taught both Cheng's style & Yang family style. While attending a workshop with Yang Zhenduo, I heard him acknowledge through an interpreter that Cheng taught the "fair lady's wrist" while the Yang family favored the straighter wrist. Yang Zhenduo said he did not understand why Cheng taught the "fair lady's wrist" but could not ask him since he was dead.
 * I think the Yang family understood that Cheng came out of their tradition, but were left figuratively scratching their heads as to why he deviated in bending his wrist in the movements. Peaceray (talk) 02:08, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

videos?
Should the videos be listed if they are bootlegged?

I added again the ghostwriting citation with references. I removed the video link as per copyright discussion, and added some Chinese names Ruguo 05:36, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

the video is not a copywright violation. its free to view and link to by anyone. VanTucky 06:03, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I re-entered the ghostwriting reference with the requested citation added. As to the videos, if they are being distributed without permissions from the copyright owners, they would seem to be violations. Perhaps someone higher up in Wikipedia could advise. Ruguo 05:50, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

google video, youtube and the various other sources that make this video available would not use it if they were in copywright violation. and besides, to place a vid on google you cant just bootleg it and stick it on there. VanTucky 06:04, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

These sites DO display copyright violated materials. And people bootleg them all the time.

CMC style; rotating on the heel or the 'yung chuan' point at the end of 'Single Whip'?
Maybe someone can help out here; if the left kua (inguinal canal) is closing and the right kua opening, and the right knee is not totally collapsing onto the left side (ie. William cc Chen's 'three nails' theory) then, in the transition from eg. 'hold ball right' to the end of 'single whip' does one really rotate on/through the heel, or on/through the Yung Chuan ('bubbling well')? In Western boxing, when throwing a right hook off the front leg, one is told to rotate on the front part of the back 'empty' foot "As if squashing a bug" as seen at. However, at, Nigel Sutton's wife is seen raising the foot and rotating on the heel.. 81.132.68.59 00:28, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


 * That was such a byzantine description of movement, I have no idea what youre talking about... VanTucky 02:40, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * My understanding coming out of the Ben Lo CMC lineage is that the second one is more correct (rotating on the heel). I think that most would agree that Ben Lo has stayed closer to the original CMC form than William Chen. An important consideration is that these type of weight transfers in the CMC form assume 1) that the weight first shifts and that the rear foot is only turned after the weight has been shifted (in order to prevent unnecessary torsion in the rear knee) and 2) that the position of the feet should always be in such a way that the empty feet can be picked up without the need to lean or tensing up. As a consequence, it is better to turn on the heel as it does not extend the distance between both feet (which could lead to an inability to separate weight). SimpleTC (talk) 00:15, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
 * This is beyond the scope of a talk page, as this discussion is not about improving the article. Please see WP:NOTSOCIALMEDIA. Peaceray (talk) 03:07, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

new article
Similar to the split of Moy Lin Shin, Taoist Tai Chi and Taoist Tai Chi Society, I think we need to make "Cheng man ching's tai chi" a separate stub. Sprcifically referring to the 36 form of course. any objections? VanTucky 06:23, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Pinyin title
The standard in English Wikipedia for Chinese transliteration is pinyin. Any objection to moving this article accordingly? Bertport (talk) 00:05, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

There's a lot of literature with this spelling. I would favor you adding a disambiguation page with the pin yin in it pointing here.76.172.73.97 (talk) 08:15, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Wrong apostrophe
This page was recently moved from Cheng Man-ch'ing (with straight, a.k.a. typewriter or ASCII, apostrophe) to Cheng Man-chʻing (with ʻokina or a left single quotation mark). Aside from WP:APOSTROPHE, this is the wrong symbol: the published sources I've seen (which don't use the straight apostrophe) use what is either a modifier letter apostrophe or a right single quotation mark, e.g. — I have not found any published source using the symbol that was introduced here. Full disclosure: I practice his style of t'ai chi ch'uan (note WP's punctuation); this could possibly be considered WP:COI, so I'm making no revert or other edit to the article. – •Raven .talk 18:00, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Further: see Amazon's list of books by the author in question. (Note that this page's text routinely uses straight-apostrophes.)
 * Further: see Amazon's list of books by the author in question. (Note that this page's text routinely uses straight-apostrophes.)
 * Further: see Amazon's list of books by the author in question. (Note that this page's text routinely uses straight-apostrophes.)
 * Further: see Amazon's list of books by the author in question. (Note that this page's text routinely uses straight-apostrophes.)


 * ✅ I swapped it back. Peaceray (talk) 23:26, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
 * It's Wade-Giles transcription. Their symbol for aspiration is covered by the Unicode character for okina. It's not an apostrophe: that would mean that "Ch'ing" is a contraction. — kwami (talk) 00:01, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
 * The Wade-Giles system has used a variety of symbols for aspiration:
 * A feature of the Wade–Giles system is the representation of the unaspirated-aspirated stop consonant pairs using a character resembling an apostrophe. Thomas Wade and others have used the spiritus asper ( or ), borrowed from the polytonic orthography of the Ancient Greek language. Herbert Giles and others have used a left (opening) curved single quotation mark (‘) for the same purpose. A third group used a plain apostrophe ('). The backtick, and visually similar characters are sometimes seen in various electronic documents using the system.
 * Wade-Giles is less explanatory of this variety.
 * If we are not to use the third group's plain apostrophe symbol, why not the right-single-quote (or lookalike "modifier/typographic apostrophe") seen on the covers of this author's own books? – •Raven .talk 00:36, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
 * That would be fine too. The Unicode character is the modifier letter, $⟨⟩$. We wouldn't want to use a curly single quotation mark, which is deprecated on WP. — kwami (talk) 05:50, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
 * According to Wade–Giles, it was based on the Beijing dialect and was the system of transcription familiar in the English-speaking world for most of the 20th century. Both of these kinds of transcription were used in postal romanizations (romanized place-names standardized for postal uses). In mainland China Wade–Giles has been mostly replaced by the Hanyu Pinyin romanization system, which was officially adopted in 1958.
 * According to Pinyin, Hanyu Pinyin, often shortened to just pinyin, is the official romanization system for Standard Mandarin Chinese in China, and to some extent, in Singapore and Malaysia.
 * Pinyin then goes on:
 * Why then would we choose to revert to a now non-standard of romanization instead of using the official version? Please explain, as this does not make sense to me. Peaceray (talk) 05:07, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Are you asking me? To explain why we don't move the article to "Zheng Manqing"? I would assume that's bacause most Taijiquan material in English uses Wade-Giles, but I don't actually know.
 * Are you making a point with that quote about the pinyin apostrophe? I don't see how it has anything to do with the title of this article. — kwami (talk) 05:55, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I am absolutely making a point about the apostrophe. Moving articles to a different title containing an ʻokina instead of an apostrophe makes no sense. It is a throwback. It also violates WP:COMMONNAME as using an ʻokina in Chinese names, particularly with Tai Chi or Taijiquan is not part of modern usage. The appearance of an ʻokina in modern books on that martial art is uncommon if not non-existant. I lived in Hawaiʻi for fourteen years & studied Tai Chi for twelve. Thus I am familiar with the ʻokina & would have spotted it in the titles of the Tai Chi books in my library. Peaceray (talk) 06:07, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
 * To clarify my response, my point is that Pinyan uses an apostrophe, not an ʻokina. Peaceray (talk) 06:22, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Cheng Man-ch'ing was Taiwanese, not Mainland Chinese. However, I would take his own books as indicating his preferred name format. – •Raven .talk 06:09, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Cheng Man-ch'ing was born in Mainland China, so I think it accurate to call him Chinese, even though he accompanied the Nationalist diaspora to Taiwan. Peaceray (talk) 06:24, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
 * My point was nationality, not ethnicity. Taiwan retained Wade-Giles after the mainland adopted Pinyin. But again, Wade-Giles can and does use straight apostrophe for aspiration. – •Raven .talk 07:37, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Also, related to •Raven's last comment, see the list of the books by Cheng Man-ch'ing at Amazon. The apostrophe in his name is much more commonly used than the ʻokina. Peaceray (talk) 06:32, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I see that kwami has been moving numerous other articles to use ʻokina: Chen-style tʻai chi chʻüan (a redirect, so that Chen-style t'ai chi ch'uan is now a double-redirect away from, ironically, unmarked Chen-style taijiquan), Yang-style tʻai chi chʻüan, Wu (Hao)-style tʻai chi chʻüan, Wu-style tʻai chi chʻüan, Sun-style tʻai chi chʻüan, Wu Chʻüan-yu (another redirect, leaving Wu Ch'uan-yu a double-redirect away from unpunctuated Wu Quanyou), Wu Chien-chʻüan (another redirect, making Wu Chien-ch'uan a double-redirect to unpunctuated Wu Jianquan), Sun Lu-t‘ang (redirect, making Sun Lu-t'ang a double redirect to unpunctuated Sun Lutang), Guang Ping Yang t‘ai chi ch‘üan; as well as changing linked names inside other articles.
 * Again I must point out that the ordinary ASCII/typewriter apostrophe (') is among the characters used within the Wade-Giles system, is in accord with both WP:COMMONNAME and WP:APOSTROPHE, and most likely what readers either searching for those articles or typing their full link in would type.
 * There seems to be no necessity to use ʻokina in any of these articles, and good reason not to. But this is a bigger issue than the present talkpage. – •Raven .talk 06:41, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Accordingly, discussion seems to have moved to WT:MOS. – •Raven .talk 22:44, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
 * There seems to be no necessity to use ʻokina in any of these articles, and good reason not to. But this is a bigger issue than the present talkpage. – •Raven .talk 06:41, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Accordingly, discussion seems to have moved to WT:MOS. – •Raven .talk 22:44, 26 March 2023 (UTC)