Talk:Zhaobao tai chi

Zhaobao Lineage
As I understand it, the traditional Chen geneaology places Jiang Fa as a contemporary of Chen Wangting. As far as Wang Zongyue goes, the controversy is whether he modified the taiji of or simply learned from the Chen family during the Ch'ien Lung period (1736-1795), so it is the extent of his role that is debatable, not his time of influence. VanTucky 02:12, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

If anyone doubts my changes to the lineage description they only need look at the video of Zhaobao jia on Chenstyle.com or google some pics of the postures to see that it is obviously linked to Chen Style. In addition, as the previous edits mentioned, the Chen family has plenty of documentation to prove the lieneage. Besides, I think the older accepted lineage of Zhaobao should take precendent over Yang family records. Not to disrespect Yang tai chi or its practitioners, I myself having been one for years.VanTucky 02:27, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


 * There is a lot of room for doubt about any of the lineages before 1800-1820 or so, unfortunately. There isn't even an attestation of the name Taijiquan itself before 1850. The best we can do is report the notable stories from the Chens, Yangs, etc. and let the readers sort it out. --Fire Star 火星 03:51, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

The important thing to consider is that this article is about Zhaobao Taijiquan and not about Chen Family Taijiquan and it is important to write an article that is written from the school's point of view and not from another school's point of view. Please reference your sources from Zhaobao sources otherwise I will have to revert the article back to its original description. I only have two books about Zhaobao style that are written by academics associated with the style, so I consider them to be of reasonable authenticity. We cannot say that because one style looks like another style then they must be the same thing, if you read extensively about Zhaobao Taijiquan you will see that in fact although related they have quite a different approach to technique and application. Realtaichi 09:55, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay. If you read the code of conduct of Wikipedia, it clearly states that articles are to be presented in a NEUTRAL point of view. if people went around writing articles solely from the point of view of their subjects, politicians could get away with doctoring thier votng records and the Klu Klux Klan would be described as a peaceful political advocacy group. But, having made that point, it seems I was wrong taking Chen records as the sole source of my modifications to the article as well. It would be wrong to write articles simply from the point of view of the peers of a subject as well. So why don't we compromise, sound good?VanTucky 19:17, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

So basically, all I changed was the wording. I think it needs to be acknowledged that Zhaobao does share many deep influences of Chen, but that it is an original system. VanTucky 19:29, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Indeed it is difficult to write about controversial subjects from a neutral point of view and when starting the article I was very conscious that there is much disagreement over the authenticity of the Zhaobao style (as there is with my own style Wudang Tai Chi Chuan), so I thought the best approach was to attempt an article from the school's own point of view (again as I did with my own style), otherwise it is too easy to get embroiled in much heated discussion. If we can find sound evidence that the Zhaobao style shares "deep" influences from the Chen style, then that is fine. Remember, according to the Chens all Taijiquan shares deep influences from themselves, but in my opinion this is clearly not true!


 * It also reads in the Five Pillars that we must cite sources and I realise that this is very difficult when it comes to the Zhaobao style, but equally we shouldn't, I feel, simply resort to saying something that could be construed as Chen style propaganda.


 * My suggestion is that we write an article about Chen Qingping and in that mention his background and input into the Zhaobao style, I think that would be more appropriate and more likely avoid any conflicts, and in the meantime try to make the Zhaobao Taijiquan as neutral as possible with cited sources. Maybe we can write two or more different points of view, each with a title. For example, the Chen family theory and the Zhaobao school theory, what do you think?


 * Please let me know if you are interested in working on a Chen Qingping article with me and hopefully we can put this baby to bed.


 * Realtaichi 21:20, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I think that sounds fine. You're also right about the citation neccesity. I really am not that adamant about pushing the "Chen influence on contemporary Zhaobao" point of view personally, but I think both sides need to be mentioned for fairness sake. But as it stands, the Zhaobao article is good. It probably needs expansion on training and where to find schools around the world rather than more debate on lineage. and I think the Chen Qingping article is just one of many that needs to be written on notable practicioners/teachers of all styles.VanTucky 21:04, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Rigorousness
I removed the statement the Zhaobao is more rigorous because it is pure speculation. I am very impressed with the demonstration of the low frame Zhaobao link at the bottom of the page but at the same time he has made himself so low that he cannot fully sink/press downward further for application. Which opens the debate is it more rigorous to be that low and moving relatively fast or is it more rigorous to be slightly higher and supporting the body weight in the more difficult 90 degree leg position (test this by standing) and moving slowly. In my opinion speculation comparison is just not right. Mlmalone 16:27, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

ps. When I was in china I met some younder chen masters that scared me more than the low frame guy on pure power but when they were demoing there form was smooth and indistinguishable from any other chen form.

Well, I agree about being too low to relax properly. But if its not speculation to say Chen is more vigorous physically than Yang, then how is it speculation to say Zhaobao (with its spinning fast leg sweeps etc.) is more vigorous than Chen to a degree? The def of speculation is to conjecure about a subject without knowledge or proof. Obviously, thats not what I'm doing. A low spinning leg sweep is empirically more difficult to employ on a base physical level. Try it yourself. Besides, being more rigorous doesnt connotate superiority in any way. VanTucky 16:40, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

The yangs turn the knee in which makes it impossible for them to burn the legs in the full low frame fassion. In my opinion that is where the the difference is. For spinning leg sweeps they are in lao jia erliu chen zhenglei demos them just not particularly fast. The twisting movements open the debate about wushu vs traditional they are not grounded properly and seem showy. What do you think? Mlmalone 16:52, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

We're not here to debate the vaildity of Zhaobao neigong. VanTucky 18:55, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Your pushing the Zhaobao pretty hard across a number of pages and it is interesting but I have yet to see anything that I couldn't do in my chen form to set it apart...If you can give me a single description of something that is clearly more rigorous then I will leave the description alone, until then or until the page is locked we can change it back and forth. Mlmalone 19:15, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not "pushing" Zhaobao, I'm just restoring justifiable edits made bby myself and others. There is so little info about it, it needs expansion. I dont understand how you cant see that Low Zhaobao clearly has postures more challenging: the sweeps, turns, vigorous kicks and the way they do roll-back arms all is more athletic in a traditional sense. VanTucky 21:31, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Edits that create a false non-provable impression or that interupt a section to interject something that is off topic are not helpful. It maybe that new sections need to be added which are more appropriate to the flow of the article but I was only removing edits that I thought detracted from information accuracy and readability. I agree that the Zhaobao page should be expanded and more information is absolutely necessary! I think you are working off an impression of the chen teaching video that is available, demos available on youtube, or other demos to the public which, by the way, are almost always smooth and relaxed, are all there is to chen. This is just the low level and is presented this way so that students don't get ahead of themselves. I haven't found video of a chen master expressing the form in all its glory (or I could end the debate with it) but I have seen it. Picture movements of leaping roll forward grabs that drop directly into low frame front foot up posture. The same standard chen form just with a different (higher level) character. I cannot prove it to you but a statement that says that the entire style of Zhaobao is blanketly more rigorous is misleading and is based on Zhaobao teachers who have allowed video of the high level options in the their form. It depends on who is performing the form, what they are choosing to show, and the speed that they are choosing to perfom it at. This becomes much less formalized the better the person becomes at the tai chi. Mlmalone 15:10, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

You seem to working from assumptions of my experience that are wrong. I have studied Chen style with a real live teacher, not videos for several years. I have personally taken workshop with Chen Xiaowang in Seattle. I know what a master's performance of Chen looks like. and the article does not make a blanket statement, it says to the casual observer some postures in low frame Zhaobao jia could very easily said to be more physically demanding. which is true. I am a casual observer of Zhaobao, and I think that some postures are definitively more diffuclt than Chen. and I'm not the only one who could think this. its not outrageous or just a personal opinion. VanTucky 17:06, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

As I said, I have never seen any of them demonstrait this in a public demo this includes teaching seminars. My assumptions of your experience are right on. The casual observer also thinks that tai chi in general is not a martial art and they would be right about 99 out of 100 practitioners. Give me a slow and I mean slow low frame performance where the sweat is dripping off the end of your nose like a river and your heart is pounding like you are jogging and I will show you physically demanding. No you are not the only one who could think that but I am looking for professional quality information. This highlights the central problem with wikipedia the casual observers get to overright the specialized knowledge. Mlmalone 17:56, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

How dare you be so personally dismissive of my personal taiji experience of which you have no knowledge. I do consider and practice taiji as a true martial art. I do and have worked very hard physically in my practice. and you need to step down off your high horse. you mean override I assume? well, that is the nature of wp, it is a WIKI. if you dont like it then you should understand that a group of certified experts presiding over articles is not what WP is and never will be by definition. and in accord to the statement in Zhaobao Tai Chi, A: it meets NPOV standards and B: it is not radical conjecture to say that for instance, a butterfly kick is more difficult to execute than a simple heel kick. or that a clap push up is more hard than a regular one. the difficulties presented in slow and sustained movement such as in taiji is a different and special type of challenge. saying certain quick and unusual physical movements somehow is alluding to a invalidation of the special (and wonderful) challenges of taiji principles is ludicrous. VanTucky 00:21, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

You are not discussing the form as if you have thoroughly explored the possible optional variations implied within each of the named segments. This leads me to believe that while you maybe accurately performing the form, perhaps in a physically demanding way, you have not gone beyond a certain point. Once one practices the base form to the point where qi moves to where it needs to you can practice the form with a similar but more demanding movement that uses the same qi path. Thus unlimited variation and unlimited application become possible (bounded by human physical movement but it is more poetic to say it the other way). So I am not saying the Chen is more rigorous then Zhaobao or that Zhaobao is more rigorous than Chen, you are. I am saying that the principles are the same fast or slow. The issue is rigorousness based on the broad statement one style is more rigorous than the other. So what I am also saying that it is more difficult to go low slowely over a longer period of time than to throw any quick individual technique. I am saying that Chen and Zhaobao can both do it. Thus, the broad "more rigourous" statement falls squarely into the it depends how the individual practices category and is a judgement call. This doesn't invalidate the work you have already done on your tai chi it just means you have not gone beyond a certain point in terms of depth of skill. For a discussion of secrecy in the Chen Tai Chi tradition and the difference between students, outdoor disciples, and indoor disciples see Grandmaster Ma Hong's books (chinese only). Mlmalone 15:04, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

whoa whoa whoa, youre moving way beyond what the passage, and the similar passages in the Chen article are talking about. Its a simple matter. Chen has more difficult postures (in a traditional atheletic sense) such as the kicks and low postures than the vast majority of Yang forms. Its not a disputed matter. This is the same thing we're talking about when we same the low spinning leg sweeps and other postures in Zhaobao are more challenging than postures in Chen forms. It takes mreo athleticism. and it has nothing to do with my personal practice. VanTucky 19:47, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

This is the line I am talking about: The Zhaobao Jia low frame has postures such as low leg sweeps and one legged inverted turns, which could be seen as more physically demanding than even Chen style postures. What is required for this line to be taken as true? We must insure that the more difficult postures that you speak of do not infact exist in the chen forms, at any level of practice. Otherwise the Zhaobao people may just be less secretive and showing the more difficult versions sooner. Which doesn't make the styles postures more physically demanding, just more physically demanding at lower levels. Furthermore, since I have seen chen performed in just this fassion, the statement above seems to create a false impression (and you know I am striving for accuracy). Your practice is only relevant in terms of what you have been exposed to. Mlmalone 14:47, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

No one else who usually stewards these pages seems to object to the statement that those Zhaobao postures are more difficult. It seems you're in the minority here proposing that Chen style has spinning low sweeps and the other unique postures found in Zhaobao jia. No practictioner I have ever seen or spoken to would say that any Chen forms have postures just like that, similar possibly, but not the same. You're not presenting any evidence (your personal "secret indoor disciple knowledge" is not evidence) to the contrary of the fact that some postures in Zhaobao jia could easily be seen as much more challenging. Besides, remember its NPOV, the statement says you could see these postures as much more difficult. not concretely saying that they are. VanTucky 17:14, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Most likey other people don't want to get involved in the back and forth. The spinning low sweeps I can prove: [spinning low sweeps]. Also the postures do not need to be performed in exactly the same way as there are differences between masters within styles. Fire away which posture is next, I have an exsensive collection, lets see if I can't find individual masters demonstraiting postures differently for you. I believe I have also presented Ma hong's writings as evidence (you need to read them yourself - why even have the designations of student, disciple, and indoor disciple if there isn't a difference). Take a look at Ma's postures [pt 1][pt 2]. He is much older though but look at the shape of the techniques. I really wish I could find video of his younger students. Same problem with the four tigers they are not as old as ma but I wish I could find video of there younger top students. I am only persuing this because I want good information to be out in public. I may stop trying to help soon, it doesn't benefit me at all one way or the other.Mlmalone 20:45, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, there's a distinction I've failed to make clear. I meant postures in the Yi Lu slow(er) set of Chen style. Of course it is silly to say Zhaobao jia is more athletic than Chen er lu. and comparing the two cannon fist sets for difficulty is a waste of time. Maybe we can clarify it to say something along the lines of: "Some more vigorous postures usually only found in Chen style's Cannon Fist (Er Lu) sets are commonly performed in Zhaobao's first slow set." VanTucky 20:59, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations to us, for having a large agrument about something we basically agree on :) I was about to pull out grandmaster Zhu's 42 Fajing set too. I think that if we drop the word only so that the line reads, "Some more vigorous postures usually found in Chen style's Cannon Fist (Er Lu) sets are commonly performed in Zhaobao's first slow set.", we can agree. Mlmalone 14:30, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

sounds good. done. VanTucky 15:25, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Move to "Zhaobao t'ai chi ch'uan"
It has been discussed at length here: Talk:T'ai chi ch'uan. 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", e.g. 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 & to maintain consistency, all the family styles & other sub-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) 21:32, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Improving lineage trees
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 Zhaobao-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 and this page 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) 15:10, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

link to chinese page?
often in wikipedia, you can switch between languages. this page doesn't seem to be associated with the chinese variant at http://zh.wikipedia.org/zh-tw/趙堡太極拳  24.14.52.8 (talk) 04:16, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Zhaobao 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20081119021716/http://www.satirio.com/ma/taiji/history.html to http://www.satirio.com/ma/taiji/history.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:27, 21 July 2016 (UTC)