From: osborn@socs.uts.edu.au (Tom Osborn)
Subject: Re: Yang & Chen (was Re: A few questions about T'ai Chi..)
Organization: Computing Sciences, Uni of Technology, Sydney.
Date: 29 Sep 92 01:53:37 GMT

robinson@cogsci.Berkeley.EDU (Michael Robinson) writes:

>In article <osborn.717381783@dragon> osborn@socs.uts.edu.au (Tom Osborn) writes:
>>
>>I've seen arguments that the San Sau forms (A & B - the two person set from
>>Yang Style) came from Pau Chui (second Chen form).

>Well, I've studied my tape of Chen Xiaowang doing Pau Chui, and I must say I 
>don't see any similarity.

Well, I didn't believe San Sau A or B were derivative of Pau Chui, except in
the odd bit of fa-jing. Erle Montaigue is one of the people pushing that line,
but I can only assume his reason were somehow pedagogical ( ;-) ).

>>Like Pau Chui they are 
>>more "elbow/shoulder/down/split" than "peng/lu/chi/an" from Chen Lu #1, 

>First of all, I don't think a "corners" vs. "cardinals" evaluation is at all
>meaningful for either Chen form.  Chen style just doesn't work that way.

With all the "classics-style" descriptions in Tai Chi, it's not clear what is
being said, even for such "central" terms as "corners" and "sides". What I
take these to mean (and including tsai/lieh/chow/kow vs peng/lu/chi/an) is
that the "sides" are smoothish techniques - they don't break contact and don't
(ordinarily) beat the be-jeezus out of the opponent, but the elbow, shoulder,
pull-down and split/twist are 'break contact'/wallop techniques. The Chen #1
seems to stay "on" the opponent and is gentler (!?) than Pau Chui. Both forms
include the 8 primaries, but the emphasis in Chen #1 is more "stay with" and
the emphasis in Pau Chui is more like 'meeting and bothering at speed'.

Of course, the "sides" can be applied differently, as could be the "corners",
but in the forms (Y, C#1, PC) their predominant emphasis is (I think) like
I just said. Peng with fa-jing (and to a lesser extent chi and an) is virtually 
a criminal offence if applied serious and without compassion. That's how they're
practiced in the brisk way of doing the Yang 108 step I mentioned in my last
post. A further point I recalled about that practice is: instead of moves
initiating from the waist and foot _planting_/rooting, it is the agility of
the footwork and the hands which dictates the movement (and 'chi application',
etc). [That's what makes Pau Chui more demanding, as well - IMHO].

>Secondly, I don't think the San Shou form is particularly "corner" oriented;
>it may appear so in comparison to the long form (in which elbow/shoulder/
>pulldown/split are almost completely absent), but the overall distribution of
>techniques in San Shou is rather balanced.

From my comment above, I see San Sau as (however smooth and circular), a
practice of: attacking, re-attaching contact and bustling (from the 'attack'
sense), and; yielding, escaping and countering (from 'defence'). Unlike 
push hands where (normally) you stay attached and work the sides, the San
Sau has lots of applications of shoulder, elbow, pulling down and splitting.
Where it uses peng and chi, they are dis-engagements or strikes. Taking the
interpretations of "corner" I used, then San Sau is cornerish. I think
Michael may disagree with me about "corner", but probably not about the
rest of the comments. I'd be interested to hear...

Maybe we need a couple of new threads: "What are these sides and corners?",
"What about the five elements in the footwork (I think that means staying
close, but not too close - smartly)?", "Circles and squares?", and "How do 
YOU kick in TCC?". We can leave Dim Mak for when we're all retired...

Tomasso.