A Hand-Written Document on Yi Lu by Chen Zhaokui

[Robin Wu]

I stumbled upon this from a 2013 post in the Chen Shi Taijiquan Gongfu Facebook group: http://www.tucsonchentaiji.org/related/CZK_TJQ_YiLu.pdf

Marin said at the time: "It is freely available for download on some Chinese websites, a move by move description of Yilu."

 

[angryclown]

If I recall correctly, Chen Zhaokui actually wrote two books, one on Yilu and one on Erlu. The books had not only detailed descriptions of the moves, but also something like 600 applications between them. I know my first teacher, Liang Baiping, has a copy that he was always intending to translate in his retirement, and there's a guy in Houston (Cheng Jin Cai) who's basically made a career out of having those books and using them as the basis for his super-secret taiji cult.

From the little bits of translation I've seen, this is not that. Liang Baiping is more fluent in English than many (most?) native speakers, and I know that when he translates he tries more to get the flavor and intent across rather than just doing a literal word-for-word translation. But in comparing the two, even aside from the omission of applications, the structures are a bit different in terms of how the moves are broken down, so that's why I don't think this is the same text as one of those books.

So then I wonder, if Chen Zhaokui was already writing his own books, why or where did this dictated version come to be?

 

[Marin]

For a while I wondered about this sort of thing and then I just kind of gave up. One thing I realized is that although this look backwards is interesting it has some significant deviation from what I learned from Chenyu. I cannot definitively say why that is. What I can say is that both the structure and the application approaches I learned from Chenyu made more sense and clarity than anything else I had seen previously in this art, and anything I have seen since.

All of the alleged students of Chen Zhaokui, all of those videos that I have seen and some of them that I have met very much did not impress me in comparison to what I learned from Chenyu. I don't know whether CZK did not teach them as intensely or whether they learned at a different period in CSK's life and teaching path than Chenyu. I don't really know the deciding factors in this situation. I can only trust what I learned which made the most sense, functioned the best and was all pretty obvious even on video, which is all that we have left of some of these folks.

When it comes to the written material I am not even sure who actually wrote it, or who altered it, or if CZK himself wrote these things, what was the context or intended audience for the teaching? Was he writing these things for the general public? Was his intent different than what he might have said during teaching his own family?

For me it is all just a lot of questions that will never have answers. If I read this stuff all I see is how different it is from what I learned that as it is, seems to be so clear and logically functional. So, since in the end it is a lot of questions that do not make anything make more sense I decide to forget it and stay focused on the family tradition that I learned, and specifically that family inheritor that I learned from. The style I learned was from Chenyu, not Chen Zhaokui and it all has CY's personal approach. So far it's as good as I am going to get and still I feel it works impressively well. Best I can hope for in this lifetime.

I ignore the writing and leave that to folks who need tangible satisfaction due to not having had the access I had.

 

[Kozmo]

All of the alleged students of Chen Zhaokui, all of those videos that I have seen and some of them that I have met very much did not impress me in comparison to what I learned from Chenyu. I don't know whether CZK did not teach them as intensely or whether they learned at a different period in CSK's life and teaching path than Chenyu. I don't really know the deciding factors in this situation. I can only trust what I learned which made the most sense, functioned the best and was all pretty obvious even on video, which is all that we have left of some of these folks.

Just started looking at this video, maybe not sure if I know enough to make valid comparative analysis. Kind of fascinated at this point with how the choreography of the form (ostensibly flowing from a single source) courses through different body types.

Wonder what we're missing from the first three parts?? Did they save the best for last. (And I think it's kind of cool that Chenyu is the only guy wearing street clothes.

 

[Marin]

Kind of fascinated at this point with how the choreography of the form (ostensibly flowing from a single source) courses through different body types.

I don't think the gongfu flowing through different body types is the issue here. I think it has more to do with the brain and the social circumstances. Largely these people practice differently because they perceived the teaching differently, and in many cases had less or lesser quality access to the teacher. In some cases they practice they way they do because of health issues.

The first guy (in blue) Zhang Maozhen was older, I think a heavy smoker, and had already had some heart surgery. People would often comment on his poor posture and sort of wilted appearance, but he had likely very good access to Chen Zhaokui and was an astute learner. Chenyu was close with him and he may be the most similar in practice style/appearance to Chenyu among all.

The second, Zhang Qilin, I am not knowledgable about his level of access, but in my view he is not just not that great, with many incorrectly constructed methods and ideas; swaying, leaning, floating, and then empty rapid snapping fajin, just a lot of pathologies. It is pretty obvious that he is mostly sitting anywhere BUT the actual root. Adding the drama of a very low stance is not compelling to me, but he does have good energy/intensity at least. It's just uncomfortable for me to watch.

The third guy, I forget his name. I also forgot his demonstration entirely until I watched this again, because it was on the border between unremarkable and awful. When I saw it again I regretted remembering.

Then Chenyu in street clothes-
this was a local commemoration of Chen Zhaokui I think in Shijiazuang, organized by Mahong. It's a local small situation and I think I remember Chenyu saying something about how he was kind of asked to attend rather hastily and was not really prepared. In street clothes and dress shoes, unprepared, still several dimensions beyond the realm of any of these folks. Even my wife who does not practice this at all watched for a bit and said 'he's really that good isn't he?'
Chenyu in dress shoes and street clothes, like this was exactly how it was when I first met him, at the park in street clothes with the martial arts scene.

I cannot remember where I got the video, but I cut it into sections because at that time MaHong was really promoted to the maximum everywhere as being very important, but he really was not especially good. I did not want to have to watch his long super dramatic presentation every time I watched this video, and I was not interested in promoting him at all. You can see him here:

 

[Kozmo]

I don't think the gongfu flowing through different body types is the issue here. I think it has more to do with the brain and the social circumstances. Largely these people practice differently because they perceived the teaching differently, and in many cases had less or lesser quality access to the teacher. In some cases they practice they way they do because of health issues.

Glad to know know more about what to look for!!!!

I remember Chenyu saying something about how he was kind of asked to attend rather hastily and was not really prepared. In street clothes and dress shoes, unprepared, still several dimensions beyond the realm of any of these folks. Even my wife who does not practice this at all watched for a bit and said 'he's really that good isn't he?'

Cool! I noticed this performance of his seemed a little higher (not quite as dropped in) as others I've watched--and he still struck thunder way beyond the other presenters.

 

[Marin]

Cool! I noticed this performance of his seemed a little higher (not quite as dropped in) as others I've watched--and he still struck thunder way beyond the other presenters.

If you look around you will find that CY often does not demonstrate especially low.
Low frame first most important benefit is development.
Second importance benefit is grappling/throwing footwork entries and finishes.
Third and (least) important benefit is performance drama, which is what most people use it for.

Once you have developed it you can take it or leave it. It was never the indicator of high skill or high functionality. More often it is the cover for the lack of.

 

[Kozmo]

I did not want to have to watch his long super dramatic presentation every time I watched this video, and I was not interested in promoting him at all. You can see him here

OK, I get it; lasted about five and a half minutes.

So as I'm trying to learn more about how to recognize--and describe--what I'm seeing in demonstrations, I've got a couple basic observations/questions:

Seems they're doing different segments of the forms and putting fajins in different places. How do presenters select and arrange their materials in these formats?

I don't think the gongfu flowing through different body types is the issue here. I think it has more to do with the brain and the social circumstances. Largely these people practice differently because they perceived the teaching differently, and in many cases had less or lesser quality access to the teacher. In some cases they practice they way they do because of health issues.

Thanks for framing and reviewing these performances. Watched through again to see if I could see more. Felt the scales fall from my eyes!