This continues the discussion about large vs. small frame Yang taiji.
Wujimon brought up an interesting article in this post that I would like to comment on. The article is called A Comparative study between Traditional Yang Style of Yang Chengfu and Cheng Man Ching’s Style by Justin Meehan. This was a really informative article IMO and even though the author sought to defend Cheng Man-ching (CMC), I thought that he almost totally failed. Kind of ironic, but a great article nonetheless. So I want to talk about some aspects of Yang Zhen-duo’s (YZD) large frame as compared to Cheng Man-ching’s smaller frame form because I think it adds to the current discussion about large vs. small Yang frames. I suggest reading the whole thing, but here are some relevant quotes:
Regarding song (relaxation):
In fact, Yang Zhenduo went to great lengths to diferentiate between the types of movement exemplified in the Cheng Manching and his father’s style; and he made it clear that wanted to highlight essential requirements of his father’s style. These stylistic differences can be summarized by the difference in interpretation over the Chinese word “sung.” To the Cheng Manching stylists this word has always contained the ideas of being sunken, relaxed and empty. Yang Zhenduo, however, emphasized the characteristics of being open, extended and full.
Peng (wardoff energy):
As a result, in its front stance attacks, the Yang style appears to be relying upon the biomechanical structure of the body to maximize the potential of carrying upward through an aligned body the force of pushing off the ground and conveying that force directly to the point of contact.
By comparison, the Cheng style appears to be consciously striving in its form postures to maintain a relaxed neutrality in all its postures to be in position to change passively from a yang to yin position to neutralize. I believe the Yang postures emphasize its peng or supportive positioning in each posture and in all major body parts involved in the posture. Also, that the Cheng style loosens rather than extends its postures to be more sensitive to the slightest variance or change in an opponent’s response, emphasizing neutralization over peng strength.
According to Yang Zhenduo, the eight energies (known to many as ward off, roll back, press (squeeze), push, pull down (pluck), split or separate, elbow and shouldering, and the five directions (forward, backward, turning right, turning left, and maintaining the center) are incorporated in every movement of the form, at least potentially. This cannot be possible without both peng and central stability. Perhaps we can say that the peng aspect is expressed more clearly in the Yang style and hidden in the Cheng style.
Yang Zhenduo continually tested the proper formation and final position of the form practitioner’s posture by providing resistance to the formation of posture and pushing against the practitioner’s hand positions in the completion of the final posture. For example, in the push posture, Yang would push back against the practitioner’s extended palms to see whether the practitioner had his body properly aligned. It appears that a Cheng stylist would be more interested in his body’s turning from or neutralizing such resistance, using only four ounces of force, rather than creating impenetrable peng resistance.
Spirit and martial intent:
Yang Zhenduo exhibits a much more outward martial appearance while Cheng Manching’s later appearance is much more inward directed and tranquil. This appearance goes beyond knowing that many of the photos and films of Cheng Manching were taken later in his life as he grew older. It also goes beyond the physical body types of the leaner Cheng Manching in comparison to the more stocky and robust appearances of Yang Zhenduo and his father.
As previously mentioned, the hallmarks of the standard Yang style are openness, expansiveness and roundedness.
There also is a great emphasis by the Yang family on Spirit not in the sense of spirituality as we have come to think of it in tai chi chuan, but more in the sense of vitality and martial spirit. Yang Zhenduo, quoting from the Classics, emphasized that the mind of the tai chi chuan practitioner should be on the spirit and not the “chi.” He said the spirit of the form should be observable in the manner in which the postures were presented (i.e. presentation) and especially in the eyes of the performer, which should be open and manifesting the spirit of the martial performance. He added that the eyes should resemble a cat about to pounce on a rat or a falcon poised before seizing its prey.
Stances and weight distribution:
By way of specific examples, the Yang style front stance purposefully straightens the rear leg in opposition to the force used in the bent forward leg, which pushes back against the forward thrust of the rear leg.
In the Cheng style, the rear leg is bent so that the knee of the rear leg hangs in a direct line below that leg side’s shoulder. Furthermore’, the Cheng style does not allow a dynamic tension to exist between the forward and rear leg. As a result, the Yang stance is much longer than the Cheng stance. Also, the Yang style advocates a forward incline of the upper body in the front stance. In the Cheng style the upper body is maintained in a straight up-and-down position, perpendicular to the floor.
In terms of the rear or back stance the Yang style allows 30 percent of the weight to remain on the front foot. The Cheng style advocates the emptying of the weight or the forward leg and the complete transfer of all weight to the rear foot. The Yang rationale is contained in the yin/ yang (double fishes) diagram. Seventy percent of the weight on one leg represents yang within, which also has an element of yin, while 30 percent weight on the other foot represents yin with an element of yang. As with the front stance, the Yang style advocates a dynamic counter-tension between the two legs, while the Cheng style does not. In both styles the upper body is straight up and down, not inclined, over the rear base leg.
Arms and lengthening:
Similar differences exist in the arm formations. The Yang arm is opened out and extended with the appearance of being straightened but not straight, while the Cheng style arms maintain” more of a 90-degree angle at the elbow. In both styles the shoulder is sunk, not raised, and the elbow points down. In such forward arm movements as the press, push or punch, the Yang style extension allows the hands to go beyond the forward foot, while the Cheng style hands flow no further than the forward foot. The Cheng style palm formation, called the “beautiful lady’s hand,” is a relaxed palm with no bend at the wrist. The Yang hand formation is somewhat between a palm formation ‘and a “willow leaf” palm edge formation, with wrist pronated. (i.e. sink or “sit” the wrist).
This article brings up so many of the things that I don’t like about CMC style and small frames, in general.
First of all, the small structure prevents the development of power. Look at the stances and arm movements as YZD describes them in Yang style. Having a wider base means that the practicioner has a bigger base of power: he has a wider, longer range of motion. If you can manipulate your power in an 18-inch space and I can manipulate my power in a three foot space, then who will be more powerful? I think the answer is clear.
Having a wider base forces the practicioner to deal with weight shifting between the lead and rear feet. This allows the power to be brought up through the legs as the weight shifts. I know CMC people talk about double weighting in large Yang frame guys, but not practicing a large frame prevents people from being able to differentiate the different power levels that exist between the two legs. For example, having 60% of your weight in the front leg allows for certain types of movement and power. Having 30% in the front leg allows for a different quality and type of power in certain movements that is almost totally different from having 60% in the front leg. If people don’t practice large frame, then they never learn to manipulate the weight shift and how it can enhance and affect power. That’s a huge problem.
Concerns over being double-weighted are overblown IMO. Knowing where the weight is (a crucial element of large frame training) will reduce that tendency.
Same with the arms. If I can only manipulate my power within a two-foot framework as far as handwork goes, and you can manipulate your power over a three-foot or more range, then you will have a tremendous advantage. Learning to extend power to the limits of your range of motion is vital. I can’t stress this enough. If I have power over a long range and you don’t, then I can defeat you without you ever getting near me. Working with a long range of motion is often what builds power in the upper body assuming you have the next requiement — peng.
This isn’t a knock against all small frame forms. Some have peng. But the CMC form seems not to. That’s a fatal flaw and would prevent me from suggesting that anyone learn this form (as I did, it was my first style). I’ll write more on peng later, but IMO if you don’t have peng in all your moves, then you don’t have taiji, period. It’s that important.
The main problem I have with small frame forms is that they prevent power development if they are practiced first. Lots of CMC people and others that only practice small frame forms have problems with this.
On the other hand, small frame’s like CMC’s form do teach a crucial aspect of taiji fighting: the ability to shift 100% of the weight into one leg. The problem with large frame Yang stylists and Chen style, in paricular, is the tendency to take a large, wide stance and make all the moves work from there. That’s great if you’re always taller and heavier than your opponent. If you’re not, then you’re at a serious disadvantage.
Shifting the weight 100% between the legs is a natural development of the large frame training. Once someone can clearly differentiate between 60-40 and 70-30 stances, then they should continue to work the percentages: 80-20, 90-10, 100-0. But I almost never see that in large frame Yang stylists and Chen stylists.
This causes two problems. First, power development gets retarded. Putting 100% of your weight in the forward or back leg allows you to go to the extremes of your range of motion. Small frame people don’t explore the gradations of power between their feet and large frame people don’t fully explore the limits of their power at the ends. Of course, that second part also applies somewhat to small frame forms because of the short stances.
Second, footwork gets neglected. Again, most Chen stylists and large Yang people take large, rooted stances to work their material. Great, that is a necessary step. But what about us short people? That will never completely work for us.
There are two types of applications: you stay put and move the opponent around you, or the opponent stays put and you move around him. Large frame trains the first type of application and small frame trains the second. You need both in other to be well-rounded. But without 100% weight-shifting, you will never train the second type of application and power.
So those are some of the problems I see with both large and small frame Yang styles, with a little criticism of my beloved Chen style thrown in for free. 
I would love to hear what others think.
14 responses so far ↓
Tom // July 12, 2006 at 1:02 pm |
As promised, Dave, you added fuel to the fire. I’m afraid there is no way to specifically respond without possibly upsetting some folks, including wujimon. What follows is nothing personal directed against you folks. Perhaps it’s best considered as simply adifferent understanding and experience in how taijiquan works.
First, Zheng Manqing originally learned the extended large frame taught by Yang Cheng Fu in the late 1920s and early 1930s (Zheng produced the 1934 book by YCF). Zheng brought that large frame with him to Taiwan, as shown in the photographs from his “Cheng Tzu’s 13 Treatises,” like the following:
http://www.wuweitaichi.com/images/Book%201-A%20Cheng%20Tzu’s%20Thirteen%20Treaties.jpg
The more contained, “sunken” frame which Zheng’s American students picked up on seems to have developed later . . . hard to say exactly when, although Tao Ping Xian, Ben Lo and William C. C. Chen seem to have learned it, which would place its development in Taiwan during the mid- to late-1950s . . . Zheng’s Malaysia students learned something like this frame when he made a six-month visit there ca. 1957. Did it maybe reflect earlier influence from Zheng’s gongfu brother, Ye Dami, in Shanghai, or perhaps Zheng’s six months or so training with Zhang Qinlin? Only Zheng could truly say, and he only acknowledged YCF as his teacher.
But I don’t consider Zheng’s “American edition” frame to be “small”. Sunken, perhaps, conducive to poor posture, definitely, but not “xiao” as I understand it. However . . . I think Zheng’s disciple Huang Sheng-shyan understood some aspects of small frame, judging by writings of a couple of his disciples in connection with extension and compaction of the spine in the form and in tuishou. That may have come from Huang’s previous Fujian baihequan training; I don’t know. It is one unique aspect of Huang’s line from Zheng that does not appear in other ZMQ lines, as far as I know.
Next, I question J. Justin Meehan’s real understanding of martial intent and usage as it relates to form. I know his teachers, but don’t need to get into his personal background. I think the analysis in that article (which has been hanging around on the Internet for a long time) is based on a superficial examination of the exterior appearance and apparent structural dynamic of Yang Zhenduo’s and Zheng Manqing’s forms, rather than a real understanding of how they work.
And, without raising Zheng on a pedestal, why on earth would anyone use Yang Zhenduo as a paragon of how taijiquan, even Yang style, should be trained for martial usage? Zhenduo never had to use his taijiquan in a fight. It shows in his form correction, it shows in the comparatively rare examples of application he gives, it shows in the teaching of his grandson Yang Jun. In a bar or in a dark alley, I’d rather have Zheng Manqing than Yang Zhenduo (for one thing, he could probably hold his liquor better, and he knew how to use a knife).
As far as generation of power, it’s a fallacy to think that more power can be generated from a longer, deeper stance or a wider base. That is the pushing-the-car model of taijiquan. It contributes to the static, lead-footed taijiquan usage which is all I’ve ever seen in Da Jia guys, Chen or Yang. And the most powerful applications of taiji I’ve seen have been from Hao and Zhaobao styles (sharing a common small-frame root in Chen Qingping).
But more importantly, it shows a misunderstanding of the nature of “power” in taijiquan. Taijiquan is about handling the force/power of the opponent, much more than it is about generating fajin. Taiji is about adjusting to and exploiting the opponent through simultaneous change between yin and yang, empty and full, dynamically and all the time. Your opponent falls on emptiness and is hit back at an unexpected angle largely by the return of his own force. There is power aplenty in a competent small-frame practitioner. That power is generated by changing from empty to full in a much smaller space and much faster than a Da Jia exponent can, without any “gathering” or obvious wind-up. The power is generated in large part by the return of the opponent’s own force through the small-frame structure, accomplished through the quick change from 0% to 100%. Sun Lutang trained only small-frame taijiquan from Hao Weizhen and could push his students through the heavy wooden doors of the training hall, breaking the cross-bar. Hao Weizhen taught Sun the use of power in taijiquan; it’s not simply something that Sun adapted from his prior xingyiquan training. Hao’s grandson, Shaoru, threw people out of the ring using a 10-foot-staff and the leverage/power generated from a small-frame stance.
But again, that is all the externally obvious and tactically less important aspect of “power” in taijiquan. Much more important is how the opponent’s jin is handled. That is the real internal skill in taijiquan. Hong Junsheng, Chen Fake’s longest-term disciple, talked about perceived power. Chen Zhonghua, one of Hong’s disciples, writes:
“Hong believed that the concept of power is an important distinguishing feature of systems. External systems develop physical power from the outside. Internal systems develop power from within. Further, the way power is generated distinguishes subsystems too. Taiji, Xingyi and Bagua are subsystems of internal system. According to him, Xingyi genuinely aims to generate internal power. So does Bagua. It is not the case with Taiji. In Taiji, there is no real power generated. Instead, it is a “perceived power” that Taiji is concerned with.”
When you can’t get a real hold on a taijiquan practitioner or you feel like your powerful blow leaves you falling into emptiness, your perception is scrambled and when your launched, it can seem like an incredible amount of power, but in fact quite a bit of it is your own force returned to you. If you have not felt this, than you haven’t experienced real taijiquan.
Large frame practice, besides intrinsic physical perils (I’ll save that for another discussion), confuses the body. It cannot move from its dantien when in the wide, splayed-out stances. Large frame overemphasizes the physical separation between empty and full, and trains and engages gross musculature (quads, et al.) to make the change between empty and full, and perhaps most significantly makes extremely unintelligent use of joints like the hips and knees. It’s just stupid training, from the point of view of physical therapy or martial usage. If you want flexibility and strengthening, there are far more effective, balanced and safe ways of cultivating those qualities in supplemental exercises.
I’ll close my ramble-and-rant with an observation about weight distribution. Where did the 70/30 or 60/40 percentages of distribution of weight come from? They are not in the Wu/Li or Yangshi “classics.” Yang Cheng Fu did not teach in those terms. They may have been introduced by later students. But even Zheng Manqing did not assign weight distribution percentages in his last book: the footprint diagrams showing comparative weights were added. It’s ridiculous to think that the masters of old went around with scales to step on in their practice.
But let’s consider the matter of weight distribution in a large-frame practice. Take two bathroom scales. Weigh yourself on one, then place the two scales so you can get into, for example, gongbu with 70% of your weight on the forward scale (standard for Yang). You’ll find yourself in a ridiculously extended stance. Get off the scales and assume that same relative stance. You’re just asking to be swept. I could take a nap and still move in time to tip you over with a light touch at the right angle as you struggle to drag your feet into a position you can move from. The proprioceptive sense of weight distribution trained in a large-frame form is a clumsy, gross-motor sensibility. And training slowly in a large frame is just going to overemphasize that clumsy sensibility.
You need to have a clear sense of weight distribution within the frame with which you fight, which is generally going to be closer to a small or medium frame. What trains a clear sense of weight distribution is paying attention to the changing from empty to full within a normal step. Sun’s follow-step is beautiful for that, actually. If you train your solo form focusing on getting the 70/30 or 60/40 or whatever distribution right, you’re training to stop dead in the water on the transition between 0 and 100. It just doesn’t make sense.
Zheng Manqing added a follow-step (tifang) in his tuishou, because the solo form he learned and taught did not correlate in important ways with the realities of engagement trained initially in tuishou and later in fighting. Neither does the solo form taught by Yang Zhenduo and progeny.
These are just the thoughts of a perpetual beginner, not worth much. Don’t distress yourself over such idle vanity. Move along, move along.
Tom // July 12, 2006 at 1:10 pm |
I don’t mind eating my words where I’m wrong or, as in this case, where my statement may have not been completely accurate. Yang Jun is quite good with Yang style. Yang Jun also knows and demonstrates applications (yes, I’ve personally seen and felt them). I’m not one of those who think Yang style has completely lost its way as a martial art.
But my point in the preceding post was simply that I see a number of serious disconnects between the way the Yang large-frame solo form is taught and practiced, and actual taijiquan usage in tuishou or a fight. There is much less of a disconnect between practice and usage, at least to my eye, in Sun Lutang’s form or in the Zhaobao small-frame style I practice.
Tom // July 13, 2006 at 1:28 am |
Clearly, though, there are Yang large-frame people who can fight. So what elements of their large-frame training build the gongfu that drives martial skill (and power)?
It does not–cannot–come simply from repetition of the Yang large frame as commonly/popularly taught. The focus of most Yangshi teachers is on the gross exterior appearance of the student’s posture and alignment. Even with alignment, many Yang style teachers offer poor correction.
There is verbal instruction and hands-on correction that, in my experience, produces the most progress–or the most potential for poor practice and injury– from the teacher-student interaction. It is the accuracy of the observation/correction and the content of the verbal instruction that most meaningfully guides the student’s own (hopefully) diligent practice. Many Yang style “teachers” never received sound, detailed instruction from their own teachers over how to properly move their bodies through the Yang large frame . . . for example, how to connect the torso to the legs through sinking into the kua. What happens then is that the “teachers” then either repeat the erroneous instruction they received, or haphazardly guess what the student needs correction on . . . or, as around here, take detailed instruction and principles from another taijiquan style and attempt to weave it into their patchwork knowledge of Yang style.
Around Seattle, for example, many of the more well-known Yang style teachers also gravitated to a student of Feng Zhiqiang who moved to this area in the late 1980s. The hands-on feeling of the teacher’s body as the teacher moved, the detailed corrections the teacher offered, the discussion of specific principles like dui la . . . all had a huge impact on their teaching of Yang style. It probably was the first time many of them had received that level of teaching . . . though many had been training and teaching in Yang style for twenty or thirty years. They did not drop their Yang style, though some of them did become students and then teachers of Feng’s approach to Chen style. However, many did attempt to incorporate what they learned from Feng’s student into their Yang style teaching. Feng’s Chen-based style is, however, substantially different from Yang.
It is disingenuous to say that all taijiquan styles are taijiquan if they follow the principles of taijiquan. That is true only at the most general level of “principle”; taijiquan styles differ significantly at the level of training specifics. “Dui la,” for example, does not work in the Yang form the same way it works in Chen. So it was guesswork on the part of the Yang style teachers attempting to incorporate principles taught in the context of a basically Chen Xinjia form and frame into the qualitatively different movements of YCF large frame.
The result? Often a compounding of errors. Some teachers managed to find three corners of the Yang handkerchief after Feng’s student showed them one corner of the Chen handkerchief, others . . .
I believe Yang Jun knew Feng’s student, but I don’t know that there was any “exchange” of skills to any meaningful extent. Certainly Yang Jun has been exposed to the full range of taijiquan styles and levels of teaching in the PRC. His grandfather would probably have been the major source of his teaching. But even Yang Jun has adapted training ideas from other styles that are not part of his grandfather’s teaching nor intrinsic to the YCF large-frame practice. In demonstrating tuishou or certain applications, for example, Yang Jun may roll his shoulders or fold his chest in a manner similar to Chen style, even saying, on at least one occasion, “like Chen style” (i.e., in the manner of Chen style). Both Yang Jun and Yang Zhenduo acknowledge Yangshi taijiquan’s roots in Chen style. Yang Jun’s manner of performance is not quite the same as his grandfather’s; who knows what direction his teaching will take in the future?
Public teaching of Yang large frame lacks significant elements that can contribute to the student’s injury in practice and confusion in motion in a fight. That’s been my own experience, and clearly is not offered as a statement of others’ experiences. But someone who seriously aspires to skill in martial arts needs to honestly look not only at his/her own effort, but also at what the teacher(s) offer . . . and not be afraid to change if they are headed in the wrong direction. Life moves too quickly: we can’t get stuck in a metaphorical Yangshi Da Jia gongbu.
When should a martial arts student know it’s time to change teachers? How can a student honestly evaluate their progress and direction with a particular teacher and style? How can one avoid becoming a teacher-hopping dilettante while also avoiding getting sucked into the black hole of teacher worship or the carousel of lack of awareness (the inertia of repeated mistakes)?
I’ll jump off this large/small frame thread with the preceding suggestion for another discussion thread. I’ll actually be away for awhile. Again, the preceding commentary is simply my own opinion, undoubtedly confused and misguided, but not intentionally malicious. I hope everyone’s practice is fruitful: watch those knees and hips, and remember to look both ways when crossing the street. :- )
Cheers.
chessman71 // July 13, 2006 at 8:19 am |
Tom,
I want to thank you for taking the time to write such a detailed response. i know that doing so takes a lot of time, and I appreciate it. I hope that you don’t mind, but I’m going to make your comments into a post so that your efforts don’t get lost here in the comment section. I will address the issues that you raise there. Take care.
truckerbum206 // August 24, 2006 at 2:48 pm |
good post
Daniel Pfister // July 28, 2009 at 9:45 pm |
Sorry, I wasn’t around when this conversation came up. Having studied both styles rather seriously I would have had a few things to say. Although, I think the emphasis on the power peng training of YZD’s form and the emphasis on potential energy in CMC’s form is essentially correct. As to which one is more valuable for MA . . . well, I’ll save that one for when I know people are paying attention.
J Justin Meehan // August 7, 2009 at 12:37 pm |
Dear Tom LNU; who I have never had the good fortune to meet personally. Before questioning my understanding and ability, please refer to my bio (www.jjustinmeehan.com), the teachers I have been so very fortunate to study from, the number of national and international
Taiji form, Push Hands and Sword Champions I have coached, the number of times I have served as Chief Judge in Yang, Chen and Other Taiji, Push Hands and Weapons in major national and international tournaments and the over 30 published articles I have written many of which have been included in Best Martial Arts Writing Anthologies and some of which are still discussed today by people like you, before questioning “J. Justin Meehan’s real understanding of martial intent and usage as it relates to form.” I welcome you to disagree with me, but do not see how you could evaluate my understanding of martial intent or usage without allowing me the opportunity demonstrate personally. Just recently saw Yang Zheng duo and Yang Jun and William C. C. Chen last month. Can’t tell you how much I both respect and admire both them and their forms as I do most all teachers and forms of Taiji. One of the things I never ever heard them or any other of my teachers do was to personally criticize another teacher or another teacher’s art or form. I would think this would be especially true if you did not know the teacher yourself.
Rip Van Winkle // August 10, 2009 at 6:48 am |
Check the date on the preceding posts, Mr. Meehan. That guy wrote the stuff over three years ago. By the way, when was the last time you used tai chi in a fight? The silk pyjama solo forms and happy hippo slap-n-shove push-hands tournaments don’t particularly exemplify martial intent. If what you listed as your resume is the extent of your personal understanding of martial intent . . .
Rip Van Winkle // August 10, 2009 at 7:03 am |
. . . then it’s good to see that you have personal and recent experience with Yang Zhenduo, Yang Jun and William C. C. Chen. Do they teach tai chi as martial art or performance art?
Dennis // October 26, 2009 at 1:47 am |
I’m in way over my head with you guys…BUT…Is not the bottom line which do we prefer. The best teacher I have ever found is in the Yang Family org….that being said I still relax immediately when I do CMC style. I do this for my health…I haven’t had a fight in 45 years..and if I do repulsing the monkey will be the farthest thing from my mind. Please continue to post…great for a novice like me..Thank you all
Daniel Pfister // October 26, 2009 at 2:10 am |
Even if you do Tai Chi for health only, the benefits you get from doing the large frame style versus the small frame CMC style are different. Now if you prefer some benefits over others, that’s fine. But if you’re like me and want to get all of the benefits Tai Chi has to offer, I would suggest at least practicing some of each if not the entire forms.
chessman1971 // November 2, 2009 at 8:44 am |
Agreed with Daniel. If you have time then doing both is the way to go. But what if you only have time for one? Hmmm…
Daniel // November 2, 2009 at 9:49 am |
In teaching, I have found a medium frame, like CMC’s earlier form, most useful. Big enough to teach root and structure yet small enough to emphasize relaxation and mobility. Once they get that down (if?) I like to teach the smaller frame because I feel it is useful for teaching efficiency of movement in Push Hands. Later, I would teach the larger frame to add power to that existing stable and sunk foundation. I have seen too many others who gained some power through large-frame work, but were quite clumsy when they had to move in more creative ways without having a centralized root.
Dave Chesser // November 4, 2009 at 9:08 am |
The CPL taiji that i teach is middle frame, but i usually start beginners a little larger than that to get them to expand their power and learn to balance through the larger stepping. Once that’s gained, then the middle frame is a nice way to conserve the power and make the footwork a bit more nimble.