Jump to content

Talk:List of tai chi forms

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled

[edit]

It would be necessary to make remarkable the figure of Feng Zhiqiang (18th generation senior student of Chen Fake) and the only alive disciple of Chen Fake nowadays. It's true his style Chen Xinyi Hunyuan Taijiquan has been influenced by his knowledge of Xin Yi Chuan of his other GrandMaster Hu Yuezhen, but I believe it's important to consider the addition in the list GrandMaster Feng Zhiqiang's style [1] Gorthaurg 10:07, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gorthaurg,

Re: Grand Master Feng Zhiqiang I added the 24 and 36 forms and the 36 form broadsword and 48 form straight sword to the list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.52.127.12 (talk) 21:46, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest addition of Zhao Bao forms

[edit]

There are at least 24-posture, 43-posture, 56-posture and others beyond my awareness. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.195.55.116 (talk) 01:04, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

POV

[edit]

This page completely lacks context.

I've been taught at least 15 separate tai chi forms (all except one considered to be Yang style forms as taught by Tung family), few if any of which go by the names on the list. The whole idea of this list seems to be that the whole flora of diverse tai chi forms can be reduced to a list of a limited number of standardised forms. This is wrong, as such, so if is a list of forms standardised by a particular organization or within a particular traadition, this should be stated up front in the lead. (For my own sake mostly, here's a list of those 15 forms: Slow set, fast set, Tung-family set, 1st dandau, 2nd dandau, two sticks, twin dandau, sword, one-hand push-hands, two-hand push-hands, three-step push-hands, four corners push-hands, 1st sanchau, 2nd sanchau, open/close set).--Noe (talk) 12:51, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Original research

[edit]

This list is almost completely unsourced and smacks of original research. Probably worth chucking the whole thing.Peter Rehse (talk) 21:31, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]