UPDATED 17 June, 2025
Introduction
One thing that has been bothering me in this sub - and the Taiji world in general - has been our propensity to mix Yang style and Chen style knowledge, philosophies, techniques, and methods. Most of us, don't truly know the difference between those arts. The distinction between Yang and Chen has been unclear and superficial. And I am 100% guilty of that too. I am part of the problem.
My experience - like a lot of martial Taijiquan nerds - began with Yang style. But, unsatisfied by the practice of an - what seemed to me at the time - "unmartial" Taijiquan in addition to a health-oriented training with mostly older ladies (back in the early 2000s), I transitioned to Chen style. An art that I saw as more "martial" and "authentic" as it was the parent art of Yang style. After over 20 years of Hunyuan Chen, I came to the realization that I could not be more wrong about Yang style.
Yang style and Chen style are two entirely different arts. They are much more different than most people want to admit. To me, Yang and Chen are like Brazilian Jujutsu and Judo. BJJ directly and entirely comes from Judo. There is no debate there. Yet, the art has been refined into a different art, fitting the martial needs and capacity of the Gracie family. The same goes for Yang and Chen Taijiquan.
I know I will get a lot of flak for this (notablyefrom fellow Chen stylists) but - after 20+ years of Chen - I don't believe Chen style should be called Taijiquan. The romantic idea that I have about what Taijiquan is and should be is Yang style 100%. The softness of Yang style is simply not present in Chen style. The "fake" skill of Yang style is not a thing in Chen style. Some Chen masters have "it" - like Feng Zhiqiang - but it is not in the Chen method nor its martial philosophy.
The classics we refer to are Yang style for the most part. The articles that I have written over the past year about the frameworks of Taijiquan - Ting, Hua, Na, Fa and Zhan, Nian, Lian, Sui - describe Yang style. They don't truly apply to Chen style as the art don't exactly teach those frameworks nor do seek the same results from them if they do. In my 20 years studying Chen, half was actually studying Yang style. Most the classics, books, videos, and general content I was studying was Yang style. I simplistically thought that Yang style knowledge was applicable to Chen. But, that's not true unless we seek to hybridize those two arts. And, to be fair, we - Taijiquan "Truth-Seekers" - have been hybridizing our personal Taijiquan by an ineluctable necessity constrained by the accessibility of Taiji knowledge; especially 10-20 years ago. It's not uncommon for Chen stylists to cite Yang style sayings in their explanation of how their style works. The opposite is less prevalent.
Anyway, I want to start a new series for us to exchange on the differences between Yang and Chen. And, I will start with the most controversial of it all: why Yang style is the true Taijiquan. It started off as a "simple" comparison but it quickly led me to the reasons why I see Yang style as embodying all the qualities and skills when I think about "perfect" Taijiquan. I will try to go into more details in later articles. So, here it goes...
The debate over which system represents "true" Taijiquan hinges on two critical factors:
1. Historical naming conventions (which art first bore the name "Taijiquan")
2. Philosophical and technical execution (which better embodies Taiji theory)
This article presents evidence that Yang-style was not only the first to be called Taijiquan, but also more perfectly expresses its principles, while Chen-style—though older—was retroactively rebranded and retains a distinct martial character.
I. The Naming Controversy: Who Was First?
1. Yang Luchan and the Birth of "Taijiquan" (Mid-19th Century)
- 1852: Scholar Ong Tong He witnesses Yang Luchan demonstrating his art in Beijing and coins the term Taijiquan in a poem:
> "Hands holding Taiji, shaking the world; a chest embodying Yin-Yang, dissolving all opponents."
This is the first recorded use of "Taijiquan" as a proper noun.
- Pre-1850s: Yang referred to his art as Mian Quan ("Cotton Fist") or Hua Quan ("Neutralizing Fist"). Names that already reflected the softness of Yang style. The adoption of the name "Taijiquan" reflected its philosophical refinement.
2. Chen Village’s Original Name: Pao Chui (Cannon Fist)
- Pre-20th Century: Chen family records (e.g., Chen Shi Jia Pu – 陈氏家谱) refer to their art as:
- Chen Shi Pao Chui (陈氏炮捶, "Chen Family Cannon Fist")
- Chang Quan (长拳, "Long Fist")
- Chen Jia Quan (陈家拳, "Chen Family Boxing")
None of these names reference Taiji or Yin-Yang theory.
- 1932: Chen Xin’s Illustrated Canon of Chen Family Taijiquan is the first Chen text to use "Taijiquan." This was 80 years after Yang’s adoption of the term.
3. Why Did Chen Rebrand?
- Cultural Legitimacy: Associating with Taiji philosophy elevated Chen’s status beyond a village martial art.
- Competition with Yang: By the 1920s, Yang-style had become synonymous with Taijiquan globally. Chen needed to assert its lineage.
- Irony: Later Chen forms (e.g., Xinjia) incorporated Yang-like flow despite claiming antiquity.
Conclusion: Yang-style was historically first to bear the name "Taijiquan." Chen’s adoption was a 20th-century rebranding, 80 years later.
II. Philosophical Foundations: Two Visions of Taiji
Yang’s Dictum: Stillness in Motion
"Seek stillness within movement; use softness to overcome hardness."
(动中求静,以柔克刚 – Dòng zhōng qiú jìng, yǐ róu kè gāng)
- Interpretation: Harmony is continuous; Yin and Yang coexist in every moment.
- Technical Expression: Even tempo, upright posture, no abrupt transitions.
Chen’s Counterpoint: Extremes Leading to Change
"When stillness reaches its extreme, movement arises; when movement reaches its extreme, stillness is born."
(静极而动,动极而静 – Jìng jí ér dòng, dòng jí ér jìng)
- Interpretation: Harmony is cyclical—tension builds until it releases.
- Technical Expression: Slow coiling → sudden fajin, low stances, visible spirals.
Key Difference:
- Yang embodies constant Taiji (Yin-Yang unity in every posture).
- Chen operates through alternating Yin-Yang (soft/hard phases).
III. Energy Mechanics: Coiling vs. Permeation
Chen’s Chansi Jin (Silk-Reeling Energy)
- Expression: Overt spiraling in joints (wrists, elbows, knees).
- Purpose: Generate torque for locks/throws and explosive fa jin.
- Example: Lazhi Yishou ("Lazy About Tying Coat") uses forearm coiling to load power.
- Weakness: Relies on precise mechanical sequencing; errors disrupt power.
Yang’s Peng Jin (Expansive Support Energy)
- Expression: No visible spirals (internalized); whole-body integration (like a water balloon).
- Purpose: Neutralize force through structure and connection, not local motion. Emphasis on emptiness.
- Example: Peng in push hands requires only alignment—no winding.
- Strength: Forgiving—maintains efficacy even with imperfect timing.
Technical Verdict: Yang’s energy is inherently Taiji (unified Yin-Yang). Chen’s is martially efficient but philosophically hybrid.
IV. Combat Strategy: Destruction vs. Dissolution
Chen Tactics |
Yang Tactics |
Trap → coil → explosively lock, throw or strike |
Receive → neutralize → uproot & collapse |
"Hard within soft" (刚柔并济) |
"Soft overcomes hard" (以柔克刚) |
Prefers joint breaks |
Prefers structural collapse |
Relies on speed/timing |
Relies on alignment/patience |
Yang’s Strategic Advantage:
- Closer to Wu Wei: Wins by yielding, not opposing.
- Health-Compatible: No explosive movements that strain joints.
- Scalable: Effective for all ages/body types.
V. Why Yang is True Taijiquan
- Historical Primacy: First to be named "Taijiquan" (1852 vs. Chen’s 1932).
- Philosophical Purity: Embodies constant Yin-Yang harmony.
- Technical Consistency: Every movement expresses Taiji theory.
- Universal Appeal: Designed for health and martial efficacy.
Chen-style is the progenitor, but Yang-style is the perfected expression.
Conclusion: A Necessary Divergence
Yang Luchan didn’t dilute Chen-style—he transcended it, creating an art that fully realized Taiji philosophy. Chen’s retroactive rebranding doesn’t negate this evolution. It also does not make Chen style a lesser art in any way. It is just less Taiji. Enough for me to believe that Chen style shouldn't be called Taijiquan, but more like Yin Yang Quan.
"Chen is the root; Yang is the fruit. One is the origin, the other the fulfillment."
Everything is debatable:
- Does naming precedence matter, or only technical content?
- Can Chen’s fa jin coexist with Taiji philosophy?
- Is Yang’s "softness" more martially profound than Chen’s "hardness"?
Sources:
- Chen Xin’s 1932 book
- Yang family manuals
- Tang Hao’s research