Old Wudang?

Discuss Taijiquan or other soft styles. Theory, practice and applications. Please stay on topic.

Moderators: Dvivid, Inga, nyang, taiqiman

Old Wudang?

Postby John the Monkey mind » Sun Nov 13, 2011 7:43 am

Has anyone got any idea about traditional "old" Wudang kung fu. I am interested in finding out more about their old forms (Pre-1930's) as I have repeatedly heard that the current Wudang Taiji is a comparable modern form. Which forms if any are possible to evidence as old forms?
John the Monkey mind
Forum ÜberGuru
 
Posts: 473
Joined: Mon Nov 16, 2009 6:15 am

Re: Old Wudang?

Postby yeniseri » Sun Nov 13, 2011 12:43 pm

From what I imagine I understand and what a few of my former teachers have stated, Wudang was always shrouded in superstitious illusory tales and when CMA opened up to the greater audience, the few Wudang adepts appeared to have re-constituted traditional forms of various schools anf gave it a 'Wudang' flavour. Even the name of the original arts remained but they just added Wudang to it!
yeniseri
Forum ÜberGuru
 
Posts: 492
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2005 3:18 pm
Location: USA

Re: Old Wudang?

Postby John the Monkey mind » Tue Nov 15, 2011 6:17 am

Thats what I guessed. Is it then that the traditional forms are still practiced out of the public eye?

I have a copy of "The Major Methods of Wudang Sword" by Huang Yuan Xiou the disciple of Li Jing-Lin (of military academe fame) some place and he says that the essence of Wudang is the same as Taiji body, Bagua footwork and Xing Yi's power.

Still there are no forms are in the book just the basic sword postures. This has been the earliest book I could find by someone or the disciple of someone who was trained in the Wudang arts.

Interestingly if I remember correctly he also says throwing weapons are one of the three jewels of Wudang along with the sword and meditation. Sadly my book is currently in another country so it will be a wile before I can look at it again for more information. Still Li Jing-Lin was said to be the grates swordsman of his day and the forward by Sun Lu Tang tells me its value.
Any other books or papers out there on this?
John the Monkey mind
Forum ÜberGuru
 
Posts: 473
Joined: Mon Nov 16, 2009 6:15 am

Re: Old Wudang?

Postby wpgtaiji » Sat Nov 19, 2011 10:53 pm

Greetings.

I agree with what has been stated about the current wudang stuff. I read on a forum some time ago, that a fellow was in wudang 20 years ago and there was nothing at all about wudang martial arts in the public eye. Now, they have taichi, bagua, xingyi and it all looks like watered down versions of other versions! WOW! LOL

Besides, there actually is information available on the "old" art, as you put it. If you are interested, PM me. Otherwise, I will leave this at what you two have concluded.

peace
wpgtaiji
Forum ÜberGuru
 
Posts: 397
Joined: Sat Nov 19, 2011 10:48 pm

Re: Old Wudang?

Postby Josh Young » Mon Nov 21, 2011 12:06 pm

There is the material that can be sourced to the WTBA that uses the term Wudang.

While the exact origin of this material is disputable it is unquestionably martial and worth looking into for students of the internal arts.
Josh Young
Forum DemiGod
 
Posts: 720
Joined: Fri Mar 06, 2009 12:03 pm

Re: Old Wudang?

Postby wpgtaiji » Mon Nov 21, 2011 3:33 pm

Josh Young wrote:While the exact origin of this material is disputable it is unquestionably martial and worth looking into for students of the internal arts.

Lets take a look at the facts. the 12 are some of the most intricate movements ever created. Each form has a specific theme and all the movements in each form have a similarity. And there are 12 of them! Then we take the qi disruptions. This is difficult because, unlike science, a person needs a high degree of skill before he can even begin to pull off some of them. That is why he did MTG101. To top that off, they are dangerous.

Now, look at who Erle was at that time. A white dude, living in London and Aus. He had a limited knowledge of TCM. People argue if Chang was real or not (meaning the form is Erle's), so if we take it that Chang wasn't real, and that liang shi kan wasnt real, then we have a man who created a whole system that is complete, energetically, physically, martially, and HEALING (which is a topic in itself), with no understanding of the underlying arts when he started. Oh, and he did it in 25 years! RIGHT! I loved Erle as a human being and a teacher, but no one is that good!

So what is more likely? Erle created it or Liang shi kan traded with him.

Disputable? Again, only by people who have no clue as to what internal arts are (it is scarry that that is my theme here... i wonder what other peoples' level of understand is... )
wpgtaiji
Forum ÜberGuru
 
Posts: 397
Joined: Sat Nov 19, 2011 10:48 pm

Re: Old Wudang?

Postby Josh Young » Mon Nov 21, 2011 4:06 pm

the time frame of publication is most interesting, weeks before he died Erle was still coming up with detailed works attributed to a person he claimed to have not spent much time learning from, things that he never once mentioned previous to when he came out with them.

You may insult me as much as you wish, but you clearly underestimate Erles intelligence, i do believe that he was capable of creating the system he sold. He was a genius, i have no doubts about that.

A very close friend of mine has been training in the WTBA systems for a few years now, i am intimately familiar with the material, have read nearly every word Erle ever printed and have seen a dozen of his videos.

I have no doubt it is martial, but there are many inconsistencies in Erles stories and a lot of what he says has no evidence to support it. there is an article that i do believe tells the truth, this article is found at his site and is called "the Erle Montaigue story"
here is the link:
http://www.taijiworld.com/The-Erle-Montaigue-Story.html
this is what i believe
He had to ask himself why the modern day master he had met did not possess the power and ability of the original master. He decided that rather look for a more realistic quick answer system, to research the history and the methods of the original master.
Erle from this point on began a self teaching phase where he spent much training time on developing his own style and looking deeply into the past masters. It was at this time after learning all the skills, Erle had to practice with others of similar expertise and put his skills to the test, as well as this he had to train up assistants to practice with so as to earn by teaching them and from this, while teaching, it was all about gaining through practice.


this article was published in 97 and is found on his site, it says that after Chu he taught himself and others

as for the Wudang mother forms and hand weapons, these appear very late in his syllabus and he does not mention them at all in any of his early work. they are highly disputable in terms of the origin he gave them, but are indisputable as effective internal martial arts

I would avoid underestimating the man, he was clearly hyper-intelligent and entirely capable of creating the WTBA system by drawing from his own study of internal arts.

The one claim that i think is erroneous is that his art is "healing", at least it was not for him, his death is a testament to the fact that his health had been damaged by his lifestyle, it does not appear that he was able to heal himself using the internal arts.
Josh Young
Forum DemiGod
 
Posts: 720
Joined: Fri Mar 06, 2009 12:03 pm

Re: Old Wudang?

Postby wpgtaiji » Mon Nov 21, 2011 5:02 pm

Chenfu died earlier than Erle, does that mean his form isnt healing? If what you say is true, then modern taiji (including your art) is all BS because today, it is all about healing!

Erle died of a blood clot! If he or anyone could prevent or heal that then we would have to call them GOD! Good luck!
wpgtaiji
Forum ÜberGuru
 
Posts: 397
Joined: Sat Nov 19, 2011 10:48 pm

Re: Old Wudang?

Postby Josh Young » Mon Nov 21, 2011 5:45 pm

wpgtaiji wrote:Chenfu died earlier than Erle, does that mean his form isnt healing?

Yes, yes it does. It was unable to prevent his death, though there is some evidence that he died of Cholera, it is clear that his health declined significantly when he began to eat western foods.
If what you say is true, then modern taiji (including your art) is all BS because today, it is all about healing!

That is incorrect, it is not about healing, it can help maintain health, but it is not a cure or treatment for disease. However the art i was taught was not about healing, it was and is a martial art and no claim is made that it will cure or treat any illness. There are spiritual aspects to it relating to the 13 postures and their true meanings as well, but the emphasis is totally martial.

If you claimed the art was about maintaining health i could agree, but the idea that it is about healing is BS, just like you say.
Josh Young
Forum DemiGod
 
Posts: 720
Joined: Fri Mar 06, 2009 12:03 pm

Re: Old Wudang?

Postby Dvivid » Fri Dec 30, 2011 10:08 am

Hello.

I think Erle has been disparaged enough posthumously. He did a lot to promote the arts.

If you want to learn Wudang arts, go to Wudang, or find a graduated teacher from the traditional schooling there. Like ALL Chinese martial arts lineages, there have been interruptions in the lineage due to periods when it was illegal to study openly in China. Master Zhou explained very well yesterday in another thread how it was that Wudang was fortunately spared from complete destruction during the cultural revolution.

To assume that modern day study of Wudang (or Shaolin) arts is unauthentic is ludicrous. Keep your ego at bay and your mouth closed, and be respectful of the thousands of people working to preserve and promote the traditional arts right now, when it matters most.

Lastly, stop arguing. It is boring, redundant, and pointless. Taijiquan was created by Daoists in a monastery, based on earlier forms developed by Buddhists in a monastery. It is a martial art, but it is also much more than that, since its inception. Monks likely used a weapon to defend themselves most of the time, not a barehand form.

Taijiquan is both a martial art and a qigong form. To call it one or the other misses the point entirely. When you get into the "zone" of moving meditation while practicing a form for 10-20 minutes, of course it has preventative health benefits. And because of the principle of "mind over matter", of course taijiquan (or any exercise) has the potential to heal, even in the case of serious ailments or illness.

Blither, blither, blither.

Let's be more productive in these threads in general and suggest an answer to the original question: Where can you learn about authentic Wudang forms? Wudang mountain. or Boston: http://daoistgate.com/wudang-kung-fu
Dvivid
Forum God
 
Posts: 1674
Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2003 9:48 am
Location: Boston, MA

Re: Old Wudang?

Postby wpgtaiji » Fri Dec 30, 2011 11:57 am

Dvivid wrote:Lastly, stop arguing. It is boring, redundant, and pointless. Taijiquan was created by Daoists in a monastery, based on earlier forms developed by Buddhists in a monastery. It is a martial art, but it is also much more than that, since its inception. Monks likely used a weapon to defend themselves most of the time, not a barehand form.


I would love to see your source on this, as all of the history I have ever come across on taiji has the "founding" in Chen village, either by a Chen or Yang (depending on your bent), and NEITHER of these were taoist OR from a temple.

As to the comment by the taoist priest, Taiji is not a religion (see your quote), and as such, the highest level being taoism.. i have no idea what that even means. Its a little like saying that by eating a hamburger everyday, I will one day attain christhood... One has no bearing on the other (being physical and spiritual practices).

Thank you for letting us know that the purpose of this internet forum is NOT to discuss differences of opinions. NO worries.
wpgtaiji
Forum ÜberGuru
 
Posts: 397
Joined: Sat Nov 19, 2011 10:48 pm

Re: Old Wudang?

Postby Josh Young » Fri Dec 30, 2011 2:09 pm

It is easy to mistake the presentation of various accounts as argument.

According to Kennish S. Cohen 1991 there is a Taoist oral tradition that the first taijiquan form was practiced by Chen I Tao Jen, a celibate Taoist priest who lived from 722-480bc
however it is said little else is known about him, but he is credited as the patriarch.

According to this tradition the form and martial art changes gradually as it is passed down through various people, one of whom is named Li Tao Tzu, who resided at Wudang, he is said to have given the art the name Hsien Tien Chun.

In this same tradition it is said that on Wudang Chen Hsi-i taught taoist yoga to Huo-lung, who taught Chang San Feng. It is also said that this line of study continued at Wudang until the 1800s.

According to these Wudang Taoist traditions Chen style is nearly independant from taijiquan and the two are little related. According to this Chen style is Shaolin based and goes through Wang Tsung-yueh and Yen Chin-chuan(sic) The former is said to have been taught martial arts by a Buddhist priest and the Wang taught at Chenjiagou village.

So there is an account of the history of the art from Taoists from Wudang that contradicts at least one version of the story.

But where did the idea that Taijiquan originates in Chen village come from?
Why not consider the words of a Chen family member on it?
According to Chen Xiaowang 1991 a man named Tang Hoa was commissioned in the early 1930s by the government to research the origin of Taijiquan. He went to Chen village 3 times, according to Xiaowang and determined that Taijiquan originated from Chen Wang Ting in the middle of the 17th century.

Now consider this, the idea that taiji comes from Chen village comes from the work of a single scholar in the 1930s, the Taoists do not maintain this, the Yang taijiquan practitioners also do not maintain this.
Not all who practice Taijiquan consider Chen style to be taijiquan, but rather a different art that Luchan studied before learning Taijiquan.

According to Cohen, as referenced previously the Wudang Taoist tradition says that Luchan learned from a disciple of Chang Sang Feng. This is also what the Yangs themselves tend to portray and in their linneage charts they don't mention Chen village but do mention Sang-Feng.

According to the Taoist tradition that Cohen shares Yang Luchan was dissatisfied with what he learned from Chen Chen-xing. According to this the Yang style stems from a martial art distinct from Chen village martial arts and originates from Sang Feng. Isn't it interesting that this is very close to what the Yangs themselves claimed?

Lets consider what Wudang martial artists have to say about this
http://www.taijiworld.com/taiji-qigong/ ... UTANG.html
Dong Kit-yung 1973
Dong Kit-yung is the leader of the Wudang T'ai Chi Ch'uan style which still exists today on Wudang Mountain in China, said to be the birthplace of T'ai Chi


The account shared by this man matches the Taoist tradition rather well:
All forms of modern day T'ai Chi originated from my ancestor's way of the fist as can be clearly seen by looking closely at two of the modern styles, the Chen and the Yang. There is some controversy as to who taught who when it comes to these two forms but it is my belief that the Chen family first of all learned some of my ancestor's forms and then one of the original Yang people firstly learned that form. Then, one of our students, not one of our family members visited the Chen Village and began to teach both the Chen leaders and the Yang visitor. We are told that the Yang visitor became very good at our family form and then left the Chen village returning at a later stage to teach the Chen family his form of T'ai Chi.


But then there is the idea that someone in the Chen family was influenced by older Taoist forms.
According to Chen Xiaowang the documents at Chen village about the founder of the style, Chen Wan-ting was known as a master of martial arts and once defeated more than a thousand bandits. Keep in mind these are the same documents the Scholar Tang Hoa drew from to make the claim that Wang-ting originated taijiquan.

According to Xiaowang Wang-ting himself combined meridian theory with taoist yoga and deep breathing exercises with General Qi Jiguans Cannon Fist writings. This is an interesting claim, it illustrates that Wang-ting needed to learn Tao-yin yoga from Taoists, and this was known to be practiced at Wudang. However the idea that the martial art content was combined with meridian theory for the first time in this tradition has numerous contradictions in terms of historical evidence.

Later according to Xiaowang Chen Chen-xing condensed Wang-tings several fist forms into two sets, which are known as "laojia" to distinguish them from the newer sets created by Chen Fake.

So the notion that Chen style is the original Taiji is inconsistent with what the Taoists, then Yang and the Wudang martial artists say. The idea that Chen is the original source of this art is itself the argument that is in opposition to nearly every account of the art from inside the art itself with the exceptions of the Chens, who openly admit their ancestor incorporated Taoist content into their system, further corroborating the Taoist and Yang claims.

Then there are more accounts to examine, for example Kash 87 relates the idea that Chen Wang-ting based his art on Tai Tzu Chang Chaun, which according to Kash was created in 960AD by Chao Kuang Yin, first Sung Emperor. Yet according to Cohen this is that the Taoists say, that Chen style originates in Tai Tzu Chang Chaun, but that Yang taiji does not. Kash merely repeats the notion that Yang style was created from Chen, but this is not what the Yangs say, not what is taught at Wudang and this is not what the Taoists say.

Rodell 93 relates a story of Zhang Qin-lin and in it mentions the words of T.T. Liang. When asked what made Zhang so strong Liang replied that "He learned something in the mountains from a Taoist"

I am interested in any historical evidences that Taoist taijiquan ancestral martial arts come from Shaolin or Buddhist influence.
I also have not presented my opinion at all in this post, just accounts of others.

The taijiquan i was taught was said to be as much spiritual as it was physical and is religious in some ways, being a method to cultivate and manifest tao in everyday life.
Josh Young
Forum DemiGod
 
Posts: 720
Joined: Fri Mar 06, 2009 12:03 pm

Re: Old Wudang?

Postby wpgtaiji » Fri Dec 30, 2011 2:45 pm

Josh, we AGREE!! I only wrote that about Chen so as not to offend the chen shaolinists.. ops. LOL

One could look at the Chen forms and make a case that Yang's form came from it, but then again, with very little creativity, one could make a convincing arguement that taiji came from Japanese karate! Yes, a stretch, but still could be done :)
wpgtaiji
Forum ÜberGuru
 
Posts: 397
Joined: Sat Nov 19, 2011 10:48 pm

Re: Old Wudang?

Postby Josh Young » Fri Dec 30, 2011 3:21 pm

No doubt that elements found in Chen are found in Yang. No doubt that Luchan studied with the Chens and no doubt that his art is also distinct in numerous ways.

One explanation of this that i have encountered is that the Chen art was influenced by Taoist arts previous to Chen Chen Xing..

Another interesting concept is that the Buddhist arts originate with Taoists, this parallels a claim that Buddhism itself comes from Taoist teachings during the travels of Lao Tzu.

Another concept is that Tao originates with Vedic teachings and that martial content was part of the standard teachings of the sects involved.

I've encountered so many diverse versions and opinions that it really doesn't matter what i think but i can tell that opinions are about all we really have regarding what the true history is.

These days pretty much anyone can claim anything and someone will believe it.

I have an appreciation for Erle Montaigue and his martial art system. I recently spent a couple of weeks doing a minimum of about an hour a day of free-form push hands with a recently promoted level 1 instructor in his system. I won't say they are easy opponents but i will stand by my previous assertions and opinions regarding the style. I don't doubt it is an effective and good martial art or that Erle put a ton of stuff into it. As far as the majority of his work very little is controversial or inconsistent, most of it is credible and easy to verify.
Josh Young
Forum DemiGod
 
Posts: 720
Joined: Fri Mar 06, 2009 12:03 pm

Re: Old Wudang?

Postby Dvivid » Fri Dec 30, 2011 4:42 pm

I've encountered so many diverse versions and opinions that it really doesn't matter what i think but i can tell that opinions are about all we really have regarding what the true history is.


Yes, thank you. Opinions are all we have. I think we all agree on that point. And therefore, arguing about opinions, rather than facts, is ridiculous and not helpful. The reasearch is fun, but it is clear there is no documented answer than everyone will sign off on.

This forum is totally for open sharing of ideas. I was just suggesting we don't "share" in the form of arguments here please. And, I also suggest we try and be respectful of those who came before us, such as the monks (aka priests) at Wudang.

(You should understand that at Wudang there is no word for 'monk or priest', and that is the best possible English translation for their role. They tend to prefer 'priest' over 'monk'. But you're right, it is philosophy, not religion.)
Dvivid
Forum God
 
Posts: 1674
Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2003 9:48 am
Location: Boston, MA

Re: Old Wudang?

Postby Josh Young » Fri Dec 30, 2011 5:06 pm

Tao-Shih/Daoshi is the term I encountered for a Taoist Priest recently.
Perhaps the term practitioner (for Shi) is more ideal a translation than the word priest?


Argument is a classic structure of western conversation containing a premise and support for it. It does not entail conflict unto itself and to argue is not analogous to fighting but should be an exchange of premises, clauses and conclusions for considerations.

Insults, name calling and conflict are not only useless in true argument, they are antithetical to it. The presentation of different views and opinions should not create anger in those who maintain views to the contrary, it is a behavioral defect when this occurs.

A person should be entitled to say that X is not true in their opinion and state why they conclude that without someone who believes otherwise feeling insulted. Derision and defamatory language should be unacceptable. So should the idea that there is any single correct consensus in regards to CMA history.
Josh Young
Forum DemiGod
 
Posts: 720
Joined: Fri Mar 06, 2009 12:03 pm

Re: Old Wudang?

Postby wpgtaiji » Fri Dec 30, 2011 5:11 pm

Dvivid wrote: And, I also suggest we try and be respectful of those who came before us, such as the monks (aka priests) at Wudang.

The only difference between Greg House, MD and the priests at Wudang is, we have this fantasy that it could be real! From all that I have seen of the "martial art" that the priest presents, it is only a cheap knock off of what the shaolin entertainers are doing today. I am sorry but that post that was put up the other day does nothing to prove that it is real. I look to something more than words when I judge martial arts (though, many on a forum ONLY use words.. which makes a martial arts forum sort of bizarre! oh well).

My struggle is this :If it is true that their art moves to taoism, then that would mean that their "movement" would become "nothing" as they progress (aka small frame). I have seen NOTHING by this guy to suggest that he even understands what that means. Yes, i have seen the propaganda video heaven and earth, and yes, they train 10 hours a day. So what?

No one can prove that taiji, bagua, and xingyi existed on wudang, because it DIDNT (these arts are NEW, relative to wudang art)! It was the MOTHER of the arts, not THESE ARTS! There is an enormous difference. Heck, no one even can state with 100% certainty where dong hai chan learned his art! That this is missed in this conversation is terrifying to me as a martial artist.

Now excuse me, I am going over to the Medical Advice R Us forum to ask Greg House about a strange pain I have...

*For those unaware, Greg House is the lead character on an American TV series, HOUSE.
wpgtaiji
Forum ÜberGuru
 
Posts: 397
Joined: Sat Nov 19, 2011 10:48 pm

Re: Old Wudang?

Postby yeniseri » Fri Dec 30, 2011 9:27 pm

Most of my information is from what my previous teachers have noted plus my own insight reading and talking with practitioners!

Prior to the 1920's or so (I do not have an exact date) Wudang was a superstition though they had some systems of gongfu that they practied. The place did exist, and the location was real!
At some point in time (unknown to me) but prior to the 1940's, Wudang 'copied' many of the prevailing systems associated with other styles and added Wudang (the name) to them. Some groups re-engineered a system based on memories of what their teachers told them and their understandng of current martial knowledge in tune with the new requirements of national /cultural treasure and the vision of "new knowledge'.
It was not necessary to learn a whole system but it did work in the favour of Wudang to fill in the blanks, as it were and be proficient in the Ways of the National Culture.

Since 95% of all family styles remained in the family, it was possible for an outsider to learn the external system and Wudang to infuse its own "icing' and still have no relationship to a major outside well known art or system. As an example, When Shaolin realized that Chen family incorporated some materials, they (Shaolin) came up with a Shaolin Taijiquan (as explained) to make it on par with Wenxian Chenjiogou Taijiquan!

Please do not take this as gospel. Examine the sources yourself and see what you come up with!
yeniseri
Forum ÜberGuru
 
Posts: 492
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2005 3:18 pm
Location: USA

Re: Old Wudang?

Postby Josh Young » Sat Dec 31, 2011 9:32 am

No one can prove that taiji, bagua, and xingyi existed on wudang, because it DIDNT (these arts are NEW, relative to wudang art)! It was the MOTHER of the arts, not THESE ARTS! There is an enormous difference.


No one can prove it is the Mother of those arts either.
That claim is also made very virtually nobody in the CMA community (unless it stands for Chauffeur martial arts)and has no evidence to support it, only opinion.
Josh Young
Forum DemiGod
 
Posts: 720
Joined: Fri Mar 06, 2009 12:03 pm

Re: Old Wudang?

Postby wpgtaiji » Sat Dec 31, 2011 11:25 am

Josh, EVERYTHING is opinion, you are right. I was just spouting common rhetoric saying that wudang is a mother art, like they say Shaolin is a mother art. After all, we can probably dismiss that Yang taiji had no relation to wudang at all through Chiang fa. And for that matter, Yang never learned from the Chen's. That, one day, taiji just manifested in the middle of a country road and broke off into schools on its own. Bagua came from the where? A wandering taoist circling trees (cuz, if I was a great warrior, a man circling trees would be the first person I would look to for martial arts advice)! (ok, enough of the sarcasm :( )

Josh, I am all for questioning everything, but at some point, in order to remain sane and actually get something done, you have to take something as real. I know you dont believe the same as I do, but I choose to look at movement to make my choices (and that is all we really have). The "family" style that Erle passed on, that he claimed came from a village near Wudang, from a man called Liang Shi Khan, fits the bill to a T, as far as I can tell. Maybe a better question is, how would you classify a "mother" art? We could go on and on, and maybe you are right. Maybe there are no "mother arts" (I know you didnt actually say that, but it could be infered from your comment that wudang being a mother art is opinion). Maybe a better word, and I am stealing from something I just heard the other day, is Glue art! Maybe, wudang should be called the art that binds taiji and bagua (and xingyi) together, unifying them with the same principles... ok, now I have gone to far! LOL For the record, that idea is Erle's, not mine.
wpgtaiji
Forum ÜberGuru
 
Posts: 397
Joined: Sat Nov 19, 2011 10:48 pm

Next

Return to Taijiquan / Tai Chi Chuan

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron
©2013 YMAA | About YMAA | Privacy Policy |Terms of Use | Permissions | Contact Us