If i would be Wushu Leaks 2.0


I use almost the same headline as last time as the topic is connected when we want to understand the bigger picture. So, let’s start.

Good news! The IWuF 2 days ago officially announced the establishment of the Ethics Committee. Usually a good step in the right direction. But, unfortunately I’m not confident this time. Well, in discussions about the Wushu Leaks videos it was always argued that there are a lot of assumptions and not really facts. I’m trying to figure out facts by using Google and will give you some links if possible.

But before we go deeper into the matter, let’s talk about ethics. On many discussions I heard that Wushu is different to other sports as we have “Wude” and we are one family “Wulin Yi Jia”. To be honest, we are not different as “Wude” belongs to traditional styles and their lineage and “Wulin Yi Jia” is nothing but a lip service. As the sport itself it is disconnected to traditional behaviour. But yeah, I know: it sounds nice…

Let’s have a look at the composition of the Committee: The Chairman is from the Oceanian Wushu Federation, the 2 members are from the Asian Wushu Federation. No African, European, Panamerican member. Just from a neutral point of view it doesn’t seem very balanced. An Ethics Committee should also be independent, which means that people with positions within International Wushu Federation, the Continental Federations or the National Federations are already biased. Now we have 3 EB members as Members of the Ethics Commttee. I’m quite sure they will never investigate allegations against themselves… Even the FIFA which got some fame for corruption has an independent Ethics Committee.

The Chairman of the Committee is Walt Missingham. Back then, when I met him for the first time I heard many rumours about him. But as we said: facts, not rumours. So, I made some research in the world wide web. Here’s something I did find:


He was also involved in the removal of former IWuF TC Member Han Jinsong in Australia, a case the Federation lost:


To be clear, everybody should get a 2nd chance if he once made a mistake and it seems that social rehabilitation worked in this case. On the other side it’s quite a big step from jail to become Chairman of the Ethics Committee of an International Sport Federation. Wouldn’t it be better to have people on such a position without any criminal record?

One member is Mahdi Alinejad. He is not only IWuF Board member and Iranian Wushu Federation President but also Iranian Deputy Sports Minister. To be clear I have nothing against Mr. Alinejad. But when we’re talking about Ethics and Sports we have to talk about Iran. There were many scandals when Iranian athletes were involved in sports matches with Israel. I have even seen with my own eyes at the World Junior Wushu Championships in Macau 2012 that the whole Iranian Delegation incl. Mr. Alinejad left the competition venue when the medal ceremony for the Israelian Winner was scheduled and the Israelian National Anthem was played. This too belongs to ethical behaviour and there he and his team failed.

The other Member is Julian Camacho from the Philippines. I don’t know him just made some Google researches of about half an hour. There are some signs of a possible corruption:


It’s the first resolution in the minutes of the Philippines Sport Commission.


You have to scroll down a bit to 7. Wushu.

In Philppines Newspapers there were also stories about taking money from foreign Wushu Coaches by making 2 contracts, one for the Sport Commission and one for the coach. Use Google translate to read this one:


So, now you have the information, you may come to your own conclusions of how ethical this Ethics Committee is.

But why I was talking about a bigger picture? We already know from my previous article that in Europe some renegade members created their own Federation. The constitution says that National Members have to be Member of the respective Continental Federation (Art. 10 of the IWuF Constitution). 2 representatives of these countries are serving in Committees of the IWuF. So, one could guess that this newly built Ethics Committee would have to decide about wether these representatives could remain on their positions. Or maybe they would take disciplinary actions against the renegade Federations. From my sources I heard not only the renegade Federations are investigated but also the EWuF. You remember, in my last article I made some assumptions. To conclude this one, I make some more.

The remarkable single person mentioned in the previous article selected this Ethics Committee (with some help of his allies, of course). He will feed this committee with information, with his view. It happened in the past like that, and as long as he remains where he is and nobody stops him, he will continue like that. He will try to steer them towards a decision against his enemies from Europe. And as the committee consists of allies you can guess that this soup will be cooked very hot and spicy.

Ethics in Wushu? Unfortunately, not.

If i would be Wushu Leaks…


There are numerous assumptions and allegations that I and/or my friend Byron Jacobs are Wushu Leaks or work for Wushu Leaks. Well, I don’t need to hide behind an anonymous Logo to make my statements. People who know me or Byron for several years know that. Several examples are also on this blog. And… if I would be Wushu Leaks I would bring up a case that seems to me more urgent than many others, as it is happening now and the end is open.

So, I’m herewith trying to give some attention to it as it is necessary to see the bigger picture behind it. I also try to describe facts, not assumptions.

A fact is that in the constitution, Art. 10 (responsibilities of NF’s) it is written that a National Federation has to become the Member of the Continental Federation of their respective continent. But some members are not anymore, instead they are members of a newly created European Wushu Federation:


How can it be that the IWuF doesn’t take any action against this violence of the Constitution? How can it be that there is no official statement of the IWuF about the situation in Europe, with several countries violating the constitution? Does the IWuF don’t know about the situation? If they didn’t knew it before, they know it since 26th May 2020 as they got a letter from this organization. Next fact:


Funny side fact: One of the founding members of this new Federation has a main role in the last Wushu Leaks video. This same person is the chairman of the Technical Committee in this new EUWUF, a man who never had a judging licence neither in Europe nor in IWuF. Also says something, right?

So, if we know that there are violations of the constitution in such a dramatic manner, how can you accept people from these NF’s in IWuF Committees, namely Patrick van Campenhout and Petar Dragoev? Shouldn’t there be an immediate suspension as their NF’s are not anymore members of the EWuF and therefore their NF’s are violating the constitution?

Next fact: How is it possible that a IWuF Committee member is allowed to give a lesson in the IWuF Online Classroom Project when he should already be suspended due to the violations by his NF and his function as Sports Director in the new EUWUF?


So, you see: without big research on this case there are already several very problematic issues and facts that should be investigated in detail. You should ask also several questions, like: Why is it happening the way it happens? What is the plan behind it? And who is benefiting from it? If you go deeper into the matter you will come again and again to one single person.

Now, I’m making some assumptions (I should be allowed to do that, as everybody else does it too):

This single person already made several attempts in the past few years to get rid of several European EB members. So, it’s perfect that this new Federation shows up. He hopes that this new Federation will become strong enough, so that once they are, that IWuF can switch recognition. If they fail, it remains as it always was and he didn’t make his hands dirty, he had some useful idiots and just have to remove two people from two committees.

So, is this the leadership our sport needs? I guess no, time to do something my friends. If you don’t do anything, live with the corruption, because it’s the way you chose. But don’t blame me for not being silent.

The world governing body for Wushu in all its forms during lockdown – the deathblow for Chinese Martial Arts?


I initially didn’t want to write about this, as some groups will state (again) that I’m biased through my former function in this organization. But after watching two episodes of IWuF’s “Online Wushu Classroom Project” it is no longer possible for me to remain silent. Try to look at it with logic and compare with other organizations and you maybe begin to understand what i mean. And maybe you will understand that my point of view is not only biased…

The International Wushu Federation is an IOC recognized Sports Federation which claims to govern Wushu in all its forms worldwide (source IWuF website). If so, they should promote Wushu in the best way possible. It took them a while to start their project “IWuF online Wushu classroom”. In almost every country that was hit by Covid-19 there were private or NF driven Initiatives that popped up immediately. And some of them were really good. Ok, I thought. If it is good, it’s worth to wait. Unfortunately, I know from the past that expectations and reality in IWuF are not the same. From that point of view, I didn’t get disappointed.

Let’s talk about the less emotional part of the problems first, about technical Infrastructure/IT. Since almost decades we know that the Great Firewall is a big problem. The IWuF has its HQ in Lausanne/Switzerland but the Social Media Department in Beijing. Actually, they are acting illegal (Chinese law) using a VPN to get access to platforms like Youtube, Facebook or Instagram from Beijing. But, and for this classroom this is the bigger problem, live streaming gets a problem. Even I had problems in Switzerland with my online classes, but I’m a private person and not a worldwide governing body for Wushu in all its forms and financial resources to solve problems and invest a bit more in IT Solutions. So, I changed to offline recording and later uploading the files to have a better quality. IWuF has the possibility to work without VPN problems as soon as they would move the Social Media Department to Lausanne, but maybe an empty office makes more sense to them. Conclusion: the technical problem could be solved, but this is rather a political than a logical problem.

Let’s also talk about the location. While I don’t know about the lockdown situation specifically in Malaysia the location was from suboptimal quality. But a world governing body should be able to organize something to promote Wushu the best way possible. The location for the second class was good.

Now we come to the bigger problems. The lecturer for the first class was Jack Chang Loh a former World Champion in Taijiquan. He is a modern athlete and therefore I didn’t expect more from him. It’s like in Football, Basketball or any other sport. A good athlete isn’t automatically the best coach. But he’s still young and will make his way in future. But maybe the title of this first class was a bit wrong, it was more about standing exercises and not basic stances. And about the essence of standing exercises we didn’t hear something. So, maybe IWuF wanted to address very beginners with this first online class. I have no other explanation.

Where shall I begin with the second class? Maybe we have to start with something that was also mentioned in the theoretical part of the lecturer Zhu Dong, a professor at Shanghai Sports University. The problem started with the establishing of the Peoples Republic of China. Traditional Martial Arts were not appreciated anymore. Mao Zedong wanted sport for fitness not martial arts and this was the birth of modern Wushu and Taijiquan. Postures in Routines did not have to make sense anymore but had to be good for health and fitness. The degeneration of Chinese Martial Arts began. And so it is no wonder that the governing body for Wushu in all its forms has no clue about the original purpose of CMA. The original purpose of almost every CMA is based on attack and defence. So, every posture in Taijiquan bases on this purpose (or at least should base). If this purpose is removed, it is not Taijiquan or Wushu anymore. I wouldn’t have any problem with this second class if Professor Zhu would have said we have developed some health exercises based originally on Taijiquan (but modified them) with scientific methods and call it this or that. But no, it is called “Cloud Taiji” and it is shared by the governing body for Wushu in all its forms. What does that mean for CMA around the world? We should start to realize that maybe IWuF is the wrong governing body for Wushu in all its forms. Because they lost the focus on the original purpose.


The shameful opportunism of Chinese martial arts during the pandemic



By surfing through social media and websites since lockdown started in Asia and later in Europe and America one could think we don’t need vaccination and medicine. You just have to practice Gong Fu or Taijiquan or Qi Gong to “fight the Corona Virus” or “Fight against Covid-19”. Some Masters also developed special exercises to fight the virus and IOC recognised International Wushu Federation started to publish a catalogue of about 250 single techniques of Taijiquan postures “to jointly fighting against Covid-19, the World Wushu Family is in action!” They did not say, we publish this single technique catalogue prior to a major rules reform or something like that, but no they’re fighting the Corona Virus…

To make it short: Neither Gong Fu, Taijiquan nor Qi Gong are recipes against Covid-19. In my personal opinion it is dangerous to suggest that you can stay safe by just practising some exercises. But: It is important for your personal health to keep in motion when you’re stuck at home. It is important to make some walks in nature when you’re living in a country which is allowing it to breathe some fresh air.

Don’t misunderstand me: I do believe Gong Fu, Taijiquan or Qi Gong exercises are good for health in general and if you already have practised them for years you have done something good for your immune system and your musculoskeletal system. But not even one of the exercises that are currently flooding the internet are able to destroy the virus. So, keep on training Gong Fu, Taijiquan or Qi Gong but with the idea of improving your skills and doing something good for your health in general. In this spirit: stay safe and keep on training!

Taijiquan-Training in Zeiten, in denen die Trainingsinstitutionen geschlossen sind


Die neue Taiji-Lektion ist ab sofort verfügbar!

So, hier ist die vorläufig letzte “Lockdown-Lektion. Bald sollten die richtigen Kurse wieder stattfinden. Sollte sich der Start weiter verzögern, empfehle ich, die bisherigen Lektionen zu wiederholen und zu vertiefen, sie sind ja immer noch verfügbar. Hier geht’s zur letzten Lektion: Chen-Stil Lektion mit Xie Xing
Back to Chen Style! Nach der Theorie-Lektion vor zwei Wochen, der Yang-Stil Lektion und der Klubschule “gemeinsam@home”-Lektion wieder back to “normal” (sofern man in diesen Zeiten davon sprechen kann). Diese Woche fahren wir mit der Bewegung Bai He Liang Chi fort: Internet-Lektion mit Bai He Liang Chi
Die Klubschule hat diese Woche mit mir eine Video-Lektion unter dem Motto “gemeinsam@home” produziert. Im Video wird in Form einer Einstiegslektion die Achter Form nach Wang Xian behandelt.

Die Lektion von dieser Woche richtet sich an die Schüler der Yang-Stil Klasse. Da in dieser Lektion die standardisierte 8er Kurzform behandelt wird, ist es natürlich für die Chen-Stil Schüler möglich, mal in den Yang-Stil rein zu schnuppern: Yang-Stil Lektion

Die Lektion von letzter Woche ist weniger praktischer als vielmehr theoretischer Natur und analysiert einerseits generelle Prinzipien und analysiert andererseits die Entwicklung der Familienstile anhand praktischer Beispiele. Viel Spass: Video-Lektion

Die bisherigen Online-Seminare sind in dieser Youtube-Playlist inkl. Offline-Aufnahmen bei technischen Schwierigkeiten zusammengefasst:

Youtube-Playlist mit dem Inhalt der vergangenen Online-Seminare

Seit Freitag sind alle Schulen, viele Institutionen mit Freizeitangeboten und Fitness-Center aufgrund der behördlichen Anordnungen geschlossen. Weitere Stufen mit Einschränkungen sind denkbar. Trotzdem kann und soll selbständig weiter trainiert werden. Gerade Qi Gong und Taijiquan haben Übungen, die einerseits präventiv sind (Atmung!) und andererseits kaum Platz brauchen. Diejenigen, die regelmässig meine Klassen besuchen, kennen meine Links-Seite mit den Videos zu den verschiedenen Lektionen bereits und können dort das notwendige theoretische und praktische Material zum Selbst-Training finden. Generell und für alle anderen mache ich hier nochmals eine kleine Zusammenstellung von sinnvollen Übungen, die zu Hause geübt werden können, ohne dass gross Platz dafür nötig ist.


Sowohl im Qi Gong wie im Taijiquan ist die richtige Atmung essentiell und gerade in der jetzigen Situation auch präventiv. Es ist wichtig, immer durch die Nase ein- und auszuatmen. Zudem trainieren wir die so genannte Bauchatmung, das heisst wir atmen so tief ein, dass das Zwerchfell nach unten gedrückt wird. Zum besseren Verständnis habe ich am Ende dieses Schreibens noch einen Text zur Atmung aus meinem noch unveröffentlichten Buch hinzugefügt.

Qi Gong

Die Übungen, die ich sowohl im Taijiquan- wie im Qi Gong-Unterricht unterrichte, sind die Taiji Yangsheng Zhen Qi Gong-Übungen, die mein Meister Wang Xian zusammengestellt hat. Ich habe zwei Varianten in den Videos bereitgestellt:

Vereinfachte Variante: https://youtu.be/CmkpPutmtHE

Fortgeschrittenere Variante (1. Teil): https://youtu.be/YN7CzK-HWmM

Der zweite Teil der Yangsheng Gong-Übungen: https://youtu.be/IZLv0lD4_Zw

Weitere Übungen, nur aus dem Qi Gong-Unterricht sind die so genannten Ba Duan Jin-Übungen. Ich habe diese in weiteren zwei Videos zusammengefasst. Diese Übungen können auch ohne grosse Anleitung von den Taijiquan-Praktizierenden geübt werden. Wichtig ist, dass regelmässig geatmet wird. Es empfiehlt sich, die einseitigen Übungen jeweils achtmal, die beidseitigen Übungen jeweils viermal auf jede Seite zu wiederholen:

Ba Duan Jin 1. Hälfte: https://youtu.be/Zkjb7XATgwM

Ba Duan Jin 2. Hälfte: https://youtu.be/dWxGbEFrjEc

Ebenfalls empfehlenswert ist das gesundheitsschützende Daoyin Baojian Gong aus dem Daoyin Yangsheng Gong System von Professor Zhang Guangde. Hier ist vorerst die 1. Hälfte verfügbar:

Daoyin Baojian Gong: https://youtu.be/EEsCGWekVd0 


Als gute Einstiegsübungen gelten auch hier die Taiji Yangsheng Zhen Qi Gong-Übungen. Danach empfehlen sich die Chansi Gong-Übungen (Seidenfaden abspulen). Zu diesen ebenfalls platzsparenden Übungen habe ich dieses Video bereitgestellt:

Chansi Gong: https://youtu.be/rz3YK4U-4QQ

Gerne verweise ich dazu auch auf meinen Blog-Eintrag vom letzten Sommer (englisch): https://wuguanblog.wordpress.com/2019/05/29/the-reason-why-i-teach-just-four-silk-reeling-exercises/

Weitere gute platzsparende Übungen sind die Taiji Bang-Übungen, welche einerseits strukturbildend sind und andererseits die im Chen-Stil unumgänglichen Spiralen trainieren:

Taiji Bang-Übungen: https://youtu.be/bcBPQJJQ7wE

Taijiquan war früher eine Kampfkunst, weshalb auch Krafttraining eine Komponente des ganzheitlichen Taijiquan-Trainings war und ist. Wer etwas davon praktizieren möchte, findet in diesem Video einige Trainingsvorschläge:


Und schliesslich kommen wir dann zum Formentraining. Hier findet ihr die beiden Formen, die wir aktuell in unseren Kursen erlernen. Als kleines Motivations-Zückerchen habe ich noch die «15er Form», den 1. Teil der Lao Jia Yi Lu hinzugefügt. Da wollen wir in den nächsten Monaten hin, wenn wir dann wieder gemeinsam trainieren dürfen.

Taiji Bashi: https://youtu.be/9MFHQNpIJvY

Vierer Form : https://youtu.be/BAkrKDlOQgI

15er Form: https://youtu.be/GK4RVaelxlc

Zu guter Letzt: Wer etwas über den Herkunftsort des Taijiquan erfahren möchte, kann sich in diesem Video ein Bild machen. Leider ist das Dorf Chenjiagou inzwischen im Begriff, sich in ein Taiji-Disneyland zu verwandeln. Was im Video zu sehen ist, findet man heutzutage so leider nicht mehr:


So, nun wünsche ich Euch viel Spass beim selbständigen Üben. Bleibt gesund und tragt Sorge zu Euch und Euren Liebsten. Bis bald wieder im Training!

Liebe Grüsse




Zentral für die Atmung ist die Lunge. Sie nimmt beim Einatmen die sauerstoffreiche Luft resp. reines Qi auf und scheidet die sauerstoffarme, kohlendioxidreiche Luft resp. unreines Qi aus. Bei diesem Prozess werden verschiedene Organe und Muskeln mit einbezogen. Ich verzichte hier auf eine detailreiche Beschreibung, weil sie allenfalls verwirren könnte. Was wir uns aber im Taijiquan resp. beim Praktizieren der Yangsheng Gong Übungen vorstellen sollten, ist dass wir möglichst bis zum Bauchnabel einatmen sollten. Hier kommt der einzige Muskel, den ich in diesem Zusammenhang erwähne, zum Zug: das Zwerchfell. Das Zwerchfell ist der Muskel, der das Ein- und Ausatmen steuert. Wenn wir einatmen, dehnt sich das Zwerchfell nach unten, Richtung Bauch, wenn wir ausatmen entspannt sicher der Muskel und das Lungenvolumen verkleinert sich wieder. Wenn wir also sehr tief einatmen, erhöht sich die Lungenkapazität und gleichzeitig das Gefühl, dass wir bis zum Bauch atmen. Im Taijiquan kennen wir zwei Varianten, die Bauchatmung und die Bauchgegenatmung.

Bei der Bauchatmung stellen wir uns, wie bereits erwähnt, vor, dass wir bis zum Bauchnabel einatmen. Beim Einatmen wölbt sich dabei der Bauch nach aussen, beim Ausatmen wird der Bauch wieder flach. Mit der Bauchatmung werden die Organe im Bauchraum (Magen, Milz, Leber, Blase) angeregt und die Verdauung gefördert. Der Aufbau von Qi wird unterstützt. Bei der Bauchatmung spannt sich während dem Einatmen das Zwerchfell, während sich die Bauchmuskeln und Beckenbodenmuskeln entspannen. Die Organe senken sich und es entsteht Platz für die Ausdehnung der Lungenflügel. Beim Ausatmen kehrt sich der Prozess wieder um. Das Qi wird ins Dantian, welches sich ca. 2 Centimeter unter dem Bauchnabel befindet gelenkt. Gleichzeitig wird der Schwerpunkt des Körpers gesenkt.

About competition standards


Since the EWuF released a new competition standard there were several discussions about the competition standard itself, if the competition standard is conform with the IWuF rules or not, about traditional Wushu and competition standard and about what a competition standard is at the end. That’s the baseline.

1st Part: Constitution, Rules, Regulations

Let’s start with the constitution. The constitution says that the following Championships are hosted by IWuF and organized by NF’s:

  • World Wushu Championships (every 2 years)
  • World Junior Wushu Championships (every 2 years)
  • World Taijiquan Championships (every 2 years)
  • The Sanda World Cup (every 2 years)
  • The World Traditional Wushu Championships (every 2 years)

So, we already learned that the Taolu World Cup is not in the Constitution and the World Kung Fu Championships still should run under the Name World Traditional Wushu Championships.

It is also written in the constitution that the Rules and Regulations for International or Continental Championships should be stipulated by IWuF.

So, let’s go to the rules. In the 2005 rules there are listed:

  • Changquan
  • Nanquan
  • Taijiquan
  • Jianshu
  • Daoshu
  • Qiangshu
  • Gunshu
  • Nandao
  • Nangun
  • Taijijian
  • Duilian
  • Jiti

In the 2019 rules, it’s written a bit different:

  • Optional routine events:
    • Optional bare hand routine events:
      • Changquan, Nanquan, Taijiquan
    • Optional weapon routine events:
      • Jianshu, Daoshu, Nandao, Taijijian, Qiangshu, Gunshu, Nangun
    • Compulsory routine events:
      • Compulsory bare hand routine events
      • Compulsory weapon routine events
    • Duilian events
      • Barehand Duilian, weapon Duilian, barehand vs. weapon Duilian
    • Jiti

So, a first conclusion: it’s not defined in the rules what kind of compulsory routines exist and what kind of compulsory routines should be used in competition. This part is usually defined in the regulations, which are different for every competition. To make it a bit more understandable let’s take an example, New Chen Style Taijiquan. So far, we didn’t read something about New Chen Style Taijiquan in the Constitution (would be the wrong place) and in the rules. We just know that there are compulsory routines according to the 2019 rules. To keep it short: there’s nothing in the regulations of the last World Wushu Championships about New Chen Style Taijiquan. But in the regulations of the 2018 World Taijiquan Championships, there we find under C. Competition Events, New Standardized Events (without degree of difficulty) Chen Style Taijiquan. Under G. Competition Methods it is written that the New Standardized Events have to be exactly executed as in the official video posted on the Youtube WushuTV-Channel: https://youtu.be/UXSn9L12JUk

Further it is written that all other compulsory routines have to be executed according to the teaching material of IWuF and CWA (whatever that means). Conclusion: The IWuF uses regulations to define something like a competition standard for a Championship, not the Constitution, not the rules. But how was the “competition standard” defined?

2nd Part: How IWuF defined a competition standard

Taking the example of New Chen Style Taijiquan again, we should have a look on what the original idea of this routine was. At the beginning there was a little Rules revolution that finally failed (we all know, politics…). The idea was to have a catalogue of techniques from which you can choose the techniques for your routine. There were compulsory techniques and optional techniques. And all was written down in the Rules (trial). The group working on these new rules with the technical requirements in the rules consisted of Xu Weijun, Wang Erping, Wang Yulong (IWuF TC) and Byron Jacobs (IWuF TC). The video what we now know as New Chen Style Taijiquan was thought as an example, how a new idea of compulsory techniques can be composed. The text under the video on Youtube is from back then in 2014 (and is still there on 22nd December 2019):

“In accordance with the regulations for the IWUF World Taijiquan Championships, the IWUF has created sample routines for the Yang Style and Chen Style Taijiquan and Taijijian Compulsory Divisions. These created routines fully conform to the requirements for these divisions and therefore may be used for competition in these divisions as is. In this video there is also a sample routine for the Taiji Group Routine event which too may be used as is by competitors.”

These Trial Rules were used at the 1st World Taijiquan Championships 2014. Back then, you could also see that some athletes changed the routine in conformity with the rules slightly, f.e. the Chinese athlete Chen Weijie who won the event (in the video beginning from 3:31: https://youtu.be/gG50yNekrLc ). The Trial Rules were buried after the 2014 Championships when a new TC Chairman was appointed and with them the catalogue with compulsory and optional techniques. Only the example video survived and became the competition standard for New Chen Style Taijiquan. Conclusion: There was a good idea, a good start with the 2014 World Taijiquan Championships, but as usual, political infights and scheming destroyed this good attempt.

3rd Part: How EwuF defined a competition standard

EWuF started more than 2 years ago with starting a new project for a new competition standard. Even in Russia where they have many good modern Wushu athletes they began to realize that modern Wushu is going into the wrong direction and something should be changed to bring back Wushu more to its roots again. After the EWuF identified the working areas they started to work with respected representatives from traditional styles who were already known within EWuF. These people got the task to identify routines as new compulsory routines f.e. Nanquan (out from Hung Kuen and Choy Lee Fut). They published a document with the new competition standard (instead of publishing these new standards in the regulations). So far, this document is a first step, more amendments will come. The regulations for the next Championships are not as strict as the document about the Competition Standard. Here again we can see that regulations can have other definitions for the competition as it is written in the Rules or in EWuF in the document about the Competition Standard. The same as IWuF does or did: In the past we had World Championships without Nandu for optional weapon events, we had non Nandu events also at the Universiade and the 1st World University Wushu Championships.

4th Part: Traditional or not traditional

Well, the thing that was annoying me most in the past discussions when people tried to educate me about modern and traditional and that a traditional style doesn’t match with a competition standard. So, I’m starting my point of view with Chen Style Taijiquan. Nobody can deny that Chen Style Taijiquan is traditional, it has a proven history of several centuries. IWuF created an event “New Chen Style Taijiquan” and compiled the above mentioned routine which later became the compulsory routine. The two experts who were involved in the compiling of this routine were Prof. Xu Weijun from the Beijing Sports University and Wang Erping a former Taijiquan athlete (World Champion, All China Games, Chinese Champion and so on) and now coach of the Guangdong Wushu Team. Even Wang Erping trained with traditional Masters, he can’t be regarded as a traditional Master but as a modern Wushu Coach with some traditional background (I say that with deepest respect regarding his achievements as an athlete and coach).  So, two people who have no traditional legitimation finally designed an example video which finally became the competition “standard”. However, this routine has some problems, the way how some postures are executed in the routine. To undermine this I will compare now the movement Liu Feng Si Bi from Lao Jia, Xin Jia and New Chen Style Taijiquan. No traditional master would have had this idea to define the standard like it is now in the compulsory routine. The following Video shows first how Liu Feng Si Bi is executed in Lao Jia, then in Xin Jia and finally in New Chen Style Taijiquan (I took my own video material due to copyright issues):


The videos are not perfect (light, angle and so on) but you can see the differences between Lao Jia (Chen Zhenglei), Xin Jia (Chen Xiaowang) executed by two Grandmasters and then what happened to it in New Chen Style Taijiquan. No traditional person would get the idea to mix those versions and merge it into a new way of Liu Feng Si Bi except modern Wushu people. And that’s the problem of acceptance modern Wushu always had. If you change things for a so called competition standard that shouldn’t be changed no traditional person want to cooperate with you. After some decades you will not see that it was originally Chen Style Taijiquan as it happened with Changquan (originally Chaquan and Huaquan techniques) or Nanquan (originally Hung Kuen and Choy Lee Fut techniques). I often hear things like: you invite three masters to participate and you have four opinions. But the discussion would be about which Liu Feng Si Bi do we take, Lao Jia, Xin Jia or Xiao Jia? They wouldn’t create a new one.

5th Part: Competition Standard and traditional Wushu, is it possible?

First, we have to understand that a competition standard in general only focuses on some aspects of the method, not on the whole and certainly is not replacing the method as a whole.

Second, we have to understand traditional Wushu or in this example Chen Style Taijiquan is not designed for competition. It is a method, a tool to train certain skills in martial arts. The purpose of it wasn’t to design something that could be presented in competition. I’m quite sure that Chen Wangting had other ideas than a compulsory routine when he created Taijiquan. Ideas and purposes can change over the centuries and now in the 21st century competition in sport is a purpose also for Chinese Martial Arts. In our example of Chen Style Taijiquan, Chen Style Taijiquan also became a sports event, first in 1989 when the 56 Compulsory routine was designed and later in 2013 when the New Chen Style Taijiquan routine was introduced as an example for a new way of competition format.

We also have to understand that a competition standard only focuses on aspects concerning the Style, in this example it is the routine New Chen Style Taijiquan. So being good in Taolu competition doesn’t say anything about other skills you should achieve if you train a style, a method. It doesn’t say about your abilities on applying the method in a fight or doesn’t say something about your Tuishou skills for example.

While certain people now say that a traditional style and a competition standard are two completely different things, I say no, but: A traditional style is not designed for competition, on the other hand can a traditional style be the base for a competition standard. And if so, the competition standard should follow the core principles of the style. If this competition standard doesn’t follow these principles then we have a problem. How can somebody become World Champion when he doesn’t follow some core principles of the style? How can the Scoring Criteria not match with the style that is executed? If this is the point, the event should be renamed. But don’t call it Chen Style Taijiquan anymore. This last part matches even more to Changquan and Nanquan where most characteristics of the original styles are lost. When my videos (which were clearly declared as traditional from Wang Xian lineage) were discussed in connection with the core principles I stated this: “In my personal opinion it makes you a better athlete in the official event “New Chen Style Taijiquan” if you understand the core concepts of the traditional style behind this event.” I still stand for this quote.

In connection with my videos (Detailed explanation of Lao Jia postures) a buried initiative of the TC came up again in discussions: The Single Technique Catalogue. A catalogue with all single techniques of four styles of Taijiquan. While this initiative was good and would have get my support if would have ever been the possibility to vote about in the IWuF EB it was turned down by the Executive VP, the Secretary General and the TC Chairman. As far as my information goes it even didn’t have the majority in the TC. We have to learn that IWuF is an institution that is not here to make the sport logic and better. And we also have to learn that nothing can be done if CWA doesn’t agree on it. No agreement of CWA for the Single Technique Catalogue, no Single Technique Catalogue. It’s that simple. The final question is: How long do National and Continental Federations accept this way of undemocratic behaviour from the leading people of the IWuF which finally destroys our sport? I’m not sure it will ever happen that they oppose this way, as the lethargy from most NF’s seems to be part of their DNA.

Coming finally back to the IWuF competition standard: For me it’s no competition standard to write in a Regulation you have to execute the Routine exactly as in the video example published by IWuF on WushuTV (Youtube). It means that you have to adopt things that are not conform with the core principles of the style. The scoring criteria for A group are common criteria and for B group the style conformity should be a measurement. But it contradicts with the published standard video. Wushu, we have a problem again…



General principles or big differencies?


Recently I posted a video with a detailed explanation of Jin Gang Dao Dui (Buddhas Warrior Attendand Pounds Mortar) as we practice it in the Wang Xian lineage (Lao Jia). I shared this video in several discussion groups and got some feedback which inspired me to write this blog entry.

The discussion is about this video: Detailed explanation of Jin Gang Dao Dui

The main point in these discussions was that our Jin Gang Dao Dui version is very different to other lineages. When you just watch it then it is obvious that there are differences to the execution compared with other lineages. In the discussions I answered that there are differences but the general principles remain the same. The problem in such discussions always was and is that the participants mostly get lost in details. So, this is my attempt to describe what I mean when I say the general principles remain the same.

All movements in general (not only in Chen Style) are driven by the dantian. So when I rotate from middle to left or to right and so on, this rotation is always coming from dantian. Therefore, the horizontal axis I mentioned in the video plays the same role in the Wang Xian method as well as in other lineages. As I have some experiences in the Chen Zhenglei method, I will compare all my conclusions with his method here.

So, my first conclusion is that both methods use the Dantian and the horizontal axis plays the same role.

The weight transfer is another general principle in Chen Style. Moving the weight from left to right and transfer it forward after making the step forward is in general the same in both lineages. This is my second conclusion.

Circles are another general principle. Small circles lead into big circles is another one. Both methods are using these principles in their interpretation of Jin Gang Dao Dui but not exactly at the same places. A main difference is the horizontal circle in the Wang Xian method at the beginning, but circles are used in both methods. This is my third conclusion.

From an applicable point of view, we can say that some of the applications in these methods are the same, some differ, but it’s visible that they have the same roots.

To make it easier to follow my argumentation I made a comparison of both methods in this video:

Comparison of Wang Xian’s and Chen Zhenglei’s methods

Please note, that I’m not a Chen Zhenglei method expert. I had some opportunities to learn from him back in the nineties and visited some seminars from some of his disciples. But it’s nothing compared with my knowledge of Wang Xian’s method. So my demonstration is far from being a standard, but it hopefully helps to display what I wanted to say above.

So, I remain on my point of view that the general principles remain the same but the execution may differ from lineage to lineage.

© Urs Krebs

Guest article from Peter Warr


Update: at the end of this articles you will find also the original emails written by Peter Warr to the IWuF TC and the IWuF EB. Peter wants you to have all information so that you can see the whole picture.

Dear readers of my blog. This entry is a special one as I didn’t write it myself. My friend for a long time, Peter Warr, Vice Chairman of the IWuF Technical Committee asked me to help him with publishing the following as he is not so familiar with Social Media. Peter Warr is one of the few westerners that was involved in the IWuF since this Federation started. Since 1995 he is the Vice Chairman of the Technical Committee. Like many others Peter felt that something is going into the wrong direction the past few years and he tried to change that. Like some of us he also had to learn that the governing body of the IWuF, the Executive Board is not interested in changing something. Unlike me or others he decided to make some of the correspondence with the EB public so everybody can learn what kind of people are governing or beloved sport. As Peter doesn’t have a blog himself I’m giving him some space here to share his views with the community.


My name is Peter Warr I have been an international IWUF Judge since 1988 (31 years) and Vice Chairman of the IWUF Technical Committee since its inception in 1995 (6 full terms) I have officiated at all WWC, Combat Games IFSU Universaide games etc  and all Technical Committee meetings.

I would like to bring information to all the Wushu Community that the IWUF is being controlled by one person that is ignoring the the process and working procedures of the Technical Committee functions according to the IWUF Constitution and the Judges Management Policy that have been sanctioned by the Congress.

Please take the time to read the letter sent to me from the Executive Vice President as a character assassination on the longest serving member who has spent a major part of his life promoting Wushu and dedicated to the IWUF.

Emails between Peter Warr and Anthony Goh

Dear Anthony,

Please find my response to your email below in red if you read carefully you will see I did not make any Claims, Accusations, Challenges, Attacks or Violations.  Just the Facts

I am aware that you had sent out emails to EB & TC members during the last couple of months. Some of them I received personally, some I received from third parties.

I must point out that many of your claims and accusations regarding the TC, Secretariat, EB and myself were incorrect, groundless and misleading. I would like to clarify some of the relevant topics you raised.

Section A

Is Chen Guorong still active as the Chair of TC?

The Answer is Yes.

  1. Gurong had closely guided Xiaobing and Ethan Xu in preparing the regulations for the 15th WWC and 8th WKFC, as well as both sets of traditional and 2019 except taolu rules. Without his support, involvement and guidance, finalizing  these documents would not have been possible.


  1. Chen Guorong has been in essence inactive since his removal from the CWA to his new position. Following this move it was very slow and difficult to get any feedback from him regarding TC work.

1.2 The New Taolu rules were basically 95% complete at the end of last year.  The only sections that were changed, were the ones pertaining to the EB decisions in Macau, and these points were never discussed with the TC prior to the EB meeting nor was there any feedback from the TC regarding implications and effects such changes might have on Wushu itself presented to the EB. In addition, the TC meeting minutes from 2018 clearly stated that the decisions made by the TC were to finalize and implement the rules for Shanghai first and following this to start work on the Traditional rules, a task that was allocated to Byron and Jin Xiaobin. Byron was excluded from this process by the secretariat. Further, as we don’t have judges courses on these traditional rules this year, the implementation of them in Emei this year is not an IWUF initiative, but as it was in the past, a CWA initiative with their judges doing all the judging. This in fact was a point of contention by the TC for the past few years and the goal was to compile a new set of traditional rules, following TC meetings, investigation and research and not simply implement the CWA rules which are problematic in themselves. This process was not allowed to occur. As stated within the Technical Committee Working Guidelines:

Article 9

The TC is responsible for the deliberation and decisions regarding the following major aspects:

9.2 The revision of competition rules and judging methods, competition regulations and the judges’ management policy.

 2.Guorong does not respond with emails is due to his lack of command of English language and he has always work through the Technical Manager/Assistant of the Secretariat, especially when communicating with TC members. This is how he worked when Byron was the Technical manager, and Ethan followed the same working format. I also have reasons to believe that in the past, Wang Yulong conducted business in the same manner. This working format was not a problem for so many years and work were delivered accordingly without any complaint. Why is it suddenly a serious problem now, and that he has to be replaced by you as the chair, as you proposed now?

2. Your last sentence is misleading and inaccurate I have never proposed to become the Chairman.

 The reason the TC has 2 members from China in the first place is indeed because of the previous chairmen’s lack of English language skills. In the beginning, the 2nd TC member from China was simply an assistant to the chairman, not a full member. Hence, if Chen Guorong has an English language problem, then Jin Xiaobin should be assisting him with the communications etc. and Jin Xiaobing indeed does have some English language ability. Byron, who did this in the past, starting in 2011 prior to the establishment of the IWUF secretariat, did so precisely because he was a TC member, and has not only the language proficiency in Chinese and English, but also has the technical competency for this, traits that Ethan does not have. Further, it is not productive, nor in line with the principles of democracy and transparency, to have 2 voting members in the TC coming from one country, and that the secretariat only consults with the members of a single country, namely China, for technical issues. Since 2015, the technical committee has worked in a more open, democratic and inclusive manner, and this is why I raised this issue, as going back to how things were done in the past during previous terms is counterproductive and moves things in the wrong direction. As stated within the Technical Committee Working Guidelines:

Article 17

The TC will work as a unified group. Following discussions and deliberation by all the TC members, decisions will be made through the principle of majority rule.

Article 20

In general, when making decisions on important issues, there should be thorough collective investigation and deliberation from all TC members, with careful consideration given to all relevant risks involved. All decisions made should be based on the general consensus of the TC members.

  1. Ethan had mentioned numerous times in his emails to TC members, that the rules and regulations were developed/revised under the guidance of Mr. Chen Guorong. Why were these messages being ignored?


  1. we had no word from either of them, and with the blatant errors technical and otherwise, as well as the sudden changes and problems within the compiled documents themselves, concerns were legitimately raised. Furthermore, seeing as the original documents were mostly compiled by Byron, who is still a TC member and in Beijing, wouldn’t it have made more sense to work with him as well on these documents? Why was this not done?


4.You wrote directly to EB Members and proposed to replace Guorong with yourself. a) is this the correct protocol? b) did you discuss this with Guorong about this, since he is still the Chair of TC? c) did you discuss this with TC members and obtain majority consensus, or is it just you & Byron’s idea? It appear to me that, while the motive is very clear, but the process and logic are very messy, and inappropriate.

  1. Your first sentence again misleading and inaccurate.

 Numerous emails were sent to the TC regarding the Chairman’s absence, and he received these emails as well. None of which were addressed or responded to, which leads one to the conclusion that the chairman is MIA. With that being the case, the function of the vice-chairman is indeed that, to act as the chairman in his absence. There are two vice-chairmen, and I did not Propose that I should be the replacement; you are making assumptions in this regard. Further, I raised other queries regarding key TC tasks and functions that require finalizing for the 2019 period numerous times, as well as with regards to the TC meeting which is where amendments to rules take place:

Technical Committee Working Guidelines

Article 22

…. Amendments to competition rules, the judges’ management policy, and other major decisions may only be made through meetings at which a minimum of two-thirds of the TC members are present…..

 All my emails and queries were ignored by the Chairman and the secretariat. Hence as the vice-chairman it is my responsibility to ensure that the TC conducts its tasks as required and I then took it further and notified the EB.

  1. Whom does TC report to?
  2. The TC reports to the Executive Board, not the other way around. Let me refresh your memory,that the chair of the TC reports to the EB during its annual meetings and not the chair of the EB report to the TC, this has been done year after year, for more than 20 years. This is a simple way to understand how business is conducted for a long time even if you choose to ignore the existing rules listed below in #2

Section B

  1. The TC does indeed report to the EB, not the Secretariat. Have all our comments and recommendation been disseminated to the EB? Has the TC had a chance to voice its opinions and concerns to the changes made to the rules before this occurred? It is the EB’s responsibility to fully hear the recommendations and opinions of the Technical Committee, who is mandated to deal with technical matters within the IWUF, prior to making a decision in order for the correct decisions to be made. Prior to the EB making decisions on technical matters in Macau last year, the TC was not even informed of nor given the opportunity to discuss these proposed changes and neither was the EB afforded the benefit of hearing from the technical committee as a whole regarding these proposed changes. Instead, the proposals were pushed through the EB meeting, and the TC heard about them after the fact, much to our surprise. Surely the EB would like to hear from the technical committee in order to understand the ramifications and consequences of a technical decision they will make prior to doing so.


  1. TC Working guidelines, chapter 1,    article 3.1: follow the leadership of IWUF, and ensure the implementation of resolutions of the IWUF Executive Board b) Chapter 1, article 3.4: adhere to the leadership of EB and perform duties in accordance with principles of unity, conforming to EB’s decisions c) chapter 3, article 14: implement the directives and decisions made by the EB & respect their authority d) Chapter 4, article 25: The TC member maybe held personally accountable in the following instances: (article 26.1) Non-compliance with the EB orders and decisions (article 26.2) violation of decision making protocols, or inaccurate implementation of such resulting in negative effects (article 26.3) not performing required tasks conscientiously which results in the TC functioning ineffectively
  2. The quoted articles of the TC working guidelines do have some important underlying factors that need to be understood. As the Technical Committee is appointed due to their technical competence and experience, they are the people most suited to dealing with technical matters and this function is mandated within the constitution. The EB, while having the authority to make decisions, is expected to do so through due diligence prior to such. The IWUF members entrust the EB with this responsibility. With that, when dealing with technical matters, the EB should fully investigate, listen to and comprehend the opinions of the technical committee members prior to such steps being taken. As you can see from point one above, this didn’t occur. And this is why these issued were raised by me. Let’s also not forget, speaking about precedent, that a technical committee member, who was appointed as an independent judge at two IWUF events last year by the TC, was unilaterally removed from said positions, without the knowledge or confirmation from the TC or the EB, and not in line with the protocols established within the Technical Committee Working Guidelines, the Judges’ Management Policy and the IWUF constitution.


  1. In addition, according to the Judges Management Policy, which was approved during the March,2018 TC meeting, in Chapter 2 (Technical Committee), article 4: “…..the TC works under the leadership and supervision of the IWUf President and EB, and reports to the Executive Vice President and Secretary General.” This is not happening.


  1. The TC indeed would like to report all these issues to the president AND the secretary-general. But as it is at the moment, there is a bottleneck called the secretariat that is deciding what goes through and what doesn’t.

4.You complained that the technical decisions made by the EB in Macau last August were in violations of protocol. This is completely wrong and misleading, as the opposite is correct. The TC supposed to implement the decisions made by the EB. Your challenge is a serious violation of the established rules and an obstruction of administration. These new technical rules were unanimously approved by the EB to improve our technical/competition management, and should be implemented accordingly. It is also worth mentioning that most of the recent key systemic technical improvements were made by EB members

  1. As per points 1 and 2 above, the EB makes decision following due diligence, and the person or persons who did not allow this to occur are actually in violation and an obstruction. As mentioned, the EB was not given the opportunity to hear the opinions of the TC members, and even more alarming, the TC wasn’t even informed of these beforehand. If you think that the EB does not need to hear the opinions of the TC regarding technical decisions it plans to make, then why do we have a TC in the first place? Are you insinuating that the EB is more technically competent than the TC? This is not a challenge. I have merely reported what occurred, and the EB should be made aware of it, as some of the EB members have already stated previously they were not aware of these underlying factors.

5.Obviously, after 30 years, you only understand a paragraph of the whole IWUF constitution, the part that states the function of the TC, and you have not read or comprehend the complete constitution to understand the organizational structure of the IWUF (there must be a difference between 30 years of accumulated experience and 30 times one-year experience). And you obviously have no idea about how our federation, like most organizations, is hierarchically structured and you interpreted it selectively and wishfully, resulting in misleading yourself. Subsequently, you tried to mislead others.

  1. As clearly described above, I have taken into consideration not only the constitution but also the TC working guidelines and judges management policies fully. As I stated, I did not act as a challenge to the hierarchical structure of the IWUF, but rather due to the underlying issues that have occurred in contrast to the ideals of good practices when wielding such authority. Your accusation that I deliberately tried to mislead others is not accurate as the points in this response illustrate. It is also quite saddening to have you personally insult with a character assassination a committee member who has served the IWUF since its inception.
  2. You also challenged that when Mr. Zhang Qiuping and myself called for a team leaders’ meeting(non-technical) during the World Taijiquan Championships in Burgas last year, a meeting called to straight out some of the irregularities & confusions in the management of the competition, and you claimed that both of us should not conduct the meeting without the consent and presence of TC members. The arrogance expressed was shocking to all of us. What was on your mind when you think our action required your approval? And that our action was in violation of your so-called protocol, democracy, etc.?
  1. Unfortunately your account of what occurred in Bulgaria is not accurate and misleading. As you may have forgotten, a team from Great Britain participated in that event, and it was from the team leader of this team and other team leaders/coaches that I was informed that a technical meeting for coaches and athletes had been called by yourself and Mr. Zhang Qiuping. Once again, it was the fact that there was no communication regarding any of this was between yourself and any of the TC members present. We were receiving questions from teams asking what the meeting was about, and we had no idea there was even going to be a meeting. Further, during the meeting, it was reported that you discussed certain technical issues and then had blamed the TC for some issues. Is this a responsible manner to conduct yourselves? There was no mention that you need the TC’s consent from me, this is inaccurate.
  1. It is hard for me to understand, and I know I am not alone, that how do you get the idea that the TC is some kind of an ultimate supreme division of the IWUF that you and Byron are in charge of,and that EB members need to follow your instructions, otherwise it is a violation of your“protocol?”
  1. Your comment here is also inaccurate, and an unjustified attack, as I have clearly illustrated above. At no point was the idea of “supreme authority” pushed, forward, again please read the points above. What you and possibly others find “hard to understand” would have easily been cleared up through communication, and that is the crux of the problem, this is being obstructed. It’s disappointing that you are trying to deliberately portray people and facts negatively.

8.You keep claiming that you are the TC, how many members are you really representing when you make such claims, is it the only two of you? If it is the only two of you, how can you continue to claim that you are the TC when you are neither the chair and nor representing the majority of the members? Let alone if none of process required to make such a representation is followed.

  1. Once again, your first sentence is inaccurate and misleading, in line with the TC working Guidelines, the TC is a democratic body which includes 11 members. The chairman doesn’t have the right to represent the committee as whole alone without the involvement of the other members.

Article 17

The TC will work as a unified group. Following discussions and deliberation by all the TC members, decisions will be made through the principle of majority rule.

 Article 19

When making decisions, the TC should conform to the principles of collective decision making through a democratic process, with each member openly expressing his or her ideas.

 What I have raised is to highlight the fact that the processes of democracy and communication from all the members have been removed at their fundamental and crucial levels. If the processes occurred as they have been for the past couple of years, we would indeed know what the majority of the committee decides upon. It’s important that the message is paid attention to, not the messenger.

  1. You attacked your colleagues who remain in silence. Don’t they have the right to remain silent,not to take sides,  or to stay out of non-constructive arguments?
  1. The highlighting of the fact that members of the TC remain silent is not an attack, but rather a fact. We were sent amended rules, new proposed rules, and new regulations by email in order to comment/vote. The vast majority of the TC members did not comment at all, some didn’t even vote. As you saw from the numerous documents sent by TC members Michal Ignatowicz and Byron Jacobs, there was a vast number of errors, problems and technical complications within the compiled documents, and in general they were the only people who highlighted and corrected these. If, as you say, the TC members are keeping silent to focus “constructive” discussion, please do let me know what, if not actual technical discussions, is considered constructive within their mandate as TC members? Could it be that their silence is due to the issues I raised above? A silent committee is not a productive committee.
  1. You constant and invincible confusion between democracy and chain of command within an organization is bewildering to us.
  1. My response in this letter clearly clarifies what I am referring to. 
  1. How were the 15th WWC and the 8th WKFC Regulations and relevant competition rules developed and compiled?
  1. Since December 2018, Ethan Xu has worked very closely with Chen Gurong and Jin Xiaobing in developing these documents. Ethan could not have done it himself as he has no previous knowledge about these documents. Again, this is the same work pattern as in the past years that the Secretariat Technical staff work with the chair of TC before distributing the documents to TC members for comments and suggestions. There is no fundamental changes as to how things are conduct today.
  1. Once again, the work pattern of the past was based upon the fact that the person within the secretariat doing this work was also a TC member. As I stated above, over the past few years we have always had meetings and deliberated on proposed changes and new rules. The TC Meeting minute from the 2018 meeting also clearly show how this was conducted (attached), and further shows our decisions regarding some of the documents that the secretariat compiled. Such action should not be done through consultation only with the TC members from China. Compilation is as important as approval, and the initial steps that lay the foundation of the documents are agreed upon at formal meetings. Important issues like amendment to rules and compilation of new rules need to be done at official meetings following thorough discussion by the TC in order for the best outcome. There is a fundamental difference with what occurred this year, which I queried numerous times without any response.

2.I have called for an early release of championships regulations for several years to no avail, and we have stressed again & again the importance of releasing these regulations by the end of the year prior to the year the event would be held. The Secretariat has a duty to produce these documents timely to ensure the smooth operation of our events. If you think, whether or not your thinking is correct, that you or the TC should develop these regulations in stead of the Secretariat,where were the regulations at the end of last year? When these regulations were sent to the TC for review, it was just more than a couple of months before the registration deadline of the 8th WKFC. If you say the regulations should, and only be produced by the TC, where were your regulations then?

  1. The delay of the release of the documents in the past is an issue that you should address to the chairman. However, regulations include two crucial aspects, technical regulations and organizational regulations. The technical aspects of a competition and therefore the listed technical requirements included within regulations are clearly something that falls solely within the jurisdiction of the TC, and this cannot be done by the secretariat. Organizational details pertaining to an event are to be compiled by the secretariat. I’m sure this clarifies why the TC’s involvement prior to the finalization of regulations is important, and how these technical details are to be discussed and deliberated upon by the TC in full.


  1. I have called for the release of the IWUF’s own traditional competition rules for the last 3 years to no avail. And this topic was also discussed during the TC’s meeting held in March 2018. By December 2018, the Secretariat has no choice but to have Ethan work with Guorong and Jin Xiaobin to draft these rules. Jin Xiaobin worked very hard before the Chinese New Year, to provide the complete draft based on the CWA’s rules that was used in previous traditional championships and the inputs/decisions made in March 2018 TC Meeting, and that was the copy that Ethan worked on and then translated. Again, this information was  completed only a couple of months  prior to the event’s registration deadline. Instead of on working on the improvements, you & your associate were just whining and attacking on our staff blatantly. If you did not want others to take over the job, where was your work? This is the same work format our technical documents were compiled in the past -the Technical Department developed & complied the draft with the chair of the TC and forwarded to TC members for review/approval afterwards.
  1. The technical committee has raised the issue of the traditional championships rules for years, and this has been a crucial topic within the technical committee as many of its members felt that the rules implemented and the competition format as well as the technical officials, all coming from the CWA, has been problematic. This was discussed during the TC meeting in 2018, and there was a resolution that Byron Jacobs, Michal Ignatowicz, Lu Xiaolin and Jin Xiaobin would research and investigate this issue, which would then be discussed at the upcoming TC meeting in 2019. The focus of the TC was to finalize the new rules to be implemented in Shanghai as a priority before the investigation into the traditional rules begun. Furthermore, as there are no IWUF judges courses during the 2019 period, there is no way to implement new rules during this event officially, and as all the technical officials are appointed from the CWA, rushing this through is odd. The TC also had objections to the CWA traditional rules, as the goal was to unify a judging method to be in line with the new wushu taolu rules as far as possible. The TC was not afforded the opportunity to correctly and responsibly perform the required investigation and deliberation on such an important topic, and instead a set of rules was rushed through, in spite of the TCs decisions during the meeting held in 2018. This is not as you say “how things were done in the past” and this has been highlighted numerous times in my response here. The finalized document had numerous problems and you have decided to say that the TC members stating the above and pointing these out are “whining”. This is counterproductive and fails to identify the highlighted problem. Furthermore, these rules are being implemented in Emei this year without any officially appointed TC members involvement and evaluation.

4.The Secretariat’s role is to see that all administrative work are performed timely, efficiently and professionally. This is our mission to our members. It is not about taking over someone else’s job, instead it is all about getting the job done. TC is a key component for technical and competition operations, but it is not an independent branch outside of the federation, and has no right to supersede the EB & Secretariat’s decision and directives, especially when it is all about getting the work done.

  1. Once again, no mention was made of “superseding the EB” or being independent of the IWUF. What is being highlighted is that the TC has not been afforded the chance to correctly and responsibly perform its tasks regarding technical matters; instead these are being done without the full involvement of the TC at critical stages within such an important process.
  1. The traditional rules were based on the CWA traditional rules. In the past, the TC implemented the CWA rules for so many years without any complaints. Now that the rules have been officially adopted for IWUF, why is it a problem now? Is it simply because getting the job done has created the feeling that someone has  “moved your cheese?”  If so, why didn’t you accomplish it during the last 3 years?
  1. As stated above, there were numerous complaints about the CWA implemented traditional rules, hence the decision made by the TC to investigate this matter. Your reference to “cheese” is neither valid nor relevant.

You inability or refusal to comprehend the root of the problems, and/or common sense required to understand how business should be conducted is something you have to deal with on your own. No one is obligation to educate you, especially when encountered with such strong resistance. Ego simply is, not a good substitute for reasoning power. You have to be responsible for your own actions and the consequences that follow. Enough is enough.

I have explained clearly above about the root of the problems also the procedures of how the TC works.

After being in the TC for so many years I am well educated in the workings of the IWUF/CWA, that’s why I sent the emails to highlight these issues.

Ego and resistance have nothing to with stating the facts of what was happening.

While I appreciate the amount of attention afforded to me, I have no intention to solicit more of it with this letter. The purpose of this email is to clarify the misconceptions and wrongful accusations, and to provide the other side of the story. Therefore, this maybe the only letter you will receive from me regarding this matter.

My response above clearly states that I did not Attack, Challenge, make Claims, Accusations and Violations as your email insinuates, it is a personal attack on me with a character assassination rather than dealing with the true facts. If there had been correspondence to my first email sent to the TC 7 months ago and the secretariat 5 months ago then many of these issues could have been resolved.


Peter Warr

Vice Chairman IWUF Technical Committee

Subject: IWUF Constitution Judges Management Policy, Protocol and Proceedures

Dear Executive  Members
Since Chairman’s Chen move to a new position towards the end of last year the IWUF TC have not been involved with the rules and regulations for the preparation of 15th WWC and the 8th WKFC.
The additions of the creative category at the 15th WWC, changing/manipulation of Taolu rules which the TC have been working on for the last three years have been done under the direction of Anthony Goh and the Secretariat, then sent to the TC for approval? This is not in line with the protocol and procedures set out within the IWUF constitution.
  Only 3 members of the TC made any constructive feedback  about the Rule/Regulations Presented.
Both sets of rules were riddled with mistakes and omissions of which Michal and Byron sent corrections of which only a selected sample were corrected.
My point is that according to the IWUF Constitution and Judges Management Policy as it is at present, It is the TC members remit to deal with all Technical matters within the Rules and Regulations, appointment of C/ Referees H/Judges Independent judges. Not the Secretariat?
Please see email below.
Look Forward to a response?
Peter Warr
Vice Chairman IWUF Technical Committee (1995)
Email sent to TC members 14/3/2019
Dear Chairman Chen TC Colleagues 
Will there be a full Technical Committee meeting held this year to discuss these updated rules and appointment of independent judges, chief referees, head judges etc?
As the Constitution /Judges Management Policy states at present that in Article 26 that it is the function of the TC to appoint the Independent Judges, Article 27 Jury of Appeals, Chief Referees, Head Judges?
Look Forward to your Reply
Peter Warr

Wushu, we have a problem!


To make it clear from the very beginning: this is my personal view on things, other people may have another opinion. But i feel free to write what i think.

People who know me learned that I have an aversion against modern Wushu which become stronger the past few years. Nanudu’s, fancy and fantasy moves didn’t help to make the sport popular among traditionalists. Some people incl. me tried to fix that but we failed and the authorities made a clean up, so that most of us are out now and incompetent people are responsible for the developing of Wushu. At the end it’s ok, Wushu is a sport and if they decide to cut off the connection to its roots I can accept that. So, I said bye bye to it and concentrate myself now on my traditional Wushu training and development.

So far, so good. But May and June this year showed me that the problem is bigger. There were two traditional Events, the European Kung Fu Championships organized by the European Wushu Kung Fu Federation in Moscow and the World Kung Fu Championships organized by the Chinese Wushu Association and the International Wushu Federation in Emeishan. Both organizations use the name Kung Fu as a label for traditional Wushu. These are the similarities.

But between the organizations are differences and they are growing. European Kung Fu Championships are real Championships, the World Kung Championships are not. Since the 1st Edition the name changed from World Traditional Wushu Festival, World Traditional Wushu Championships finally to World Kung Fu Championships, in English. In Chinese they changed it too after several editions. But it also means that in fact there is no Word Kung Fu Champion or a World Traditional Wushu Champion. In a Festival which this Championship in fact still is, there are 3 Price Categories that means a certain part of the participants gets a 1st prize Medal, a certain part gets a 2nd prize Medal and a certain part gets a 3rd prize Medal. It’s a big surprize the colours of the medals are gold, silver and bronze…

Another big difference is the judges panel. At the European Kung Fu Championships you have judges from different European countries at the World Kung Fu Championships there are only Chinese judges. The rules at the European Kung Fu Championships work with A and B Group (A for technical errors B for overall performance, style conformity) the rules that were used at the World Kung Fu Championships work with just one score for both technical errors and overall performance.

So far there were European Traditional Wushu/Kung Fu Championships in Estonia, Romania, Bulgaria, Georgia and Russia. The World Traditional Wushu/Kung Fu Festivals/Championships were in China, China, China, China and so on.

Beside these interesting facts some questions came up when I was thinking about these things:

  • Why are modern athletes going to a traditional “Championship”?
  • Why do people think they can compose a routine without Nandu’s and then it’s traditional?
  • Why are we calling the World Kung Fu Championships a Championship when it is in fact just a Festival and not a true competition?
  • Why should I as a traditional athlete go to a World Kung Fu Championship when I know that I can’t become a World Champion because there’s a) a modern athlete that will get a higher score, b) there’s no World Champion title to win and c) if there’s a Chinese in my event he will win for sure even if he is not better and not demonstrating a traditional routine?
  • Why should I as a foreigner go to a “competition” where all the judges are Chinese?
  • What is the benefit for a National Federation to send a team to a World Kung Fu Championship when there is no World Champion, no 2nd no 3rd but there are 3 prize categories? Why are sending National Federations modern athletes to a traditional event? What is their impact? What do they explain to the NOC when they are taking part at events without a competitive value?
  • The IWuF thinks that they are the governing body for every traditional Wushu style under the sun. How can it be that there’s no knowledge about these styles neither in the TC or amongst the judges (ok there were only Chinese judges without knowledge at the Championships)? Does the Japan Karate Association think they can be the governing body for Aikido or Judo? Why it’s different in Wushu?

So, after all these questions and even if half of it can be answered in favour of the event, can we say that we are talking about a fake approach of IWuF, a fake Championship and fake champions? Or shall we even be more honest and say that it’s more a CWA event than an IWuF event? We have only Chinese judges, we had Chinese rules until the 7th edition and now we have a bad translated CWA version, we have a domestic competition within the Championships…. And the competition is without exception always in China. So, what is the part of IWuF in this event?

I, myself took part in two of these Championships, the 1st World Traditional Wushu Festival and the 2nd World Traditional Wushu Championships. Both were in Zhengzhou the provincial capital of Henan province. Honestly, I have to say, that the Chinese know how to “blackmail” people and Federations. On this event there was the most impressive Opening Ceremony I’ve ever seen, they treated National Federation team leader like me like VIP and so we felt important and accepted. For some moments (shame on me) I also enjoyed it.

In the 2004 edition there were only Chinese judges (of course) and the 1999 IWuF rules were used. I thought that they just had a problem to organize so many international judges for a new event and that this was the problem and that it would be fixed for the next edition. BTW: the Swiss team we sent only did traditional Wushu there. I learned at the 2nd edition that I was wrong. In the coaches meeting I also asked about the rules because there was no note in the regulations and they told us that the Chinese traditional rules would be used. So, I asked for an English version of the rules and they said, there’s no English version. This way it was handled until the 7th edition of the “Championships”. For the 8th edition they used a bad translated version of the traditional CWA rules. Federations and athletes around the world, did you ever think about such things? Or is it your main intention to collect some out of the mass of the medals? The International Wushu Federation should face serious questions about this event, but it never happened so far. Why?

Personally, I accepted that Wushu on IWuF level is lost. It’s a sport that lost connection to its roots and jumping and fantasy moves are more important than applicable movements from the original styles. However, EWuF tries to fix that on continental level, maybe there’s some hope. Future will tell us. But IWuF please take your hands off from traditional Wushu or Kung Fu as you name it now, meaning the same. You’re not the integer governing body to take care of it. Fanziquan, Bajiquan, Yingzhaoquan, Tanglangquan and so on at Sports University is not a style or a system, it’s just one more of your ridiculous Taolu. You even don’t understand what traditional Wushu is, you don’t know the difference between an entire style and a taolu. Do your sport thing, but please, hands off from traditional Wushu! Wushu, we have a problem and it’s getting bigger.

The reason why i teach just four silk reeling exercises


I was recently asked why I just teach four silk reeling exercises in my Taijiquan classes. As almost every Chen Style practitioner knows, silk reeling exercises are some of the most important exercises. That’s the reason why many people are surprised when I tell them that I’m just teaching four exercises. So let me explain my idea behind this.

Chen Xin wrote in his classic work “Chen Shi Taijiquan Tushuo (Illustrated Canon of Chen Style Taijiquan)”: “Taijiquan is the method of silk reeling.” Therefore, silk reeling is a core conception of Taijiquan. But back then when Chen Xin wrote his book there were no isolated silk reeling exercises, they were all part of the routine. Actually, you should practice all parts of the routine according to the silk reeling conception. Nowadays it makes sense to have isolated single and double hand exercises that train the silk reeling method with intensity.

My idea of teaching Chen Style Taijiquan is to start training with some basic silk reeling exercises that help you to understand the core idea and conception of this method. However, from my personal experience four exercises are more than enough. Later on, you should be able to train this method within the routine f.e. Lao Jia Yi Lu.

But what to do if you have a problem with a certain movement? You still can extract a movement from the routine and train it with the silk reeling method. To clarify what I mean, I made this short video to demonstrate with two examples how we can extract silk reeling exercises out of movements of the routine:

Examples how to extract silk reeling exercises from the routine

So, my conclusion is: I don’t need sets of 12, 24, or 48 silk reeling exercises to teach my students Taijiquan. Four exercises are more than enough. But if it is necessary, I should be able to extract a silk reeling exercise directly from the routine.