SHORT FORMS, LONG FORMS, WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE?

There are a great many purists out there, in the world of Tai Chi Chuan. I count myself (nominally) amongst them. However, there are some who stipulate that:
A. Do the form EXACTLY the way that the ancients did, and/or
B. The long form is vastly superior to any short form.

The scope of this article shall endeavor to examine these concepts, and hopefully, put to rest a few qualms.

Firstly: it's nigh well impossible for any newcomer to do the form EXACTLY the way it was practiced a century or more ago. The problem inherent here, is that there are a wide variety of body types: I'm a six-footer, for example. There is no possible way for someone like myself to practice TCC in the exact same manner as someone a foot shorter, or stouter, not to mention a wide diversity in personality types. Your personality will have a profound effect on your practice.
One might note that, as an example, Cheng Man-Ching's senior students all show a markedly different form. Abraham Liu goes into deeper stances: Ben Lo is by far more the traditional purist: William C. C. Chen teaches TCC as a martial art almost straight out of the box (so to speak).

Secondly, this art, like any other fluid, non-static system, is constantly evolving. And let's face it: it's not all that old (at least the Yang/Wu styles).

Thirdly, as one progresses (by 'eating the bitter' as the saying goes), one finds little bits and pieces in other forms (or one's own) that become adopted.

Now to the 'long form/short form' debate.

I was at Ben Lo's TCC camp (1988), when he broached this subject (this is from memory, and so not verbatim): "I have people tell me, 'long form is better than short form', I tell them, 'Tai Chi comes from 13 postures, so how can long form be better?'

While you may derive more health benefits from a long form, the constraints of modern society sometimes make this sort of practice difficult or impossible. Also, one must remember that a long form is a composite of many repetitious movements. It is possible (and very likely) that the practitioner can do ten repetitions of a short form, and derive the same amount of benefits from practice. Personally, I do short forms for warm-up, and practice long forms and weaponry afterwards. But this can very from player to player. The real importance, of course, is the practice and the understanding of the posture. This comes from repetition, true enough.

But practice times are shortened, contingent on the society we live in. So...if you can fit in three short forms a day, spread them out, it can equal one long form done. On in the morning, one at lunch, one in the afternoon.

The other beauty of short forms is this: they give the player more flexibility, in regards to the constraints of space as well as time. It's simpler (and more space-efficient) to do a short form in say a four-by-four space than an entire long form (which CAN be done, with the proper amount of time and training, but avoid this if you're a newcomer).

My original training was in the 37 Cheng Man-Ching short form. After about five years of this, I studied the long form. I began combining both in my practice (there were times, I practiced so intensely, the soles of my feet would swell up). It also provides a sort of variety: do a short form or two in the morning, a long form in the evening. This is up to the player, of course.

So, in short:
A. Don't worry about the EXACT practice of the ancients, and
B. Short form, long form? Don't worry about it.

And I will leave the reader with the three rules:
1. Practice,
2. practice, and
3. practice.

Good playing to you all.