Frequently Asked Questions

Is it Lee or Li Style? I have used Lee Style as that is what Chee Soo used and it is used in Chee Soo’s books. The difference is only really only about translation. Lee was the translation from Chinese in the old Wade Giles system, whereas Li is the translation in the modern pinyin system.

Can we rely on Chee Soo’s acount of the origins of T’ai chi? When Chee Soo wrote his books in the 1970’s we knew a lot less than we do now about the history and origins of T’ai chi. Modern historians acknowledge the roles played by Yang, Wu and Chen families in transmitting their knowledge of T’ai chi and we have quite comprehensive genealogies going forward from around 1850 giving the names of the main players. However going backwards to find the origins of T’ai chi is much more difficult. Most accounts are little more than claims and counter-claims promoting the case for a particular T’ai chi family. A recent book by Lars Bo Christiansen appears to throw some new light on the origins of T’ai chi. His research starts with the discovery of some old T’ai chi manuscripts in Tang village. These are now recognised as the oldest source copies of what became the T’ai chi classics. These documents suggest that T’ai chi or something very like it was was being taught in the nearby Thousand Years Temple before 1590, the date of the first manuscript. The key to the transmission is the focus on the “Thirteen Movements” which are still recognised today as the basic movements in T’ai chi.

The author is able to connect the individuals from Tang village to Chen Wangting who also came to learn at the temple. Curiously the principal family clan of the Tang village are the Li family and it was through Li Chunmao (1568-1666) that the manuscript we now have was discovered. Of course there is no evidence that these Li’s are related to Chee Soo’s Lee family.

Chee Soo’s account of an independent family system going back up to 3000 years is fanciful. It is possible that the Lee family learnt their T’ai chi at one of the Temples teaching martial arts as we now know that it was from one of these temples that the modern family systems originated. It is however most likely that the transmission to England came via one of the T’ai chi families that came to prominence after 1850. Lavinia Warr (Chee Soo’s daughter) suggests a link to the earlier Wu style through Li Yi She. John Solagbade who was a prominent student of Chee Soo’s in the 1970’s also later described what he learnt from Chee Soo as Wu style. Looking at the execution of Lee style T’ai chi form there are obvious similarities with Wu styles high stances and the names of the sets. Lee style remains distinctive with its clear pattern of inward and outward (yin and yang) movements and its synchronized breathing. They may have a common ancestor but they are not the same. Lee style, like the other T’ai chi styles is rooted in the thirteen movements, it acknowledges the Chinese tradition of internal alchemy, and it incorporates disguised martial arts techniques in its sets. In all these ways it is an authentic T’ai chi system even without a clear lineage back beyond Chan Lee.

What did Chee Soo actually teach? Chee Soo had a long and varied teaching career. After the war he taught Judo and later Aikido. It is recorded that he gave up teaching Japanese martial arts around 1958 and focused instead on Chinese Wushu. He taught what became known as Hand of the Wind Kung Fu (Feng Shou) and Chinese wrestling together with other disciplines that appear to be Chinese versions of Aikido and judo. Chee Soo says that the Feng Shou came from Chan Lee but it is also clear that Chee Soo made extensive contributions himself. This included the large collection of foot pattern kicks, the roll away striking sets and the Shou Pay Fah form. Chee Soo was a talented and creative martial artist and fighter. He was teaching T’ai chi in the 1970s, and his T’ai chi book was first published in 1976. It is probable that he taught T’ai chi during the 1960’s which would make him one of the earliest teachers in England. He also taught Dao Yin (breathing) exercises and Kai men (Yoga), the chang ming diet and Chinese massage and traditional medicine.

He taught weapons forms in both the Tai chi and Feng Shou. These covered sword, sabre, staff, stick and silk. It is documented that he taught other weapons on his courses.

What about the controversies surrounding Chee Soo? When I published my original site I spent a lot of time examining some of these issues. The lack of any documentation to authenticate the existence of Chan Lee remains a problem with Chee Soo’s story. Was the reason some students moved on from studying with Chee Soo that he did not really try to engage with main stream T’ai chi organisations? There were also personal reasons for some of the splits. Chee Soo had a hard life, growing up an orphan, being held as a Japanese prisoner of war, then forging a career leading his own martial arts organisation. This was at a time when such a leader might well encounter individuals who would want to test their abilities in actual combat. He had a reputation for being uncompromising in his dealings with people, including some of his own instructors and students. Nevertheless his abilities always made him a sought after teacher and he was well loved by the students who stayed with him and benefited from his training, in some cases for well over twenty years.