Authenticity of styles & forms.

[T'ai Ji Monkey]

Hi All.

I have been thinking since on many MA-boards Forms and Styles are often questioned as to their authenticity.

Look at TJQ:
Every man and his dog wants to learn the original YLC, CFK, SLT or similar form.

I see those forms more as a snapshot of what the style was at the time in it's History.

I don't think that any form is more authentic or accurate than any other, if you can't see beyond the form and it's expression by the practicioner than I think you have failed to grasp the essence of your style.

Forms and how they were practiced and trained across the ages and between styles can and will help in gaining a greater understanding of the art.

Having seen traditional TJQ and modern esoteric forms, from each I walked away with a new bit of knowledge and understanding.

So rather than trying to look for the authentic/original, true form rather try to see why the form was done as it was and why it was changed.

Back to TJQ I can see and have learned why there are some difference in the execution of the forms between Yang & Chen, it has to do with the opponent that the practicioner was facing and not with the effectivness of the art/style.

I think we should be glad that each style/system has sub-systems as each, IMHO, preserved a different snapshot and essence of the whole picture/knowledge.

Short explanation as to why I feel this way:
A friend went to Japan to help with her studies about ancient chinese.
Why, Japan imported the Chinese writing system in 3 waves and has preserved the meaning/readings/pronounciations of some characters that are lost in modern day China.

So by going to Japanese she could study the Chinese language as it existed at different points in History.

Sorry, for the long post.

Flames and replies are welcome.

[Judge Pen]

No flames. I tend to agree that forms are snapshots in time. I have often talked aobut how forms have changed over time and how two styles have divergent forms while claiming the same heritage.

Whether the evolution makes a style more or less effective for tis purposes is another question.

[KC Elbows]

True, some forms are snapshots in time, but other forms get made up simply to string students along, and have no value whatsoever. To simply assume all forms are equal is not realistic. I've dropped more forms from my practice than I've kept, because of precisely this. I have known forms that had zero value either martially or as exercise. I've known forms that were great workouts, but not usefuly martially. The reality is, there's a lot of stuff out there that isn't useful. This is true of any field of study.

People like to say it's the practitioner, not the style, but that's just a maxim, a cliche. The style plays its part as well.

[Tak]

I don't think that any form is more authentic or accurate than any other, if you can't see beyond the form and it's expression by the practicioner than I think you have failed to grasp the essence of your style.
I agree to the extent that we are speaking of established forms that clearly benefit a student in the training of his/her styles. On the other hand, a form that is just fabricated by an individual without a clear understanding of how said form will be useful in learning/applying/practicing/demonstrating techniques and concepts may not be worth the time required to learn it.

[GLW]

Evolution and adaptation is only natural. However, what seems to happen all too often these days is the attempt to create a new way of doing things with limited understanding of the old way AND limited understanding of what needs to be done in the first place.

If a person practices a northern art, an evolution for them would undoubtedly have a northern flavor. It may focus on one aspect of the northern roots but the roots are still or should still be there.

If a person is tall and practices Shuai Jiao, it would be very common for the evolution to take techniques and methods that work well for a tall person and develop them further (not that unlike what Helio Gracie did with emphasizing groundwork from the Jiujitsu he learned).

If a person learns a short range art, a long range art, and then a grappling art, it would not be unusual for them to synthesize the three approaches into one. This synthesis would then have to resolve any conflicts in approaches and come up with a common approach that fit all three styles. This is similar to what supposedly happened with Choy Li Fut and a number of other styles (the Ching Wu sets and even the Nanjing Central Guoshu Guan).

Where problems come in : First if you try to combine styles or approaches that are contradictory. For example, if you take a northern long fist style with the full body extension, full waist turning, whipping power, etc... and then try to combine this with a southern style with squared shoulders, southern power generation, etc.... you will find that at some point you have to make a choice as to which set of characteristics you employ. When this choice is made, you then have to go through and apply this to every part of the style that was not chosen. What you end up with may simply be Style 1 - the sequel...and not really new.

The second problem is with the fast food approach. There are loads of people that study this style for 2 years, that one for 1 year, etc... and then mix it all together and call it a new style. While it IS possible for a truly talented person to create something great - this is highly unlikely. What typically ends up being done is to good martial art what a Jack in the Box Taco is to GOOD Mexican food...

Then you have people that begin learning this and - of course they are proud of their style/teacher...but they will argue and even fight to prove that what they do is good...even though they admittedly knew NOTHING about martial arts when they started and they picked their school out of the yellow pages.

There is evolution and then there is evolution.....

[Vash]

Monkey:

Dang good post. Thought provoking. Up till now, change based on singular reasons, as opposed to generalized "this doesn't work" idealism, had not entered my mind.

Good stuff.































ATA patterns still suck ass, though.

[T'ai Ji Monkey]

Guys.

Thanks, for the replies and great points everyone.
Yes, naturally I am talking about the well-established forms.

I also agree that these days we got too many styles that were flung together randomly without any underlying principles or concepts.

To a certain degree I think it is good for a student to create his own forms and let them be examined & validated by his peers
But this is a learning tool and those forms should not become part of the standard curriculum.

Just some additional thoughts.

[The Willow Sword]

Quoted by GLW

Evolution and adaptation is only natural. However, what seems to happen all too often these days is the attempt to create a new way of doing things with limited understanding of the old way AND limited understanding of what needs to be done in the first place


i agree with this statement whole heartedly. and to expand on that i will say that in my 17 years of doing martial arts,aikido,mantis,SD,hsingi,pakua,taichi etc. i have come to move my own way with these forms that i have learned, to me this is the evolutionary or as i like to call "evolving" yourself and the forms you have learned. each will have his/her own characteristic when practicing a form and when they do it enough times and over the years they begin to develope thier own way of doing the form. some might feel this is correct others might feel that the form should not change. but i seriously DOUBT that whatever form any of you have learned from your teacher is the SAME form as it was first taught all those generations ago. you might have certain basic principles in the form that have not changed in all those years but the flavor quality and aspects of the form have definately changed.
as for GLW statement: if you are a practitioner and you have studied say for a few years and you are making up forms? then i think that you need to get back in to the school you are in and not tell anyone that you have been doing this and continue to learn what is being taught to you. i feel that if you havent at least spent 10 years learning martial arts, you should not be trying to figure out a new form or system, just stick with the stuff you are learning and eventually you will start really creating yourself with these forms and systems. i mean bruce lee did it and he didnt start doing this until his late 20's and he was doing kung fu at the age of 7 or 8.

This is a good thread(we NEED more of these threads)
TWS

[Judge Pen]

Originally posted by The Willow Sword


This is a good thread(we NEED more of these threads)
TWS

I agree, but flan and Ross v. Abel are entertaining too.

Evolution should improve on the original. If it does not, then the adaptation will die out, right? If one changes a form's techniques because it is more applicable to their own body mechanics, then it is an improvement for them. Of course, I'm not talking about inventing your own form or style, I'm just talking about subtely adapting what was taught to you by your sifu.

The question is are you adapting the form because it is more applicable to you or are you adapting the form because your too lazy to put the time in to do the form correctly?

[Becca]

I don't think that any form is more authentic or accurate than any other, if you can't see beyond the form and it's expression by the practicioner than I think you have failed to grasp the essence of your style.

Though I have only studied two arts, and both are what most would call a conglomerate of styles, I see much wisdom in this. It goes back to the old argument of techincal proficiency and intent. If you do it perfect but with no concept of what it means, are you still better than the guy who was a bit loose with stances but made it look good by expressing the concept well? You can program a robot to move exacly as you want it, but will it be as good as a person who makes mistakes?

When asked the name of the 4 new sefl-defences he had taught us at this year's summer camp, my Sifu's Sifu replied,"There is good technique and there is bad technique. This is good technique."

[mantiskilla]

why change the original forms? evolve? i dont believe that. forms are the basis of the style we choose. the evolution should be in the practitioner. keep changing the forms, then we get tothe point in 300-400 yrs of not even recognizing where we began. forms are forms, fighting is fighting. forms are the alphabet, and eventually full sentences, that teach ius the philosophy of the style. you fight using the philosophy, i believe, not preconceived techniques. thats too slow. so the philosophy is the essence and that is taught through the forms, among other training. i dont know, im tired, and ready for food. good thread guys. :)
________
Hotels In Mexico (http://mexicohoteles.org)

[T'ai Ji Monkey]

Evolution of self vs Evolution of forms.

I also think that the evolution should be within the practicioner, You can see it often if you look at 2 students of a teacher that studied under him at different times.

I got Videos of my Sifu that were taken at different times and here you can see clearly the evolution happening.

OTOH, there might be a time when the forms also need to evolve.
Example:
A Form was created to fight against Caravan robbers who wore armour, some time later the same forms needs to be adjusted for bodyguards who fight in different dress and have non-armoured opponents.

While the principles remain the same the techniques might need to be adjusted and this should be reflected in the forms.

Anyhuh just rambling.

[ZIM]

Some arts are more open/allowing about difference than others, perhaps. Sometimes this has to do with an over-arching theory of the types of changes allowed and their place in the art.

For example: in Karate dojos, I've noticed that an instructor may introduce some trainings that aren't a part of the karate curriculum [say, grappling..?] but there's not any notion of this being 'karate' per se, just useful knowledge to train in, even if the instructor wants to include it or not for a new belt....

...in Wing Chun, there's an attitude that 'if the forms are to change, they should change towards the more simple and efficient'. Then they argue about who should or shouldn't be allowed to do that because changes ARE to become part of the official, passed-down inheritance. Who has authority to decide what is both simple and improved in this seemingly faulty if/then loop?

...in arts like Choy Lee Fut and Ba Gua [which I am not too familiar with, so I may very well be in error!] it seems that forms get added in by many different masters as time goes by, thus increasing the 'workload' of a newbie. Eventually, a given sifu might "have to" vett some form work in order to find the essence- and some have, IIRC, like the I Chuan founder... but I don't think that its done because any of it is useless, just an attempt to get to the heart of the matter...

...and last, you got arts like JKD, where change is constant, official and often personal.

Evolution is OK, but to me there's got to be an over-arching place for it, a method to the madness.

[The Willow Sword]

quoted by Mantiskilla
[QUOTE]forms are forms, fighting is fighting. forms are the alphabet, and eventually full sentences, that teach ius the philosophy of the style. [/QUOTE


;) would YOU use the same sentence over and over again to express what you are and what you do and how you do it?

just someting to think about.

TWS

[mantiskilla]

TWS, i understand what you are saying, but how many forms do you need to be a good martial artist 5? or 50? more forms does not = a better martial artist. there are a great many variations on movements in a style when it comes to using it, not showing it. there are so many variables in a fighting situation that the movements will change, but if you dont have a set group of movements in the forms, then you might as well just start swinging your arms and legs, because there will be no thought process behind it. i know some people who are very good fighters, they have studied different styles, but when they use it, it is not any style at all, its not mantis, wingchun, bak mei etc, its a conglomeration of all of those. nothing wrong with that. but it isnt a style. to me, i think that in the long run it is limiting. just my opinion. but, if we start changing forms in a style, then it is lost. keep the forms, adapt the fighting. :)
________
9C1 (http://www.chevy-wiki.com/wiki/9C1)

[Judge Pen]

Originally posted by mantiskilla
i know some people who are very good fighters, they have studied different styles, but when they use it, it is not any style at all, its not mantis, wingchun, bak mei etc, its a conglomeration of all of those. nothing wrong with that. but it isnt a style. to me, i think that in the long run it is limiting.

I don't think it's accurate to say that, in your example, the fighter isn't showing a style when he fights. It's just his style based on experience. It's just not purely the expression of one style.

[mantiskilla]

jp. ok. their showing a style which only one person pracices, themselves. it is not an established system. like i said before, i dont think there is anything wrong with that, but it cannot be passed down as wingchun, or pak mei, or whatever. anyway, i forgot what this was about.
________
DIGITAL VAPORIZERS (http://digitalvaporizers.info)

[drunken_master]

my sifu has always taken the approach "techniques first forms second."and wants us to understand and be able to use all techniques within a form before attempting to string them together. i like this approach and find that my forms mean something and are personalised without losing their essence.

[Vash]

Sounds like a dang good instructor.

[T'ai Ji Monkey]

Originally posted by Vash
Sounds like a dang good instructor.

Only if it is a technique orientated art.

My style is principle orientated and we don't do all that much form work.
;)

[mantiskilla]

Originally posted by T'ai Ji Monkey


Only if it is a technique orientated art.

My style is principle orientated and we don't do all that much form work.
;)

could you elaborate more? i find this very interesting. most of the time i see discussion on techs, and quite frankly i think that is missing the boat.
________
AVANDIA SIDE EFFECTS (http://www.classactionsettlements.org/lawsuit/avandia/)

[The Willow Sword]

QUOTED BY MANTIS KILLATWS, i understand what you are saying, but how many forms do you need to be a good martial artist 5? or 50? more forms does not = a better martial artist. there are a great many variations on movements in a style when it comes to using it, not showing it. there are so many variables in a fighting situation that the movements will change, but if you dont have a set group of movements in the forms, then you might as well just start swinging your arms and legs, because there will be no thought process behind it


well its not the form that makes the martial artist or how many forms that you have nor is it the variation of movements in a style and the constant changing that makes the martial artist a "good" martial artist. i mean i get all proverbial here but being able to return to YOUR own source in your training and practice from a standpoint of HEART rather than MIND, you will find that it is the most simple thing that makes you a good Practitioner.
and i agree with you that if you dont have a set group of movements in the forms, then you might as well just start swinging your arms and legs, because there will be no thought process behind it.
I believe that one must have a fairly extensive knowledge of the basics and classics before one can really start to shape themselves and do thier own things. SOme of the greatest renowned martial artists were very Esoteric in thier approach to what they were learning and they made it thier own after a while and thier Teachers approved of this, for this is the true and natural way you progress as a martial artist. when you can stop mimicking your teacher and make the form and style your own, then you are that much closer to really UTILIZING WHAT YOU HAVE LEARNED TO MAKE IT WORK FOR YOU. bruce Lee did this,as well as earlier greats like Yin Fu(creator of yin style bagua) and Master ueshiba moreihai(creator of aikido).
who knows Mantiskilla, as YOU progress YOu might develope "Mantiskilla system" if thats your choice and your destiny to do so. Some will go through thier lives and learn what people teach them and stay there with it. and thats fine. there is no wrong or detriment to doing so. Authenticity and legitamacy is what You ultimately make of it for yourself. now given that there are people out there who claim this and that and the other and it is done more in this country than anywhere else and do you know why? Money and marketing(remember we are capitolists here in america). But those of us that learn and truly wish to grasp these anicent arts and ways of living need not concern ourselves with that really. leave that to the money grubbers and characters of less integrity to do that for us. they will stay right where they are in life whilst you and I move on and "evolve" our form and practice. and who knows we might even feel confident enough to teach what we have evolved to others. those names i mentioned earlier did. why should we, in this age, be any different from them? after all they were just men,,,men with extra-ordinary vision.

Peace,,,,,TWS

[T'ai Ji Monkey]

Originally posted by mantiskilla

could you elaborate more? i find this very interesting. most of the time i see discussion on techs, and quite frankly i think that is missing the boat.

I will let the words of a renowned TJQ Sifu speak for me:

" In traditional martial art training, the emphasis of Tai Chi Chuan is more on the preparation and development of internal power than the individual technique as in most external martial art styles. There is hardly training in specific applications. This is why it is difficult for a beginner to understand and see the technical skill in Tai Chi Chuan. Unless one is trained under a knowledgeable teacher, a practitioner can spend decade or more and still not be sure how to correctly apply each movement in fighting.

A philosophy of Tai Chi Chuan combat is that if you say there is technique, there is none. If you say that there is not, the technique is everywhere. This is like the water supporting the boat: the boat is always on top of the water although the boat has done nothing. In martial art training, it is essential for the practitioner to prepare his or her physical condition for combat. In Tai Chi Chuan, the practitioner does not rehearse for the combat itself which is an unpredictable situation. The training is not focused on the application of each individual movement but on developing oneself totally so that the body becomes nimble and flexible, the feet mobile, the hands are fast, and there is correct timing in execution. These are the essential ingredients in combat."

Personally, I don't think there is much wrong with having teqchnique orientated training but the student must seek the under-lying principles and develop them further.
Or have a good Sifu that wil guide him towards finding those principles.

And when doing anything forms, sparring must observe those principles.

Way to often I see people copy the motions of the technique but fail to understand why the technique works or how it could be done better.

Naturally there will be people that disagree with me.

[Becca]

This thread is getting more interesting every post...:)

T'ai Ji Monkey- What is your take on the theory that form teach body memory? The way forms are aproached in White Dragon, it is with the idea that the more familiar with the techniques a person is, and with how they fit together, the more likely you will respond properly when attacked, either in sparring or in a real fight.

[T'ai Ji Monkey]

Becca.

The way I see it the forms should teach and enforce correct Body mechanics till they are 2nd nature and you don't need to think about them anymore.
Now this can also be done outside of forms by using drills, Silk reeling and other exercises.

You shouldn't get stuck in forms as to combinations and lets say that a punch is always done in this direction and at that height/direction (extreme example I know).

IMHO, till the body mechanics & breathing are correct you haven't even started to learn the art/style and you are still in the prep stage.

Naturally you need to learn to flow between techniques, and being familiar and comfortable with techs/movements/postures allows you to react faster and more accurate.

One of my Sifu always used to say that the transitions are more important than the techniques.

Nothing wrong with tech-based system, IMO, but in the long run I think you need to be principle and not tech based.

While you are in a tech based world you will be limited to a certain degree and confined within some limits and restriction.

Example: we got one punch(Yan Shou chou) in the form we always execute it to the front, in the solo drills we practice the same punch to the side, front, lower down and diagonal.
For us it is the same punch differently applied, not different techniques

Same with Could Hands or Double rolling Hands, the same movement can be offensive of defensive depending on how we react to the opponent.

In the long run I think it is really more about how the art is transmitted more than anything else.

[Judge Pen]

When we fight from our forms we limit ourselves to the techniqes, transitions and principles that are in that form, but the variations of different techniques are endless. A form is a snapshot of a technique, combination and stances. Free sparring from the form is the motion picture. They should be linked, but they will not be the same because of the unknown variables in a resisting opponent.

[abe27]

Tai ji monkey, i couldnt agree with you more. When i said my sifu teaches techniques before forms it is exactly in the way you describe with the technique altering from different angles etc. We spend most of our training on two man techniques. Also about the transitions, the one thing that i have noticed as i progress is i automatically to switch from one technique to another with the "correct" transition. I think that this is when you start to look like your art.
I practice Pak mei by the way
Thanks
A

[Becca]

T'ai Ji Monkey- Thanx for that excelent responce. One of my wosu tried to explain the theory to me, but I just wasn't "getting it." If I'm understanding you right, it's why there is no seperate name for the various types of X-block, because they are all the same thing, just applied in a different direction?

[T'ai Ji Monkey]

Becca, yes, that is correct.

I prefer it that way rather than being loaded down with multiple names for similar moves.

[Fu-Pow]

Some thoughts on Choy Lay Fut and MA in general.

CLF is the art I've had the most exposure to.

Choy Lay Fut, if you count up all the forms from every branch has something like 200 hand and weapon sets. It is a very big system and there is not one person that knows every form. It seems ridiculously large. In addition there is huge variation in forms betweens Sifu's that share the same name. They don't even hardly resemble each other in content or sequence.

However, if you reduce CLF down to core movements there are probably only something like 20 core hand techniques. You could group these into two sub categories. The long range techniques that were borrowed from northern long and the shorter "bridging" hand techniques that were borrowed from other southern styles. There are around 10 stances, including variations. And maybe 5 or 6 different kicks.

The reason there are so many forms is that CLF techniques can be mixed and matched and hooked together like legos. You could do one hand technique utilizing 5 different stances which would give you 5 slightly different applications. You can basically transition from one stance into any of the 5 other stances, etc, etc, etc.

The point is that you can get huge variation from the core techniques. So it's not really how many forms you know, but rather how well you understand the core techniques.

My other point, which is related to my first point, is that CLF forms can be quite flashy. There are parts of them that are difficult to apply. However, because the Sifus of old wanted to give there students more variation they kept thinking up new combinations and ways of utilizing the core principles.

When I think up applications I always try to draw something literally from the form. I show the students and my Sifu just laughs at me. He always has a much more simple application that is more effective. He draws on the core movements that make up the forms but his applications are always much simpler and more efficient.

So what to make of this?

The forms are useful because they allow us to explore different dimensions of the art. They are ways of transmitting the exploration of the art by previous masters. They give us something to chew on and keep working on and thinking about. But for real fighting you will always come back to those core principles and simple applications that make up the foundation of your art.

As well, you will find techniques and combinations that work well for you but not necessarily another person. This comes through trial error and real time sparring.

[Vyvial]

this of course depends on what your system's forms are meant for...

If the forms are considered "perfect" examples of your style or system, representing the movements and principals of the martial art and over time they are adapted or changed or whatever.... Then where is the true original Martial art?

Wouldn't the system be lost? Every generation would lose more and more until it bacame a husk of the former martial art.

Also who now is qualified to adapt these forms, who has the time to spend 8 or more hours everyday training, who can participate in battles with just hands and handheld weapons, who can get into fights and challenges without fear of the law and being shot? If the martial art is being adapted from sparring experience then what's it worth?

Look at karate in the seventies, there were a lot of guys sloppily beating the crap out of each other but there were no pads and they were pretty tough. Now look at it.... that is what will happen to your martial art in a short time if you let it.

anyway just a few of my thoughts on the subject.

[T'ai Ji Monkey]

Vyvial.

Some good poins there.



If the forms are considered "perfect" examples of your style or system, representing the movements and principals of the martial art and over time they are adapted or changed or whatever.... Then where is the true original Martial art?

The true martial art is in the principles of the style. The forms are merely a training tool and showcase a sample of what can be done.

My Sifu keep showing us alternate applications to moves from our forms that we never imagined could be done.
Also the form that he teaches is not the same for the beginner as it is for the advanced student.



Wouldn't the system be lost? Every generation would lose more and more until it bacame a husk of the former martial art.


Yes, it might.



Also who now is qualified to adapt these forms, who has the time to spend 8 or more hours everyday training, who can participate in battles with just hands and handheld weapons, who can get into fights and challenges without fear of the law and being shot? If the martial art is being adapted from sparring experience then what's it worth?


There are people that spend more than 8hrs a day on perfecting their art.
Most of those you will not find on the Web or in the yellow pages.

Arts can evolve and be further developed withou the need of challenges, law enforcement fears and being shot. There are many ways in which an art can be tested.

The rules of everyday life are still pretty much the same as they were 300yrs ago.



Look at karate in the seventies, there were a lot of guys sloppily beating the crap out of each other but there were no pads and they were pretty tough. Now look at it.... that is what will happen to your martial art in a short time if you let it.


Yes, Karate & MA in general in the west has devolved.
Go to Okinawan or Japan and you will find a very different karate and skill level.
Ever seen a takedown down in kendo or similar, they do exist and are still trained.

There are people and locations where the arts are preserved and advanced by people skilled enough to do so.
Like I said most of them you will have problems finding or even hearing about.

[Vyvial]

you have no arguments from me but I have a question....

"The true martial art is in the principles of the style." <--very true, but doesn't the forms pass on the principles? Tai Chi used to be a very down and dirty style, now for the most part with with some very good exceptions, it's not even a martial art but rather a health form. What do you think happened?

[T'ai Ji Monkey]

Originally posted by Vyvial
you have no arguments from me but I have a question....

"The true martial art is in the principles of the style." <--very true, but doesn't the forms pass on the principles?


To a degree only.
You can't train Jing in the solo form for this you need Tui Shou and weapons training.

Each style has it's own training curriculum and each part will supply a piece of puzzle that you need to see the whole art.



Tai Chi used to be a very down and dirty style, now for the most part with with some very good exceptions, it's not even a [I]martial[I/] art but rather a health form. What do you think happened?

Depends on which TJQ you are talking about competition, PRC or the traditional routines.

I think many teachers changed the emphasis of their TJQ teaching for a variety of reasons.
I know that there is also some form of quality control problem that has creeped into the TJQ scene(2yr Instructor courses, etc), which I think is common in teacher and not family transmitted arts.

Actually if you speak to most TJQ people they will tell you that the health benefits can only be fully realised if you train for the martial side.
;)

So, IMO, a lot of people are sold health TJQ and happily are buying into a fantasy that has only limited benefits.
But than that is not what I call TJQ.
;)

[Vyvial]

thanks for the educatin'

[GLW]

"Actually if you speak to most TJQ people they will tell you that the health benefits can only be fully realised if you train for the martial side."

Actually, the HEALTH benefits do not get much from the martial side of training. However, they DO benefit from Body Mechanics training (which DOES feed into the martial side as well).

Too many people try to include the body mechanics ONLY in the martial approach and let the non-martial side do what they want. To do this, you do NOT have Taijiquan. You are just doing something slowly to a sequence of movements.

In fact, to TRULY train the martial side of ANY style, there are a number of RISKS that enter into training that definitely go against health benefits.

Accidents happen more in two person training than single practice. The type of accidents can be life altering because they include things like knee injuries, falls, bruises, etc...

The saying from Chinese is that to learn to fight, one must first learn to eat bitter. This is NOT a health benefit.

[T'ai Ji Monkey]

GLW.

No disagreement, like with anything if you want the benefits you got to take the risk.

[GLW]

Exactly..

One of the reasons I teach very few people applications...

They come in wanting to learn them...until they find out that first is the body conditioning for handling the mistakes...

I had a class of young guys a few years ago...they REALLY wanted to learn fighting.

After 4 classes and a number of bruises on them later...I was down to 2 students. The others had told the remaining two that it was too hard and painful (it was only a fraction of the level it should have been). I replied that if training was too painful, what was losing the fight going to be like...

[T'ai Ji Monkey]

GLW.

I know the feeling, we also got a few students that complain what we do is tough and our teachers are too harsh and demanding.

One guy that always gives me a good workout is our top-competitor, he really pushes you and corrects the smallest flaw in your execution and drills you till it is correct.
;)