Fighting or form? [Archive] - Kung Fu Magazine Forums

Midnight

04-01-2004, 06:43 AM

I don't believe I'm in full agreement with either Gazza or Shooter.

Taijiquan, when trained for its Martial application properly, will defend you without thought. The body reacts on its own.

Should you speed up your practice? no

One thing that the chinese used for reaction conditioning, was repetition. Continuous practicing of the same form, over and over.

Visualization is the key. Once you know the form, then the visualization may begin. Seeing opponents on either side of you is the key to the conditioning of your reaction time. But still, do you speed up? no, theres no need. What you want to do is imprint the scenario into your mind, see yourself counter-attacking with your form. So when the scenario presents itself in a real life situation, you dont think, you react.

I have trained in such a way for a long time now. I have also used the art in real life situations. If anyone needs me to clarify, then just ask and I will try to further my detail.

Ren Blade

04-02-2004, 07:06 AM

Forms also are for your body memory. So that when you spar or fight, you need not to think about how to properly move, but to just focus on your target which is your opponent.

gazza99

04-02-2004, 07:42 AM

Ok, ill try to make some points from peoples posts in order.

I think it should also be of note that our rhetoric may need clarification, the terms "technique", "application" etc. can be subjective, and unless we are all in one room or visiting each others classes, we may never get an accurate idea of how one another trains or practices.

But, lets give it a shot anyway, im not doing anything at work !

Re Bruce:

"There are no techniques, no specific context for movement, no 'correct' movement, no rehearsed attacks, and TCC isn't learned through 'reaction drills'."

Depending on what you consider a "technique" to be, ill go with an english definition ;

"The way in which the fundamentals, as of an artistic work, are handled. Skill or command in handling such fundamentals"

So if you have no way in handling the way the fundamemtals or skills of taijiquan, how and what exactly do you train? Perhaps due to your wording a video would be easier!

"TCC isnt learned through reaction drills"

Correct, it is not, however learning to react IS.

Keep in mind Bruce the further you usually try and clarify a point, historically delves you deeper into the abstract. I am not interesting in reading and attempting to interpret your abstracts. Much of what you have written in the past an continue to write is extremely open to subjective validation. So Pleeeaaassseee try and be clear and concise as to what you actually physically do, step by step, if you dont want to do that pending a book...video etc.. just say so , and Ill see it when you release such media!

Taichibob;

I agree almost in whole with what you said, the problem is when people cant internalize the principles very well from the form without a more direct context for learning such principle. Just doing the form, and then moving to free sparring is from my observation what leaves large gapes in applying principle, and why it take people soooo long to internalize and apply the principles.

Midnight:

"The body reacts on its own." (assuming you mean mind and body as seperate terms)

Well, it needs the mind to do any sort of physical movement, this movement can be conscious or subconscious, it can be from tactical thought, or from reaction. Doing a form in the air 100 times will not teach you how to properly defend yourself against someone attacking you.

"Visualization is the key. Once you know the form, then the visualization may begin." "

Visualiztion is key, but it is only one of the keys.

"Seeing opponents on either side of you is the key to the conditioning of your reaction time"

How? I have done extensive research on reaction times, and what factors can improve it. Pretending to react to two imaginary people may make your reactions just as imaginary. Go to this page and click the first article link, scroll through the online magazine for my article on reaction...see if it inspires any thought...

http://www.flowingcombat.com/articles.php

"But still, do you speed up? no, theres no need"

I already explained the need for very slow practice, but if you never take your movements up to full useable speed, especially against an opponent, you are really cheating yourself. Then how will you know you can do the movements at full speed or contact? I dont think waiting for a real encounter is a smart bet.

The above statement is another reason why the MMA and reality crowd almost cries with laughter at TMA.

Visualization is an excellent tool, and im glad you are special and using it alone works for you! But on multiple occations I have trained people who need to use the stuff a little sooner. They would in no way feel confident in me, or in what they learned if I told them to never speed it up, and just visualize it for it too apply it when the time comes.

Ren Blade

"Forms also are for your body memory"

True, but you can also do any movement in a "form like" context for body memory purposes. Many arts have very short forms, which have a more direct combat context, and serve one better when stored in body memory.

thanks for the great replies everyone!

Gary

Midnight

04-02-2004, 08:28 AM

Originally posted by gazza99

The above statement is another reason why the MMA and reality crowd almost cries with laughter at TMA.

I know, and this is unfortunate. The western society is filled with a "seeing is believing" state of mind. Where in fact it is the open minded that benefit the greatest.

Tho practicing martial arts with aggrssive motions does train the conscious mind, it doesnt focus on the subconscious as much. Humanbeings tend to believe there conscious mind over their subconscious mind way to often, which will usually result in mistakes.

Have you ever been asked to guess someones age, thought of one number but said another, only to be wrong? This is prime example of a conflict between the two minds.

I have practiced martial arts for many years now. And I must say, I have found the most profound level of peace with my Tai Chi. I react with no thought at all when needed now. My personal chi/qi is to a level now that my mind will set off an alarm in situations where I may be threatened. Its really hard to explain. But it is this feeling, that assures me, that my decision to use Tai Chi to better myself was the correct one.

I have used Taijiquan in self defense in todays world. It works. The ward-off is a very elegant motion in the tai chi form, and I can add, a very effective defense. I've ended a few confrontations now with a simple ward-off of my opponents attack, leaving him in a "what the hell just happened?" state of mind.

And the only training I endure, is what I stated above.

backbreaker

04-02-2004, 10:38 AM

In my experience, foundation training, and forms training, actually make you faster. Seriously. I think because of relaxation and qi.

gazza99

04-02-2004, 11:41 AM

"In my experience, foundation training, and forms training, actually make you faster. Seriously. I think because of relaxation and qi."

You are exactly correct, going very slowly in forms training, or any foundational movement training actually enables you to go faster, and be smoother while keeping the integrity of the art intact.

Fast training is a testing tool, but as you see from my article, after that one should go back to doing it slowly.

G.

Roll Back

04-03-2004, 01:27 AM

Here is my take.

When you do the form you are fighting. When you are fighting you are doing the form. There is no diferance. So when you cannot fight like you do your form you are missing something. In Tai Chi all the fighting principles are in the form. The key is to unlock it.

jun_erh

04-04-2004, 10:07 AM

the best way to learn how to fight is to fight. fight your friends, fight with or without pads. FightFightFightFightFightFightFightFightFightFight FightFightFightFightFightFightFightFightFightFight FightFightFightFightFightFightFightFightFightFight FightFightFightFightFightFightFightFightFightFight FightFightFightFightFightFightFightFightFightFight FightFightFightFightFight

backbreaker

04-04-2004, 11:26 AM

Of course jun erh is probably for the most part correct. But I will say, I don't think sparring is a substitue for proper training, if what you learn isn't taught well, sparring won't necessarily correct what you do wrong, but it may wake you up

Roll Back

04-04-2004, 11:43 AM

Yes to learn how to fight you need to fight. But to learn how to fight using Tai Chi principles you must train them in the form. Why throw away what you do in the form when you cross hands?

Shooter

04-05-2004, 11:36 AM

4. Its also important that not too many aspects of a technique be addressed at once and generally less is more. X technique could be a striking/intercepting one to start. Once that is learned, then the break or joint lock within the movement is taught, then the throw...etc...

In what you wrote above, it would appear as though you're referring to technique as a specific application (strike, joint-lock, like that...)

In my own training, there are no such things as specific applications/techniques which follow a specific intent. TCC isn't technicentric - it's a mind/intent method which addresses the shape and intent of the other person rather than one's own shape and intent. It's like jazz.

-'Learning how to react'? You mean people don't already know how? You mean like altering an individual's intuitive, natural responses to something which is counter-intuitive and unnatural - ie. reactionary?

In my own training model, players are shown how to convert natural, intuitive responses into sound tactical movement. This is a logical progression from the idea that there is no correct/incorrect movement. That there is no correct/incorrect way to move is the basic premise I hold to in training TCC's combative method.

There are no rehearsed attacks in my own training - pretty clear, is it not?

Gary, you just seem to be placing a lot of emphasis on general rules for training. When I compare step #3's a,b,c,d to how I address those aspects, I see a great difference in our training models.

Everyone's different and I don't use force or rules when accounting for the individual. Some people operate brilliantly when they're allowed to break the rules and just play some jazz. IME, the exception is often the rule when it comes to learning TCC's mind/intent.

backbreaker

04-05-2004, 11:42 AM

And the minset of alot of Taiji is excellent, because it promotes calmness, relaxation but alert, and can possibly help get your nerves under control

Also, there is alot of talk about range of natural movement in Taiji and staying within that. I think it is true IMO for the most part but the rule can be broken, maybe you could appear to be leaning, but you actually are quite anchored; some taiji people you will see will lean back in a move like say, stork spreads it's wings, someone might apear to be leaning backwards, but they can get back easily because they are actually rooted, for example they could step back with lead leg and go from leaning back to pulling down the opponent. Or, you could go into what is called brush knee, just like the form. But on the other hand, the form stays in the range of movement for the most part, and the internal changes get really small

TaiChiBob

04-05-2004, 12:41 PM

Greetings..

Nice insights.. and on point IMHO.. forms are excellent for training but confining for application.. most people i know that strive for "form in application" take more than their fair share of lumps.. if the stimulus exceeds their form preparation, they don't have a spontaneous reply.. combat is a dynamic and changing situation, it is not wise to enter with a fixed set of responses.

Be well..

backbreaker

04-05-2004, 12:52 PM

Just remember to practice the mind monastary arts, not reality based( LOL ) self defense, or the so called xingyi.

backbreaker

04-05-2004, 01:13 PM

There is a thread on another forum here, that shows that conditioning is all, and reality doesn't matter when you are not conditioned, that is reality

gazza99

04-05-2004, 05:12 PM

"In my own training, there are no such things as specific applications/techniques which follow a specific intent. TCC isn't technicentric - it's a mind/intent method which addresses the shape and intent of the other person rather than one's own shape and intent. It's like jazz."

Well Shooter, I do like your jazz analogy, as I was once a drummer in a competition jazz band. :)

However in order to play jazz or taijiquan you must first learn the notes before you can improv.

"In my own training model, players are shown how to convert natural, intuitive responses into sound tactical movement. This is a logical progression from the idea that there is no correct/incorrect movement. That there is no correct/incorrect way to move is the basic premise I hold to in training TCC's combative method."

That is the idea of ANY reactionary training, to take intuitive responses and make them sound tactically. However if there is no correct or incorrect way to move according to you, any stylistic arguement is pointless.

"Everyone's different and I don't use force or rules when accounting for the individual. Some people operate brilliantly when they're allowed to break the rules and just play some jazz. IME, the exception is often the rule when it comes to learning TCC's mind/intent"

You dont use force? Where there is Yin, there is Yang my friend. Also driving the point home, any jazz musician needs to know his scales and notes before he can improve or play a tune.

General rules of peripheral vision usage, changing fighting range, etc, are not exactly strict rules of movement.

Hitting, locking, throwing, sticking/adhearing/connecting/following, drilling, sinking, etc..., are not exactly strict applications either, but they must be taught in some format to be understood in a reasonable amount of time.

You mentioned your training model "which you have not outlined" is different especially in regards to #3's lettered points. Perhaps you can give me insight as to how you do things differently. Also If you disagree with a point tell me why, like do you not use peripheral vison?- (a) ; You encourage your students to punch to the sides of each others heads when sparring or applying skill sets? (b) ;You establish a rhythm to work with (c) ;And do you start from the same fighting range every time you work something (d) ? -Why would you do anything like that?, it would seem counterproductive even if you were doing non-application, and non-specific movement that can never be incorrect.

Thus far I have gathered you do not increase incrementally any rehearsed responses, you skip straight to reaction with whatever tools you have from whatever training......

"forms are excellent for training but confining for application.. most people i know that strive for "form in application" take more than their fair share of lumps.. if the stimulus exceeds their form preparation, they don't have a spontaneous reply.. combat is a dynamic and changing situation, it is not wise to enter with a fixed set of responses."

Excellent points taichibob-everyone should try to get away from fixed responses and too much form work. In the article I linked on reaction I specifically mention how too many fixed responses..even good ones decrease reaction time. Looking back on my training it seems sometimes I was given 100 techniques to learn one good principle, once I was able to manifest that principle reactivly I could toss those 100 techniques and simply react with the principle itself in the movement and just like shooter mentioned blend with the shape/intent of the other person.

great discussion guys! This topic I know has been, and will be always re-visited, but its good to get people thinking and experimenting with their training.

Gary R

backbreaker

04-05-2004, 05:22 PM

IMO sinking and turning the waist is superior to a shuai chiao throw( It Really Depends Though). Reaction is relaxation

Roll Back

04-05-2004, 09:46 PM

Dude's. I will stand by my post. When you are doing the form you are fighting, when you are fighting you are doing the form. There is no disconect and if there is, something may be missing. If you cannot actualize the form, why do it? If something in the form will not work in a real fight, what are you doing wrong? Or is there something wrong with the form as it applies to combat? Good energy' that flows in combat also flows in solo practice. They are not speperate. Please remember, combat according to Tai Chi principles. Which are?

Shooter

04-05-2004, 10:31 PM

No, Gary. I don't believe in reaction-based training - it's not how my TCC works. Remember, you wanted to know how other people compare their training with yours?

TCC is based on the principles of neutrality and spontaneity. That's what I was taught and how I present the training to others.

Full contact from the first day is how I learn about each individual - what their perceptions are, how they respond to my shape and intent, what types of movement are natural and spontaneous for them, their natural rhythm and operable range, which of the gates they manifest naturally, whether they sink or rise in response to my pressure, where they point their toes, how they orient their peripheral, whether they're a yielder or advancer, which lead-side they naturally orient themselves to, etc - all pretty clear indicators of how a person perceives the threat of physical harm, and their role in conflict.

Those are their natural TCC attributes (everybody's got em) and I don't presume to correct them. I show how other options are available within the scope of TCC's tactical method, and how to incorporate those ideas without altering what they're already doing.

I can see what aspects of TCC are already being applied in their movement, and we can expand on them creatively. You see, people already know the notes...they just need to discover new ways to arrange them. People already know how to fight. TCC is a method of arranging that knowledge without preconceptions or re-trained reactions to pressure.

So, to address your points in 3;

a) people have a natural peripheral they already use intuitively and quite effectively.

b) attacks are random and varied to reflect the diversity of real violence. They involve, tackles, hay-makers, sucker-punches, grabs, hockey-fights, and whatever weapons are handy. In other words, the common tactics, shapes, and intent involved in most violent attacks. We look for solutions in what people are already doing. Then we reinforce and refine through specific chi kung and other solo exercises.

c) people have a natural rhythm that they can use to their advantage. If they "stay in the same rhythm all the time", I'm delighted. As a TCC instructor, I'll take spontaneous consistancy wherever I can find it. Besides, it's a very useful launch-point for the player to learn the relational aspects of rhythm, and how their rhythm influences the other person. They eventually mix up their rhythm on their own, without anyone telling them to. I always say, "Become a student of rhythm."

d) again, people have a natural sense of their operable range, and if they're starting from the same range of fighting every time, I'm delighted. This will also change in time, but consistancy is very important as it provides fertile ground for self-teaching.

You can't really teach anyone anything...you can only bring out what's already there.

The form is a study of internal processes. It provides a life-time of introspection and learning because the mind/body focus is constantly changing.

backbreaker

04-06-2004, 09:28 AM

Very interesting converations. In Kickboxing often the first round of a fight is a feeling out round, where you search for a hole in your opponents defense, and maybe in the second round try to take him out. And an important factor in landing a hit I would think would be rythm and timing. I have heard of Taiji forms referred to as shadow boxing.

gazza99

04-06-2004, 01:28 PM

"I don't believe in reaction-based training - it's not how my TCC works. "

I think you are just debating rhetoric here as usual, at some point you have to react, especially if you are sparring in the context you say you are.

...." and how to incorporate those ideas without altering what they're already doing"

If you wont define any parameters for TCC specific movement or mechanics, you may as well stop typing and thinking in relation to TCC as a specific art, and call what you teach something else. TCC is a specific art with principles of movement, structure, and application. At some point if you dont alter what somebody does naturally they cannot be expected to show any stylistic attributes.

"You see, people already know the notes...they just need to discover new ways to arrange them. People already know how to fight. TCC is a method of arranging that knowledge without preconceptions or re-trained reactions to pressure"

This is where we will simply have to agree to disagree, I can say from my exp. as a teacher that some people are clueless about fighting, they would more liklely crumble into a ball and fall to the ground and be kicked than to react to the pressure in a more usefull way.

How about clarifying those points on #3

"a) people have a natural peripheral they already use intuitively and quite effectively."

Disagree, it depends on the person, learning to use peripheral vision, and learning to not get tunnel vision in a "stare down" is something unnatural for some people. Using the vision in the most physiological way is something that may actually need to be taught, once it is taught, it becomes very natural and effective very quickly.

"b) attacks are random and varied to reflect the diversity of real violence. They involve, tackles, hay-makers, sucker-punches, grabs, hockey-fights, and whatever weapons are handy. In other words, the common tactics, shapes, and intent involved in most violent attacks. We look for solutions in what people are already doing. Then we reinforce and refine through specific chi kung and other solo exercises."

This is nice of you to write, but it has nothing to do with my point b, in fact I agree with most of it.

") people have a natural rhythm that they can use to their advantage. If they "stay in the same rhythm all the time", I'm delighted....."

Let me post my point again and clarify..."Do not stay in the same rhythm all of the time, this negates reactive based training, as it allows you to synchronize your response to the rhythm"

If you do not change rhythm in trainng you may in fact be able to use it to your advantage, but thats not the point, the point is to be suprissed by the attack as you might in a real encounter. You may not have the luxury of a boxing match type fight with rounds to gauge rhythm. Hell, if they guy is a good fighter, or has a weapon the only rhythm could be a two count...him hitting or stabbing you...you hitting the floor.

"again, people have a natural sense of their operable range, and if they're starting from the same range of fighting every time, I'm delighted"

If they can start from their natural and most comfortable range all time i would be delighted as well. But unfortunatly in the real world that luxury may not always be an option. For this reason I say learn your material from all ranges, natural or unnatural.

The bottom line is that a fight can be alot like a car/motorcycle accident. You may not know how your going to react until it happens. If you get tunnel vision you can get in a wreck a whole lot quicker.

When the time comes to swirve left or right, hit the brakes, etc, your "natural" reaction may not be the best one, it may get you killed. If you look at the traffic accident stats. I think you will find you are giving humans natural reactionary abilities waaaayyyy to much credit. However, if a course is set up to force you to react and train in correct/better reactions it may save your life, the same applies to self-defense....

regards,

G

gazza99

04-06-2004, 01:30 PM

"In Kickboxing often the first round of a fight is a feeling out round, where you search for a hole in your opponents defense, and maybe in the second round try to take him out"

Thats great for a kickboxing or sporting match, but in the real world you may not get a round two ,hence why not counting on a consistent rhythm from any opponents to find a hole in their defense is a good idea.

G

GroungJing

04-06-2004, 02:23 PM

Interesting thread…

My experiences have led me to believe that all martial arts are the same.

What do all combatants have in common?

What is the one thing a wrestler, a Tai boxer or an Olympic fencer all have that you can use to your advantage?

They all have INTENT in common. aka. their Yi

It’s been my experience that if one get’s good at reading and understanding thier combatant’s Yi, then they can blend with him. Or circle him. Or hit him. Or dodge him. They are able to do what ever their style says they are supposed to be doing. None of this is possible without some ability to read intent.

It’s also been my experience If you can succeed without this ability then you are leaving your successes up to speed, or strength or even worse chance! All will fail you sooner or later.

Again it’s been my experience that if one gets “real good” at reading intent, they are able to manipulate their opponent into defeating themselves.

The better you get at reading someone’s intent, the less technique, strength or speed you really need.
It makes sense when we consider that in the end one can only punch so fast, or shoot in and do a take down only so fast or jump so high and kick so fast These abilities mean very little to a person that knows where and when his/her opponent is going to punch, perform a takedown or jump high and kick. Really its not even knowing the specifics of the action.

Even better is to make him do these actions to bring about his down fall. Very few schools practice the art of understanding someone intent and manipulating it. Most use sparring as a means and most fall way short in grasping what it means to know their opponents intent. Most schools talk train in timing, speed, distance and angles and all are moot if you have developed the skill of knowing your opponents intent.

I wish I had a dime for every so called martial arts master that has a school that did nothing but train his student in technique, or worse yet, trained them in nothing but form or a little of both. I would own Kung fu magazine by now. It’s rare that I see a school grounded in this “the reality of Yi”

Yi first then forms and fighting….then it doesn’t make a difference what your opponent does.

“Train to master your opponents intent at an early age and you will be a god when you are an old man! Then his timing will be your timing. His Speed will mean nothing for if he lives by his speed, he will surely die by it! In the end his technique will only be a gift to you”

“Did I just type that?”

eeeewwwwwww

Clichéd as it is, these words still ring true today just as when I was told them way back in my youth.

anyway just food for thought

Shooter

04-06-2004, 05:27 PM

Yeah, Gary. I dunno what I'm talking about...neither do the people I learned from. Even though our respective training models are very similar, and each of us has trained people who have proofed their TCC under pressure in competition and the real. Any one of us would take you apart in training - all the while, demonstrating TCC's "stylistic attributes" according to Gary Romel. :p

When I go visit one of the men I learned from this summer, I'll tell him to go back to China and find a real TCC teacher because his years of training IMA (longer than you've been alive) have been wasted, and that his approach to teaching TCC isn't supported by Gary Romel. LOL

I've trained with a couple of different women who each had to literally fight for their lives once. This was before either of them began training in any kind of MA. They weren't fighters then, and they aren't fighters now. Can they fight? Hell yeah! They always could (only moreso now), and so can anybody if they have to. I'll tell those women that they shoulda curled up in a ball on the ground because Gary Romel said so.

Bottom line; Everyone has enough experience with mind/body/intent in their everyday lives to corroborate those experiences with some of what's contained in TCC's principles and methods. That's enough for them to open the door to their own self-teaching and exploration of TCC.

Next time you wanna tell me what a fight is like, or how to go about training people for personal combat, save your fingers the trouble. I think I got it covered, thanks. :cool:

This is nice of you to write, but it has nothing to do with my point b, in fact I agree with most of it

It has everything to do with it. You allude to a graduated approach to developing reactions to attacks by starting out with a punch, and having those trained reactions carry over to surprise attacks. I described the types of pressure we explore regarding spontaneous responses to a variety of common attacks.

In agreeing with me then, are you saying that that's how you structure the training? That you focus on these particular scenarios, and have people train certain reactions to them?

Shooter

04-06-2004, 05:35 PM

Groungjing, great post.

TCC is a mind/intent method based on neutrality and spontaneity. The training of that method is a very personal and organic process which isn't widely understood - hence all the arguing within the online TCC community.

gazza99

04-06-2004, 07:35 PM

"Any one of us would take you apart in training - all the while, demonstrating TCC's "stylistic attributes" according to Gary Romel"

Hmm, now it comes down to personal attacks and "who can take who". How childish..........and even exaggerated.

"I'll tell those women that they shoulda curled up in a ball on the ground because Gary Romel said so.'

I dont remember saying everyone was like that? Wait -here is my quote "some people are clueless about fighting..." notice the "some", Im sorry my exp. with people contradicts yours, but at least I did not make my comments personal and rediculous, perhaps you should have a beer and chill out.

"It has everything to do with it. You allude ......"

No it doesnt, a rule of not cheating yourself by having your partner throw punches short or to the side of your head does not allude to anything but that.

Unlike you shooter I use descriptive language, I dont remain vague about tactical and strategic movement that is not correct or incorrect and that stems from natural blah blah blah blah.....

It would seem since you fail to outline exactly what you do physicaly in training, and cannot even directly address my points in context without resorting to personal mockery and attacks this conversation is over as it is becoming useless. Perhaps if you re-read my post you will find it very reasonable, and not in the childish rude tone yours is.

Shooter

04-06-2004, 08:52 PM

Gary, you invited people to tell you how their approach compares with yours.

I showed how mine compares, and you facetiously questioned how the ideas could possibly yield anything resembling TCC. When I showed how the ideas are structured, you started to designate limits which don't exist in the reality of what I do. You incite debate by dissecting my replies and challenging the ideas as though they are flawed. I know better...

I even made a departure from the abstract for your benefit. :p

You dismiss things just because they're opposite. I don't dismiss your approach. I just don't follow the same model or structure - I even showed how and why.

In regard to taking you apart; what I mean is, I think you'd re-evaluate the importance you place on "stylistic attributes" if you had a skilled Tai Chi boxer apply the same pressure, shape, and intent that a skilled ring-fighter or grappler would apply in the training. That's how we train the basics of our TCC over here.

GroungJing

04-07-2004, 07:04 AM

Originally posted by Shooter
Groungjing, great post.

TCC is a mind/intent method based on neutrality and spontaneity. The training of that method is a very personal and organic process which isn't widely understood - hence all the arguing within the online TCC community.

Yes agreed.

I first encountered the “mind intent method” in Taijiquan, (by the way I like that phrase/term) It’s also used heavily in other arts also. I'm quite sure Aikido/Aiki-justu use it. Peter Rolston definitely bases Cheng Hsin off of this. I read “The Principles of Effortless Power” and although he doesn’t comes on and say it it’s defiantly what he’s talking about. He’s grounded in both Aikido and Taijiquan.

This will probably sound very highbrow. Personally I don’t see how Taijiquan (the way I understand it to be) can work learning it any other way. I see and hear of a certain way of doing Taijiquan (the one from down under) and they seem to be devoid of this mind intent stuff we are talking about. It’s the hardest part about learning Taijiquan. It takes serious patience and confidence and you have to seriously invest in loss to gain.

Kaitain(UK)

04-07-2004, 07:46 AM

Hi Shooter - not interested in the ongoing debate with Gary, but i do have some questions of my own.

"You can't really teach anyone anything...you can only bring out what's already there."

If I read you correctly- you believe that you draw out what is already there and refine it - that there is nothing else? I'm not sure that I can take this outlook (or I have misunderstood you) - sure you can take and draw what someone already does, and in terms of quick and effective training that has to be a great method. But (you knew it was coming :)) I believe in providing additional choices - that there isn't just one correct response to an incoming intent/shape.

So I'm asking for a little more information on this aspect of your training - I can understand that if someone shapes a certain way when attacked then that is the basis to build from; but if they shape a certain way because of deficiencies in their structure, and then those deficiencies are corrected through training, is that original shape still the best to work from?

Having said all of that, you're postings have given me a lot to think about. I can see a route where you learn what someone's base strengths are and help them to construct something from that basis, and allow their natural process to adapt accordingly as their structures and understanding improves. I'm a big believer in the subconscious mind - the conscious mind being the rig for the huge load that is the unconscious mind.

Ok - so that's question one.

Question two - how do you connect the form to the training you do? I can't see from your explanation how form training relates to everything else you do. Again I think I'm just misunderstanding you - so if you have the time I'd really appreciate some additional explanation.

Question three - there are some very specific energies within Taiji that I currently train through various partner and solo exercises. Especially work on peng - the fundamental energy (within my understanding anyway) that should be present throughout the form and therefore within all aspects of combat. One of the ways that I train this is to have someone just go at me so that I can assess how well my fundamentals stand up to unrehearsed attack - how well do i just slip through them whilst maintaining shape, am I jamming up instead of deceiving them with subtlety etc

So do you train activites like this? Or is it something you believe will develop naturally through other methodologies?

Thanks in advance for any responses. If I wasn't on the wrong side of the pond I would come and see for myself

Gary - you post a lot of interesting and enlightening stuff here, but you do have a tendency to invest yourself too heavily in your ideas - a my way or you're wrong approach. Certainly that is how I perceive your posts - I felt that Shooter made it very clear that he wasn't attacking your ideas, just stating the differences in his own training as you requested. Anyway, not my problem - just don't like seeing two strong contributors getting antsy :)

TaiChiBob

04-07-2004, 08:26 AM

Greetings..

I tend to hold Shooter's ideas, perhaps a little more philosophically than i should, but.. i think we all come into this world with all the tools we need (some genetic exceptions).. The instructor simply guides you in the discovery of specifics.. i often say i don't teach, i offer.. the student teaches themselves through diligent and dedicated effort to find what is already there..

The form illustrates certain possibilities to link principles in a fashion that permits solid self-defense applications.. but, the forms are examples from which we can explore different principle applications, different linkages, etc... forms are confining by their very existence.. learn forms so you can become "formless".. Principles are like learning the ABCs, foundational.. forms are like learning to spell words with the ABCs.. Taiji, at its best, is like being able to tell a story with all that you have learned..

One of Taiji's strengths is the unique response to aggression, by its very nature it is distracting and unexpected.. there is little need to "slip in".. the opponent will give you all you need, there is little need to force a response.. attacks leave openings and the attacker has already committed their energies..

Be well...

Kaitain(UK)

04-07-2004, 09:49 AM

let me clarify - when I say 'slip through' I am thinking of warding off (the translation of peng seems counter intuitive to me...). The attack comes and slips around me so I use little energy to get to my target - as though they throw themselves upon me. This requires subtlety so that they don't realise their attack isn't going to arrive - what I meant when i talked about deceit... enough energy to redirect but not enough to jar or jam them - their mind doesn't register the interception.

Given my comparitively short period of training that's as far as my understanding/interpretation of taiji goes...

gazza99

04-07-2004, 05:26 PM

"Gary, you invited people to tell you how their approach compares with yours. "

"I showed how mine compares"

I think this is where the communication gap lies, You werent clear on your approach. You only disagreed with me in general and not specific terms. I cant honestly picture what training you are talking about....hence the problem....perhaps its a combination of your typing style and my reading style? Perhaps if you answer kaitans last post it will clarify things for me also.

"You dismiss things just because they're opposite. I don't dismiss your approach. I just don't follow the same model or structure - I even showed how and why"

I dont dismiss it at all, I just missed the "how and why" part. Specifically in reference to #3's points. I remember some time ago you spent a long time explaining some scenario training drills to me in a chat room, and i experimented with them. So I do have quite an interest in trying other peoples models of training. But yours just hasnt been made clear to me in this regard.

" if you had a skilled Tai Chi boxer apply the same pressure, shape, and intent that a skilled ring-fighter or grappler would apply in the training. That's how we train the basics of our TCC over here."

From what I gather you throw people right in the mix as far as sparring goes, and I ease people into it more. But in the end I bet our schools training has more things that match than we do with most other TCC schools......Our methods of communitcation are just vastly different.

Kaitan:
"Gary - you post a lot of interesting and enlightening stuff here, but you do have a tendency to invest yourself too heavily in your ideas - a my way or you're wrong approach"

Ok, well then I wont blame shooter for his perceptions if that is your observation also. Just an FYI im not a "my way or your wrong " type of guy, Im more into learning about what others do for comparison to see what may work better, but the catch is I need clear explainations and logical reason based on evidence physiology, neurology, and of course experience , not just blanket disagreement without any reason but "I said so", or "my teacher said so". I have done alot of research into how people learn, and react. My initial article actually supports doing what basically everyone else has also mentioned in this discussion. Form is important, intent, etc.....

Later!

G

backbreaker

04-07-2004, 05:39 PM

Yeah, but is the reaction research learned in Taiji? Because you know what they say about Taiji and Karate. IMO Karate is more related than studying motor control in a course.

Kaitain(UK)

04-08-2004, 12:11 AM

Backbreaker - not sure who you're talking to/what you mean. Please could you expand on your post a little?

Gary - I just feel that you allow yourself to get entrenched in a position sometimes. Quite often your posts the next day are not, so I think it's just being caught in the moment...

Out of interest have you looked into NLP? I'm using it heavily in my approach to training both myself and others - I especially recommend a book called Turtles All The Way Down (although you'd probably want to read an Introduction to NLP by Joseph O'Connor and John Seymour first). It gives some great insights on multiple perspectives and how to get 100% into the task at hand. I'm taking my practitioner course this summer - I'm fortunate that my company sees the value in it so they're funding it :)

Also - if you haven't read any of his books, Casteneda is fantastic... If you've not read any then read the first two he wrote, the first one is very different to all the others so it's worth persevering. He covers a lot of ground relating to 'Warrior' mentality - very good stuff :)

Cheers

Paul

backbreaker

04-08-2004, 12:46 AM

I'm not being especially serious. A while ago there was thread where someone said that karate helprd their Taiji. I don't know much about it so, I just didn't understand what he meant by research on reaction, and it seemed kind of relevant though because the differences in perspective. I'm not a big part of this thread, just an obsevtion

gazza99

04-08-2004, 06:13 AM

Out of interest have you looked into NLP?

Actually yes, I have a few books on the subject, as a friend of mine has been doing it for quite sometime and turned me on to it!

G

Shooter

04-08-2004, 07:00 AM

Kaitain, in answer to your first question; People evolve according to their own level of understanding. As I wrote earlier, "I show how other options are available within the scope of TCC's tactical method, and how to incorporate those ideas without altering what they're already doing." We eventually examine the principles and methods as a cohesive unit, but at first, they gotta work with what they got.

So, if people continue their training, they'll pick it up as they go just like any TCC player. I think the first year or so should be spent developing basic skills and exploring the mental/emotional/preceptual/internal aspects of conflict.

Before we learn the ABCs, we gotta learn to speak the language.

Question 2:
I don't have people practice the form-proper during their first year. When they do finally begin learning form, they immediately recognize the mechanics, movement patterns, and tactical possibilities - because they've been exploring TCC's principles of movement, mechanics, and mnd/intent as practical solutions to their points of failure in the training.

My answer to question-3 is closely related to 2. I introduce chi kung on the first day. The routines we practice contain all the same basic movement, and mechanical principles which are contained in the Tai Chi forms I practice.

You captured this approach perfectly when you wrote;

I can see a route where you learn what someone's base strengths are and help them to construct something from that basis, and allow their natural process to adapt accordingly as their structures and understanding improves

Proper training and time spent :)

Thanks for taking it easy on me. :D

*edited for the misspelling in your name...apologies*

Shooter

04-08-2004, 07:13 AM

TaiChiBob, it's heartening to see others who view themselves as facilitators rather than 'reprogrammers'. While I may sometimes find myself not sharing your views on certain things, I have a great respect for the contributions you bring to this board, and your experience as a TCC coach and fellow player.

You and GroungJing have me feeling all warm and fuzzy with your respective postings on this thread...and I don't mind sayin so. :cool:

Kaitain(UK)

04-08-2004, 07:36 AM

Thanks a lot for that Shooter - lots to think about :) oh and another question *grin* or two...

How do you alter things when you get someone who has trained previously in something like karate to a reasonable level (say 5+ years) - when you pressure test them I assume that their previous art is ingrained enough to interfere with the natural response you are looking for? Or do you push until the previous structure breaks and they return to the natural method? Would the exception to this be when someone had trained a system that sat well with their natural mindset?

If I get you right your philosophy on this is that effective ability comes from cultivating what is naturally prevalent in someone's mindest and physiology. So I'm now asking for the flip-side to this - if someone has trained and ingrained systems and responses that don't actually match their natural predeliction, will it fall apart when pressure tested?

And the final question :)- you trained other styles previously to Taiji I believe - did you go through an 'unprogramming' period to draw out what was naturally there? Or were you able to draw that out without discarding previous programming?

Sorry if I'm sapping your energy here but I'm really taken with this approach - it isn't something I've heard of before so i'd like to learn as much as possible about it.

Thanks for your time

Paul

TaiChiBob

04-08-2004, 07:36 AM

Greetings..

Many thanks, and.. <humble bows>..

More often than not.. it is the students that teach me.. otherwise, i would be just another weirdo in the park..

Thanks again, Be well..

jun_erh

04-10-2004, 12:35 PM

Applications stink. No one punches like that, like the way your partner in class does huge telegraphed longfist. People punch either a quick jab or they grab your shirt and punch super fast/hard.

backbreaker

04-10-2004, 12:39 PM

Plus, perhaps more importantly, once you counter attack, say by grabbing them, they will absolutely resist and not just stand there. But to learn the technique it has to shown slowly at first without resistance, but it's all about the end result; can you do it in sparring or against a resisting opponent fighting your attempts?

Shooter

04-11-2004, 04:29 PM

Kaitain, the simplest answer I can give to your first set of questions is in regard to the kinds of pressure I have people explore.

There are no 'stylistic' ways to deal with certain types of pressure. If a person reads someone's overt intent to hit them in the ribs, their elbows come down. People can't help it - that's what their elbows are hard-wired to do in defending the body.

Likewise, there are no stylistic responses to; tackles, hay-makers, sucker-punches, grabs, hockey-fights, etc.

A lot of my own training requires the player to reflect on their own motivation to act, and through this introspection, only they know what's proper given the circumstance and how they read into it.

The idea is to be spontaneous and intuitive. If a person's Karate has refined their natural, responsive movement patterns, the same kinds of tactical responses are going to manifest regardless of style. I hope that's somewhat clear.

did you go through an 'unprogramming' period to draw out what was naturally there? Or were you able to draw that out without discarding previous programming?

TCC came pretty naturally for me.