Saw some awesome Tai Chi [Archive] - Kung Fu Magazine Forums

MightyB

05-30-2005, 12:38 PM

I believe his name is Master Gou (sp?). He did a demo at the Master's Demonstration in The Midland Martial Arts Open Tournament where he did the Chen form. He demonstrated awesome power when he did that, so, when I found out that he was giving a seminar the next day, I signed up. I don't know much about him other than he's from China and doesn't speak much English. I've watched Tai Chi demos before and was quite bored, his was the first that made me want to try doing some tai chi myself...

Anyway, he kept it pretty basic at the seminar. He did a series of stance drills and exercises, and one chi gung exercise, and then he taught us only about 5 movements in the form, but it killed my legs. He invited a couple of us to try to shove him and he threw us like little girls. I do Judo so I thought I had a good root... I don't. He demonstrated two things to me when I tried to shove him: 1) I couldn't move him no matter how hard I pushed (this was something he didn't say or tell the class-- it was more of a look he gave me when I pushed him and it honestly felt like I was trying to shove a brick wall) 2) then he yielded and I went flying.

What makes him "real" is that you can tell when someone knows his stuff. Most American tai chi people can't fight their way out of a wet paper sack. They do YMCA tai chi and know nothing about the combat applications. They are boring and only talk about the health benefits-- mostly because they suck and can't or don't know how to fight.

This guy was awesome and was quite ready to throw down with whoever. I've never quite seen anything like it before. So, how do I know what's real and what's not-- by comparing it to what I know from studying 7 star mantis and by having met a lot of different Sifu over the years. I can spot BS in a second.

The seminar actually inspired me to want to seek out a Chen teacher in the states.

Liokault

05-30-2005, 01:53 PM

I do Judo so I thought I had a good root... I don't. He demonstrated two things to me when I tried to shove him: 1) I couldn't move him no matter how hard I pushed (this was something he didn't say or tell the class-- it was more of a look he gave me when I pushed him and it honestly felt like I was trying to shove a brick wall) 2) then he yielded and I went flying.
.

Interesting. I have yet to find a guy who couldnt be pushed over, just guys who didnt want to look for the trick.

oasis

05-30-2005, 05:31 PM

might it have been him from Cali? (http://www.chen-taiji-la.com/home.html)

fiercest tiger

05-30-2005, 07:22 PM

Tell him to fight in MMA if he thinks he can mix it with anyone. No such thing as root by the way!

Boxers are better....

FT

TaichiMantis

09-12-2005, 11:50 AM

Mortal1

09-12-2005, 01:03 PM

"Can he fight against a resisting opponent who is dodging his punches and trying to hit him back? Or can he only defeat someone who throws a punch from a bow and arrow stance that wouldn't hit him even if the Tai Chi guy just stood there, and then leaves his arm extended after the punch to allow the 10-hit combo to be performed on him?"

LOLOLO! I LOVE IT! Thank God I wasn't drinking coffee!

GunnedDownAtrocity

09-12-2005, 02:44 PM

i heard this guy finger ****s german shepherds and drowns baby birds in his sink. seriously ... hes one sick little jerk.

i think he kicks old ladies out into traffic too.

oh yeah ... kung for is the suxors noob.

YuanZhideDiZhen

09-12-2005, 02:55 PM

i have heard of the kind of term often referred to as "root" before. it is similar in concept to the way tong bei sets it's driving force through the small of the back and grounds in the lie he manner of rolling from heel to toe in the walking exercise. really, it's referred to as 'foundation'.

that quote about the ten strike is pretty funny. worth being in someone's signature... :cool:

EarthDragon

09-13-2005, 06:26 AM

Mighty B, I am glad you got to see real taji.
its just a shame that the amount of taiji teachers in this county are few and far between.

whats worse are the people on this board who dont have the faintest idea about the power and simplicity you can use to overcome your opponent. this stems from is life long pratice of real martial arts and not based opionons out of ignorance or lack of experience.

Dont get me wrong there are some people out there that actually CAN fight, but for the most part they judge something simply becuse they dont understand...., have not put in enough time.... or lack the knowledge.
for others they have taken a few years of martial arts, beat up some weaker kids in high school and then pretend to know what they are talking about.

I often hear inexperienced martial artists comparing taij with wearing silk pajama's and teaching senior citizens. This could not be ****her from the truth. While it does have great health benifits ingnorance is no excuse to judge something which one has no right to.

Just because it has not been turned into a sport like all the other watered down MMA crap out there does not mean it doesnt work. its just the people that say these things have not felt, seen, or fought a master....... BTW if it didnt work better than any other martial art that came from China..... they wouldnt have named it grand ultimate!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

PS who are the people that said there is no such thing as rooting??????? LMAO
this is my point exactly

Brad

09-13-2005, 07:45 AM

BTW if it didnt work better than any other martial art that came from China..... they wouldnt have named it grand ultimate!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I think you're not helping yourself calling other people ignorant then saying something like this :rolleyes: Taiji rocks, but lots of ignorant people think it's called "grand ultimate" because it was better than everything else. When tai and ji are put together it refers to a philisophical concept (think of the "yin yang" symbol), not that it's the best or ultimate martial art.

SPJ

09-13-2005, 08:01 AM

Yes. You have the correct.

There are many legends and theories about how Tai Chi 13 postures came about.

Some said Wang Zhong Yue espoused them. Some said it was from Zhang San Feng a daoist priest.

The postures are seen thru out all styles.

Peng Lu Ji An Cai Lie Zhou Kao and 5 steps.

What make Chen Tai Chi differ from the other?

The answers may be in all the classics written by Tai Chi practitioners over the years.

Rooting is difficult to explain in Tai Chi.

Dan Tian is the center and the spine is the axis. The waist has the main rotation or revolution.

For all these to work lies in the 5 steps and weight shifting between steps.

So all these are roots or foundations.

----

:confused:

EarthDragon

09-13-2005, 10:24 AM

brad,..............................
just curious about where did you get your information? was this something you read? or was it taught to you? if you want to really know the relationship between the fighting art and the philosophy allow me to post a quick explantion. below.......

as for my statement, when we are talking about the classics when tai ji was first invented before it was even named.....Chen San Feng its creator developed a different methodology o fighting and no other martial art at the time could defeat the path or avenue used in this obscure way of fighting therefore the monks called it the grand ultimate or supreme fist.

therefore it was most definatly named for its superiority not for the method and comparable philosophy it had in comon with ying yang... just a note.

Tai chi is an ancient Chinese martial art, It means Grand Ultimate Fist.It is most often referred to as a internal Martial art indicating that the emphasis is placed on strengthening the mind, circulating the chi, and relaxing the body so that is free to move. Beyond its Martial application however it is also a complete system of physics and philosophy, best characterized by the tai chi symbol known to Americans as the (yin yang circle) with in this symbol to semi circles of dark (yin) and white (yang) make a complete circle as they constantly merge into each other , Symbolizing the spirit of "moving harmony"this harmony of motion describes the laws of yin and Yang which assert that in the phenomenal world both physical and energetic.
All existence is a relationship between these two , for without left there can be no right, without night there is no day and Countless others. In the system Yang represents all that is expressive,productive and strength oriented ,yin is receptive yielding an internal. In the martial aspect of tai chi, the relationship between the yielding force of yin and the unbending force of yang forms the core of the fighting technique. The yielding force is used to avoid or redirect opponents attack,while the unbending force is used to counter attack.this change from yielding to a bending is achieved in the form of Circle therefore the main pattern of tai chi is like many circles spiralling continuously without end. In application these principles led to force, which Master Ching Man Ching once described as replied 2,000 pounds with four ounces.

EarthDragon

09-13-2005, 10:31 AM

SPJj,
Just want to clarify one thing you said... you posted that the dantien is the center.

this is not true. actually the fu zhong shin is the center of the body located between the dantien and the mingmendirectly beneath the baiwei.

So if we are speaking about the lower dantien is located in the front part of the trunk. not the center.. be well

zenjer

09-13-2005, 10:55 AM

Master Gou is in UK, Oxford right now, teaching full time.

His site is www.mastergou.co.uk

He teaches taiji for health for seniors and taiji gongfu (combat taiji) for all other classes. He also includes a weapons programme (including taiji gongfu fan, da dao, jian and duan gun).

Liokault

09-13-2005, 11:13 AM

[QUOTE=zenjer]Master Gou is in UK, Oxford right now, teaching full time.

[QUOTE]

I hear he sucks, AND hes a grandmaster of somthing that he made up himself lol.

GunnedDownAtrocity

09-13-2005, 01:59 PM

i dont get it ... on that site video 9 was gymnastics and video 8 was someones messy ass house.

BlueTravesty

09-13-2005, 07:02 PM

<.sarcasm>
Chen Taiji can't be used for combat. These reasons should make it quite clear as to why this foolish myth needs to just disappear-

1. It is taiji/tai chi, which means it's just hippies moving very slowly. This applies to all tai chi and there are no exceptions.
2. Low occurrence of shaven heads among Taiji practitioners. This is very important in combat.
3. They wear pants instead of shorts. Shorts are crucial to being able to posess any sort of fighting ability.
4. Combat Taiji practitioners have this odd hang up with trying to strike or repel their opponent where INSTEAD they should lift the guys legs and roll around a bit in positions that, when photographed, look VERY comprimising, AND THEN strike him. I mean, duh.

So I think that explains beyond a doubt that absolutely no style of Taiji can be used for combat.

Don't forget- the earth is flat, all generalizations are wrong, and 8 out of 10 statistics are made up. :cool: </.sarcasm>

*still chuckling at the no root thing*

SPJ

09-13-2005, 07:21 PM

In the early 80's, my 2 brothers and I were shown Chen Tai Chi duel or 2 man sparring drills of 37 postures.

We all got interested. After we started the lessons, we all regreted sort of initially.

Hold this posture for 5 to 10 min, move a bit and hold another posture for 5 to 10 min,

We all thought that when it is going to end? 37 postures timed by 5 to 10 min?

Oh boy.

:D

zenjer

09-14-2005, 01:48 AM

Apologies about the state of the website right now, we're still in construction!

SPJ

09-14-2005, 07:48 AM

a link (http://www.ohioshaolin.com/internalclasses_files/tai_chi_chuan_snake_and_crane.htm)

qi journal (http://qi-journal.com/Taiji.asp?-token.SearchID=Taiji%20Basics)

origin (http://www.chiflow.com/html/Taijiquan_origins.htm)

link (http://www.taichiamerica.com/Introduction.htm#Origin & History)

:D

FatherDog

09-14-2005, 09:46 AM

I'm perfectly willing to believe that Chen Taiji can be used for real fighting, but I think it's funny that MightyB's answer for why he thinks this guy can really fight consists of "He was hard to push."

MightyB

09-14-2005, 01:18 PM

It's not the guy from the UK. This guy was here with two women. One I guess teaches somewhere in Chicago. I believe he still lives in China. It was one of those impulsive things to attend the seminar so I don't know his name-- plus he wasn't confident in speaking English-- yet. He spoke and understood English, he just needs to be able to practice speaking it a little more.

And no, it wasn't that he was hard to push that made me want to attend the seminar, it was how much power and speed he had when he did a couple of punches in the form. Chen is slow then really fast, then slow, then really really fast, etc.

Believe me, I've seen enough of you wankers out there trying to do forms and there's not a one of ya that can impress me... it takes someone special to impress upon me the idea that they can fight. :D

"Can strong rooting generate powerful

- kick?
- lock?
- throw?

Can strong rooting resist against

- punch to the head?
- kick to the grion?
- any kind of lock?
- any kind of throw?"

Do you even practice the Martial arts? Where do you think the ability to do Chin Na and throwing come from. Step onto a judo mat and see if you can throw somebody if you have a weak root. Try to do a small wrist wrap from chin na against someone who's resisting you without having a solid root and good jing.

BlueTravesty

09-14-2005, 03:01 PM

You mean you can't lock/grapple space? Better cancel that fight against the Predators' top warrior on the moon then. And I thougt I had that thing locked :(

Christopher M

09-14-2005, 03:08 PM

I think it's funny that MightyB's answer for why he thinks this guy can really fight consists of "He was hard to push."

Because control of posture, position, and balance has nothing to do with fighting?

EarthDragon

09-15-2005, 05:50 AM

you know who,
I have to disagree with somethings you have said

I teach 8 step and it uses 40 throws form shuai chiao. I can assure you your explantion of throwing is a little off,or perhaps explained incorectly. please elaborate.

you said

How could you tell whether someone could fight or not just from his form? Can you play chess by just yourself?

huh?

Most of the throwing require 45 to even 30 degree body leaning toward the throwing direction with single leg balance.

not true. no need for these drastic degrees of angles in many throws, nor single leg balance with the exception of bung tiao, ding kwai, du hui, ma bow ti and a few others.

If you just think about your own root then you can never throw anybody.

again not true, not sure exactly what you are trying to say here.

The 1st thing that you learn in the throwing art is "willing to destroy your own root during throwing".

first thing you learn in throwing is phsyics leverage and angles.

Tie a bicycle tub on the tree will be a good training tool for that. When you pull the bicycle tub with your body spinning, if you are not willing to destroy your root and balance the counter force from the tub by your body weight then you will be pulled back by the tub. You won't be pulled back by the bicycle tub if you have "no root".

huh?

In the throwing world, strong root = you are not using your own body weight and gravity properly = failure in your throwing.

what world is this you speak of? ones own body weight has little to do with throwing. leverage, angles, center and balance does. a 115 lb girl can throw a 250 lb man tell me what her body weight has to do with the throw????

If you don't use body momentum along with your locking then your small wrist lock won't work against any resistence opponent. Locking and throwing should always be combined together by using the body momentum.

agreed with a small wrap. but locking and throwing are seperate issues. however You can lock up someone without moving your center or lower body. you can also use softening techiniques to acomplish the same.

FatherDog

09-15-2005, 09:03 AM

Because control of posture, position, and balance has nothing to do with fighting?

Strength has to do with fighting, too. If a guy has a huge deadlift, does that mean he can fight?

Flexibility has to do with fighting, too. If a guy can do a full split, does that mean he can fight?

Cardio has to do with fighting, too. If a guy can run the hundred meteres without breathing hard, does that mean he can fight?

EarthDragon

09-16-2005, 06:46 AM

youknowho,
most of what you have said in your response to my post makes much more sense then your first post. or perhaps I inturperated it in correctly , but I agree with most of the latter.

Fighting involve:

- two persons, with proper
- entering strategy, and
- finish strategy,

which cannot be seen in any sole form.

but you can still get an idea of how one could fight seeing how they move, with grace, power generation, speed and fluidity. I am not saying that a good forms person is a automatcily good fighter, but you CAN get an idea if you see a master do a form, you can pretty much tell if he knows his $hit by his power generation and placement of the feet.

Most of the throwing require 45 to even 30 degree body leaning toward the throwing direction with single leg balance.

All throwing requires either spining, upward, downward, or forward motion. The body momentum play a big part in it. Momentum means your body is in a fast moving or spinning situation.
agreed

If you just think about your own root then you can never throw anybody
.
do not agree, you must always think about your root , foundation, weight distribution and foot placment and balance.

You have to:

- destroy your own root,
- use your weight and gravity to pull your opponent off root (Ser Fen - commit), and then
- regain your root.
do not agree

never destroy your root, this is tied to your balance, you can never lose either

The 1st thing that you learn in the throwing art is "willing to destroy your own root during throwing".
do not agree, before you ever throw someone you must first learn the phsysics that go along with the art....... leverage, angles etc etc
you must learn these things before you ever attempt to physically throw. you learn to feel your balance with practice but lets not put the cart before the horse.

If you don't Ser Fen - commit on your throwing then your opponent could pull you backward.
agreed on the commitment part. you must commit 100% but this does not mean you lose your root or balance.

In the throwing world, strong root = you are not using your own body weight and gravity properly = failure in your throwing.

huh? strong root is partially due to your own body weight. gravitational pull is less then 13%.
gravity plays little part in a throw, momentum, arch, cyntrifical (sp?) force etc etc

If you don't use body momentum along with your locking then your small wrist lock won't work against any resistence opponent. Locking and throwing should always be combined together by using the body momentum.

you need not use momentum to lock, chin na has many stationary locks.
you do to throw but not to lock.

The purpose of locking is to destroy your opponent's balance.

not true

the purpose of locking is to seize the joint, limb, muscle, bone , ligament, tendon etc etc

When you practice your SC forms, do you try to:
- maintain your root?, or
- throw yourself to the ground?

always maintain balance and root while throwing.

throw my self to the ground?????? huh?

This is why people select "down hill slope" to practice. Since they cannot maintain their root even if they want to when they:

- face down the slop,
- drop their head downward, and
- kick their leg backward,

never heard anyone do this. however if you are speaking of throws like bungtiao then your finishing body position will be head lower then the backward up lifting leg. I will attach a picture of me performing this type of throw.

they would totally ignore their own root and develop the "power" and "commitment" that's needed for throwing.

never ignore your root, this is the foundation of balance, you cannot possibly throw if you have no balance. I think perhaps you are thing of root in a incorrect way. you can root in a single leg or (cold chicken stance)

please respond.

how long have you been doing shuai chiao?
I have posted some pics of my throws, please comment.

EarthDragon

09-16-2005, 06:53 AM

pics of shaui chio

MightyB

09-16-2005, 08:29 AM

I liked the one where you're dropping the guy on his head.

Something about root... I don't know SC, but the defensive stance in Judo is basically a low horse stance. Also, even a child instinctively knows to drop their weight when they don't want to be picked up. This is sinking and trying to strengthen their root. The fact of the matter is, is that when a person really doesn't want to be thrown, they sink their stance.

You can't be overly defensive (with your stance) in Judo competition because you'll get DQ'd.

These Chen people hold these insanely low stances for long periods of time. Their legs are incredibly strong.

In western boxing, you watch the boxers legs... strong legs is an indicator of how the boxer is doing... you often hear the commentators talking about strong legs and a thick neck etc... or "he's standing on rubbery legs".

Finny

09-16-2005, 09:58 AM

LMAO - Earthdragon lecturing John Wang on SC

Thanks for the laugh mate.

EarthDragon

09-16-2005, 10:32 AM

Finny,
I am not lecturing anyone. I am simply disagreing with somethings that he has said thats all.

Isnt this what this board was designed for.... to share opinons, experiences and such?

I have been learning shuai chiao for over 16 years but have been in martial arts for 26 and teaching for 8. As well as a generation diciple, so I am starting to understand a little in the grand scheme of things and not talking out of my arse or from lack of knowledge. So my opinons perhaps may have some merit.

greendragon

09-18-2005, 01:13 PM

Being rooted can mean staying "underweighted" while moving. Your center of balance is projected below ground and you do not give up your root. You throw by taking the opponents balance.
I have seen good and bad Chen under the same master. Some guys just don't get it, some masters don't teach the applications well in seminars (to non Chinese esp.).As for demonstrating immovable stance or anything there is always some wiseacre who can say 'well, I could do this.." They are taking the lesson out of context.
Most Tai Chi fighters could easily beat the sweaty little bald MMA guys if they wanted to lower themselves to having the intent to do harm to someone. Practicing for health benefit is the higher level of training. It takes more to heal someone where it is easy to destroy them. I have seen many real fights where the MMA guy got into the technically superior position, had the opponent wrapped in choke and leg lock, when the intended victim just stood up and broke the skinhead like an egg on the ground. (oops, no root). The only thing modern about MMA is not being trained for anything but sport with each other. Is that gay ? Martial Arts is more serious than sports and "reality" fighting means people are maimed or killed.
Rant over.

Christopher M

09-18-2005, 01:37 PM

Strength has to do with fighting, too. If a guy has a huge deadlift, does that mean he can fight? <and so on>

All else being equal, yes.

Moreover, the context of the attributes in question here is precisely that of martial engagement, rather than divorced from it, as is the case with deadlifts <and so on>.

When you roll with someone, you become aware of their skill, or lack thereof, in terms of space, pressure, and base, right? You might remark, after such an experience, "Yeah, that guy used space, pressure, and base really well, I'd love to study with him." What's the difference?

greendragon

09-18-2005, 03:32 PM

TRUE. Just stirring the waters to see what's in the pool. Back on topic, Tai Chi Chuan has some of the fastest and best fighters I have seen, some schools do not go for the fighting spirit, they miss the whole point and are not "rooted" at many levels. Others think they are so superior when they are jokes, it would be fun to humble them.

fiercest tiger

09-18-2005, 09:41 PM

There are alot more taiji schools and students that cannot fight then the odd MMA school that teach from the jump how to spar and fight. Ok we are not using knives and guns, but a guy with a half a brain in MMA can easily switch to street survival and jump on the skull as well as any Internal martial arts guy out there.

MMA teaches people quicker how to fight then any other fighting art these days, unless they are a traditional school with NO FORMS!!

FT :p

EarthDragon

09-19-2005, 07:51 AM

YouKnowWho,
Yes perhaps we are both agreeing but using the word ROOT in different contexts.

you said......
[B]I think we have a bit problem on the word "root" here. Most of the time root = balance.

yes I agree

Even a guy with IQ of 20 would know that the lower that you have in your stance, the better balance that you have.

obviously

Too much emphasis on the root could make you be "too defensive" and afraid of taking risk.

true....... however I would not go as far to say you "forget" or "loose" your root in order to be offensive.

Everytime you execute a throw, you take chance to be countered by your opponent

this goes without saying, but I would bet that the practioner that has better balance/root would have the advantage.

. In those two throwing pictures that you presented, You are in a single leg balance and at that moment, your root is weaker compare to with both legs on the ground.

agreed 100 percent

So the definition of "root" should be "the ability to regain balance after "lossing" it (the word "loosing" play an important role here - also our main debating issue)" and not just "stand on both feet and refuse to do anything"."

depends on how you look at it, I would never agree to loosing my root/ balance for a second however spinning, manipulating, recentering and refocusing my root would be a clearer explantion, but I would always be aware of my root or I run the risk of loosing it and being uprooted then thrown by my opponent. One can still root in a single leg position.
Obviously we are both knowledgeable and looking at the same thing from a different view and with a different explanation.

So you Eight Steps PM came from Wei Hsiao Tang. Could you share who your SC teacher is?

shuai chiao was first introduced by Feng Hua Yi 3rd generation from Chiang Hua Long. He implemented that along with chin na. What lineage it comes from we dont know as little was known about him.
My shrfu Xun kwan long invited a shuaio chiao master from taiwan a couple years ago to correct some of the throws. Certain translations verbal and written lacked certain elements of execution. mostly the direction of the opponent after the throw. I am pressed to remember his name but he was famous in taipei.

__________________

FatherDog

09-19-2005, 11:21 AM

All else being equal, yes.

But all else is not equal; or at least, we have no proof it is one way or the other. As far as was noted, this man has no history of fighting, and he did not "cross hands" with anyone at the seminar for them to evaluate his fighting skill. All he did was invite them to push him, make himself difficult to push, and then sidestep. My high school physics teacher can do that.

Please note, I am not saying that this man can't fight; I have no knowledge of that one way or the other. I'm saying that demonstrating that he's difficult to push is not a measure of fighting skill.

When you roll with someone, you become aware of their skill, or lack thereof, in terms of space, pressure, and base, right? You might remark, after such an experience, "Yeah, that guy used space, pressure, and base really well, I'd love to study with him." What's the difference?

Because rolling is a combative activity in which you try to assert your will on someone in a highly variable environment. Attempting to push someone is a non-variable parlour trick. There is a vast gulf of difference.

Christopher M

09-19-2005, 08:22 PM

But all else is not equal; or at least, we have no proof it is one way or the other.

There's an internal contradiction here. "We have no proof [..] one way or the other" is the same as "all else being equal."

As far as was noted, this man has no history of fighting

Yes he does. He practices a martial art and developed the attribute in question in that context.

All he did was invite them to push him, make himself difficult to push, and then sidestep.

I wasn't there, so I don't know what happened, but based on my experience with these things, one or both of two things happened:

First, the demonstrator could have asked, as you suggest, someone to offer a 'dumb push' in order to demonstrate his management of an incoming force. Contrary to your argument, I maintain that this is a martially-pertinent skill. Being able to manage force imposed upon you while maintaining constructive posture, position, and balance is perhaps the central attribute in martial engagement (whether standing or rolling).

Secondly, the demonstrator could have asked someone to offer a 'smart push.' 'Push,' in the context of taijiquan training, is a general term referring to a 'soft sparring' or grappling engagement at the standing level, which includes grounded (as opposed to leaning) pushes, yielding, joint attacks, and so on. In other words, it refers to precisely "a combative activity in which you try to assert your will on someone in a highly variable environment."

In either case, I expect that someone with a background in fighting is generally able to tell when their force is being handled constructively and when they are on the receiving end of a parlor trick. Despite your ignorance of taijiquan, I expect that you would be able to identify the skillful body mechanics of a talented taijiquan exponent when you experience them first hand; just like I expect a taijiquan exponent to be able to recognize the skillful body mechanics of a BJJ or catch stylist, in spite of his ignorance of them. I don't see any reason to assume, as a principle and with no evidence, that the original poster here is more of a dullard that you or I, such that he'd be blind to these nuances.

Certainly, this is a possibility, but I'm not yet so jaded as to assume it by default.

EarthDragon

09-20-2005, 10:45 AM

you know who,
I am so sorry, but i am not able to view those files you posted as my work computer is networked and not able to view moving type files.
I am truley sorry but anxious to see them so perhaps I will have to go to a friends house and watch them.

Perhaps we are meaning the same thing but explaining it differently, this is common. BTW I could try to explain it in madarin but this might confuse the issue more LOL.

FatherDog

09-20-2005, 12:07 PM

There's an internal contradiction here. "We have no proof [..] one way or the other" is the same as "all else being equal."

No, it isn't, and your initial "all else being equal" was wrong, anyway.

Having a large deadlift aids demonstrates strong core muscles, which aid in fighting, but do not mean you can fight.

Being hard to push demonstrates balance and center, which aid in fighting, but do not mean you can fight.

Yes he does. He practices a martial art and developed the attribute in question in that context.

Practicing a martial art does not mean you can fight, nor does it equal a history of fighting.

I wasn't there, so I don't know what happened, but based on my experience with these things, one or both of two things happened:

First, the demonstrator could have asked, as you suggest, someone to offer a 'dumb push' in order to demonstrate his management of an incoming force. Contrary to your argument, I maintain that this is a martially-pertinent skill. Being able to manage force imposed upon you while maintaining constructive posture, position, and balance is perhaps the central attribute in martial engagement (whether standing or rolling).

See above regarding deadlifts.

Understanding the basic and fundamental concepts of arithmatic is perhaps the central attribute in doing higher math. Nonetheless, demonstrating a thorough understanding of arithmatic does not mean you are good at higher math; merely that you possess one of the fundamental requirements for being good.

Similarly, "Being able to manage force imposed upon you while maintaining constructive posture, position, and balance" does not mean that you can fight; merely that you possess one of the necessary requirements for being able to fight.

Secondly, the demonstrator could have asked someone to offer a 'smart push.' 'Push,' in the context of taijiquan training, is a general term referring to a 'soft sparring' or grappling engagement at the standing level, which includes grounded (as opposed to leaning) pushes, yielding, joint attacks, and so on. In other words, it refers to precisely "a combative activity in which you try to assert your will on someone in a highly variable environment."

The description from the original poster sounded like a "dumb push" to me. However...

In either case, I expect that someone with a background in fighting is generally able to tell when their force is being handled constructively and when they are on the receiving end of a parlor trick. Despite your ignorance of taijiquan, I expect that you would be able to identify the skillful body mechanics of a talented taijiquan exponent when you experience them first hand; just like I expect a taijiquan exponent to be able to recognize the skillful body mechanics of a BJJ or catch stylist, in spite of his ignorance of them. I don't see any reason to assume, as a principle and with no evidence, that the original poster here is more of a dullard that you or I, such that he'd be blind to these nuances.

Even were this true and it were a "smart push", it would still not demonstrate that he was able to fight, as per my statements above.

Nor, for that matter, would I assume that someone I rolled with was able to fight simply because they possessed a high degree of grappling skill - certainly they are more likely to be able to fight than someone with lousy grappling skill, but MMA is full of example of sportive grappling phenoms who have been destroyed in the ring, because of their inability to effectively strike or deal with strikes (and vice versa for striking phenoms).

Even a "smart push" is an order of magnitude less than rolling or throwing randori, which is an order of magnitude less than actual (even light) sparring with strikes and throwing/grappling/bridging. A well handled "smart push" is not indicative of fighting ability.

EarthDragon

09-20-2005, 12:23 PM

just my 2 cents,if I may.........
I think father and chris are both correct to each others extent.

I have seen many people perform some awsome kata/kuen in many of the tourneys I have judged. then step into the ring and get whooped.

However I have seen demo's from some people that show great skill and many years of pratice while moving with fluid and grace then deonstrate that skill with obvious knowldge of real situational fighting.

then I have seen body builders and bouncers beat up by 150 lbs ****ed of street fighters.

so can you say that either of these exapmples are correct?

obviously we cannot judge the book by the cover however once I have seen someone move it will give you an example of how they COULD react in a fight and how experienced they are. however this is not always true.

I asked a shrfu to teach me a weapon for the longest time. all I asked was to see him move with his weapon before I paid for lessons. He would never pick up any of the 40 weapons he had in his kwon. Should I tassume that he could use them based on his collection and knowledge of them?

Christopher M

09-20-2005, 02:34 PM

...

Indeed, the various training programs of martial arts do not constitute fighting itself. However, this observation leaves us with a dilemma: either we refrain from any judging of martial skill (and thereby from any judgement of whether or not a given training regime is martially useful to us) except following an attempted murder of the exponent, or else we admit the inaccuracy of our method and judge as best we can based upon these approximations. To me, the latter seems to be dramatically more useful, and so I have employed it as an underlying context in my remarks here.

Since the original poster is not at liberty to attempt murder, and has a pragmatic requirement to judge the utility of a martial training program, it's warranted that he make the sort of approximate judgements of which I have spoken; and ignore the nihilistic framework of your remarks.

FatherDog

09-21-2005, 09:17 AM

Indeed, the various training programs of martial arts do not constitute fighting itself. However, this observation leaves us with a dilemma: either we refrain from any judging of martial skill (and thereby from any judgement of whether or not a given training regime is martially useful to us) except following an attempted murder of the exponent, or else we admit the inaccuracy of our method and judge as best we can based upon these approximations. To me, the latter seems to be dramatically more useful, and so I have employed it as an underlying context in my remarks here.

Since the original poster is not at liberty to attempt murder, and has a pragmatic requirement to judge the utility of a martial training program, it's warranted that he make the sort of approximate judgements of which I have spoken; and ignore the nihilistic framework of your remarks.

False dichotomy. I noted that even light sparring is suitable for judging some degree of someone's martial skill. A highly limited engagement such as a "smart push" is not. Sparring of any sort was not engaged in, and therefore there was no suitable test of his martial skill.