Question for water Dragon

[maoshan]

I kinda think that Taiji is more sophisticated and advanced than Bagua. (I pasted this from what you wrote)

Could you please tell how? I assume that you have had a good amount of time in your sytem, so please elaborate.

Peace
Maoshan:confused:

[brucelee2]

Isn't there a traditional saying that goes "It takes three years to learn to fight with hsing- i, five years for bagua, and eight years for tai chi?" That would seem to back up Water Dragon.

[maoshan]

I think i remember that phrase along the years,
but TELL ME WHY?

And before anyone thinks I'm biased because I do BaGua,
I've studied the Nie Chia, Hebei and Honan Xing-I as well as Chen , Fu and a little Wu style Tai Chi. In fact I love Chen But still that does not change my question. WHY?

[Water Dragon]

Maoshan, No prob Bro. I think you mis-read what I said. I said I think Taiji is more sophisticated because I was in it longer.

Being a Bagua man, you would think Bagua was more sophisticated because of your time in the trenches. Same for the Hsing Yi guys.

I feel that there's a base level in all martial arts. It may be easier to grasp (Hsing Yi) or harder to grasp (Tai ji). However, there comes a point when you do get past that base level and begin to see the "guts" of the system, the layers in the onion.

You're also probably not gonna see that in other arts as you don't have the time in. Doesn't mean it's not there.

Go back and read the thread where I posted that. It'll probably sound more like

No art has the one up on any other. They all have their thing, but are all deep as hell. Your perspective will depend on your experience

Peace

[Esteban]

Hi Maoshan,

I have also heard that it takes less time to apply bagua than tjq. I don't know where that particular "saying" came from, but imho it is probably not so old. It certainly does not mean that tjq is more sophisticated than bagua. I think you're really asking why it takes longer to learn apply tjq, and I think it has only to do with the theory/strategy and the training. Bagua is more "directly" martial in intent, though the strategy is different. The footwork/body training also makes applications less obvious. Tjq contains "kobu" and "baibu" too, but they are used in lines --to form squares or triangles, fwiw-- not in circles. Well, of course imo, tjq does depend on "stepping" and transitions, not posture. At the same time, that important aspect is often the least emphasized if not the last emphasized. Bagua people are trained to move right from the beginning, and the applications are/should imo be derived "from" the movements. Anyway, I'm a long time tjq guy, and I'd still say that bagua is more sophisticated in terms of physical movement, in most cases, but only because of the training. I think the "sensitivity" aspect is more refined in tjq because the physical is often de-emphasized. I personally believe that both bagua and tjq can contain all the good parts of all the neijia.

Respects,
Esteban

[Water Dragon]

Esteben is correct. I think Taiji takes longer for the simple fact that the art is based around the sensitivity acquired during Tui Shou. I'm finally at the point where it's hard to attack me because my body just adjusts out of the attack. It doesn't matter if it's a strike, throw, kick. I can't really explain other than I feel uncomfortable and my body adjusts itself to make it more comfortable. Took me 5 years to get that. NOW I get to start focusing on the good stuff because I'm ready.

[beaudacious]

i feel bagua on a basic level can be used more quick than tai chi. However to efficiently and fully utilize either could take a good many years depending on the individual. IMHO i feel technically that ba gua is a bit more sophisticated but that is biased because i have only done a very small amount of tai chi over the years.

[NafAnal]

What about poor old xingyi? Doesn't even get a mention. It seems to me that the general consensus is that Xingyi is the "lowest" of the three internal arts..... anybody care to say why?

There was some talk of taiji being hard to grasp because of it's focus on sensitivity. Doesn't xingyi emphasize sensitivity too? Albeit later on but i think i remember reading in one of Tim Cartmell's books- The 6 harmonies are united in attack and disjointed in defence. The aim being to get sensitivity to such a degree that you will turn and yield to a light breeze. (it was something along those lines... probably not totally accurate so don't bite me head off)

[Esteban]

Hi NafAnal,

I didn't leave out Xingyi (or even Xinyi). The discussion was about which took longer to learn to apply, bagua or tjq. You wrote:

"It seems to me that the general consensus is that Xingyi is the "lowest" of the three internal arts..... "

"Lowest"? not my opinion at all. Yes, the general consensus, ime, is that it takes the least amount of time to learn how to apply the movements. Some people rely only on "Pi", and some teachers might teach you that the first day. However, it works -for attack and defense-- if the movement/s is/are done correctly. Leaning what "correctly" means can take many years. "Pi" is --imho as before-- just as sophisticated as any other "fist" or "palm" in the internal ars. As for the sensitivity issue, Cartmell is right about it being in Xingyi. Although, I bet he'd also say --you can ask on his board-- that Shuaijiao developed sensitivity, too. (Wing Chun relies on sensitivity, too, but not the same as tjq.) My point, is that it's not the same as tjq sensitivity, exactly, nor is it trained the same. Of course, nothing stops the tjq or bagua player from using any form of step or type of sensitivity. Anyway, all this doesn't mean that liuhebafa isn't as sophisticated than her 3 cousins.

Respects,
Esteban

[NafAnal]

sorry if you took offence mate, i wasn't referring to anyone in particular... ;)

[Esteban]

No offence taken, nor thought intended. It was a good question.

Best,
Esteban

[Nexus]

Just spend the next 60 years learning all three internal arts, no sense making comparisons when you can have all of them!

- Nexus

[maoshan]

Peace

Water Dragon
[Being a Bagua man, you would think Bagua was more sophisticated because of your time in the trenches. Same for the Hsing Yi guys.]

While it’s true that I’ve been in Ba-Gua for more than 20yrs, at the same time I was learning Xing-I and Tai Chi. I take nothing from them.

[I feel that there's a base level in all martial arts. It may be easier to grasp (Hsing Yi) or harder to grasp (Tai ji). However, there comes a point when you do get past that base level and begin to see the "guts" of the system, the layers in the onion.]

Exactly! In order for me to form my opinion I had to put the time in. As I said before I’ve studied the Nei Chia all three, and not just theory But by putting them through the test also I didn’t just scratch the surface.

[You're also probably not gonna see that in other arts as you don't have the time in. Doesn't mean it's not there.]

As I just wrote.

[No art has the one up on any other. They all have their thing, but are all deep as hell. Your perspective will depend on your experience]

Exactly!

Estaban

[I have also heard that it takes less time to apply bagua than tjq.]

I disagree, for two reasons
1. The body articulations are not easy for most to just grab on to and
2. The Timing of a true Bagua practitioner is a b***h to get down pact
The combination of these two aspects on the higher levels takes years to accomplish. Also, the ability to get behind your opponent is not something you can just do to an experienced fighter. It requires meticulous training.
Tai Chi on the other hand is Shaolin combined with Taoist theory. While you may not be able to apply the theory you can use the moves because in general all fighting is the same. From the very onset BaGua does not conform to that general theory EX: Constant motion, the body moves in different directions simultaneously.
[I think you're really asking why it takes longer to learn apply tjq, and I think it has only to do with the theory/strategy and the training. Bagua is more "directly" martial in intent, though the strategy is different.]

Tai chi is and always was a Martial Art. “Martial in Intent”? All styles of tai Chi that we see today all derived from Chen village, and they fought. The yang’s fought. Only after yang cheng Fu did it become as we see now, (less intent). It’s a written fact that he taught this way only to the general public.
Originally the Tai Chi stylist had some awesome training methods. I saw else where on this site where the question was asked about weights and the Internal I didn’t look at it but it’s also a fact that Yang cheng Fu used to practice with a 40 pound weight attached to a string-rope tied to his index finger. Fu Chen Sung, founder of the Fu style used to practice with a stone ball, which he learned from Yang Cheng Fu. The Taoist Kwan Sai Hung who learned directly from Yang attested to this and more. I see nothing of it today.
So that less intent bit is out the window as far as I’m concerned. The scholars did that. That theory is not true Tai Chi.

[Tjq contains "kobu" and "baibu" too, but they are used in lines --to form squares or triangles, fwiw-- not in circles.]

You’ll have to tell me where tai Chi contains these stepping methods. It’s in the Fu style and Sun style because these founders were Ba-Gua practitioners Other than that it doesn’t exist.

[Well, of course imo, tjq does depend on "stepping" and transitions, not posture.]
Then what are the thirteen postures all about then?

[I think the "sensitivity" aspect is more refined in tjq because the physical is often de-emphasized.]

Dead wrong!
Ba-Gua is just as sensitive as TIQ. We train in push hands as much as free fighting. Also, walking the circle has levels of development. It was originally a form of meditation where the theory “stillness in movement, Movement in stillness” was physically manifested by a still upper body with the legs in motion all the while relaxing. One of my closest friends (who is a Wu stylist) and I practiced for 10yrs learning how to use our systems, and he was no more sensitive than I and this boy is bad! He’s one of the few Chinese that I know that can really use Tai Chi. And again, that less physical aspect is not right, the true practioners train in many similar methods that we do such as banging trees, and other conditioning methods as well as free fighting. The only way you’ll be able to truly apply the soft is to be attacked hard. (Hard in an intense way) if you can’t do it under pressure it’s fake.


Now this was not to dis anyone. But I am seeing that most are not doing their research on their systems, as well as not hard core practitioners. Check this out, I know tai chi Teachers that are known for their Tai Chi but also know Ba-Gua and won’t teach because:
1. For the most part it’s to complicated to learn and they don’t have the patience to teach those with no potential.
2. It’s of a higher level because it was designed to face multiple opponents
And again unless the student had potential it would take too long to learn.

Other aspects about Tai chi that are not trained are that like, Ba-Gua your supposed to learn on the left and right sides. All the practitioners I’ve encountered were right sided which gives me an advantage. Also Most Tai chi people have no stamina because all they do is the slow form. It’s great for circulation but does nothing for the muscles or breath in terms of sifting intensities. I suggest more research and Training.

No disrespect toward anyone intended but I’ve been here a long time.
If someone has some thing to teach me please do

Maoshan

[blacktaoist]

Man you hit Them Tai Chi Boys with a book."
GOOD Reply'

Peace.:D :D :o :D :D Next internal scholat in line:o :o

[bamboo_ leaf]

hi maoshan,

intresting views,

You seem to make many statements on TC as if it applies to all TC not just the ones that you are familiar with.

I don’t understand how you could have studied TC for 20 yrs and not found the other arts contained within it.

As for training methods,
I think history reflects those that tell the story.

Actually it doesn’t really matter. It’s a live art expressed though the understanding of practicner as all arts are.


I think and concur with Water Dragon. TC seeks balance; anything that is unbalanced gets thrown out. It’s not the intent but more of a reaction. This is the main difference that I have found in respects to TC and all other arts is the MA intent.

This usually is most strong with those who seek power, speed and movement to overcome others. They don’t understand that there is another way. Not a better way just another way.


I think TC maybe depending on the style really requires a different mindset. (I am not going to kick your ass; I am going to help you kick your own ass)

totally agree that it must be as you say pressure tested/ very much not easy to really do!!! :)

Interesting posts

[Esteban]

Hi Maoshan,

good points. Your first issue was "why would someone think it took longer to learn to apply tjq than bagua." I thought you were disagreeing with that. I was agreeing with you, actually. I don't think that tjq is more sophisticated than bagua. Anyway, as a "taiji" guy, I'll give it a go, but these are my own opinons.

Esteban:

[I have also heard that it takes less time to apply bagua than tjq.]

[M]
I disagree, for two reasons
1. The body articulations are not easy . . .
2. The Timing of a true Bagua practitioner is a b***h .
The combination of these two aspects on the higher levels takes years to accomplish.

Esteban:
I think that bagua players usually work on applications that are based on their particular training earlier than tjq players do. This is not universal; it depends on one's tjq or bg teacher. Ime, however, a lot more people do tjq for purely health reasons than bagua people do.

[M]
Also, the ability to get behind your opponent ... requires meticulous training.

Esteban
Sure, never said different.

[M]
Tai Chi on the other hand is Shaolin combined with Taoist theory.

Esteban
You should start a thread on that. But, even if I agreed, that doesn't meant that tjq requires any less meticulous training.

[M]
While you may not be able to apply the theory you can use the moves because in general all fighting is the same.

Esteban
Not true; if it was all the tjq players would be able to use the moves. Many don't know the apps. In fact, the moves are not as obvious as the Shaolin appearance. Otherwise, it would just be 'soft' Shaolin. Tjq, bg, xy are all derived from Chinese martial art.

[M]
From the very onset BaGua does not conform to that general theory EX: Constant motion, the body moves in different directions simultaneously.

Esteban
Well, that's why I argued that it was more useable earlier. No sense for me to disagree with you here since I think I tried to make the same point in my earlier post.

Esteban
[I think it has only to do with the theory/strategy and the training. Bagua is more "directly" martial in intent, though the strategy is different.]

[M]
Tai chi is and always was a Martial Art. “Martial in Intent”?

Esteban
Wow, who ever said tjq wasn't martial? But, I guess what I wrote could be interpreted that way. You're right, tjq is no less martial "in intent" than bagua. We were talking specifically about the time it takes to learn to apply, and why. I don't think it takes less time to learn to apply tjq, unless we're talking about low-level tjq: i.e., such as "push" or "punch." Those are just the obvious methods of attack; they're not the art, at all.

[M]
All styles of tai Chi that we see today all derived from Chen village, and they fought. The yang’s fought. Only after yang cheng Fu did it become as we see now, (less intent). It’s a written fact that he taught this way only to the general public.

Esteban
I appreciate your reviewing the history for me, but it's not necessary. This part was interesting, though.

[M]
but it’s also a fact that Yang cheng Fu used to practice with a 40 pound weight attached to a string-rope tied to his index finger.

Do you have any references for this? I've never heard it before. I agree that there were lots of supplemtal exercises, specially the "long pole" for YLC (the spear man). Anyway, if you know of this stuff in the Yang family literature, I'd appreciate getting the citations. I'll ask someone in the family about it.

[M]
Fu Chen Sung, founder of the Fu style used to practice with a stone ball, which he learned from Yang Cheng Fu.

Esteban
Well, it's the Chens, afaik, that have the tradition with the stone ball.

[M]
The Taoist Kwan Sai Hung who learned directly from Yang attested to this and more. I see nothing of it today.

Esteban
http://www.nnrs.org/sphere.html is someone still practicing.
I'd like to read more about Kwan Sai Hung.

[M]
So that less intent bit is out the window as far as I’m concerned. The scholars did that. That theory is not true Tai Chi.

Esteban
You're right. My poor choice of words. Tjq is absolutely a martial art. There may be a difference between the way some people practice it now and the way it was practiced in the past, but that's irrelevant to its martial intent. I agree.

Esteban
[Tjq contains "kobu" and "baibu" too]

[M]
You’ll have to tell me where tai Chi contains these stepping methods. It’s in the Fu style and Sun style because these founders were Ba-Gua practitioners Other than that it doesn’t exist.

Esteban
Well, the hook step is apparent in most Yang style Single Whips. The Kaibu is used in Fair Lady Works Shuttles. There are numerous examples depending on particular style.

[Well, of course imo, tjq does depend on "stepping" and transitions, not posture.]

[M]
Then what are the thirteen postures all about then?

Esteban
There are no such things as "postures" in true tjq. It's all about movement without stopping. At best, each movement has a "ding shi" or finishing point that determines the intent of the movement. Advance, Retreat, Look Left, Gaze Right, are not postures. Besides, in Chen style, the original?, there are more than 13 postures. There were thirteen "forms." Fwiw.

Esteban
[I think the "sensitivity" aspect is more refined in tjq because the physical is often de-emphasized.]

[M]
Dead wrong!
Ba-Gua is just as sensitive as TIQ. We train in push hands as much as free fighting.

Esteban
I was trying to say that in general, tjq practitioners concentrate more on sensitivity training, than on physical work. This is a generalization. Xingyi and Wing Chun also have sensitivity training, but the trainings are different because the strategies are different. Your point above was that since tjq was Shaolin based it had more apparent martial content. That seems to go against the idea that tjq is a "formless" martial art constructed around, as you point out, Taoist principles. So, the movement that you see is like the Dao.

[M]
Also, walking the circle has levels . . .. It was originally a form of meditation where the theory “stillness in movement, Movement in stillness” was physically manifested by a still upper body with the legs in motion all the while relaxing. ...a Wu stylist) and I practiced for 10yrs learning how to use our systems, and he was no more sensitive than I and this boy is bad! He’s one of the few Chinese that I know that can really use Tai Chi.

Esteban
Who said that sensitivity was limited to tjq players and that bagua players didn't have it? I said that bagua players can usually use their art sooner, and I said "imo" several times. If you want to say that this is not true. OK, but it's not necessary to argue about something we agree on. And, I'm not speaking for anyone else, or the majority or minority of tjq players.

[M]
And again, that less physical aspect is not right, the true practioners train in many similar methods that we do such as banging trees, and other conditioning methods as well as free fighting. The only way you’ll be able to truly apply the soft is to be attacked hard. (Hard in an intense way) if you can’t do it under pressure it’s fake.

Esteban
I can agree with some things you say above, depends on which tjq person you speak to.

[M]

Now this was not to dis anyone. But I am seeing that most are not doing their research on their systems . . . I know tai chi Teachers that are known for their Tai Chi but also know Ba-Gua and won’t teach because:
1. For the most part it’s to complicated to learn and they don’t have the patience to teach those with no potential.
2. It’s of a higher level because it was designed to face multiple opponents


Esteban
Oh well, if they think bagua is higher level, do you agree?
BTW, I don't think you're dissing anyone. You're just speaking your mind.

[M]
And again unless the student had potential it would take too long to learn.

Other aspects about Tai chi that are not trained are that like, Ba-Gua your supposed to learn on the left and right sides. All the practitioners I’ve encountered were right sided which gives me an advantage.

Esteban
Well, you're speaking from your experience, and that's cool. But, there are tjq people who train both sides. And, all the two-man exercises are done on both sides. BTW, boxers don't train both sides, and they do all right. Of course, Fu's tjq trains both sides. There are others. WCC Chen, if I remember correctly, used to encourage his students to train the right and left side forms. Maybe you'll know whether YLC did as well. I wouldn't doubt it, but "forms" in tjq as we know them are a relatively recent development. At first, there were individual movements that were practiced on both sides. They still exist in the Brush Knees, Repulse Monkeys, Cloud Hand, Pi Pa, etc., etc. The form is just an organization of movements, any of which can be (and imo should be) done on both sides.

[M]
Also Most Tai chi people have no stamina because all they do is the slow form.

Esteban
Well, I'll be, this was what I meant when I said that tjq placed less emphasis on the physical, so practitioners focused on the other skills (ting, dong, etc.) And, it's one reason why it took longer for them to be successful fighters. It doesn't have to be that way, but that seems to be the way it is.

[M]
I suggest more research and Training.

Esteban
This is what all the great masters have suggested.

[M]
No disrespect toward anyone intended but I’ve been here a long time.
If someone has some thing to teach me please do

Esteban
I pointed out where I thought we might disagree, though overall I don't think we do. But, any questions I had are in the post, and I don't feel disrespected in the least little bit.

Best,
Esteban

[bamboo_ leaf]

A little confused TC depends on sensitivity (ting jin).

Is it possible to have MA intent and listen at the same time?

If my movement comes from the others movement wouldn’t the intent that you speak of get in the way?

i feel this is one of many basic fundamental diffreances between TC and the other arts.

maybe the way intent is used means something differnt?

[Braden]

In my experience, listening is just as prominent in bagua as in taiji - although I'll say up front that I've got my 'training bias' in bagua.

The main problem is that everyone is familiar with taiji's pushing hands, but very few people are familiar with the comparable training in bagua. In taiji you have press, roll back, etc. In bagua you have stepping and turning. So overtly, they look very different - but the 'engine' of both is the same. And neither is more 'physical' than the other, nor less 'sensitive.' They are simply two tactically different approaches to the same principle.

While I do not have the experience to jump into the 'which is harder'/'which is easier to apply' discussion, I think people with no experience in bagua should be wary of concluding that the movement makes it more martial. In movement there is always the problem of floating for beginners (like me!). Specific to bagua sensitivity exercises, there is the remarkable challenge of keeping the legs doing their thing, while the torso does it thing, all with coherent structure, and all while the waist is so twisted. But it is important to remember for people who have not experienced that we are not simply walking - we are listening and following just like in pushing hands, simply with a different 'output.' (Or at least we're trying too! ;) )

[blacktaoist]

Good reply Braden.

Tai Chi practitioners learn to utilize the circle. BaGuaZhang practitioners are the circle.":D :cool: :D

[swmngdragn]

Hi, y'all. :)

Let me preface this by saying I haven't read all of the preceding posts/opinions. That being said, I'll give you mine.... ;) ..... briefly.


Of the "Three Sisters", I'd say that TCC takes the longest to understand on a physical level due to the lack of in depth core training. The training relies on the practitioner himself/herself to break down the form, and discover what ever core training(s) are in said form for himself/herself.

Pa qua/bagua seems to have a more systematic developmental system/training regimen. That provides the individual practitioner an easier time of training core principles in order to use the style quicker.

Hsing-I seems to have the best overall developmental sytem of the three. This seems to allow the individual practitioner the opportunity to train core principles in a more basic manner. It seems to afford the practitioner more opportunity to succeed the fastest of the three in his/her chosen art.

Just thought I'd chime in with some thoughts. Does this seem fairly accurate to those of you who train in multiples of the Three Sisters?

Happy Holidays!!!

Best regards,

R.Drake Sansone
(swmngdragn@attbi.com)
http://www.liuhopafa.com/
"Train, or go to hell". Terry W.

[Esteban]

Hi All,

oh well, this may end up being a project. There are a lot of issues; even though one seems to be "which is better." Anyway,

Bamboo Leaf
"Is it possible to have MA intent and listen at the same time?"

Esteban
If one cannot, what sense is it to have the ability to "listen"? Eventually, the "listening skill" is used as part of the martial art. It is necessary to listen in order to "hua" (neutralize), and there is usually something coming (an attack) to neutralize.

Braden
"In my experience, listening is just as prominent in bagua as in taiji - although I'll say up front that I've got my 'training bias' in bagua."

Esteban
The question is the type of sensitivity, the degree of dependence on it, and the use to which it's put. One problem is that sensitivity is a big word. Is a geiger-counter more or less sensitive than a Bloodhound? Is a judo player more or less sensitive that a violinist? Tjq, bg, xy, judo, aikido, wingchun, white crane, western boxing, all are sensitive. Anyway, I originally came to this thread looking to support the bagua people, whom I do believe have gotten short shrift. I don't believe that there is anything in tjq that is not in bagua.

Hi Drake, I agree, that that's the way most people I know have seen it. They've never suggested that one style is superior. The argument was that Xingyi was something that could be taught fast to soldiers so that they could work in formation. Of course, as soon as you get to the linking forms, it's possible to see that there's a whole lot more. The same applies, imo, for all these arts. Maoshan is right, that if tjq people trained differently, they'd be able to apply it sooner. But, the fact is that many tjq practitioners aren't interested in the martial aspect. And, though it became famous as a combat art, it is not famous now for the same reason. Bagua has always been known as a fighting art -by the people who knew about it. Well, I'd be interested to hear where you'd place liuhebafa in this, in terms of time of training, focus on application, martial intent, and sensitivity.

Best,
Esteban

[maoshan]

Peace All,

Bamboo leaf,
To Clarify things, the Nei Chia are the same. It’s just different approaches to the same end.

[I think and concur with Water Dragon. TC seeks balance; anything that is unbalanced gets thrown out. It’s not the intent but more of a reaction. This is the main difference that I have found in respects to TC and all other arts is the MA intent.]

The same applies in Ba-Gua, how we achieve this end is the difference.
Reaction is gained by the no-mind state. But let’s look at it like this,
In general, if I’m attacked, I simply react, but there comes a point depending on the opponent, where you have to attack. How do you apply that with what’s been written on this post?
You have to have intent when you attack. No, not the same as say shaolin,
But rather as an object to be destroyed (no anger).

Esteban.

[You should start a thread on that. But, even if I agreed, that doesn't meant that tjq requires any less meticulous training.]

The Internal period require more pinpoint concentration. I never said TC
Didn’t require the same.

Esteban
Not true; if it was all the tjq players would be able to use the moves. Many don't know the apps. In fact, the moves are not as obvious as the Shaolin appearance. Otherwise, it would just be 'soft' Shaolin. Tjq, BG, xy are all derived from Chinese martial art.


Your right. I’ll give you that. But what I was trying to say was the postures with out the knowledge of the theory could still be used in general. It’s not the same with Ba-Gua. When you look at let’s say the 1st Palm of the original form of Jiang jung Qiao, very little of it makes any sense in terms of how to apply it if you have no point of reference.


[M]
but it’s also a fact that Yang cheng Fu used to practice with a 40 pound weight attached to a string-rope tied to his index finger.

Do you have any references for this? I've never heard it before. I agree that there were lots of supplemtal exercises, specially the "long pole" for YLC (the spear man). Anyway, if you know of this stuff in the Yang family literature, I'd appreciate getting the citations. I'll ask someone in the family about it.

It’s in one of my books from years ago. I’ll have to find it as soon as I do I’ll give you the Info.


I'd like to read more about Kwan Sai Hung.


Last I heard he was still in Mass. His student Deng Ming dao calls his biography chronicles of the dao Written. It’s good check it out.


since tjq was Shaolin based it had more apparent martial content. That seems to go against the idea that tjq is a "formless" martial art constructed around, as you point out, Taoist principles. So, the movement that you see is like the Dao.

TC is formless. The forms are only for a point of reference, the same applies
To Bangui. I understand why you took it that way.


[M]
Also Most Tai chi people have no stamina because all they do is the slow form.

Esteban
Well, I'll be, this was what I meant when I said that tjq placed less emphasis on the physical, so practitioners focused on the other skills (ting, dong, etc.) And, it's one reason why it took longer for them to be successful fighters. It doesn't have to be that way, but that seems to be the way it is.

Yes, But is that right? I have a problem with that.

Esteban, you and I have no beef in fact I your Cool man. I’ll find that book and get you that info.


Nice reply Braden

Esteban.
Maoshan is right, that if tjq people trained differently, they'd be able to apply it sooner. But, the fact is that many tjq practitioners aren't interested in the martial aspect.


Thus the reason that TC has fallen from its previous position. Many of the practitioners that I have meet along the years who are serious about it, what to change this consensus .

This has been a cool and intelligent debate fella’s thank you.

Peace to All
And Happy
Holidays

Maoshan

[Esteban]

Hey Maoshan,

Peace, very sincere respect, and best wishes for the holidays.

I think that we agree on most things, and I think you are very right about many things. The problem is that stuff on this list can get too general. Anyway, we should talk off-list sometime. Before that, let me point out where I agree with you most.

[M]
"To Clarify things, the Nei Chia are the same. It’s just different approaches to the same end."

Absolutely true. The longer one studies, the more apparent it becomes.

[M] (re: tjq's relation to Shaolin}

"But what I was trying to say was the postures with out the knowledge of the theory could still be used in general. It’s not the same with Ba-Gua. When you look at let’s say the 1st Palm of the original form of Jiang jung Qiao, very little of it makes any sense in terms of how to apply it if you have no point of reference."

[E]
I agree with you. Bagua is much less obvious than tjq. You see, as you suggested in an earlier post, bagua is often trained "after" someone has some familiarity with another martial art --often Xingyi, but it could be Baji, Pigua, Shuaijiao. So, for me, that's pretty traditional for someone who studies bagua to already be a good fighter, otherwise they might not be getting the teaching. Anyhow, what you say about the obvious stuff in tjq is true.

[M]
"but it’s also a fact that Yang cheng Fu used to practice with a 40 pound weight attached to a string-rope tied to his index finger. "

[E]
I asked for references for this specific exercise, but it's not important. There's no doubt that some of the Yang family did do supplemental exercises that would create strength. You can look at Chen Weiming's "Ta Wen" (Questions and Answers, I think in English).
He (Chen) asks:
"Does Taichi have the Pa Kua boxing method of walking a circle and changing without limit?
YCF answers: "Yang Shao-hou once taught me a method in which two men, their right hands touching, from low to high drawing a circle, simultaneously circled to the right with their right legs inside . . ."

Anyway, I don't want to get in copyright trouble, so it's on p. 27. I also looked up the Wandering Taoist. Very interesting guy. Thank you for the tip. Oh, and I am sure that there are supplemental exercises. They produce strength, no doubt. But, I think its a special kind of strength. I've read that you do the Da dao. You gotta be strong to do that, but nobody I know can just "lift" the thing up. I think you have to use your entire body.

Well, I have to say that I agree with the emphasis you put on study and practice. I know that you've seen some things that lots of other practitioners, of tjq especially, haven't experienced. That, imho, gives you a great advantage. I admire your last post.

Best,
Esteban

[Braden]

Esteban - "The question is the type of sensitivity, the degree of dependence on it, and the use to which it's put."

It's difficult to reply to that, since you don't assert that the 'type/degree/dependance' of/on sensitivity in taiji vs. bagua is different, and how it differs. Although I assume that this IS what you're implying.

[Esteban]

Hi Braden,

I wrote;

"The question is the type of sensitivity, the degree of dependence on it, and the use to which it's put."

You replied:

"It's difficult to reply to that, since you don't assert that the 'type/degree/dependance' of/on sensitivity in taiji vs. bagua is different, and how it differs. Although I assume that this IS what you're implying."


I wouldn't say it is a bagua vs. taiji sensitivity issue. Describing the difference between senses of touch is about as easy as describing the difference between senses of smell. What I'm talking about is what one "does" with the touch, what one uses it for. If you'd argue that bagua strategy is the same as taiji strategy, then I'd agree, they'd be exactly the same. Let me put it another way. Shuaijiao uses sensitivity, but they often look for opportunities to "pull." Sumo players use sensitivity, too, but they tend to "push." Which one is better? Imo, there's no answer. But, imho, they're not the same. Specific tjq example. Bamboo leaf's argument surrounds the skill of "listening". In tjq, ime, the highest "ideal" is not to let more than "x ounces" be exerted on one's body. So, and BT would know this from BP Chan, for ex., as soon as the opponent exerts the least bit of pressure, you are supposed to move. The rule is "no resistance, no letting go." Again, don't think I'm saying that bagua doesn't have the same level of efficiency. I'm saying that, in some other martial arts, if the other guy only uses x ounces, you are supposed to blast him with 1,000 lbs. In fact, in competitive tjq, where people expect to get hit, there's no requirement that one must "always" move out of the way, especially if the other person can't hurt you. This is not tjq, btw, this is simply Sun Tzu, and the tjq classics (obviously Li Yi Yu's and the Wus) cite Sun. He writes something like, "if you have 1,000 men, and the opponent has 10" it's kind of silly to run and hide or fight a guerilla war. Reverse the numbers or the power equation, and it's kind of dumb to make a frontal attack. So, several teachers have suggested the same tactics apply in any battle. Lots of people depend on strength, though, and so the tjq practitioner avoids it in order to develop his idea of guerrilla tactics. Both armies depend on "intelligence," and this is what I equate to "sensitivity." What one expects to do with the intelligence depends on the strategy, but tactics can change according to circumstances. I know, that seemed like a digression. Anyway, I just wanted to point out why I said I thought the two forms of sensitivity were different. I've never meant to say that one is better than another. You see the issue I have with saying that they are simply the "same."

Best,
Esteban

[Braden]

"Anyway, I just wanted to point out why I said I thought the two forms of sensitivity were different."

That's what I'm asking about. You've yet to do that. Your 'expounding' upon taiji sensitivity in your last post applies equally to bagua sensitivity.

[Esteban]

Hi Braden,

my point, perhaps badly stated was that the type of sensitivity that anyone describes is related to what that sensitivity is for. If you feel that bagua sensitivity is meant to accomplish the same things as tjq sensitivity, then ok. Maybe I'm not proficient enough with words to describe what that difference "feels" like. I tried to point out that there were different types of sensitivity. If your argument is that that premise is false, then cool. However, if you're stating that bagua and tjq sensitivity are the same, then I'll accept your opinion and positive examples. If you're saying that "all" types of sensitivity in the martial arts are the same, that's a claim I think you should make directly. Then, a wing chun guy or the practitioner of another martial art might be able to agree or disagree. Lastly, I'm not saying that that all these forms of sensitivity --if you accept any difference-- are mutually exclusive. A brain surgeon with good "touch" may or may not be a tjq practitioner. Anyway, though I think there's a difference, and I explained why, I'm not sure any of these can be described. I'm open to your suggestions.

Best,
Esteban

[Braden]

I'm not following your argument. On one hand, you differentiate between sensitivity (the 'intelligence' in your military analogy) and tactics (what you do with the intelligence) and on the other hand, you define sensitivity based on what is done with it. These two definitions seem mutually exclusive to me.

My curiosity was initially piqued when it was suggested that taiji emphasizes sensitivity whereas bagua did not.

Semantically, I would follow the former of the definitions given above - that sensitivity is a quality distinct from what you do with it. You gave the example of sticking and yielding to pressure in taijiquan - "no resistance, no letting go". To me, this is sensitivity - this is the military intelligence. But what do you do with this? There are a vast array of things you can do while demonstrating "no resistance, no letting go." This rule is as fundamental in baguazhang as it is in taijiquan - however, the sorts of things each focuses on doing with it can vary. Thus, from my perspective, the sensitivity is the same, and the tactics vary.

On the other hand, many martial arts do NOT cultivate this kind of sensitivity. It's not that their sensitivity is different because they do different things with it, as you seemed to argue - they simply don't cultivate that sensitivity at all. In other words, they don't have "no resistance, no letting go."

[Esteban]

Hi Braden,

you wrote:

"On one hand, you differentiate between sensitivity (the 'intelligence' in your military analogy) and tactics (what you do with the intelligence) and on the other hand, you define sensitivity based on what is done with it. These two definitions seem mutually exclusive to me."

Rather than argue the semantics, I'll simply say that "intelligence" is finding out what the opponent is doing, and ideally what he plans to do. If applied to push hands, this would be equated to "sensitivity", particularly to the direction and strength of the opponent's force --and this also necessarily includes his balance: i.e., where his forces are. Strategy is what one plans to do with the information, but strategy also includes the tactics used to glean intelligence. Tactics are how one accomplishes those plans. Of course, in war, things change all the time. So, intelligence, strategy, and tactics change according to circumstances. How to deal with those changes is also a strategy. Anywway, I don't see how they can be mutually exclusive. But, it's not important. I may just be unclear.

[Braden]
"Thus, from my perspective, the sensitivity is the same, and the tactics vary."

[Esteban]
I think the only difference I stated suggested was that the tactics determined the type of sensitivity needed. I.e., does a bagua practitioner want to do the same thing. We all can agree that all human beings have the same general central nervous systems. From that point of view, all sensitivities in all martial arts are the same.

[Braden]
"On the other hand, many martial arts do NOT cultivate this kind of sensitivity. It's not that their sensitivity is different because they do different things with it, as you seemed to argue - they simply don't cultivate that sensitivity at all. In other words, they don't have "no resistance, no letting go."

Esteban
I think you might be exaggerating slightly. True, not all martial arts emphsazize "no resistance." If you mean, not go "force against force," then I think most martial arts are based on that "science." Even Sumo. The "no letting go" or adhering/sticky aspect is also not unique to the internal ma. So, I don't disagree with your argument about the similarity of human sensitivity, but I don't think you've argued successfully why bagua and tjq "should" be considered similar, yet xingyi, shuaijiao, or wing chun might not.

Best,
Esteban

[bamboo_ leaf]

After reading all the post, damm, I’m lost.

I will say one thing. All of you are some thinking people.

It shows in your writing and points made.
Most notable I didn’t see what is better only different and this is how I understand it.

To all this is what I come here for, very nice.

Happy holidays, peace to you and the ones you love

david

[swmngdragn]

>Hi Drake,......<

'lo, Esteban. :)

>I agree, that that's the way most people I know have seen it. They've never suggested that one style is superior. The argument was that Xingyi was something that could be taught fast to soldiers so that they could work in formation. Of course, as soon as you get to the linking forms, it's possible to see that there's a whole lot more.<

Agreed. There's quite a bit more in depth training(s) involved in Hsing-I than a majority of folk realize. Granted the basics can be grasped quickly, and trained for use immediately, but the "inner" workings wouldn't become readily apparent for quick usage. That takes time. What you'd have in the beginning is basically an external form of an internal style, but you'd be able to use it very quickly.

> The same applies, imo, for all these arts. Maoshan is right, that if tjq people trained differently, they'd be able to apply it sooner. But, the fact is that many tjq practitioners aren't interested in the martial aspect. And, though it became famous as a combat art, it is not famous now for the same reason.<

True. TCC isn't trained "properly" in these times. Time becomes the relevant factor, and the fact that in today's society the martial aspects in everything are downplayed. What's become relevant to the people of today is
"health". Not realizing that in order to get the full benefit(s) from TCC, or any of the internals is to train to fight. Like your life depended upon training correctly.

>Bagua has always been known as a fighting art -by the people who knew about it.<

It's been known as a fighting art, but it suffers from the same malaise that the other "Sisters" do, and that's either the casual pracitioner, the health oriented practitioner, or the lazy practitioner. In any case it's a sad state of affairs.

>Well, I'd be interested to hear where you'd place liuhebafa in this, in terms of time of training, focus on application, martial intent, and sensitivity.<

I'll put it this way..... Hsing-I's motions are based on a man running, Pa Qua's are based on a man walking, TCC is base on a man standing. LHPF is based on a man's movements. Longer to train, more difficult to fully understand/train from a physical standpoint, very application oriented , a rich fighting art, containing all of the sensitivity training(s) that the "Sisters" have, and more. The progression of training is, I've found, the best. For me. :)

>Best,
Esteban<

Same to you, Esteban. Feliz Navidad, Buon Natale, Joyeaux Noelle, Merry Christmas to all of you, and yours.

[Kevin Wallbridge]

This has been a great thread.

I train Yin Fu Baguazhang, Chen Taijiquan and Xinyi Liuhequan, this is how I will distinguish them. I find that they are all one at a certain level. They all share traits of internal understanding and deep body connection. They all are based on the application of energies and not techniques. They all rely on body structure and change. These are strategic considerations, as strategy is what happens before battle battle is engaged.

At a tactical level I find that they are all entirely different.

Taijiquan is the defence of the village, stand your ground and defend the walls. Let the opponent blunt themselves on the battlements then sally forth to lift the siege.

Xinyi cracks the enemy formations with a blitzkrieg. If the opponent wants to hold ground then pound that ground until it is a wasteland. If the opponent wants to be evasive then cut off their retreat and annihilate them. If they are strong, be more ferocious and ruthless.

Baguazhang gives up the ground they hold to suddenly take the opponent from an unprotected angle, sometimes from the ground the opponent has launched their attack from. Baguazhang continually redefines where the front line is.

Each of these arts plays a different but key role in my training. In many ways Chen style is the heart of it all because it is he clearest study of Beng and Song, key qualities to connection both external and internal. Xinyi is the training of energetic change. The transformation of animal energies and emotions. Bagua is the refinement of weapons and angles, and the study of multiple opponents.

[Esteban]

Hi Drake, Kevin W.,

I generally agree with everything you've said, but I just had to add my .02.

Drake wrote:
"TCC is base on a man standing. LHPF is based on a man's movements."

Kevin wrote:
"Taijiquan is the defence of the village, stand your ground and defend the walls. Let the opponent blunt themselves on the battlements then sally forth to lift the siege."

I don't really know anything about LHPF, but I think it's a common misperception to think that tjq is more "static" than the other arts. As Maoshan pointed out, all know that there is "stillness in motion, and motion in stillness." I'd describe the tjq battle plan something like this: "Let the opponent attack, and let the attack fall on nothing; then use your superior position to launch a counterattack." That's fairly classical strategy. In terms of tactics, however, there's no rule that one has to stay in the same place. If the enemy of superior strength attacks village A, the object is to empty that village, not defend it. Of course, the art of tjq is the ability to change "Yang" to "Yin" without the opponent knowing it. So, the villages are mapped on the body. Still, even if it doesn't require a large movement, there's no reason not to move if it's required. I.e., the "not move" works, except against freight-trains and hurricanes. Anyway, Drake wrote a bit about the idea of "walking". In the more combat-oriented tjq schools, this is a key component. It's absolutely clear in Sun-style "active step" tjq. There are those who argue that all tjq was practiced with active steps until post-YCF. There are many who'd say that nobody fights standing still. If you train to stand still, then you may be likely to fight the way you train, though. This is B. Lee's complaint about the "classical mess." Anyway, I think Kevin's right that each of these arts is just a vehicle for the person. Good training in any of them yields good results. With good results, you can choose any tactics you want or that are necesary.

Good training, and
Happy Holidays to all,
Esteban

[Kevin Wallbridge]

Etseban,

I absolutely agree. The village analogy only really works if you consider a village where the walls may suddenly disappear.

Taiji surely can move around, such as in cannon fist. My experience is that it is not as good for covering ground as Bagua or even less so than Xinyi.

The fastest that I have stepped in Taiji was doing some moving step push-hands and the Yang style 88 move two-person form, with Sam Masich. In Bagua I think 9 Palace stepping and multiple opponents sparring has inspired the greatest speed in my footwork. However, in 6 Harmonies Xinyi some things are done at the run. Its rather difficult ot stay connected, but when it comes you can just fly at your opponent.

Merry Christmas, Joyous Kwanza, Happy Solstice and may you have gentle visits to the vomitorium at Saturnalia.

[Sam Wiley]

In usage, I can see very little difference between any of the internal arts. They all seem to meld into one cohesive whole. While I don't have any training in Xingyi, I have trained in both Bagua and Taiji for a while, almost the same time period. The first Taiji applications I learned were very direct and brutal, and yet very subtle. In fact, they were very similar to Bagua applications I learned later on.

On the subject of footwork, I must say that one of the styles of Taiji I have studied does contain both Kou and Bai bu steps in its forms, greatly resembling Bagua's circle walking footwork. In addition, the forms also contain numerous examples of Bagua's outer direction change. In another style of Taiji I study, the inner change permeates one of the shorter forms. In addition to this, I am told that both the styles of Taiji I study resemble Xingyi in some ways, (one much more than another, in my opinion).

The more I think about them, the more they all meld into one extremely large system.

[count]

It is said that Hsing-I goes through the front door, Tai Chi uses the side door and Bagua uses the back door. But this is only true in a very general way. The door you choose depends on the fighting range. The range you choose depends on the individual and their comfort level. That is why I feel bagua is harder to use. It requires a greater comfort level from a closer range. In that aspect the training is more complex from a physical and emotional standpoint.

But before you say I am bagua biased, I too have had a fair amount of Tai Chi Chuan. Both Yang and Chen styles.

Maybe there are general differences in strategy and some terms but I think there are many more similarities between all internal arts and the levels of development. It depends of course, more on the teachers, and their method of getting you there. Internals are all based on 5 elements, 6 harmonies, chan su jin and fa jin, etc., etc., etc... All internal arts require that you feel your opponents balance point and break it down either by stealing or uprooting. All the internal arts suggest you feel where your opponent is going and either beat him there or take the space they leave. Speed and sensitivity are key in all. In fact, there are too many similarities to list.

I'd be interested in hearing how you "tai chi guys" are learning and training that makes things so complex and time consuming? Don't you drill each posture/form on both sides? What about steps and walking? What about specific chan su jin drills? What kind of fight training are you doing? Dealing with different ranges, angles, hitting or getting hit? In general, what is your class like?

[Water Dragon]

This is the reason I come to this forum. Excellant posts everyone.

[Esteban]

Hi Count,

well, I called myself a "taiji guy" once in this thread, so maybe you're asking for my response. Like I said, I speak only for myself, not for tjq pracitioners, in general. And, I certainly haven't seen everything or all different styles of tjq. But, you raise some good questions that aren't hard to answer.

[Count]
"I'd be interested in hearing how you "tai chi guys" are learning and training that makes things so complex and time consuming?"

Esteban
If you read the other stuff I've said in the thread, you know where I'm coming from. Nothing I say means that bagua or any other art doesn't have the same skills or work on them. But, from what I've seen, there are two general sets of reasons that tjq practitioners feel that their skill takes longer to acquire. One, the technically sound, classical reason is that they are supposed to absolutely avoid the use of "li" or muscular strength, or rely on physically superior "speed." Now, before anyone goes crazy, this doesn't mean that a tjq person should be "weak" or "slow." It doesn't mean that a strong person "can't" do tjq, or give up tjq. As I said earlier, we were told that if you were stronger and faster, you didn't need to use tjq. The idea was/is that a tjq practitioner should imagine fighting an opponent that he cannot overpower: i.e., the proverbial "750lb gorilla" or "Hulk Hogan" or "Mike Tyson." That's the standard to compare the level of skill needed with what one is practicing. But, how is someone *not* going to use strength and defeat Hogan? That's the study of tjq. Again, this is not to say that bagua can't or doesn't use the same ideas. Anyway, that's what I feel is the classical reason why tjq players should believe that learning their skill takes longer than some others. The second reason is, imo, more cultural. In the states, in general, the idea of "not using strength" has often been equated with "softness." Worse still, there has been the belief that acquiring the "softness" did not require hard training. Because the tjq form can be done by the elderly and the infirm, it has been used as a kind of health therapy. Often, young and strong people imitate the movements of the ill and elderly. As Sam Wiley pointed out, there are schools of tjq that practice more "actively," and these schools are often derided by those who practice more "statically." When they see someone move quickly or have power or do something that looks as if it would actually do some damage, they claim that it's "not tjq." They extend this complaint most strongly against the people who practice "wushu" style, or who engage in competitive push hands. So, there's an entire tjq culture based on the belief that doing the slow, often shortened, form is the art. This is not even to mention the people who are convinced that the martial skill of tjq is based on "qi." They're right, but qi is there, tjq or not. That's another topic.
You also asked:

[Count]
"Don't you drill each posture/form on both sides? What about steps and walking? What about specific chan su jin drills? What kind of fight training are you doing? Dealing with different ranges, angles, hitting or getting hit? In general, what is your class like?

Esteban

Well, as to the last part, I train when I feel like it and practice all day. I did the tournament stuff when I was much younger, and then btw, we were told that "if you want to beat a karate guy or a boxer, you had to kick and punch as much as he did." IOW, you couldn't expect to get by doing the form a few minutes in the morning and evening. In fact, no one in the internal arts I know who competes successfully feels any differently. A tjq person should work out with people from all sorts of arts and gain as much experience as he or she can. But, anyway, was your question above serious? The tjq guys who do what you suggest shouldn't have much problem, should they? What you list is traditional training. Whether it happens or not depends on the teacher. That also goes for how soon it happens.

Again, these are just my observations and opinions,
Best,
Esteban

[count]

Thanks Esteban,

Good post and I agree almost 99% except I think these concepts are found in all CMA's and not only in Tai Chi Chuan. The part I disagree with is that a person must kick and punch as much as the "Karate" fighter to win. But than, that all depends on what a person considers winning. Tournaments aren't the best way to test the skills of CMA's. To much of CMA's happens after the initial contact so it's hard to score points. Stopage and breaking the fight after contact only disrupts the flow. Judges never can see everything so often the real winner is only known by two. And yes, my questions are serious. This is the kind of training I know, so I wonder what other teachers emphasis to get you to the point where you can use your art.

So, Waterdragon,

This is the reason I come to this forum. Excellant posts everyone.

Well, YA but, How 'bout answering some of these questions?;)

[Esteban]

Hey Count,

I think you got what I was trying to say. Let me make just two clarifications.

[Count]
"I agree almost 99% except I think these concepts are found in all CMA's and not only in Tai Chi Chuan."

Esteban
Absolutely, I think that tjq is "just another Chinese martial art." I believe it differs only in training. Its theory, like the theories for most all other CMA, can be found in Sun Tzu.

[Count]
"The part I disagree with is that a person must kick and punch as much as the "Karate" fighter to win."

Esteban
I didn't really mean to imply practicing a particular technique. In reality, if you knew you were going in against a good striker or a Bill Wallace, say, it wouldn't make sense to try to outpunch or outkick him. What I meant was that the tjq practitioner had to practice as long and hard at what he intended/was able to use as the karate guy did. Yep, this meant taking parts of the form and doing the traditional 10,000 "fists." It didn't mean not practicing "nian, lian, ting, hua", btw. But, you couldn't expect to do a little a get a lot, even though the ideal in usage was just that. But, you also point out the idea of winning, which raises another "difference" in the tjq approach. Ime, the Taoism in tjq changes the idea of "winning and losing" a little. Tactically, for example, it might imply some sort of "scacrifice" (as in "give onself up and follow the other") or "yielding." That involves a philosophical approach to violence and the possibility of injury. Again, if you say that this is common in CMA, I'd agree. It's not the only theory either, and different arts, emphasize different aspects of the encyclopedia. Incidentally, personally, I think that bagua uses the "highest" theories in CMA. But, I can only speak as a "taichi guy" who thinks that it's all relative.

Respects,
Esteban

[blacktaoist]

To tell you the truth all you guys have good points in your post replys. My opinion on this matter is no matter what style you train in or how much philosophy or fighting tactics you learn.

If the practitioner is not condition and his techniques are not practical, then no matter what style a person learn the person method of combat will be useless in any situation.

My opinion is internal Martial art in the old days had real warriors. But today all you see is fallacious scholar warriors that talk like professional internal martial artist, but in real life they are not scholar or warrior. but are timid souls living a lie. these kind of people is what give the internal martial arts a bad name and why external look down on the internal martial artists.

A individual just have to train they style of combat practical.

The three styles in my opinion are not the same. I have train in all three for some years now. Each style has its own characteristics and its own advantages. When I practice Hsing YI Boxing, my mind set is more on attacking for attacking is Hsing YI defensive.

This is what makes Hsing YI so powerful in combat. And this is why Hsing Yi is not for timid mind individual." Hsing YI fighting is more active then passive. The way I learn from Master Li Tai Liang Offensive is used as a defense. And to be first in a fight a individual can not be timid, a person must have a killer mind set.

When I practice Tai Chi my mind set is more relaxed. My mind is not thinking about offensive but my mind is focuses more on yielding, neutralizing and skicking. My strategy is more on defense as the preparation for an attack. In my opinion this is why Tai Chi is a good style for the timid individual that wants to learn how to fight.

BEST FOR LAST." LOL

BAGUAZHANG. When I practice BaGuaZhang my mind is more on uprooting my opponent and throw him to the ground hard." BaGua is more fun in my opinion to practice then tai chi or Hsing Yi. A individual that practice BaGuaZhang don't have to take a rooted stance to uproot an opponent like tai chi or Hsing YI practitioners have to. Bagua is World Renowned for striking with great power when on the move and not have to utilize a rooted stance. Tai Chi And Hsing YI are Renowned for they rooted stance to issue jing power.

The BaGuaZhang walking the circle gives the BaGua practitioner a twisting energy generated from the rapid turning in practicing the circle walking, a source of twisting energy power and a moving root that Tai Chi or Hsing YI will never develop to the same high level as a BaGua man.(movement within stillness) Tai Chi and Hsing YI do have reling silk auxiliary training. But the Bagua practitioners develop this from from day one, when he learns how to walk the circle.

In my opinion BaGuaZhang is the most high level efficient internal martial art to learn, and hard to utilized in combat if the practitioner don't have real fighting experienced. A person need little experience to learn how to fight with Tai Chi and Hsing Yi if that person learning from a good teacher. BaGuaZhang principles and practice methods are very deep.

"TO DEEP." This is why the comprehension level of the BaGuaZhang practitioner must be high.(have good understanding) Within BaguaZhang there are many variations and fighting methods. In Tai Chi and Hsing YI there are only a few.

Any Body can learn and comprehen theories and principles, but it takes real fighting experienced to utilized any external or internal martial art. And thats just the genuine truth."

The best thing about the three internal martial arts is if a person practice all three they get to view and compare the three styles from more then one angle.........

The more angles you look at something from , the better you will understand it.
:D :D :D

Peace to all, any happy Kwanzua:)

[Water Dragon]

I'd be interested in hearing how you "tai chi guys" are learning and training that makes things so complex and time consuming? Don't you drill each posture/form on both sides?

Yes and no. I only do the form on one side. I do single postures extensively on both sides.

What about steps and walking? What about specific chan su jin drills?

Nope, just the form (based on proper body mechanics)


What kind of fight training are you doing?

A lot of push hands and sparring (more push hands)

? Dealing with different ranges, angles, hitting or getting hit?

Again, push hands and sparring

The one unique thing I noticed about Taiji is we don't have an application for the movements. Instead, if we learn an app(which is rare) we are told "OK, this is like X move from the form." This also makes using Taiji different. Here's an excerpt from a conversation I seem to have too **** much whenever another MA'ist finds out I do Taiji:

HIM: You do Taiji as a martial art?
ME: Yup
HIM: Show me
ME: OK, come at me
HIM: How?
ME: I don't care
HIM: Then what are you gonna do?
ME: I don't know
HIM: Well, how are you gonna show me?
ME: Just punch me then OK?
HIM: How?
ME: However you want

Usually at this point they throw a punch and I'll yield/stick and follow up

HIM: Wow, that's cool!! What's that
ME: I don't know
HIM: Can you do it again?
ME: Probably not
HIM: Then wht would you do if I attacked you again?
ME: I don't know. whatever works
HIM: That doesn't make sense
ME: Yeah, that's why Taiji's no good for fighting


:D

[wisdom mind]

peace

[Water Dragon]

Thanks. I had that conversation last night when I went to a school. I think they're so used to the "If he does A I'll do B mentality" the "You act and I'll react" thing really throws them off.

[Esteban]

Yo Blacktaoist,

it's the second day of Kwanzaa, but Umoja anyway. You wrote:

[BT]
"Within BaguaZhang there are many variations and fighting methods. In Tai Chi and Hsing YI there are only a few."

I'm trying to understand. Are you talking about the "peng, lu, ji, an, tsai, lieh, kao, zhou" methods, and the five directions? It's probably right to limit tjq to those. It's also true that the first eight are considered related to the "eight trigrams" (in the T'ai chi Ch'uan ching, supposedly written by Chang San Feng). But, fact is, in the first first book thought to be specifically on tjq (THE TREATISE ON T'AI CHI CH'UAN attributed to Wang Tsung-yueh), it says

"Although there are innumerable variations,
the principles that pervades them remain the same."

And, many people have argued, correctly imo, that tjq has "no set form, no set function." The people in you meet in tjq who are limited by specific technique are simply limited by technique. It's not an expected part of the art.

Best,
Esteban

[blacktaoist]

Esteban,

Are you talking about the "peng, lu, ji, an, tsai, lieh, kao, zhou" methods, and the five directions?

What I'm talking about is conditioning Training not Tui Shou (push hands) or peng, lu, ji, an, tsai, lieh, kao, Zhou' methods or any theory applications of Tai Chi. Today Tai Chi practitioners don't practice any conditioning training methods for power. Most think that practicing just the tai chi Form and push hands is all they need to enhance skill. Then when they met a professional Martial artists and spar them and can't utilize they techniques, or they Tai Chi techniques just don't have jing issuing ability to stop they opponent in a fight.

Then in my opinion that person is just a normal Martial artist with some skill that wiill get him by on a low level fighter, but will get them nowhere with a professional Martial artist that trains in Martial art conditioning training. A martial artist that practice power and conditioning methods will always win over the internal practitioner that don't practice Conditioning methods.

And in my Opinion most Tai Chi practitioners do practice any conditioning Methonds. All they talk about is push hands and form and chi kung standing. But I never hear you them talk about methods to practice to cultivate heavy arm tendon strength, or post conditioning training. Or Any kind of contact or full contact training methods. After all Tai Chi is a combat martial art.
peace

:) :)

[Esteban]

Hi Blacktaoist,

I wrote:
"Are you talking about the "peng, lu, ji, an, tsai, lieh, kao, zhou" methods, and the five directions?"

You wrote:
"What I'm talking about is conditioning Training not Tui Shou (push hands) or peng, lu, ji, an, tsai, lieh, kao, Zhou' methods or any theory applications of Tai Chi."

Esteban
Oops, my mistake, I thought you were talking about the number of techniques or methods in tjq.

Then you made three points:
"Today Tai Chi practitioners don't practice any conditioning training methods for power."

I think it depends on who you talk to. You can talk about what you've seen. You know Max and WCC Chen, and Sifu Rudy can tell you about the "old days." Besides, you're just generalizing.

[BT]
"Most think that practicing just the tai chi Form and push hands is all they need to enhance skill."

I guess for some that is true. But, that's not even what's written down plainly in the books. So, you should probably argue with people who say that. So, far, I don't think anyone's said that in this thread. Quite the opposite.

[BT]
"Then when they met a professional Martial artists and spar them and can't utilize they techniques, or they Tai Chi techniques just don't have jing issuing ability to stop they opponent in a fight."

Esteban
Here you are right on target, but, as I said, the standard for me is "Mike Tyson", "Hulk Hogan", olympic wrestlers, etc. That's because we're not talking about "average" people, right. Don't you just get sick when people say that there aren't any bagua people in NHB events? I mean, why not? Anyway, I think you're right. There are very, very few tjq practitioners who practice to the extent of a professional martial artist. Few could defeat one. That is true. On the other hand, there's more than one way to skin a cat.

Best,
Steve Esteban James
:)

[Water Dragon]

Esteban, are you a Chen head?

[Esteban]

Hi Water Dragon,

"a Chen head"? You mean practice Chen style. Nope, I've had friends who were early students of Ren, but my longest experience (25+) is in Yang derived styles. For the last 15+ years, I've been pretty eclectic, studying with people from all over. But, my "base" style is tjq. BTW, I'm not interested at all in style differentiation. It's like having 3 cars in the garage. You can only use one at a time anyway. And, if it takes a second to decide, you might as well give up. Just my opinion.

Best,
Esteban

[Water Dragon]

Ooops, I meant Chen head as in a William CC Chen student. My bad.

[blacktaoist]

Esteban you are right I am just generalizing. But there are people out there that think that forms and push hands is all they need to practice. And I also read this kind of information in Tai Chi books of today.

peace.:cool:

[Esteban]

Hi Water Dragon,

"I meant Chen head as in a William CC Chen student." Well, in that circle, but not directly from him. Some of the people around him introduced me to other people, etc., etc. W.C.C. Chen's approach was, and I guess is, interesting to me because the striking/boxing emphasis sort of comes natural, and because using gloves, etc., was the most common form of competition. Anyway, I don't believe in talking too much about teachers. In my case, I might only embarrass them or put them up to ridicule.

Best,
Esteban

[Water Dragon]

Sure, cool. Yeah, I've heard all sorts of comments about the glove works. Oh well, to each his own. It's worked extremely well for me :D

Anyway, I'm liking your posts. I can respect your viewpoint from what I see.