Tai Chi Question

[greyseal]

This a broad question: Generally speaking, do most kwoons that teach Tai Chi teach for health? Are there many that teach the martial aspects of the art?

[Chris McKinley]

In the U.S., by far most of the schools which claim to teach Taiji teach the Yang Cheng-fu and/or Cheng Man-ching strain. A distant second to that is Chen style. Unfortunately, the rarest version is the Yang Lu-chan variety, which is more martial than the rest of 'em put together, IMO.

Generally, the Taiji one encounters falls within a spectrum. On the more martial end, you have the mild-mannered addendum to another art (as in, "we teach Kung Fu AND Taiji", which is a misnomer) with a few large frame, rather tame applications thrown in. On the other end, you have the "peace, love & Flintstone chewables" variety, usually taught by hippies, ex-hippies, or hippie wanna-be's. This version may even go so far as to claim that Taiji isn't about fighting, or that it isn't even a martial art. I've actually heard a couple that were surprised to learn that it actually WAS used as a martial art somewhere in its distant past. Almost none of the instructors in this latter category will be able to show you any true martial application of the stuff they are pushing.

Again generally speaking, and allowing for the occasional individual exception, Taijiquan in the U.S. probably has the lowest percentage of its total practitioners with actual fighting skill of any widespread art, not limited to Chinese arts either. Even the typical McDojo/McDojang, belt factory, cattle drive puts out people with at least some fighting skill compared to most of what is taught as Taijiquan in this country. It's made all the more pathetic by the fact that the true art, taught correctly and completely, is extremely fighting-oriented and devastating.

On the positive side, there are a few Chen stylists and a couple of Sun stylists who actually do pay more than lip service to the combat side of their art. There are also a small handful of Yang Lu-chan stylists out there teaching the most martial stuff. Most but not all of these are Erle Montaigue's students.

Are you interested in studying Taijiquan? Have you had any experience with it before? If so, what style/lineage? Where do you live?

[redfist]

it`s up to the teacher,
fighting is not easy to teach,kung fu for health is,
if you have no experience pick a system and try it,
if you stick with it,you will answer that question on your own,
read the; "tao of tai chi chuan"-jou tsung hwa and, the video by master liang shou-yu"24 posture tai chi "both are good references.


fighting is not confined to a lineage,look to the sifu.

[Repulsive Monkey]

Unfortunately when Chris made that insulting comment about certain strains of Yang style being better than others he must of only been going on his own experience. I don't want to start a on line fight here, but to be honest the quality of Cheng Man-ching teaching in America is very poor. In fact it would hardly be recognised and laughed at back in Taiwan. Apart from Master T.T, Liang, Benjamin Lo and Master Wiiliam C.C. Chen, there aren't that many in America, I am unaware of many who can teach anything worthwhile of Cheng's art. To het a good picture of the fighting capacity within what he taught see William Chen. Unfortunately a lot of Cheng's American generation students were simply not that great, and seemed to have some ego problems after he went back to Taiwan hence the split in the school and everyone going their own ways. There are not many around but if you can link up with a first generation Taiwanese disciple of Cheng's then you will definitely get a different story. Cheng was very well renowned for his fighting ability back in Taiwan. Anyone who can pass on the Yang family transmissions a la via direct Yang Cheng-fu teachings too, will be able to demonstrate fighting ability which easily matches that of Chen style. As a sugestion it could be worthwhile looking out for disciples of Tian Ying-jia, if of course you know who his famous father was!?

[taijiquan_student]

this is pretty much a futile discussion, so I'm not sure why I'm posting, but...

You can't put down an entire lineage, and you can't raise one way above another. Sure, it's obvious that most all of Cheng's American students didn't have much, but unfortunately, if I tell you I practice Cheng's form, that gives you preconceptions like I can't fight or don't practice taiji as a martial art even if that's not true. Also, if I tell you I practice an old Yang style form/system that either gives you the idea that I have some false lineage making up some "secret style" or that I've got some real deal, bad a*s ****, when in reality I may not be able to punch my way out of a wet paper bag.

It's not always a good idea to make sweeping generalizations. I know it's an overused cliche, but it really is the martial artist and not the martial art. However, if there is significant evidence and such, one can make a fairly correct generalization--like when I say the students Cheng taught in NYC and the following generations don't practice taiji as a real martial art (including practical applications, sparring, etc.) unless some other teacher or influence outside that lineage came in to that person's practice. I think most people know about this whole "controversy", so I'm not going to explain it.

I guess that was pretty long-winded for a post on a "futile discussion";)

[Chris McKinley]

Repulsive Monkey,

RE: "Unfortunately when Chris made that insulting comment about certain strains of Yang style being better than others he must of only been going on his own experience.". Um, yeah...that's why I included the IMO in there. However, it is apparently the general opinion of the situation as well, judging by the opinions of almost anyone who's ever spoken to me about it. While I don't much see the point of simply starting a flame war, the question WAS asked as to the teaching of combat skills within Taijiquan. Now granted, he didn't limit it to the U.S., but my reply did simply because that is where I've had experience. There may be plenty of quality schools elsewhere. BTW, the word "better" was yours, not necessarily mine. In my experience the martial aspects of YCF/CMC lineage Taiji IN THE U.S. doesn't even compare with either Chen or YLC Taiji.

RE: "I don't want to start a on line fight here, but to be honest the quality of Cheng Man-ching teaching in America is very poor. In fact it would hardly be recognised and laughed at back in Taiwan.". That's pretty much exactly what I described in my post.


taijiquan student,

Your first paragraph makes some very valid points about logical exceptions to the rule. You say, "It's not always a good idea to make sweeping generalizations.". Of course. However, sometimes it's not a bad place to start one's considerations. Identifying the consistent general traits of one art or another is, I would argue, one of the first ways people choose which art to study. The "rule", if you will, rather than the exceptions. I did, BTW, allow for such exceptions in my post.

RE: "I know it's an overused cliche, but it really is the martial artist and not the martial art.". I disagree. It is, and has always been, both. Neither alone is as good as both together.

Your next statement almost mirrors my own opinion when you say, "However, if there is significant evidence and such, one can make a fairly correct generalization--like when I say the students Cheng taught in NYC and the following generations don't practice taiji as a real martial art (including practical applications, sparring, etc.) unless some other teacher or influence outside that lineage came in to that person's practice.". The only difference being that I would not limit it to those practitioners in NYC. In fact, most of the the U.S. CMC Taiji practitioners that I've encountered have been from elsewhere, and my opinion of their average fighting ability was stated in my previous post.

There are other school chains, even styles, in the U.S. in one region or another with reps for consistently low realistic fighting ability. Still, I consider the status of Taijiquan in the U.S. to be even more shameful given that the art used to have such a high reputation for fighting skill. To go from top shelf to "only David Carradine-Fu or TaeBo is worse" is tragic.

[red_fists]

Hi GreySeal.

I think it alos depends on where you are and how eager you are to learn the martial side.

I know a lot of Kwoons that teach mainy for health benefits, but the Teacher will show applications and similar training on request of Students.

My Stle while being ecclectic, for the first 4~5 years mainly focuses on Health aspects with a gradual shift to the martial side during that timeperiod.

Even though we train early for Health Sifu often gives us a martial applicaion for a certain Posture.

So it really depends on the Teacher and not the lineage where he comes from, IMO.

[Prairie]

My suspect that most schools that teach tai chi teach it for health purposes only.

I draw this conclusion from mostly small experiences with several local schools. One is a "Taoist Tai Chi" school which I attended an open house a short time ago. Not once at the open house was it mentioned that tai chi is practiced by some people as a martial art. They teach one form and some qigong - that's it. No applications. The first kungfu school that I practied with taught a form of Yang style (I've no idea what flavour of Yang) in their health and wellness class. Again - no applications at all. I tried out another tai chi school that taught CMC Yang style. The teacher at least made mention to possible applications but was not proficient in applying his ideas. I have been practicing with my teacher now for roughly a year and a half. He teaches applications and can apply his ideas. It turns out that he teaches Chen style, but I think that part is not a factor. I think that most tai chi schools (whatever style) are run by folks who don't know the applications are combat training methods.

[taijiquan_student]

Chris...Sorry, I didn't make myself clear. I meant that the students Cheng first taught in America were the NYC ones. So what I meant was that the first generation students of Cheng in America (the NYC students) and then their students, and their students students, and so on, didn't have much martial ability. I didn't mean to imply that I thought only the CMC practicioners living in New York had no skill.

[bamboo_ leaf]

Couldn’t help it. :)

Not here to defend or disregard any TC style taught by anyone.
It’s a great art that functions on many levels.

CMC style is an expression of this art but not the art itself, merely a method. As are all the other methods out there.

Follow the method and you will find the art. The method that you choose may work or not, it is also a reflection of something that you seek. be carfule about seeking your self instead of the art. many get confused.

You must find one that agrees with your ideas of TC at this time, while still keeping an open mind to the possibility that you could be wrong.

There are very clear writings as to what is and is not TC usage. See, feel, and make up your own mind.

[Lode Runner]

>Generally, the Taiji one encounters falls within a spectrum. On the more martial end, you have the mild-mannered addendum to another art (as in, "we teach Kung Fu AND Taiji", which is a misnomer) with a few large frame, rather tame applications thrown in.<

The school I'm currently looking into sounds an awful lot like that. "Kung Fu & Tai Chi Chuan" is what the sign says. If you read their stuff, their focus seems to be on wah lum praying mantis style, but they mention that they also teach Yang and Chen style TC. The website of their parent organization, www.wahlum.com, seems to imply that Tai Chi classes consist of nothing more than philosophy and exercise. I've sent them an email asking them about how they view TC and I got this in response:

"Tai Chi is one of the internal martial art systems which uses slow and non-strenuous movements to practice. Its background and principle is very broad. It appears to many students that this is a form of exercise. But in true, it is one of the stronger form of Chinese martial arts that gives a practitioner many areas of benefit, not to mention his/her martial skills."

…which sounds promising but the preceding quote is making me worry once again. I am primarily interested in Tajiquan for the meditative/flexibility/coordination aspects, but for some reason I am really against the idea of learning some sort of cheesy watered-down/westernized version. Plus, I definitely wouldn't mind knowing that I could take care of myself in a fight. What should I be asking when I talk with the Sifu face to face? What should I be looking for when I sit in on one of the classes? What the heck do the terms "large frame" and "small frame" mean anyway? Does Chi-Gung (which they also teach, in both "soft/meditative" and "hard/Iron Palm" varieties) have anything to do with Tai Chi?

And since the school's primary focus is wah lum, should I ask the folks over at the northern praying mantis forum what they think the TC classes will be like?

[red_fists]

Hi Lode Runner.

A good Tai Chi style should teach you the following:

Forms (large variety out there)
Push hands
Sparring Hands
Weapons (Spear, Staff, Saber/Broadsword & Tai Chi Sword)
Tai Chi Chin-Na
Standing Meditation (Zhang Zhuang)
and also do free form sparring with BOTH Weapons and unarmed.
Qi-Gong is optional and depends on the Instructor.

Also your form training should be done at different speeds and stances at a higher level.

Without this you are getting a thinned down Version and not the full benefit of the style. You will still get great benefits, but not as much s you could.

Don't worry too much about the exact forms, large frame/short frame unless you are looking for a specific style.
Like, CMC, PRC Styles, Yang, Yang Kwang Ping, Chen, Wu, Wu Hao, Zhabao,etc.

Some Instructors feel that Tai Chi does not need any supplemental Qi-Gong, other add some in.
Also there are no ranks/belts in Tai Chi.
Tai Chi takes a looong time to master and every students progress is different.

Some styles like Chen TCC use stomps, jumps and intermix slow with fast movements in the Forms. So pure Form execution might not be an indicator.

Some people lay a lot of value on Lineage, so ask the Sifu under whom he studied and for how long.
Personally I don't train under anybody with him/her having done less than 10yrs training.

I value the Sifu's personal skill/attitude more than any fancy lineage to some famous names.

Some styles like Wing Chun often teach basic Tai Chi as a first step into other CMA.
IME, most good Tai Chi Schools also often offer Hsing Yi & Ba Gua Training and if you stick with the School you shoul learn all 3 Systems.

What you should look for when visiting the kwoon:
Does the Sifu correct Postures and how does he check for them.
Does he teach Martial Applications.
Does he explain a lot of what goes into the Postures(Opening/closing/ double weighteness, breathing, etc.)
Are Push hands and similar things trained in the class.
How much time is devoted to each Individual.
Does the Sifu give individual pointers or only generic ones for the whole class.
Is single Posture training done at the Kwoon.
Most good Kwoons do not use Uniforms and/or any form of rank identification.

Those are just some pointers, but I am sure you will get more.
Sorry, if I am confusing you with some terms and specifics.

I think by using the above Info you should be able to get a fairly good feeling about the Kwoon.

Wish you all the best.
P.S.: Feel free to pm me if you got specific questions.

[Chris McKinley]

Lode Runner,

The first thing I'd ask them, assuming that it is proper for you to do so, is if they know/teach any of the martial applications of Taiji. Also, which Yang lineage: Yang Cheng-fu, Cheng Man-ching, or Yang Lu-chan? Next, can they demonstrate/teach applications at all three traditional levels of depth? The first of these is the large frame, or obvious level. Often, these applications are projections or shuai jiao throws. The second is at the medium to small frame level. These can be strike combinations and/or chin na applications, and sometimes involve the use of fajing. The third is sometimes called the hidden level. These applications are small frame and involve the disruption of the opponent's internal energy system in one way or another. It is doubtful from what you've described that you will get such information from the school in question, though it would be nice to be pleasantly surprised. BTW, large frame refers generally to larger circles when practicing a movement, and small frame to smaller ones, as all Taoist art movements are circular.

An important clue as to what you can expect is found in their statement, "Tai Chi is one of the internal martial art systems which uses slow and non-strenuous movements to practice.". This is not true of the original form of Yang style nor of Chen. It is only arguably true of YCF and/or CMC varieties, and even this has been debated. To make a categorical statement such as this about slow and non-strenuous movement implies that the form of Taiji they teach is likely the same as 99% of the rest of what's taught in the U.S. That is, the watered-down Yin-heavy version that's about as good in a real fight as ballet. No, I take that back. A good ballet dancer would probably waste one of those guys. ;p

As for whether qigong has anything to do with Taiji...yes. Most Chinese systems have some form of it. In fact, from a TCM perspective, the Taiji long form IS a qigong sequence. It is a hallmark of Taoist internal arts that their forms function equally well as qigong or as martial training. This fact is actually foundationally linked to the Taoist perspective, and represents true dynamic balance between the Yang and Yin aspects of the art. If the art doesn't have both in equal measure, it isn't being taught authentically and in harmony with both Taoist theory and the classics.

You did also mention hard/Iron Palm training. This is not in accordance with Taoist concepts and is not technically part of the internal arts. However, it should be noted that many well-known internal artists were known to have practiced such methods, especially as part of their external style training prior to beginning their study of the internal arts.

[Repulsive Monkey]

I will step down, but just a little, on the response to my initial reply which was a little sweeping towards the NYC American students of Prof. Cheng. I think what sparked it was an interview I once read in an American Taiji magazine which claimed that some of the 6 Pillar students claimed to be on a par with Cheng, or at least not far behind. This was the origin of my initial outburst. I can also recall another comment from a friend of mine who said that a lot of the American branch of 2nd/3rd generation Cheng stylists went around claiming to be far superior to other styles and then getting then comeuppance when challenged. Unfortunately I feel that none of his American students got a full transmission from Cheng, and I suspect that is why few of his Taiwanese disciples (living in America) have much to do the American ones. This is not me being Xenophobic, I am just recounting what I've read and been informed about. What I wanted to say but probably didn't make it coherent enough is that disciples of Cheng from Taiwan could proabably illustrate Chengs fighting ability to a better degree than his American students. Is that so very wrong to say? If it is then then I suppose the proof is in the pudding as it were, and until we see results.

[Kaitain(UK)]

what's the difference Yang Lu Chan and Yang Chen Fu?

as far as I can see, YCF trained under Yang Chien Hou, who trained under Yang Lu Chan

I also feel that the standard political crap is coming to the fore here - I train with John Ding who's lineage traces back to both YCF and YLC. I've found the system to work martially against a variety of trained and untrained people.

I believe that martial applicability will always come down to the desire of a student to make what is given work. John Ding would not have moved from White Crane to Taiji if he didn't feel it was a valid system.

If there is no substance to what is given then no amount of hardwork will make it good - but equally no matter how great a system it always depends upon the dedication of it's pupils.

I didn't really have a point :)

[Ky-Fi]

Originally posted by red_fists


A good Tai Chi style should teach you the following:

Forms (large variety out there)
Push hands
Sparring Hands
Weapons (Spear, Staff, Saber/Broadsword & Tai Chi Sword)
Tai Chi Chin-Na
Standing Meditation (Zhang Zhuang)
and also do free form sparring with BOTH Weapons and unarmed.
Qi-Gong is optional and depends on the Instructor.

Also your form training should be done at different speeds and stances at a higher level.


Some people lay a lot of value on Lineage, so ask the Sifu under whom he studied and for how long.
Personally I don't train under anybody with him/her having done less than 10yrs training.

I value the Sifu's personal skill/attitude more than any fancy lineage to some famous names.


What you should look for when visiting the kwoon:
Does the Sifu correct Postures and how does he check for them.
Does he teach Martial Applications.
Does he explain a lot of what goes into the Postures(Opening/closing/ double weighteness, breathing, etc.)
Are Push hands and similar things trained in the class.
How much time is devoted to each Individual.
Does the Sifu give individual pointers or only generic ones for the whole class.
Is single Posture training done at the Kwoon.
Most good Kwoons do not use Uniforms and/or any form of rank identification.



EXCELLENT criteria.

I would add a couple things to look for in a teacher/school.

1. Touch hands with him. I don't mean challenge him, but I like a teacher who's happy to give you physical demonstrations of what he's talking about, whether you're a 10 year or 10 day student. Especially with stuff like push hands or chin na---how easily he can control you and lock you up should be pretty clear.

2. How does he treat people, and what kind of people does he draw around him? If he's full of himself and sets himself up as an all-knowing master, and surrounds himself with officious, agressive as$-kissers, then I wouldn't want to study there.

3. Do you get a sense that he can teach you a lot more as you progress? I like getting a sense that the teacher is only teaching me things that I'm ready for, but if I have more advanced questions, he's happy and able to go there with a LOT more detail.

4. Is he humble about his own knowledge, honest about what he DOESN'T know, and always working and learning? Those traits, held throughout a lifetime, are what enable people to aquire vast skill and knowledge. I'm always dubious of internal teachers who yap on about the differences between internal and external styles when they've never studied an external style in depth.

5. Lineage and connections aren't everything, but they aren't nothing, either. You should be able to find out who your teacher studied with, how long he studied, what kind of a relationship he has with his teacher, and what the general opinion is of the skill level the people he learned from.

6. Talk to people who have had first-hand experience with the teacher and the school, and see what they have to say.

[Lode Runner]

Chris:
>As for whether qigong has anything to do with Taiji...yes. Most Chinese systems have some form of it. In fact, from a TCM perspective, the Taiji long form IS a qigong sequence. <

Ah, ok. One thing that's throwing me is the thirty thousand names there appears to be. i.e. Qigong=Chikung=Chigung=Chigong etc. The other thing is the way that their website phrases it:

"Sifu Lo also offers classes in Yang and Chen style Tai-Chi, as well as hard (Iron Palm) and soft ( meditative ) Chi-Gung, teaching the philosophy and traditional studies of these cultural arts as well as their health benefits."

which almost makes it sound like Chi-Gung is taught separately.

Oh well. Does anyone know of any decent FAQs I could read?

>An important clue as to what you can expect is found in their statement, "Tai Chi is one of the internal martial art systems which uses slow and non-strenuous movements to practice.". This is not true of the original form of Yang style nor of Chen. It is only arguably true of YCF and/or CMC varieties, and even this has been debated. To make a categorical statement such as this about slow and non-strenuous movement implies that the form of Taiji they teach is likely the same as 99% of the rest of what's taught in the U.S. That is, the watered-down Yin-heavy version that's about as good in a real fight as ballet. No, I take that back. A good ballet dancer would probably waste one of those guys.<

Well, unless you guys know of any other "real" Taji schools in the Melbourne/Palm Bay FL area, I don't have much of a choice in the matter. If it's the watered down variety, then I suppose I'll probably sign up anyway and maybe in a year or so if I'm still keen on learning some actual fighting skills I'll look into something like Aikido or Judo. I wonder, though, would the watered down stuff be any use to me if I later enrolled in a serious Tai Chi school or would I basically have to start again from square one?

Anyway, thanks a lot for the replies everyone. I'm going to call them today and set up an appointment for sometime later this week. Here's hoping your first impression is wrong, Chris...

[Chris McKinley]

Oh, absolutely. I'd love to hear that you've found a great school that teaches a dynamic balance of both the Yang and Yin elements. And yes, if the school is the typical variety, the teaching you receive there WILL be of use to you if you later find a balanced school. A loose analogy would be if you learned about music theory and how to play some of the basic scales on a piano. Would this information help you if you then decided to actually learn how to play piano as an instrument? Of course it would. But there's a big difference in knowing about the theory behind chord structure and being able to play a song at the drop of a hat.

A lot of what your training should be is dependent on what you want out of it. For instance, if you want quick turnaround on some basic street-ready combat skills, I wouldn't suggest Aikido or Judo if your Taijiquan class isn't what you wanted. Good old boxing might be a better choice than either of them, IF quick turnaround is your goal. Do you see what I'm trying to say here? Finding the right tool for the job requires clearly defining the job first.

Anyway, best of luck. Hope it's a great school! :)

[Lode Runner]

Well, I currently have a bit of a fixation on passive-style martial arts. Simply put, they seem cool as hell... plus I think that my fairly small frame could get more out of styles that don't require as much brute strength. I also think that taking people down without causing any permanent harm is a much more useful skill (especially in today's world) than being able to kill someone with one punch (or any of the other similar things being discussed on the reality/street fighting forum.) But you're right; if all I cared about was being able to come out on top in a no-holds-barred street fight I would probably be looking at the harder stuff instead.

[Chris McKinley]

Ouch. Ya had to go and post this last one, eh? You had me up till this post. The notion that Taijiquan, Baguazhang, or Xing Yi Quan, etc. are "passive" martial arts is patently absurd.

RE: "I also think that taking people down without causing any permanent harm is a much more useful skill (especially in today's world) than being able to kill someone with one punch (or any of the other similar things being discussed on the reality/street fighting forum.)". I am 180 degrees in opposition to this mindset. "Especially in today's world", the need for real self-defense skills, including but not limited to lethal tactics is greater than ever before. There is no longer any inhibition based on chivalry to sneak attacking an innocent victim, nor to attacking him/her with multiple attackers. Male assailants no longer feel any inhibition about attacking women as much as they may have in the past. On top of that, technology has made it possible for a greater number of people to become assailants, since size, strength, or training are no longer a necessary prerequisite.

Newsflash: taking people down without causing any permanent harm is not part of a real life-or-death attack. RE: "...if all I cared about was being able to come out on top in a no-holds-barred street fight I would probably be looking at the harder stuff instead.". Are you implying that you are also under the erroneous assumption that internal arts are "soft" in a real fight? If so, you would do well to first familiarize yourself with some of their methods in-person with an actual practitioner or instructor before making your final decision on where to train.

Sorry to be a bit harsh here, but red flags are going up regarding your impression of what the internal arts actually are, and for what real physical encounters are about. I'd rather tell you something you need to hear than something you want to hear.

[red_fists]

Hi Chris.

I am with you on that one.

But the general public perceives the "internal arts" as the gently easy way to deal with an Opponent.

Few actually know what we really train in and what it takes to become good in our Arts.

Mostly due to the advertisement that a lot of the Arts get due to their health aspects etc, etc.

I always try not to laugh when people ask me why I study a "soft" style over the hard variety.
My Sifu aways says the soft styles are the more deadly and devastating ones.
Ain't sometimes I wonder if she might not be right.
Also plenty of people get shocked when we show them our forms can also be done at full-combat speed.

Lode Runner.

Try to go and see a nice Tai Chi Combat Demonstration.
I am sure it will open your Eyes.

If you pm me I can point you do some
sites that have good clips.

My Sifu scares me, as she can do whatever she wants with me during Push hands.
And her punches & Grabs/locks feel like a lot of hurt.

[GLW]

Don't judge a teacher too harshly if you visit on the amount of personal pointers vs. group information given out.

Some Chinese teachers consider singling one person out for correction in front of an entire class to be humiliating to the student. They will make a general statement - often only directed at one student - and then only directly correct that student in private (private lesson or if the student asks).

The group correction is also often a test to see who in the class is listening and if the members are sharp enough to figure out when a correction is aimed at them.

It may seem round about...but I know of a couple of VERY good teachers who do their class this way (we have discussed this approach in detail). With them, if they single you out in the group for anything but praise, they are really annoyed with you and are actually taking you down a peg or two....problem is, some of their students think the singling out is a good thing....:)

[red_fists]

Hi GLW.

Maybe it is because my Sifu is Japanese, but we get both class corrections and single corrections during the class.

But the single corrections are not done in front of everybody.

Said that we train multiple levels/forms at the same time and Sifu walks between the levels and gives corrections.

Sometimes she will come up and give different pointers to different peole in one Group.

Like I got told to lenghten my stance to prevent the knee from falling inwards and another student got told to relax the shoulers more.

But no humiliaton is intended nor meant to be given, but rather good solid advice.

I sifu wants to take one of us a notch or two down she will do so during Push-Hands.

Just a different view point.

[Lode Runner]

>Ouch. Ya had to go and post this last one, eh? You had me up till this post. The notion that Taijiquan, Baguazhang, or Xing Yi Quan, etc. are "passive" martial arts is patently absurd.<

Of course I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.. after all, I am a fairly ignorant newbie. But from what I understand, Taji does not work like wah lum praying mantis or karate or anything like that. You do not meet force with direct force of your own. Instead of counterattacking in a traditional sense or blocking, you use your opponent's vulnerabilities to your advantage and you base your attack on that alone. I call that passive.

>I am 180 degrees in opposition to this mindset. "Especially in today's world", the need for real self-defense skills, including but not limited to lethal tactics is greater than ever before. There is no longer any inhibition based on chivalry to sneak attacking an innocent victim, nor to attacking him/her with multiple attackers. Male assailants no longer feel any inhibition about attacking women as much as they may have in the past.<

I would hazard a guess that even in ancient China not every thug was "Lawful Evil." (a D&D reference; Lawful evil means that while you're evil, you still adhere to a code.) But that hardly matters; despite what the six o'clock news wants you to believe, we live in a pretty **** peaceful society. During the course of our lives, we might need these skills to save ourselves some bruises, or maybe even save our lives once or twice if we're unlucky enough to get into such a situation, but unlike many cultures in the past (including many in ancient china, I presume) learning a deadly martial art is not necessary for our survival.

Now OTHO, if I DO maim or kill someone I could face some pretty dire consequences... even if I was justified. Neither going to jail nor being sued to smithereens sounds very pleasant to me. Plus, I might not be very comfortable walking around with the emotional baggage of knowing that I have directly killed someone, even if I was justified. There might be a lot of muggers and serial killers in the world, but there are at least a thousand times as many hotheaded punks and mean drunks and I really don't think that me breaking their bones is going to do either of us any good.

Finally-- and I hope that I don't inadvertently start a flame war with this statement -- if I really wanted to learn an effective form of lethal self-defense I would learn how to use a handgun (and draw it quickly) and carry it always.

>Are you implying that you are also under the erroneous assumption that internal arts are "soft" in a real fight? If so, you would do well to first familiarize yourself with some of their methods in-person with an actual practitioner or instructor before making your final decision on where to train.<

I am aware of how vicious Taji can be. However, this art is based on rigorous self-control and self-awareness. I say it's soft because that's the impression I get; you know, like the reed and the oak tree and all that proverbial crap. Where the Karate student trains to kick harder and punch harder and block faster, the Taji student must train to understand his opponent's attacks and weaknesses (and indeed, his own) better. Where the Karate student must check his blows and avoid hitting vital spots, the Taji student can still use his methods of deflection and redirection at full power and easily knock his opponent into a wall or onto the ground or otherwise momentarily stun him thus affording a timely escape. I know it's not Judo but I was under the impression that it wasn't about uber-deadly punches and kicks (or similar direct attacks) at all. Was this a mistaken impression?

>Sorry to be a bit harsh here, but red flags are going up regarding your impression of what the internal arts actually are, and for what real physical encounters are about. I'd rather tell you something you need to hear than something you want to hear.<

By all means, educate me. I'm going to ask the Sifu some questions on Tuesday and the less I sound like some clueless newbie the better.

[Lode Runner]

>If you pm me I can point you do some
sites that have good clips.<

What's a "pm" and how can I do it? I thought you were refering to some sort of instant messenger but you don't have any listed (nor an email address) in your profile.

And yes, I am very interested in seeing clips of Taji sparring.

[Chris McKinley]

Lode Runner,

RE: "Instead of counterattacking in a traditional sense or blocking, you use your opponent's vulnerabilities to your advantage and you base your attack on that alone. I call that passive.". And if that's what the internal arts were like, you'd be correct. Neijia very much do indeed execute counterattacks, even pre-emptive ones. Also, taking advantage of the opponent's vulnerabilities does NOT equal passive. A boxer executing a bob & weave followed by a hook to the head is taking advantage of his opponent's vulnerabilities.

RE: "I would hazard a guess that even in ancient China not every thug was "Lawful Evil."". I get the reference, but I wasn't comparing today's circumstances to ancient China, nor China in any other time period. I don't live there. I was comparing it to earlier periods in the history of the U.S.

RE: "despite what the six o'clock news wants you to believe, we live in a pretty **** peaceful society.". Oh yeah? Where the heck do you live? Not 3 weeks ago, a man was murdered in his home not a block from where my parents live in an upper middle class suburb. One of my school acquaintances was raped last week (the first week of the college semester) outdoors, on the campus.

RE: "During the course of our lives, we might need these skills to save ourselves some bruises, or maybe even save our lives once or twice if we're unlucky enough to get into such a situation, but unlike many cultures in the past (including many in ancient china, I presume) learning a deadly martial art is not necessary for our survival.". I'm sorry, but this sounds like the typical liberal-style drivel of the naiive uninitiate to violent crime. It's really easy for idealistic young adults to espouse this type of attitude if they've never faced the pointy end of a knife or the barrel of a gun, or even the enraged bare hands of someone intent on killing them or doing them serious bodily injury. I've been there personally more than once. I'm alive to write this because I learned deadly fighting skills, both with and without weapons.

RE: " Now OTHO, if I DO maim or kill someone I could face some pretty dire consequences... even if I was justified. Neither going to jail nor being sued to smithereens sounds very pleasant to me.". Me either, but being dead at the hands of a street thug while my wife is raped and killed sounds even less appealing. As they say, better to be tried by 12 than carried by 6.

RE: "There might be a lot of muggers and serial killers in the world, but there are at least a thousand times as many hotheaded punks and mean drunks and I really don't think that me breaking their bones is going to do either of us any good.". Wow. You sound like quite the gambling man. Tell me, how is it that you know which type is going to be the one that attacks you? And besides, a hotheaded punk may very well deserve a minor injury for attacking a non-hostile person minding his own business.

RE: "...if I really wanted to learn an effective form of lethal self-defense I would learn how to use a handgun (and draw it quickly) and carry it always.". That's why I hold a Double X Marksman's rating with a handgun. Also why I teach seminars and private training in knife combat.

RE: "Where the Karate student must check his blows and avoid hitting vital spots, the Taji student can still use his methods of deflection and redirection at full power and easily knock his opponent into a wall or onto the ground or otherwise momentarily stun him thus affording a timely escape.". Deflection and redirection are a part of Taijiquan, but are you under the impression that this is its only, or necessarily even primary, method of response?

RE: "I know it's not Judo but I was under the impression that it wasn't about uber-deadly punches and kicks (or similar direct attacks) at all. Was this a mistaken impression?". Yes.

All three sister internal arts, as well as other internals, contain extremely deadly and very direct attacks. Taiji's penetrating punch or Laogong palm, Bagua's Li palm, boring palm, or any of the eight gua-related palms, and all five of Xing Yi's elemental fists, for that matter, can be purposefully deadly strikes to vital targets. Your impression of Taiji seems to be (understandably) that of most of America. That is, of old folks wearing Mandarin silk pajamas moving in slow motion and very large circles in the park at dawn. Or perhaps maybe as far as that of middle-aged hippies or New Age enthusiasts teaching it as a way to get into harmony with your inner child, who occasionally show a few harmless projections as applications. It seems to me that you might need to heed my earlier suggestion of familiarizing yourself with what Taiji really IS when in combat.

[Repulsive Monkey]

Oh yes it is valid of course! John Ding is a good example from what I hear about Yang family Taiji in the UK. It sjust merely people discussing Taiji who have not received a substantial amount of a transmission I guess. So people are not sure about to what extent of their styles art they sare going to receive and how legitimate it is, possibly.

[Lode Runner]

Chris:

>Your impression of Taiji seems to be (understandably) that of most of America. That is, of old folks wearing Mandarin silk pajamas moving in slow motion and very large circles in the park at dawn. Or perhaps maybe as far as that of middle-aged hippies or New Age enthusiasts teaching it as a way to get into harmony with your inner child, who occasionally show a few harmless projections as applications. It seems to me that you might need to heed my earlier suggestion of familiarizing yourself with what Taiji really IS when in combat.<

I should point out that even in these forums (which I did scan quite a bit), the only direct attack used in a Taji match that I'd read about sounded like some sort of lock or muscle pull (don't know the technical name for that; sorry.) That, combined with many statements I found on websites and in FAQs such as this one:

"Taijiquan as a martial art is based on the principle of the soft overcoming the hard...Using brute force or opposing anothers power with power directly is strictly discouraged. The goal of two person training is to develop sensitivity to the point that one may avoid the opponent's power and apply one's own whole body power wher the opponent is most vulnerable. One must cultivate the ability to "stick" to the opponent, smothering the others' power and destroying their balance. Finally, the formal combat techniques must be trained until they become a reflexive reaction."

led me to my conclusions regarding Tajiquan.

>It seems to me that you might need to heed my earlier suggestion of familiarizing yourself with what Taiji really IS when in combat.<

Ok. How? I visited the school today, and even the receptionist seemed confused when I mentioned that I was also interested in the martial applications of Tai Chi. I could accept that there were two general definitions and/or perceptions of Tai Chi, but now it seems like there may be dozens. What IS Tai Chi Chuan? Who the hell do I believe?

And in regards to the other discussion, I'll simply say that I think you underestimate non-lethal combat. Everything I've read indicates that Judo is very effective for self-defense (and there's a heck of a lot more to read on Judo than there is on martial Tai Chi), yet you don't seem to share this view at all. Since you're (presumably) a student of Taji I will accept what you've told me about the art; however, I do not accept your implication non-lethal combat is significantly less effective than lethal combat (unless you have some "passive" MA training to back such statements up.)

[Chris McKinley]

Lode Runner,

RE: "I visited the school today, and even the receptionist seemed confused when I mentioned that I was also interested in the martial applications of Tai Chi.". Why should this seem particularly unusual. A receptionist may have absolutely no knowledge of martial arts whatsoever; he/she may simply be there to be a receptionist. Even if he/she is part of the teaching staff at the school, if the version of Taiji that school offers is the run-of-the-mill health dance version, it would not surprise me that the receptionist gave a blank look regarding the martial applications. I've seen that look many times from teachers claiming to teach Taiji.

RE: "What IS Tai Chi Chuan? Who the hell do I believe?". Well, for starters, I would be heavily disinclined to embrace/adopt the opinion of those who cannot even demonstrate any martial applications or, worse yet, don't even know that there ARE martial applications to Taiji.

RE: "And in regards to the other discussion, I'll simply say that I think you underestimate non-lethal combat.". No, I have simply contextualized it properly. Where control techniques are what is called for, it is the right tool for the job.

RE: "Everything I've read indicates that Judo is very effective for self-defense (and there's a heck of a lot more to read on Judo than there is on martial Tai Chi), yet you don't seem to share this view at all.". Judo techniques very much CAN be effective for self-defense. I teach Baguazhang in a school that is a U.S. Olympic Judo training facility, and I'm very appreciative of what good Judoka can do to a person. I should note, though, that nothing hits harder than the ground and that a great portion of Judo techniques can be quite deadly when applied full-force on concrete rather than a training mat. However, I don't see the logic behind choosing a method of preserving one's life based on the ubiquitousness of the literature.

RE: "I do not accept your implication non-lethal combat is significantly less effective than lethal combat (unless you have some "passive" MA training to back such statements up.)". Gotcha covered. Black belts in TKD and Tang Soo Do, most of both of which is non-lethal. Shodan in Togakure Ryu Ninjutsu, which perhaps surprisingly DOES include quite a bit of non-lethal material, despite the Hollywood stereotype. Three years private instruction in Aikido under Hokoru Isshimatsu; that's about as non-lethal as they come in terms of strategy. And of course 19 years of internal arts training.

Now all that's great, and control techniques definitely DO have their place (not all confrontations involve life-or-death combat). However, if two people are in a fight, it only takes one of them to decide that it's lethal combat, and if your assailant makes that decision, you'd BETTER be able to respond in kind, especially if weapons are involved and/or the lives of those in your charge are at stake.

Bottom line here is that all techniques fall generally into one of three categories: escape, control, or destruction. All have their appropriate contexts. It's a matter of applying the appropriate tool to the job at hand, and I feel sorry for the poor sap who can't judge when to use which one.

[Lode Runner]

Aha. I just noticed the pm button on the general kung fu forum; however, it's not present in this forum. Odd...

[red_fists]

Hi Lode Runner.

Still going through my archive for the footage of the Tai Chi vs the White Crane fight. Ended in a draw.

Tai Chi in Combat is nasty.

Most peple can't see the Martial Application during the Forms as there are many that can be done from each Posture. Also the speed of the execution deceives a lot of people.

Also a lot of people are deceived by the Posture names.

Even my Sifu doesn't show me ALL the possible applications, but rather gives us a few and lets us work out the rest.

Here is my understanding of some attack possibilities in Postures:

"Crowing **** stands on one Leg"
In this move we can execute a Finger point strike to the top of the Throat, sorry don't have pressure point number handy.
"Stroke Pea****'s tail"
In this sequence we have one move where we take the attackers head and slam it downward into our upward travelling knee.
"Push Square style"
Here the lower hand attacks the Opponent with a Throat grab while the other Hand blocks the descending attack.
"Punch ears with both fists"
Here we use a fist with middle finger sticcking out to attack 2 pressure points at the ears.

"Horse foot punch".
Here we twist a fist with middle finger sticcking out upwards into the lower jaw or upper throat.

Sorry, Posture names might vary to other styles. Also since my style is mixed our attacks might vary.

Hope this helps.

[Lode Runner]

Chris:

>RE: "What IS Tai Chi Chuan? Who the hell do I believe?". Well, for starters, I would be heavily disinclined to embrace/adopt the opinion of those who cannot even demonstrate any martial applications or, worse yet, don't even know that there ARE martial applications to Taiji.<

The teachers did bring up the martial aspect, though. That's why the receptionist's confusion was so startling... because she otherwise seemed to be fairly knowledgable.

So the verdict is yes, it's the same "yin-heavy watered down crap" but at least they do eventually teach at least some of the martial aspect (though they stressed that this was totally optional.) If I decide I want some more reliable skills (and I think I have the extra time to spare) I'll probably either go for Judo or Wah Lum (no sense in going to different schools if it turns out I like their other style as well.) But I simply don't have the time right now to interview a dozen people or sit through a thousand classes or fly to China and trace Taji back to it's roots just so I can find the ultimate school that teaches "real" Tai Chi Chuan. I wasn't expecting it to be very newbie-friendly but this just ridiculous.

Oh yeah, one last thing: I asked one of the Sifus about Yang vs. Chen styles (which -- in writing -- they both claim to teach) and the answer I got ended with "...but we teach government style here, which is a slightly simplified form of blahblahblah (my confusion at this point made me miss the rest of her explanation)..." Do you have any idea what she was talking about?

>No, I have simply contextualized it properly. Where control techniques are what is called for, it is the right tool for the job.<

If aggressive strikes are the proper tool for control techniques, then what is Judo good for? I always thought that joint locks and deflections and such gave you better control than mere blows ever could. The more aggressive you are the more vulnerable you are. In a self-DEFENSE situation, it's better to sacrifice power for defensive ability. At what other time would you suggest do so… when one attacks?

Red_fists:

>Sorry, Posture names might vary to other styles. Also since my style is mixed our attacks might vary.

Hope this helps.<

Well ok, so ya punch people. But what exactly is the focus of the style? Beyond thinking about your posture and your Chi, what do you concentrate on? Is it all about pressing your attack or is it more reactive in nature? I.e., if mr. thug is in the middle of punching me, do I block his punch and then "return fire", do I quickly attack at the same moment to take advantage of his vulnerability, do I grab his arm and deflect it or put him into some sort of lock, or do I dodge out of the way and attack from a different vector? If I am the typical "real" Tai Chi practitioner, what would be my most common course of action?

[red_fists]

Oh yeah, one last thing: I asked one of the Sifus about Yang vs. Chen styles which -- in writing -- they both claim to teach) and the answer I got ended with "...but we teach government style here, which is a slightly simplified form of blahblahblah (my confusion at this point made me miss the rest of her explanation)..." Do you have any idea what she was talking about
Goverment style would in that case I assume be 24 Posture forms.

A shortented form of the 108 Yang Form, No Chens influence AFAIK.

This form was devloped to promote health, not rally for martial purpose.
But I might be wrong.



Well ok, so ya punch people. But what exactly is the focus of the style? Beyond thinking about your posture and your Chi, what do you concentrate on? Is it all about pressing your attack or is it more reactive in nature? I.e., if mr. thug is in the middle of punching me, do I block his punch and then "return fire", do I quickly attack at the same moment to take advantage of his vulnerability, do I grab his arm and deflect it or put him into some sort of lock, or do I dodge out of the way and attack from a different vector? If I am the typical "real" Tai Chi practitioner, what would be my most common course of action? [/B]


My Examples only mentioned the attack portion, full examples get way longer.

In my style we train to deflect/neutralise the attack and than counter at the same time.

The counter varies and can include a punch, strike, lock or throw.

I will see if I can hunt some online articles up for you with full examples, as I am not good at explaining.

[red_fists]

Hi Lode_Runner.

Check this 3 short Articles out.

Application of Grasp Sparrow/Bird Tail (http://www.dragonslist.com/kwoon/index.php?id=7)

Application of Taiji (http://www.dragonslist.com/kwoon/index.php?id=9)

Flowing Chracteristics of Taiji. (http://www.dragonslist.com/kwoon/index.php?id=4)

The show some ways in which Tai Chi can be applied in both Picture and word.

They can epxlain it much better than I can as the author is a grandmaster, compared to me lowly Student.

Seeya.

[Lode Runner]

I would've replied sooner, but it's been a hellova week. On the bright side, though, it has been the perfect week to start my Tai Chi classes. I just managed to avoid letting the stress get to me (that flowing hand meditation stance which I can't remember the name of is great) which is why I was able to react in a calm manner when my boss completely chewed me out for something that was not my fault.

Anyway, two of the SiHings and the Sifu asked me to tell them why I choose Tai Chi specifically and when I responded that I was in need of more coordination and focus, they were very quick to point out the martial applications and reinforce that it was definitely a "real" martial art. This pleased me (oh and I've also managed to gather that this "government style" is merely the stuff they teach to beginners; they do teach all of the Yang and Chen forms), but it makes the receptionist's comments all the more strange, because I also found out that she is SiMo as well. Anyway, I'm going to my second class tomorrow and will try push hands for the first time. I'm really interested in this part; my mom has a old friend who is a reike healer and while I'm not sold on chi/ki being "real" yet, my experiences with her have definitely piqued my interest.


red_fists:

Thanks a lot for the articles; they seem to support what my vision of Tai Chi has been all along. The moves you listed seemed to all be reactive in nature (I've given up using the term "passive") and while I'm sure proactive moves do exist (because it simply isn't practical to wait for your opponent to attack every time), these articles also show how the aggressive/lethal element in Tai Chi is more optional than it is elsewhere. There's a big difference between having to check your punch and knocking your opponent down (instead of knocking him down AND punching/dislocating a joint.)

[dfedorko@mindspring.com]

Greyseal -

I think, from my experience, that it depends on the instructor and what his goals are at the time. My Chen instructor made sure we knew Lao Jia Yi, externally/internally, before showing any application. Sometimes I had the feeling he didn't want to show applications. But about two years later, he only showed us certain applications. He did not show the whole form.

xiaotiema

[bamboo_ leaf]

"If I am the typical "real" Tai Chi practitioner, what would be my most common course of action?”

A very difficult question with a relatively simple answer, it may be one that you don’t want to hear.

I have found finding the typical real TC player depends on the level of the player, teacher and style, each answer that you get reflects this.

In my experience the main practice centers on knowing what and how to deal with force.

At the higher levels the shape and intent of the force is not so important because the art has moved beyond one of external tech to one of internal principles. just as the outer form is not so important it is only a way to practice and express the inner practice.

depending on the skill and depth of the teacher any TC form can lead you there.

Many teachers will not show or teach tech because I think they feel it leads in the wrong direction, people tend to get locked into
useing this for that and so one. If you look at each form as an expression of following, releasing, open and closing then you can see what the “real” practice is about regardless of use.


luck in the way :)