Fighting or form?

[gazza99]

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

[Shooter]

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

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

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

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

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

[GroungJing]

Originally posted by Shooter
Groungjing, great post.

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

Yes agreed.


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

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

[Kaitain(UK)]

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

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

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

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

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

Ok - so that's question one.

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

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

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

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

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

[TaiChiBob]

Greetings..

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

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

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

Be well...

[Kaitain(UK)]

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

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

[gazza99]

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

"I showed how mine compares"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Later!

G

[backbreaker]

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

[Kaitain(UK)]

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

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

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

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

Cheers

Paul

[backbreaker]

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

[gazza99]

Out of interest have you looked into NLP?

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

G

[Shooter]

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

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

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

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

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

You captured this approach perfectly when you wrote;

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

Proper training and time spent

Thanks for taking it easy on me.


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

[Shooter]

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

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

[Kaitain(UK)]

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks for your time

Paul

[TaiChiBob]

Greetings..

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

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

Thanks again, Be well..