Judo vs Tai Chi

[Miles Teg]

Sports? What makes it a sport any more than Judo is a community center past time for the retired.


.....and god am I sick of the multiple attacker/knife arguement!

[Buddy]

Rules.

[SPJ]

The basic defense ideas of Tai Ji:

1) to yield, redirect, extend or empty out the opponent's Jin.

2) to neutralize the opponent's Jin. (Hwa Jin)

How?

By positioning, and Chan Si (silk reeling).

3) Qin Na and anti Qin Na.

What is protection strategy of Judo against a punch, a kick, a leg sweep, a throw, a tripping, Qin Na, elbow, knee strike, head banging on the nose, ----?

[Doug]

Originally posted by Miles Teg
Doug
I believe it was you who started with the whole killing idea. I wasnt sure where you were going with it and Im not sure where you're going with the whole Do verses jutsu thing. What difference does it make what you call it?

If you look at your post it basically says that Judo/BJJ is not a killing art. This opens the implication that Taichi IS a killing art although not clearly stated. Thus Knifefighter's justified comparison between Taichi and BJJ/Judo as killing arts.

I cannot believe how you guys who practice a -do or -jutsu do not understand the comparison. Obviously, the level of exposure to the difference between the two has not been very high.

"What difference does it make what you call it"?! It makes every difference. The two are night and day. There are similarities between a -do and a -jutsu, but they are not the same. A true -jutsu has one response to a threat: death. That is the fundamental understanding of such a system. Does that mean partners in class are killed? No. Does that mean every instance that a -jutsu person uses his craft will result in death? Of course not. But the goal is death, which was a necessary component of a battelfield. A -do can kill as a last resort. Does a -do use every other restraint to avoid killing someone else? Yes. This is not difficult to understand, so why are some of you taking offense? Who is contesting that a Judo practitioner can kill someone else? Yet who is saying that Judo is a "death art" rather than a sport? I have heard plenty of times that Aikido is a "death art," but that is nonsense as well. At the basic level of intention, the foundations of -do and -jutsu are different.

No, Knifefighter is not justified in making his comparison because 1) he misunderstood the point I made and 2) he makes an assumption about Tai Chi not being in the same league as Judo (which is a hilarious generalization). If someone wants to answer this question, find a Tai Chi fighter and challenge him or her. That is the only way to get beyond any blanket generalizations. But "willing to bet" is just another way of saying that one does not know for sure.

Yes, Tai Chi is a killing art for the person who trains with that in mind. Yes, it can be a healing art and a spiritual art as well. There is no need to "open the implication" because this is a fact. If you are thinking that I am saying a Judo practitioner is unable to kill someone else, get that out of your head.

You posted this:

POSTED BY DOUG:
"Well, what are you emphasizing in the -do art? By definition, Judo is all about finding one's way or path. It is not about killing other men. You know that the theory or philosophy behind a given art makes a big difference. This is such a case.

You mention that someone can walk into a Gracie Jujutsu school, make a challenge, and actually confront someone from that school. How many people die from these encounters? How willing are the Gracie people to kill the challenger? Unless I am wrong, death is not something that happens in these encounters. Could they? Sure, the potential to kill is high and fairly easy to resort to if need be. But the decision not to kill someone marks the difference I speak of: rather than responding with death, another option exists--life. Comparing "ultimate fighting" with real combat is a mistake. The fact that people walk away from these things with "changed" perspectives is quite different than not walking away at all."

What is confusing about this message? Can you pick out select parts and further specify what ails you? By doing so, I can clarify what I mean for that specific portion. Otherwise, I will be typing for a long time.

Doug M

[ShaolinTiger00]

find a Tai Chi fighter and challenge him or her

No such thing. The closest thing you'll find is tai chi guy with a wrestling background who now studies kickboxing and sub grappling (mma) that says "it's all tai chi man..." *waves hands*

he makes an assumption about Tai Chi not being in the same league as Judo (which is a hilarious generalization).

right.. because we all know dozens of world class tai chi athletes

[Doug]

Originally posted by ShaolinTiger00
No such thing. The closest thing you'll find is tai chi guy with a wrestling background who now studies kickboxing and sub grappling (mma) that says "it's all tai chi man..." *waves hands*

That is untrue.

right.. because we all know dozens of world class tai chi athletes

This supports my point even further. Thank you.

Doug M

[Shooter]

I've never studied kickboxing or 'sub grappling' or 'mma'. No Judo, BJJ, or instructional videos either.

*cloud-hands*

[Miles Teg]

No Doug, I must be missing the point entirely. I don't understand. And no I haven't had much exposure to Judo or jutsu arts so perhaps the difference is indeed unclear to me.

You train at a style. You learn a system to defeat an opponent. What more is there than that? I have been training Judo (a �gdo�h Art) and wing chun. Personally I don�ft see the difference you refer to. Neither are a religion. Whether its wing chun or Judo, I go class to learn hwo to take someone out. Whether, Im punching, kicking, choking, or arm barring its all for the same purpose.

When I think killing arts, the only arts that really pop into my mind are ninjutsu or arts that involve using weapons like knives, swords, shuriken, etc. I believe these arts are of little value to civilians like me.

Then you have good old empty hand martial arts where you learn to somehow defeat an opponent. In all these martial arts you have the ability to kill someone, or if you have a high level of skill, be able to either subdue or repel them to the extent where they cannot fight back.

Among these martial arts there are certain martial arts that are adaptable to different fighting environments (e.g. Judo & BJJ) and then there are those that say their techniques are too deadly for restrictive fighting environments where the deadly eye poke etc. is not allowed. These martial are sad because not only do they never really get to try their deadly techniques out in the first place, they also have such a poor foundation that the mechanics of the system are is like a paper castle that falls apart with out them(the deadly techniques). Although Taichi doesn�ft seem to be nearly as adaptable as Judo or BJJ as we haven�ft seen many step out into competitive fighting arenas (although I gather that a few on this forum do), I have never thought of Taichi as being such crap that it only relies on deadly techniques. I have always thought of taichi�fs biggest asset as having a sound foundation in body mechanics resulting in having the ability to both be able to absorb tremendous force and also put it out. I have always thought that there is no reason why such awesome mecahnics couldn�ft be adapted to different fighting environments. These mechanics would certainly work.

[SPJ]

Excellent points.

Cheers.

[Doug]

Originally posted by Miles Teg
No Doug, I must be missing the point entirely. I don't understand. And no I haven't had much exposure to Judo or jutsu arts so perhaps the difference is indeed unclear to me.

Hmm. I have been under the impression that you train in Judo.

You train at a style. You learn a system to defeat an opponent. What more is there than that?

Well, this grossly overgeneralized interpretation misses the difference. A -do art is never about "defeating" someone. It is about "defeating" yourself, constantly bettering your mind and spiritual self through technique and, in a more true sense, meditation, which takes on different forms. A -jutsu system does not have to even consider "conquering self" because the goal is to kill the other guy on a battlefield. You are confusing the two, which is leading you to believe that they are one in the same.

I have been training Judo (a �gdo�h Art) and wing chun. Personally I don�ft see the difference you refer to. Neither are a religion. Whether its wing chun or Judo, I go class to learn hwo to take someone out. Whether, Im punching, kicking, choking, or arm barring its all for the same purpose.

Now, I am confused. You have little exposure to Judo, yet you train in Judo...hmmm.

Are you really going to class to "learn how to take someone out"? You can do that by other means that have nothing to do with martial arts. No, there is more going on inside you than you realize. If you are practicing Judo to learn how to kill someone, then you are going about "the methods of killing" in an entirely roundabout way. Just because the techniques are there does not mean you are "killing" with them.

When I think killing arts, the only arts that really pop into my mind are ninjutsu or arts that involve using weapons like knives, swords, shuriken, etc. I believe these arts are of little value to civilians like me.

And Jujitsu certainly would involve weapons on a battlefield. However, the intention behind the system is to kill the other person, not "defeat the self." So you are really answering your own questions here when you say "these arts are of little value to civilians like me." Therefore, you are practicing the arts that are not "focused on death" but are all about personal struggles and learning.

Then you have good old empty hand martial arts where you learn to somehow defeat an opponent. In all these martial arts you have the ability to kill someone, or if you have a high level of skill, be able to either subdue or repel them to the extent where they cannot fight back.

Yes, like I said again and again and again.

Among these martial arts there are certain martial arts that are adaptable to different fighting environments (e.g. Judo & BJJ) and then there are those that say their techniques are too deadly for restrictive fighting environments where the deadly eye poke etc. is not allowed. These martial are sad because not only do they never really get to try their deadly techniques out in the first place, they also have such a poor foundation that the mechanics of the system are is like a paper castle that falls apart with out them(the deadly techniques).

First, you cannot talk about other martial systems unless you have practiced or do practice them. All is assumption if you talk without knowing. If you were to take your judgements to be true, you would be the grad F-ing master of the martial universe. Since you do not even understand the difference between a -do and a -jutsu, you should not be so rash as to make blanket statements like that.

Second, you should make a distinction between being able to use a technique and not having to use a technique. These "deadly techniques" as you call them are readily available to these "restrictive martial systems" and can be used at any time. However, there are consequences to using them that may not be desirable at a given time. Someone may know how to execute a "deadly technique" without ever having to use it. That is a major difference. Just because one knows how to perform a specific technique does not mean one must use it. Thinking that one cannot find value in a technique that never is used, in a tournament or not, is actually a clear indication of surface-level understanding of martial arts.

Although Taichi doesn�ft seem to be nearly as adaptable as Judo or BJJ as we haven�ft seen many step out into competitive fighting arenas (although I gather that a few on this forum do),

Uh, which system is used by more epople around the world for health and meditative purposes?

Have you ever practiced Tai Chi? How can you make such a silly assessment if you have no basic understanding of Tai Chi beyond a magazine or book description? Again, assumptions, the mother of all F-ups, and all that.

I have never thought of Taichi as being such crap that it only relies on deadly techniques. I have always thought of taichi�fs biggest asset as having a sound foundation in body mechanics resulting in having the ability to both be able to absorb tremendous force and also put it out. I have always thought that there is no reason why such awesome mecahnics couldn�ft be adapted to different fighting environments. These mechanics would certainly work.

How would you know this if, again, you have not practiced the art?

Even if you really do know about Tai Chi--have practiced it and personally experienced the things you speak of--how would it not be considered "adaptable"?

Tai Chi's major emphasis in the West is as a healing art, not a fighting art. There are schools in the United States that practice Tai Chi as a combat system, but so many more teach its health aspects. "Groundfighting" is all about the fighting aspect, which limits its application. If one take the intention of "fight, fight, fight" to the -do art, then one is not practicng the -do aspect and is missing out on the very beneficial parts of the -do art. To say that Tai Chi is not as adaptable as these otehr systems is simply a misinterpretation of the facts that are right in front of us. Given time, Tai Chi's fighting aspects can become a major emphasis in more schools.

Anyway, I am not going to talk about -do or -jutsu (I should have been typing "jitsu" all along--sorry) anymore. I have explained it well enough, and those who know the difference can say more if they want to.

Doug M

[Knifefighter]

Originally posted by Doug
Second, you should make a distinction between being able to use a technique and not having to use a technique. These "deadly techniques" as you call them are readily available to these "restrictive martial systems" and can be used at any time.

The practitioners of these "deadly" arts believe that their "deadly' techniques are readily available. However, the truth is, since they have never actually used them, the "lethal" techniquues are rarely as available as those practitioners think they are.

[Doug]

Originally posted by Knifefighter
The practitioners of these "deadly" arts believe that their "deadly' techniques are readily available. However, the truth is, since they have never actually used them, the "lethal" techniquues are rarely as available as those practitioners think they are.

This is only true if these techniques are not practiced on objects, stationary or moving, and in sparring. True, one cannot spar with these "deadly" techniques because "the opposite" would die. Yet training to use them and being ready to use them constitute their readiness.

And I do not believe every practitioner of every "deadly technique" will be able to perform it well or competently. The same goes for all things.

This reminds me of a non-Tai Chi incident. I was regularly hand training with a fifty-pound sandbag and a metal bar a few years ago. One technique I was training was a backfist. To test it, I decided to hang a background onto a wall with my backfist to help someone with a photo shoot. It worked.

So, yes, one needs to train and use the technique (by "use," I mean apply it to some medium) for it to work. But one does not have to actually kill someone with it. Of course, one could take the route of Mas Oyama and kill bulls.

Doug M

[Miles Teg]

(Hmm. I have been under the impression that you train in Judo.)

Thus use of the term "not much". As I said before, I just started.


(Well, this grossly overgeneralized interpretation misses the difference. )
I dont want to see the difference, I want to see similarities and useful applications.

(A -do art is never about "defeating" someone.
It is about "defeating" yourself, constantly bettering your mind and spiritual self through technique and, in a more true sense, meditation, which takes on different forms. A -jutsu system does not have to even consider "conquering self" because the goal is to kill the other guy on a battlefield. You are confusing the two, which is leading you to believe that they are one in the same.)

Correct me if Im wrong, but don't life and death battlefield encounters require a greater focus on "the way" meditation and so forth. Bettering yourself mentally and physically in preparation for the few seconds of fighting eventuate in killing or being killed. Was it not the samurai that would meditate for hours a day sometimes right before a challenge. Wasnt their whole philosophy the most dangerous warrior is one that doesnt fear death.
I think you're making this more complicated than it needs to be and I dont think the creators of these arts had these differences in mind when they made them. Iaido for example is the art of drawing a sword and that is a "Do". BJJ evolved from a student of the guy that created Judo. This student stayed with the name Jutsu (this may be due to the person leaving his teacher (kano) before the name Judo started being employed - but it still illustrates that there is little difference in the naming)

(Now, I am confused. You have little exposure to Judo, yet you train in Judo...hmmm.)

See above.

(Are you really going to class to "learn how to take someone out"? You can do that by other means that have nothing to do with martial arts. No, there is more going on inside you than you realize. If you are practicing Judo to learn how to kill someone, then you are going about "the methods of killing" in an entirely roundabout way. Just because the techniques are there does not mean you are "killing" with them.)

I didnt think taking someone out�Enecessarily equated to killing someone. Killing people with martial arts hasnt crossed my mind.
quote:

(And Jujitsu certainly would involve weapons on a battlefield. However, the intention behind the system is to kill the other person, not "defeat the self." So you are really answering your own questions here when you say "these arts are of little value to civilians like me." Therefore, you are practicing the arts that are not "focused on death" but are all about personal struggles and learning.)

For me its about fighting skills, body mechanics etc. Learning �Eyes. Personal struggle �Ewell �Ethat covers all areas of life.

(First, you cannot talk about other martial systems unless you have practiced or do practice them. All is assumption if you talk without knowing. If you were to take your judgements to be true, you would be the grad F-ing master of the martial universe.)

Come again sunshine? What judgments?

(Since you do not even understand the difference between a -do and a -jutsu, you should not be so rash as to make blanket statements like that.)

What blaket statements? That taichi has good body mechanics?

(Second, you should make a distinction between being able to use a technique and not having to use a technique. These "deadly techniques" as you call them are readily available to these "restrictive martial systems" and can be used at any time. However, there are consequences to using them that may not be desirable at a given time. Someone may know how to execute a "deadly technique" without ever having to use it. That is a major difference. Just because one knows how to perform a specific technique does not mean one must use it. Thinking that one cannot find value in a technique that never is used, in a tournament or not, is actually a clear indication of surface-level understanding of martial arts.)

Well we are kind of dancing around the generalized term deadly techniques�E Are you referring to pressure points/dim mak etc or very powerful body mechanics that effectually make the technique deadly? If you refer to body mechanics they should be adaptable to various fighting arenas.
quote:

Posted by me:
Although Taichi doesnt seem to be nearly as adaptable as Judo or BJJ as we havent seen many step out into competitive fighting arenas (although I gather that a few on this forum do),

(Uh, which system is used by more epople around the world for health and meditative purposes?)

I dont see how health and meditative purposes fits in with my comment on adaptability to fighting arenas.

(Have you ever practiced Tai Chi? How can you make such a silly assessment if you have no basic understanding of Tai Chi beyond a magazine or book description? Again, assumptions, the mother of all F-ups, and all that.)

No I havent. But what assumption? That Taichi has awesome body mechanics?
I just have an interest and have had a few demos from/through friends. There are a few overlapping principles in W.C and Taichi. Namely whole body unity, sensitivity, wecome-stick-follow, uprooting rooting etc. However, before you get going on your separation fetish �Eyes, as you unnecessarily said before they are different arts.

(Even if you really do know about Tai Chi--have practiced it and personally experienced the things you speak of--how would it not be considered "adaptable"?)

I dont think its not adaptable. I believe the foundations are such that they need not rely on deadly techniques and would thus be adaptable to fighting arenas.

(Anyway, I am not going to talk about -do or -jutsu (I should have been typing "jitsu" all along--sorry) anymore. I have explained it well enough, and those who know the difference can say more if they want to.)

I thought jutsu was correct.

[SPJ]

Sorry to interrupt.

What is a Judo throw?

What is an Aikido throw?

What is a Tai Ji throw?

What is a Ba Gua throw?

What is a Shuai Jiao throw?

What is a Mantis throw?

What is a Ba Ji throw?

There are a lot of generic throws?

Please name a unique one in each school and how it differs?

Oops. Judo throws are generic throws.

Other schools have them and plus more.

[Miles Teg]

Please expand.