Chen Taijiquan Various Form and Application Videos

[Mo Ling]

Sorry, I was responding to Sanjoro Ronin's statement. Obviously if there is no time to apply the technique it will not be used, my view is simply if the technique should be applied before the attack withdraws, it is helpful to those studying it to see this at speed, whereas if there are many aspects that must be applied succinctly, and explanation requires one dwell on this space, but demonstration does not occur of it at speed after the explanation phase, students tend to not realize how quick the details should all line up, so they do it all as independent points, not links in a chain that lead to the techniques' results.

Well put. I agree 100%.
These videos do not show that final demonstration. In my experience that final demonstration is neither necessary, nor helpful until students have reached the point of actually putting together the pre-requisite chains of methods and details. It is just distracting and often creates the feeling that they should go for the fast action (trying to be good at it) before they even have the details and methods within acquired.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Definitely.

However, let's assume that you picked two techs, one that presumed a lead, one that presumed a cross, and the attacker chose when and which one, and they could move about(though not change their relative stance, meaning if it was orthodox facing ortodox at the start, it stays orthodox facing orthodox, just allow "stalking"), so that the other would have to deal with judging distance.

It's still reactive, but less reactive, because it involves choices the defender does not get to make, and ingrains timing and distance.

Would doing such techs in such a drill, in your opinion, be valuable?

Semi-freestyle sparring like that is a great building block and is one of the best way to work on creating and developing correct reactions to certain attacks not seen in day-to-day sparring.

[KC Elbows]

Semi-freestyle sparring like that is a great building block and is one of the best way to work on creating and developing correct reactions to certain attacks not seen in day-to-day sparring.

Thanks, just getting your opinion.

[sanjuro_ronin]

There is an intangiable that makes all fighting chaotic, regardless of the skill level and that intangiable is "timing" and nowhere is it more a factor than in a system that is reactive.

Building reflexes and counters and reactions and skills to attacks that will never happen that way is counter-productive.

Thing is, we all have that view when it applies to other systems and we can see what THEY are doing wrong, but we tend to be blinded to what OUR system does wrong, even if it is the same thing.

[KC Elbows]

Well put. I agree 100%.
These videos do not show that final demonstration. In my experience that final demonstration is neither necessary, nor helpful until students have reached the point of actually putting together the pre-requisite chains of methods and details. It is just distracting and often creates the feeling that they should go for the fast action (trying to be good at it) before they even have the details and methods within acquired.

This may be also a difference in approaches to training. I view training taiji is not unlike training language. The longer one puts off diving into conversation, despite the limits of one's vocabulary, the worse the communication skills, the smaller the vocabulary, the more limited the grammar. One muscles through the initial conversations, and, provided they have a good teacher and that teacher makes certain to keep stressing the important points and expands the student's knowledge of the language, they will improve much faster than if avoiding conversation.

Likewise with taiji, imo. Yes, they will be tempted in their first experiences to muscle through, but they will be tempted later to do the same if they don't get it out of the way early: if they can learn to avoid unnecessary tension early, though they don't know a response to a situation yet, they will be able to gain that response faster once shown it than if they were still dealing with tension. Crossing hands is a simpler form of conversation than language, so the more like what the actual situation is the training approaches, the earlier, the better.

Yes, at the beginning stages, in either language or taiji, the student will feel overwhelmed by this method.

But, delaying it, imo, does not get rid of that feeling, it puts it off.

Granted, for a commercial school, this method could not be applied to someone who joined for light workout or something to take the edge off of their day(as opposed to love of the arts).

[Mo Ling]

There is an intangiable that makes all fighting chaotic, regardless of the skill level and that intangiable is "timing" and nowhere is it more a factor than in a system that is reactive.

Building reflexes and counters and reactions and skills to attacks that will never happen that way is counter-productive.

Thing is, we all have that view when it applies to other systems and we can see what THEY are doing wrong, but we tend to be blinded to what OUR system does wrong, even if it is the same thing.

I my experience (perhaps contrary to the mainstream) Taijiquan is actually not a 'reactive' system. It is in fact simply dynamic; both active and reactive. However, it is certainly useful to understand reaction, develop methods for it and use the chess board as a tool for learning.
I suggest keeping in mind that not everything is shown in videos (at least not mine) and some of what can be thought to 'never happen in reality' may be forced or enticed to happen. Taijiquan is only partially like surfing; in surfing you cannot control the wave but you can try to control your position and navigation of the wave. In Taijiquan there are ways of controlling the wave (the opponent) as well as your navigation and position relative to it- just something to think about.

[sanjuro_ronin]

People surf and learn to surf by surfing, not by having people throw water at them.

[Mo Ling]

This may be also a difference in approaches to training. I view training taiji is not unlike training language. The longer one puts off diving into conversation, despite the limits of one's vocabulary, the worse the communication skills, the smaller the vocabulary, the more limited the grammar. One muscles through the initial conversations, and, provided they have a good teacher and that teacher makes certain to keep stressing the important points and expands the student's knowledge of the language, they will improve much faster than if avoiding conversation.

A difference of approach, hard to say really.
I am not interested in delaying the more active conversational practice. It is trained concurrently with more focused application development practice. Neither one of these must be neglected. Conversation may build dexterity, but it is does not really help with reading or grammar on it's own. The structure of a language must be developed in a focused environment. I am also speaking from experience having become proficient in Mandarin and having met many people overseas who attempted to learn it by simply showing up in China (useless).

So, these videos show a particular area of training, not ALL the areas.
The area that is shown is absolutely as important as the one you are asking for.

[Mo Ling]

People surf and learn to surf by surfing, not by having people throw water at them.

Red herring there...
Surfing was not offered as an analogy to TRAINING, but to what one must attempt to control. Waves cannot be 'thrown' at anyone, but people can be. You think a wave tank would not be useful to a surfer? How about wind tunnels for airpane designers, no one learns to fly by having air thrown at them?

No one learns Taijiquan methodology at any depth without actually being taught it and then practicing it with focus. With an equal measure of hyperbole as your last post, attempting to learn Taijiquan by simply having an opponent work you is utterly, completely futile.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Red herring there...
Surfing was not offered as an analogy to TRAINING, but to what one must attempt to control. Waves cannot be 'thrown' at anyone, but people can be. You think a wave tank would not be useful to a surfer? How about wind tunnels for airpane designers, no one learns to fly by having air thrown at them?

No one learns Taijiquan methodology at any depth without actually being taught it and then practicing it with focus. With an equal measure of hyperbole as your last post, attempting to learn Taijiquan by simply having an opponent work you is utterly, completely futile.

Dude, don't feel that I am being overly critical of you or your taiji, I am this way with ANYONE that post demo's like that.
Why?
Because there is NO REASON why the demo can't be done with the types of actions that actually happen in a "real fight".
You know how I knew my Chen Taiji sifu was "practical"?
First time I saw him demo an application the guy attacking attacked like a little school girl and got slapped across the face for it.
"Attack like you mean it or there is no energy to be used"
I agree.

[taai gihk yahn]

Ah, I have not missed any of your points.
I understand what you WANT to see, however these videos are of something different than you want.

actually, no one WANTS to see anything one way or another; we are just making the comment that if one is trying to demonstrate combat efficacy of a given approach, then the context that you show is really not providing that in toto;

They are what they are, and it is fairly apparent that there is plenty of standing still and talking and examining position and method. These videos are about particular methods that can be used at particular positions, and that has value on it's own.

no one is disagreeing about the fact that what you show has intrinsic value - it does; however, that value needs must be understood as relatively limited beyond an initial phase of training

The particular methods shown, are not at all common to be shown, nor especially easy to learn, regardless of the fact that they LOOK easy and light on the videos. So, there is value here for those who are interested.

oh, come now - don't go all "special K" on us here - what you are showing isn't all that rarified, it's pretty standard in the realm of TCMA and taiji in particular, and not that hard to learn; indeed, if u want to qualify it as being some sort of unfathomable practice, then what's even the point of putting them out to pubic perusal if you feel that people aren't going to be able to understand what they are seeing in the first place?

For those who are not interested in this, naturally, you'll wait for the particular videos that you are interested in involving gloves, striking and realistic speed etc.

well, that would be interesting to see, but based on your previous comment about not using gloves, it does not appear that this sort of thing will be forthcoming...

again, no one is bashing you or saying that what you demonstrate is in and of itself lacking in anyway - it appears to be reasonable technique; it's just a question of where the general dialogue about these sorts of things is at present, and that necessarily requires demonstration in context reasonably close to what one might face "for real"; if that's not there, then one has little basis with which to make an accurate assessment of a given system's combat efficacy, especially given that there exist other approaches that provide it; in essence, it comes down to this: if one cannot demonstrate context dependent usage to at least some degree, then someone viewing has to say to themselves, "why ought I to bother with this approach if it is not demonstrating it's usability under adverse, realistic conditions?" ; since you have made a point of putting your stuff out there for public appraisal, that suggests that you are looking for some sort of response from those viewing it; and as such, the response is feedback regarding what the public (at least some members) are looking for in terms of giving credibility to a given practice;

best to you

[taai gihk yahn]

Well put. I agree 100%.
These videos do not show that final demonstration. In my experience that final demonstration is neither necessary, nor helpful until students have reached the point of actually putting together the pre-requisite chains of methods and details. It is just distracting and often creates the feeling that they should go for the fast action (trying to be good at it) before they even have the details and methods within acquired.

yes and no - I agree that for some students, you have to take them step by step; others actually do better being thrown into the mix sooner, by nature of their constitutional type / learning style; but in general, you are correct, in fact Motor Learning Therory discusses this point in great detail vis a vis what is termd the "contextual interference effect", which looks at how levels of randomness can be inserted into motor skill acquisition in order to optimize acquisition, retention and ultimately transfer of motor skill;

I my experience (perhaps contrary to the mainstream) Taijiquan is actually not a 'reactive' system. It is in fact simply dynamic; both active and reactive. However, it is certainly useful to understand reaction, develop methods for it and use the chess board as a tool for learning.
I suggest keeping in mind that not everything is shown in videos (at least not mine) and some of what can be thought to 'never happen in reality' may be forced or enticed to happen. Taijiquan is only partially like surfing; in surfing you cannot control the wave but you can try to control your position and navigation of the wave. In Taijiquan there are ways of controlling the wave (the opponent) as well as your navigation and position relative to it- just something to think about.

in general, I agree with this - however, if one examines something wrestling, we can see a similar skill set that is also "dynamic" as opposed to reactive; and in general, I agree that taiji is not reactive, because at a given level, if one truly "lives" taiji, then one demonstrates a field of awareness that keeps one several steps ahead on the chess board in life in general...

[taai gihk yahn]

Dude, don't feel that I am being overly critical of you or your taiji, I am this way with ANYONE that post demo's like that.

actually, on the continuum of commentary vis a vis this sort of thing, I'd say that we are being far less critical and more constructive than is usual; maybe we didn't get enuf fiber this morning?

[Mo Ling]

actually, no one WANTS to see anything one way or another; we are just making the comment that if one is trying to demonstrate combat efficacy of a given approach, then the context that you show is really not providing that in toto;


no one is disagreeing about the fact that what you show has intrinsic value - it does; however, that value needs must be understood as relatively limited beyond an initial phase of training


oh, come now - don't go all "special K" on us here - what you are showing isn't all that rarified, it's pretty standard in the realm of TCMA and taiji in particular, and not that hard to learn; indeed, if u want to qualify it as being some sort of unfathomable practice, then what's even the point of putting them out to pubic perusal if you feel that people aren't going to be able to understand what they are seeing in the first place?


well, that would be interesting to see, but based on your previous comment about not using gloves, it does not appear that this sort of thing will be forthcoming...

again, no one is bashing you or saying that what you demonstrate is in and of itself lacking in anyway - it appears to be reasonable technique; it's just a question of where the general dialogue about these sorts of things is at present, and that necessarily requires demonstration in context reasonably close to what one might face "for real"; if that's not there, then one has little basis with which to make an accurate assessment of a given system's combat efficacy, especially given that there exist other approaches that provide it; in essence, it comes down to this: if one cannot demonstrate context dependent usage to at least some degree, then someone viewing has to say to themselves, "why ought I to bother with this approach if it is not demonstrating it's usability under adverse, realistic conditions?" ; since you have made a point of putting your stuff out there for public appraisal, that suggests that you are looking for some sort of response from those viewing it; and as such, the response is feedback regarding what the public (at least some members) are looking for in terms of giving credibility to a given practice;

best to you

Hey take it easy fire chief.. I don't think you can see me getting all upset behind the keyboard can you? I am not particularly worried if you are being critical or not, that is your right. Regardless of how anyone feels, I am also not obligated to agree with or automatically accept whatever critique or response is offered am I.

In terms of 'special K' etc ideology. If you think these methods are standard available fare on the internet in Chen Taijiquan, as I said I'd love to see the actual items you refer to. I said this before and it was not responded to. I do not recall having seen almost ANY punch and parry work in Chen Taijiquan at all on the internet, but you may know different.

[KC Elbows]

I think where the discussion lies is in the distance between the explanation and the realistic usage.

I think many tend to explain for years, producing teachers who explain, but cannot do.(Not saying this relates to the thread, just a broad statement here.)

I think many tend to overstate the length to a lesser degree.

Very few apply too early as much as fail to make certain that the techniques are being done properly every time.

I tend to point out every error every time.

No matter what, the student, when doing the actual usage(not the application, which is a stylized rendition of what the actual usage in fighting is), will do it wrong at first, for some time. BUT, in most cases, the version that does not misplace tension has the best chance of succeeding, so they will consistently fail at applying until they let go UNLESS the attack is not realistic, in which case they might spend time using a move incorrectly but seeming to succeed, because the format for testing is tailored to allow their error, whereas live usage would, in one fell swoop, show their error.

In short, if done at speed, success goes to the technique with the least unecessary tension done with the best timing, and so there can be no cheating, forcing the move, without it leading quickly to failure under repeated testing, which drives understanding the importance of relaxation far faster than our words and lessons on it ever could, provided the practice is kept safe(thus gloves, if only I had stock, so that I received a profit every time I said this).

Now, knowledge of the correct way must come from somewhere, so one doesn't learn just by crossing hands, but one becomes able to apply the concepts only by crossing hands.

I see them as inseparable, the lesson and the ingraining of it, and, to ingrain it, I see as inseparable the training the details and trying to pull it off live; thus, I might go over the details on one occasion without the live training, but thereafter focus is on applying those details live. Last week, two students worked one technique for two hours, attacker stalking wearing gloves, defender trying to blend and setup a particular throw: every weak spot in their technique wore them out, leading to new questions or understandings of things they were already told. I was quite proud, as I wasn't intending them to spend the whole class working one technique, they just wanted to hone it just a little more every time I worked with them. They made good progress, and while I still will have to watch to get on them about little issues in their technique, those issues are far fewer than explanation would have cleared up, imo.

However, there is always the question with some things how long to wait before the two parts, the detailed formalized practice and the live practice, are brought together. One only really starts to more completely understand to formal explanation after it is executed live, but some explanation is necessary.