Question for water Dragon

[swmngdragn]

>Hi Drake,......<

'lo, Esteban.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

>Best,
Esteban<

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

[Kevin Wallbridge]

This has been a great thread.

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Esteban]

Hi Drake, Kevin W.,

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

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

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

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

Good training, and
Happy Holidays to all,
Esteban

[Kevin Wallbridge]

Etseban,

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

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

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

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

[Sam Wiley]

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

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

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

[count]

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

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

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

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

[Water Dragon]

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

[Esteban]

Hi Count,

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

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

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

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

Esteban

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

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

[count]

Thanks Esteban,

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

So, Waterdragon,

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

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

[Esteban]

Hey Count,

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

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

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

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

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

Respects,
Esteban

[blacktaoist]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

BEST FOR LAST." LOL

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Peace to all, any happy Kwanzua

[Water Dragon]

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

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

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

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


What kind of fight training are you doing?

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

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

Again, push hands and sparring

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

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

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

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

[wisdom mind]

peace

[Water Dragon]

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

[Esteban]

Yo Blacktaoist,

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

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

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

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

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

Best,
Esteban