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