How many of you internal arts instructors teach self-defense applications? How much a part of your program is this aspect? What kind of material do you cover and how?
I don’t really like the term “self defense” Too victimish for me. I say I teach fighting. Probably the same thing, but the different words give different mind sets.
I’m big on cooperative push hands. It lets people find their own things based on their understanding. I also like heavy bag work and half power sparring.
I don’t teach apps with the form. What I do is teach the form as an exercise in body mechanics for power. Then, if I show a specific app, I’ll say “This is like ward off in the form or this is like single whip.”
Actual self defense work comes in the way of medium to hard style sparring, no pre arranged sequences. When sparring, I tell people to forget everything they learned in class. If they have it, it will come out. If they don’t have it, trying to use it will do them no good.
I answered this on another forum it seems a dangerous question for those that don’t fall into the standard TC is all about learning how to fight and if it is not fighting then it’s not TC.
I preface my answer with this is where I am at now after what some may consider a long time training in CMA.
I don’t teach people how to fight or self defense. My training and those that train with me is centered on learning how to maintain inner and outer balance. Gaining an understanding of the classics and internalizing those principles in our selves and relationships with others.
I use the from as a physical medium to examine and explore TC principles. Once the ideas and concepts have been internalized the use and function becomes available. What and how a person uses their art is up to them.
Health / self defense / fighting, after the function and use is gained it’s all the same.
bamboo leaf
self defense
I teach “or try too” how to use the art.
Generally (outside conditioning, stance training forms etc.) I generally lead my students through a gradual processes into gaining the ability to use the art.
Bag work is important. Cardio training is important.
Generally instilling confidence is a huge factor in gaining skill.
I usually start with simple applications, and then progress into two man forms. Followed by push hands (Rou shou) at different speeds. Rou shou starts out with the simple pushes and presses etc. (I try not to lean so heavily on the push and the press, being xingyi, to me these are more for setting up kicks and strikes none the less pushes and presses are effective.) Then rou shou will gradually lead into chin-na and strikes, sweeps and throws etc. At different intensities.
It is here that the student learns things like "striking to set up Chin-na†or "striking to defend chin-na†striking or kicking to set up sweeps or throws, the effectiveness of striking and kicking at the same time etc etc (big Xingyiquan technique here!!!
I usually progress the student into half speed sparring. It is here that the student learns how to bridge the gap using the different techniques learned. He also learns different set-ups at different angles of attack and different angles of defensive evasion etc..
Then basically full all out sparring with sweeps and throws wearing protective gear is next.
Usally here or sometime before the student learns the real thing (fighting) isn’t pretty and is nothing like the moveies. They usally learn that is quite easy to get hit if there not focusing.
I believe in protective gear because it cuts down on injuries thus allows more sparring time.
Screw the macho Crap! I’m getting old damn it!
At this time the student should be learning good distancing, how to move fast when you’re opponent moves slow or vice a versa. also things like "how to make your opponent move into a bad position.
Basically the Yin and Yang of fighting.
At this time I encourage my students to work less on defeating their opponent, but more on strengthening certain techniques that they are lacking in ability to pull off in a real world situation.
Spanky
When sparring, I tell people to forget everything they learned in class. If they have it, it will come out. If they don’t have it, trying to use it will do them no good.
Excellent.
Water Dragon, RE: “I don’t really like the term “self defense” Too victimish for me. I say I teach fighting. Probably the same thing, but the different words give different mind sets.”. I agree. Personally, I usually refer to it as counter-assault tactics, however, the term “self-defense” is still more generally recognizable to most people. I wanted my question to be as easily understood as possible.
RE: “Actual self defense work comes in the way of medium to hard style sparring, no pre arranged sequences. When sparring, I tell people to forget everything they learned in class. If they have it, it will come out. If they don’t have it, trying to use it will do them no good.”. That last statement has some nice wisdom to it, though I would suggest that such stricture would be more limiting than liberating for beginners, who don’t yet “have it” by definition, which is why they need an instructor. Also, though good hard sparring teaches things that almost nothing else can, I find that it has limitations especially in terms of the reality of the training. Too much sparring to the exclusion of all else produces a fighter with the bad habit of defaulting to “ring tactics” alone, without the kind of follow-through necessary in a real assault.
Overall, I’m glad to see the focus on the practical, especially when the internal arts in the U.S. are too often comprised of “filler”, i.e., New Age puddle-deep philosophy, insightless musings on the classics, relaxation music, and a total lack of knowledge of how to actually fight.
bamboo leaf, RE: “I answered this on another forum it seems a dangerous question for those that don’t fall into the standard TC is all about learning how to fight and if it is not fighting then it’s not TC.”. I understand your wanting to avoid an attitude that smacks of Western-style machismo. Taijiquan isn’t just about kicking butt.
However, it’s important to recognize that Taijiquan is first and foremost a martial art, so to some extent, the idea that “…if it is not fighting then it’s not TC” is actually true. This is contrast with the practice of Taoist Taiji philosophy as manifested through qigong sequences such as the Yang Cheng-fu Long Form. One is able to practice either way, or both concurrently, but Taijiquan and Taiji Qigong should not be confused one for the other. Please understand, I am not suggesting you personally are making this mistake, my comment here is more for the general principle.
RE: “I use the from as a physical medium to examine and explore TC principles. Once the ideas and concepts have been internalized the use and function becomes available. What and how a person uses their art is up to them. Health / self defense / fighting, after the function and use is gained it’s all the same.”. I must respectfully disagree in part with this. I agree that the same principles, as they are expressed physically, are beneficial both to health and martial contexts. However, in no way do I accept the notion that just because one understands and is able to properly express the principles of Taiji in the practice of the forms, one is all of a sudden magically able to defend oneself and to execute the appropriate combatives necessary for doing so.
Instead, such a person is simply much easier to teach such combatives, given that they already understand the principles behind them, but not the actual tactics themselves. Health and fighting applications are most certainly NOT “all the same”. However, if you are up-front about what and how you teach, then more power to you. My only concern would be that those who might come to you to learn to be able to protect themselves might not be told up front that that is not something they can expect to receive from you. If they ARE told, then it’s an informed decision and best of luck.
Don’t call me spanky, your program sounds reasonable and practical. Assuming you don’t neglect the more Yin aspects of the arts, it sounds as if you have a fairly balanced and realistic approach. BTW, is your Rou Shou from Bagua, by chance?
Chris, I emphasise a lot of bag work and a drill where in essence, you take turns clocking ewach other in the head. It starts out low intensity and builds up with the first goal being to kill the flinch reflex. If you saw the TLC show where William CC Chen and his sin are boxing, that’s the drill.
It’s another one of those “I think mine is better, you think yours is better” deals. As long as it makes you good in the ring and the street, both are just fine.
Fair enough. And yes, I’ve seen that drill. Nice and practical stuff you got going, it sounds like, though my overall point is about reality self-defense training, so I couldn’t care less about whether it makes you good in the ring. However, if that’s a positive side effect, so much the better. 
Chris,
Always interesting post.
As I said this is where I have arrived at after along while in other CMA arts. I have done most if not all the things that many talk of here in my own CMA journey. Now I only play TC , my understanding and comments reflect this IMA and no other.
What I find interesting reading the many post is this idea of gaining more power and using techniques arrived at through sparring and then saying this is IMA. How is this differnt from any other art? This seems to be the fast overcomeing the slow, the strong beating the weak.
maybe TC is a little differnt.
As I understand it the main point is to forget the self, and use the other persons power. I didn’t see this in any of the posting. What I saw was drills and other things to enhance a preconceived idea or build more power into whatever technique you use.
My point would be that by learning and understanding how to play TC, the fighting concepts / self-defense is automatically absorbed.
Some of the people that I train with display power that is hard to believe in a free style push hands format.
For me the idea of using no force and to be really sung is more of a protective measure while training to really listen.
Some people come and want to try the people here. If there level is not good they can easily be hurt. But no one here will do that, thats not why we play.
I’m not actively training any one now, but when people come I always ask them to try different things on me to illustrate the difference in TC approach and other arts. They seem to understand.
I suppose there are many ways of looking at something
bamboo leaf
“However, it’s important to recognize that Taijiquan is first and foremost a martial artâ€
I am finding it really hard to agree with that statement. This is what I am moving towards in my own practice.
TC was first an idea that was later expressed in physical format. To really embody the concept and idea is what to me the training and practice of the from and usage is all about.
The use of these concepts and ideas weather in a combative sense or every day life validates weather you have actually acquired the concept of TC. Historically depending on what you read or follow TC was introduced to the Chens who later modified what they had to reflect this to them a new idea. Later as different people learned the art they expressed the idea differently or in some cases may be even a truer format. Again depends on whom you follow and your understanding at this time. We are talking of an idea that is formless and natural expressed though the human body interacting with others.
There are many ways of expressing it. I think only those that really understand the core principles will know if it’s true or not.
I think it is quite difficult to really meet all the requirements to play the form and reach any real understanding with out much work and some one to help and guide your development. Much like the Tao, many seem to scoff at the practice and find no use in it. this is good.
If your focus is only on fighting I think there are easier ways to acquire this skill.
bamboo leaf
RE: “I am finding it really hard to agree with that statement. This is what I am moving towards in my own practice.”. Nonetheless, it remains a fact. Taijiquan is the name of a martial art, originally created for martial purposes. Taiji, in contrast, is a core principle of Taoism which has been around much, much longer than the art of Taijiquan. Likewise, physical and other expression of Taiji also predates Taijiquan. There are documented qigongs and spiritually ceremonial physical practices predating even the Chang San-feng story by a thousand years.
The practice of Taiji is of much greater scope than that of Taijiquan. Ideally perhaps, the Taijiquan practitioner would seek to manifest Taiji in all contexts of life, and would not be limited to simple physical expression of it. This, as it would appear to me, seems to be what you are moving toward.
Still, Taijiquan the martial art, while much more narrowly focused than the concept of Taiji, includes much more than simply the correct practice of the forms, even at the highest levels of forms practice.
While your reference to traditional sparring as reflective of external arts is something I agree with, my original post question was in regard to self-defense training. Therefore, those elements of training which various posters find relevant to the topic of self-defense are a valid part of this discussion. No matter how interesting a topic it might be in its own right, my question was not “who expresses the principle of Taiji in all contexts of their daily lives?”.
I don’t teach, but:
I really like bagua’s cross-stepping-post exercise. It contains everything you need to know about fighting, from basic to advanced, and comes directly from knowledge of the most basic training element - the circlewalking stance. You learn about maintaining body contact, neither fleeing nor resisting, dynamic rooting, footwork, foot positioning for sweeps and jams, body positioning for superiority, opponent control with the guard hand, striking locations and mechanics with the lead hand, responding to a 360o sphere of possibilities, allowing your opponent to close, leading the opponent into emptiness and hiding your center to take his balance, and stealing his energy to form your posture… and all in a very simple and applicable set of movements. Since it is based upon the knowledge of the circlewalking stance, it is both trained by, and further expands upon everything else you do. Good stuff!
Now… I wish I was good at it! 
I also like application practice, but I think single-movement-application-practice should be a bridge to lead into incorporating the techniques into more free-flow drills such as pushhands, roushou, application sets, or drills such as the cross-stepping-post, and occasionally sparring. The reason being, I’ve found that you can pull off some things in single movement practice (even against aggressive, dedicated ‘partners’) that you’ll never be able to pull off in the heat of being tangled up with someone - not that you throw the techniques out, but you have to change how you do them. And since I think that self-defense situations, regardless of how good you are, tend to start with you allready being tangled up with someone, this is pretty important.
“I am finding it really hard to agree with that statement”
The history of the art will probably give you a different conclusion.
“Duifang jing zhi meng ji, wo fang tui zhi ce fang xi zhi.”
bamboo leaf
This is why I preferred not to discuss internal focus with you as it was clear upon meeting you that your focus of practice and my own are very different.
While I can understand your opinion I disagree with it., I’m cool with it and I hope you are too, because in many ways we are still looking to gain some of the same things.
That being said, I can only fall back on something my teacher once told me.
She said, you can practice taiji as a fighting system, or you can practice it as a philosophical system. If you practice it as a fighting system, you are open to the full range of possibilities that exist within taiji as an art and a lifestyle. This is because, if you approach it as a fighting method, you must be able to clear yourself of preconceptions and focus on technique to avoid getting your ass kicked.
If you practice it as a philosophy, you are attempting to place your opinions and views on the practice without having the experience derived from rigorous practice to back it up.
Merciless is Mercy.
Its okay to disagree, I never said at any time that I think others are wrong only that this is where I’m at now.
“If you practice it as a philosophy, you are attempting to place your opinions and views on the practice without having the experience derived from rigorous practice to back it up.â€
I started my TC in the 1980s with a man who was known for fighting in HI. My CMA practice started in the early 70s. So I feel that my views and ideas at this point in time are “derived from rigorous practice†and yes I can back it up although not to the ideal that I strive for.
It was cool meeting you and I respect all differences. I don’t feel that I’m imposing my own view points on my practice it feels more like it’s leading me to these thoughts.
“ The history of the art will probably give you a different conclusionâ€
Interesting statement,
Other then famous people who wanted to popularize their art to make a living can you point to any specific examples? Of what is written.
Please don’t misunderstand me. I believe demonstrated usage and application are the only real ways to test your understanding of this art.
Even one the yang’s sons was reported to have torn his sleeve in a match that he won. His father was supposed to have said “ your sleeve is torn is this the power of TCâ€
Method and philosophy become one. This is what I expect and search for in my own training. There are many sayings like “stand like a balanced scale†“when one part moves all move†“ forget your self and follow the other†and all the others.
It seems that much of what I read here is about doing, or beating someone using a methodology that doesn’t quite fit my understanding of TC based on my experience and what is written.
In this forum I can only question in the sprit of trying to gain a better understanding from the many here. If we where to meet then we could really show what it is that we understand in the interest of deepening our understanding of a very deep art.
I think the only real way to understand these things is though rigorous self-examination until you can really do it, by any means available.
my only question to anybody is “can you do it” followed by show me.
to all sorry to be so off topic.
bamboo leaf