a punch is a punch. a punch to the chest was the same as it was 2/300 years ago. if you can use tai chi to defend yourself then yes its practical, you have trained good and your taiji is good. it all goes back to the practioner. too many hippy taiji people these days. but the emphasis of martial arts has changed these days.
Greetings..
As a former hippy (and not prone to discard the philosophy).. it is discriminatory to assume that poor Taiji is domain of “hippies”.. i will gladly offer my own “hippy” Taiji skills for comparison.. oh, although i do favor peaceful resolutions to conflicts, i have spent over 30 years of my life training for the possibility that a peaceful resolution might not be an option (just had to get that off my chest).. hippies are less of a threat than arrogant prejudiced self-pontificating Taiji know-it-alls.. I suggest that we each evaluate each other as individuals based on the direct experiences, not some preconceived notions.. otherwise, you will likely discount some “hippy-looking” dude as lousy Taiji.. just as he hands you your a$$ on a platter..
Now, the Taiji Symbol (yin/yang) means change.. to the general Oriental mind that is the concept of the symbol, change.. Taiji is many things, the least of which is a literal translation of some words.. for me, the “change” was from external to internal.. i try to “change” an opponents intentions by “changing” my own responses accordingly.. I try to “change” my perspective to accomodate the perspectives of others, even though i may not agree.. i can afford them the right to their beliefs (in so much as that does no harm to others)..
Indeed, Taiji was spawned from martial arts, and as such cannot be separated from it.. yet, much can be added without losing its original intent.. purists will kill the art as surely as “hippies”.. like all things an Art must evolve.. otherwise it will stagnate and die..
Be well..
I think the confusion about Taiji comes from the fact that people compare it (or worse yet try to apply it) like “kick and punch” type martial arts. Taiji has kicking and punching in it. But it is much more useful at close range.
I would classify it as more as a “grappling and bump” art rather than a “kick and punch” type art.
Both types of arts have there strengths and weakness.
I was watching some female greco-roman wrestlers on the Today show this morning. I noticed how much muscular force they employ while at a close range. These girls were beefy and pure muscle.
This type of grappling is antithetical to Taiji. The premise of Taiji is that if you rely on being bigger and stronger than your opponent you will ultimately encounter some that is bigger and stronger and they will overpower you with there strength.
Taiji avoids this by “leading the opponent to emptiness.” In simpler terms it means staying with your opponent but never giving them anywhere to apply force and not applying your own force… until an opportune time.
When they are off balance or locked up then you apply “bump” (which can take the form of a punch, kick, knee,elbow, rending motion, etc) which finishes the encounter.
“Kick and punch” type martial arts, what we all typically think of in terms of kung fu, rely on striking your opponent fast and hard and then finishing the encounter or moving out of the way before he can counter.
I’ve often thought. What would an encounter between my Taiji teacher and my Choy Lay Fut teacher look like?
If my Choy Lay Fut teacher got the first strike in on my Taiji teacher it would be over. Choy Lay Fut closes the gap fast, hits fast and hard and doesn’t let up with strikes until the opponent is down.
However, if my Taiji teacher was able to make contact before my CLF teacher could strike him then I think that my CLF teacher would have a lot of trouble maintaining his balance and would get all “tied up” in Taiji teacher. It would be curtains for him.
Different arts, different strategies. 
Um, you DO know that many of the most famous taiji masters are big strong guys, right?
Originally posted by Chang Style Novice
Um, you DO know that many of the most famous taiji masters are big strong guys, right?
Doesn’t really matter if they’re “strong” or not. That’s my point. My Taiji teacher is rail thin. I’m much bigger and much more muscular than him. Yet he can put me on my ass if he wants to, using the principles of IMAs. It has nothing to do with strength.
People in IMA’s who don’t really have mastery over the principles must rely on strength to compensate. But the ones who really understand the principle don’t need it. It won’t help and it won’t hurt either. It’s neutral in that regard.
And what’s with the habit of everybody prefacing they’re posts with “um”?
It makes you sound like an arrogant tool. Not that you are…just makes you sound like it.
I only use the ‘um’ preface when challenging presumptions that I think are exceptionally stupid.
Again, I ask - if strength is useless in taiji as you claim, what’s the dilly-o with Cheng Man Ching and Chang Tung Sheng (to name the two that spring most readily to mind.)
Cheng Man Ching was a little tiny guy 
Who am I thinking of then, the guy who looks like Oliver Hardy?
I’m terrible with names.
To clarify - I’m not saying that Taiji isn’t designed to neutralize the opponent’s strength. I’m saying that in any martial context, strength is an asset. It can be overcome, but you’re better off with it. It’s great if you don’t have to use it, but all else equal, the guy with more strength wins. Great skill can overcome this inequity, sure, but strength will only improve the effectiveness of your skill.
Originally posted by Fu-Pow
[B]
Doesn’t really matter if they’re “strong” or not. That’s my point. My Taiji teacher is rail thin. I’m much bigger and much more muscular than him. Yet he can put me on my ass if he wants to, ) [/B]
Maybe you are just a wuss.
…um
Who am I thinking of then, the guy who looks like Oliver Hardy?
I know who you’re talking about… can’t recall the name at the moment either, lol.
Um, CSN is correct.
Fu - your taiji teacher isn’t neccessarily not strong just because he’s thin.
You cant learn to fight by only practicing form, although you can learn to mimic it.
Learning to fight always requires actualy training with that in mind.
Having said that if you can find a Tai Chi teacher who likes to scrap than you can sometimes be onto a good thing.
Remembered the name of the Oliver Hardy lookalike badass I was thinking of. Wang Shu Jin.
Originally posted by Chang Style Novice
[B]I only use the ‘um’ preface when challenging presumptions that I think are exceptionally stupid.
[/B]
Oh sorry…you ARE an arrogant tool!
Originally posted by Chang Style Novice
[B]
Cheng Man Ching was a little tiny guy
[/B]
And a wrong one at that!! :rolleyes:
Originally posted by scotty1
[B]Um, CSN is correct.
Fu - your taiji teacher isn’t neccessarily not strong just because he’s thin. [/B]
Um…f-off for using “Um”.
And all I’m saying is that my teacher does not look strong, doesn’t “cross train”, doesn’t lift weights, etc, etc, etc.
In fact he looks exactly like what everyone on here makes fun of…a “taiji hippy.”
But his knowledge and fighting skills are excellent.
Originally posted by unkokusai
[B]
Maybe you are just a wuss.
…um [/B]
And maybe you are a troll…um…delete maybe.
The kind of “arrogant tool” who describes himself as “I haven’t ever really tested myself against other schools, and am by any measure a quarter-assed practitioner at best”? Interesting definition, nitwit.
LMAO. Forms teach skill, which in the end is most important
I disagree - I think it was Bob who said that forms teach principals, but sparring teaches skill. That sounds right based on my practice.
I do agree that skill is most important, but nothing can be entirely discounted as a factor.
Originally posted by Fu-Pow
People in IMA’s who don’t really have mastery over the principles must rely on strength to compensate. But the ones who really understand the principle don’t need it. It won’t help and it won’t hurt either. It’s neutral in that regard.
Um…That’s the stupidest thing I’ve ever heard.