Why do I need somebody to give me the benefit of the doubt?
My point is not to discuss the particular merits of one art over another or to make blanket statements on what one system does or does not do.
People will always have different personal preferences and judgements on what they believe the martial arts should stand for or be, what arts are better, what methods are more realistic, what training is better geared for combat, and so and so on.
I refuse to accept the theory that all martial arts are the same, to me it is a ridiculous judgement, but that is just my take on the matter.
Since you want to get specific and to use Taijiquan as an example onto its self lets take a quick look.
What Tai Chi system are we speaking about here since I am not a CMA scholar? Chen, Wu, Sun, Yang, Chao, are all they the extact same system, according to the above philiosphy they must all be, no differences, the same flavor.
What Western Military Combatives system are we in reference to? WWI, WWII, Modern, O’Neill, Biddle, Styer, Brown, Fairbairn, Applegate, Nelson, American Combato, Jim Grover, Beckwith, Combat Sambo Spetsnaz, John Kary, Systema, Mangel, Krav Maga, RAT JKD, LINE, SAFTA…
The biggest difference between Tai Chi and Military based combative approachs is in the belief of “Chi” for one.
Other general training CMA principles like Ying & Yang and its never ending cycle of energy between the two is also absent, power generation methods are gathered in different ways, the classical training methods are way different, Tai Chi has forms, postures, spiritual and mental meditations, Tui Sau, San Shou (good schools) and specific Tai Chi footwork elements, you do not see the Tai Chi 13 basics like Peng, Lu, Ji, An, Cai, Li, Zhou, Gou and others being ingrained into a student of military combatives and I am sure that each family trains those above elements in a different fashion from each other to some degree as well.
Western Military Combatives based on what we are talking about have a much more basic approach to their training, which is to transfer a mixed bag of totally serious skills to different soliders of different physical makeups in a compact and realistic period of time, soliders who not only have different physical makeups and natural attributes, fat, thin, tall, short, but also different mindsets on what they need to accomplish in a h2h encounter.
WWII combatives have no forms, no postures, no meditations, no push hands, no specific offensive/defensive footwork sets, no rituals, no chi blasts, nothing extraneous, no “if he does that, you do this” training, no programs for spiritual development, they do not take a strict duelists sceniro approach to fighting, they incorporate a lot of situational sparring and resistance training, the fighter is given a small core of techs and principles to respond with and those techs and principles are based on pure aggressiveness combined with a focus on “Hicks Law” which shows that decision time is proportional to the number of alternatives.
Here is the main point though, both of those systems “can” be exceedingly effective, both “can” make task oriented and formable fighters, it is all up to what works for you and what you want to do, what your needs are, and what you find as extraneous, and what as worthy of study.
Do fighting systems share some of the same ideas and tactics, of course, the good ones do, but does that make them the same art, no.
)
When you research your own motivation and mentality, things can become a little more deep. That’s all. Those skills can become tools to kill your own ego, your own demons. The spiritual aspects connected to MA can be used to better your own confidence, life condition, etc. But then again, most religion does this anyway if practiced proactively.