I kinda think that Taiji is more sophisticated and advanced than Bagua. (I pasted this from what you wrote)
Could you please tell how? I assume that you have had a good amount of time in your sytem, so please elaborate.
Peace
Maoshan:confused:
Isnât there a traditional saying that goes âIt takes three years to learn to fight with hsing- i, five years for bagua, and eight years for tai chi?â That would seem to back up Water Dragon.
I think i remember that phrase along the years,
but TELL ME WHY?
And before anyone thinks Iâm biased because I do BaGua,
Iâve studied the Nie Chia, Hebei and Honan Xing-I as well as Chen , Fu and a little Wu style Tai Chi. In fact I love Chen But still that does not change my question. WHY?
Maoshan, No prob Bro. I think you mis-read what I said. I said I think Taiji is more sophisticated because I was in it longer.
Being a Bagua man, you would think Bagua was more sophisticated because of your time in the trenches. Same for the Hsing Yi guys.
I feel that thereâs a base level in all martial arts. It may be easier to grasp (Hsing Yi) or harder to grasp (Tai ji). However, there comes a point when you do get past that base level and begin to see the âgutsâ of the system, the layers in the onion.
Youâre also probably not gonna see that in other arts as you donât have the time in. Doesnât mean itâs not there.
Go back and read the thread where I posted that. Itâll probably sound more like
No art has the one up on any other. They all have their thing, but are all deep as hell. Your perspective will depend on your experience
Peace
Hi Maoshan,
I have also heard that it takes less time to apply bagua than tjq. I donât know where that particular âsayingâ came from, but imho it is probably not so old. It certainly does not mean that tjq is more sophisticated than bagua. I think youâre really asking why it takes longer to learn apply tjq, and I think it has only to do with the theory/strategy and the training. Bagua is more âdirectlyâ martial in intent, though the strategy is different. The footwork/body training also makes applications less obvious. Tjq contains âkobuâ and âbaibuâ too, but they are used in lines --to form squares or triangles, fwiw-- not in circles. Well, of course imo, tjq does depend on âsteppingâ and transitions, not posture. At the same time, that important aspect is often the least emphasized if not the last emphasized. Bagua people are trained to move right from the beginning, and the applications are/should imo be derived âfromâ the movements. Anyway, Iâm a long time tjq guy, and Iâd still say that bagua is more sophisticated in terms of physical movement, in most cases, but only because of the training. I think the âsensitivityâ aspect is more refined in tjq because the physical is often de-emphasized. I personally believe that both bagua and tjq can contain all the good parts of all the neijia.
Respects,
Esteban
Esteben is correct. I think Taiji takes longer for the simple fact that the art is based around the sensitivity acquired during Tui Shou. Iâm finally at the point where itâs hard to attack me because my body just adjusts out of the attack. It doesnât matter if itâs a strike, throw, kick. I canât really explain other than I feel uncomfortable and my body adjusts itself to make it more comfortable. Took me 5 years to get that. NOW I get to start focusing on the good stuff because Iâm ready.
tai ji sophistication
i feel bagua on a basic level can be used more quick than tai chi. However to efficiently and fully utilize either could take a good many years depending on the individual. IMHO i feel technically that ba gua is a bit more sophisticated but that is biased because i have only done a very small amount of tai chi over the years.
What about poor old xingyi? Doesnât even get a mention. It seems to me that the general consensus is that Xingyi is the âlowestâ of the three internal arts⌠anybody care to say why?
There was some talk of taiji being hard to grasp because of itâs focus on sensitivity. Doesnât xingyi emphasize sensitivity too? Albeit later on but i think i remember reading in one of Tim Cartmellâs books- The 6 harmonies are united in attack and disjointed in defence. The aim being to get sensitivity to such a degree that you will turn and yield to a light breeze. (it was something along those lines⌠probably not totally accurate so donât bite me head off)
Hi NafAnal,
I didnât leave out Xingyi (or even Xinyi). The discussion was about which took longer to learn to apply, bagua or tjq. You wrote:
"It seems to me that the general consensus is that Xingyi is the âlowestâ of the three internal arts⌠"
âLowestâ? not my opinion at all. Yes, the general consensus, ime, is that it takes the least amount of time to learn how to apply the movements. Some people rely only on âPiâ, and some teachers might teach you that the first day. However, it works -for attack and defense-- if the movement/s is/are done correctly. Leaning what âcorrectlyâ means can take many years. âPiâ is --imho as before-- just as sophisticated as any other âfistâ or âpalmâ in the internal ars. As for the sensitivity issue, Cartmell is right about it being in Xingyi. Although, I bet heâd also say --you can ask on his board-- that Shuaijiao developed sensitivity, too. (Wing Chun relies on sensitivity, too, but not the same as tjq.) My point, is that itâs not the same as tjq sensitivity, exactly, nor is it trained the same. Of course, nothing stops the tjq or bagua player from using any form of step or type of sensitivity. Anyway, all this doesnât mean that liuhebafa isnât as sophisticated than her 3 cousins.
Respects,
Esteban
sorry if you took offence mate, i wasnât referring to anyone in particular⌠
No offence taken, nor thought intended. It was a good question.
Best,
Esteban
Just spend the next 60 years learning all three internal arts, no sense making comparisons when you can have all of them!
- Nexus
Peace
Water Dragon
[Being a Bagua man, you would think Bagua was more sophisticated because of your time in the trenches. Same for the Hsing Yi guys.]
While itâs true that Iâve been in Ba-Gua for more than 20yrs, at the same time I was learning Xing-I and Tai Chi. I take nothing from them.
[I feel that thereâs a base level in all martial arts. It may be easier to grasp (Hsing Yi) or harder to grasp (Tai ji). However, there comes a point when you do get past that base level and begin to see the âgutsâ of the system, the layers in the onion.]
Exactly! In order for me to form my opinion I had to put the time in. As I said before Iâve studied the Nei Chia all three, and not just theory But by putting them through the test also I didnât just scratch the surface.
[Youâre also probably not gonna see that in other arts as you donât have the time in. Doesnât mean itâs not there.]
As I just wrote.
[No art has the one up on any other. They all have their thing, but are all deep as hell. Your perspective will depend on your experience]
Exactly!
Estaban
[I have also heard that it takes less time to apply bagua than tjq.]
I disagree, for two reasons
- The body articulations are not easy for most to just grab on to and
- The Timing of a true Bagua practitioner is a b***h to get down pact
The combination of these two aspects on the higher levels takes years to accomplish. Also, the ability to get behind your opponent is not something you can just do to an experienced fighter. It requires meticulous training.
Tai Chi on the other hand is Shaolin combined with Taoist theory. While you may not be able to apply the theory you can use the moves because in general all fighting is the same. From the very onset BaGua does not conform to that general theory EX: Constant motion, the body moves in different directions simultaneously.
[I think youâre really asking why it takes longer to learn apply tjq, and I think it has only to do with the theory/strategy and the training. Bagua is more âdirectlyâ martial in intent, though the strategy is different.]
Tai chi is and always was a Martial Art. âMartial in Intentâ? All styles of tai Chi that we see today all derived from Chen village, and they fought. The yangâs fought. Only after yang cheng Fu did it become as we see now, (less intent). Itâs a written fact that he taught this way only to the general public.
Originally the Tai Chi stylist had some awesome training methods. I saw else where on this site where the question was asked about weights and the Internal I didnât look at it but itâs also a fact that Yang cheng Fu used to practice with a 40 pound weight attached to a string-rope tied to his index finger. Fu Chen Sung, founder of the Fu style used to practice with a stone ball, which he learned from Yang Cheng Fu. The Taoist Kwan Sai Hung who learned directly from Yang attested to this and more. I see nothing of it today.
So that less intent bit is out the window as far as Iâm concerned. The scholars did that. That theory is not true Tai Chi.
[Tjq contains âkobuâ and âbaibuâ too, but they are used in lines --to form squares or triangles, fwiw-- not in circles.]
Youâll have to tell me where tai Chi contains these stepping methods. Itâs in the Fu style and Sun style because these founders were Ba-Gua practitioners Other than that it doesnât exist.
[Well, of course imo, tjq does depend on âsteppingâ and transitions, not posture.]
Then what are the thirteen postures all about then?
[I think the âsensitivityâ aspect is more refined in tjq because the physical is often de-emphasized.]
Dead wrong!
Ba-Gua is just as sensitive as TIQ. We train in push hands as much as free fighting. Also, walking the circle has levels of development. It was originally a form of meditation where the theory âstillness in movement, Movement in stillnessâ was physically manifested by a still upper body with the legs in motion all the while relaxing. One of my closest friends (who is a Wu stylist) and I practiced for 10yrs learning how to use our systems, and he was no more sensitive than I and this boy is bad! Heâs one of the few Chinese that I know that can really use Tai Chi. And again, that less physical aspect is not right, the true practioners train in many similar methods that we do such as banging trees, and other conditioning methods as well as free fighting. The only way youâll be able to truly apply the soft is to be attacked hard. (Hard in an intense way) if you canât do it under pressure itâs fake.
Now this was not to dis anyone. But I am seeing that most are not doing their research on their systems, as well as not hard core practitioners. Check this out, I know tai chi Teachers that are known for their Tai Chi but also know Ba-Gua and wonât teach because:
- For the most part itâs to complicated to learn and they donât have the patience to teach those with no potential.
- Itâs of a higher level because it was designed to face multiple opponents
And again unless the student had potential it would take too long to learn.
Other aspects about Tai chi that are not trained are that like, Ba-Gua your supposed to learn on the left and right sides. All the practitioners Iâve encountered were right sided which gives me an advantage. Also Most Tai chi people have no stamina because all they do is the slow form. Itâs great for circulation but does nothing for the muscles or breath in terms of sifting intensities. I suggest more research and Training.
No disrespect toward anyone intended but Iâve been here a long time.
If someone has some thing to teach me please do
Maoshan
Man you hit Them Tai Chi Boys with a book."
GOOD Replyâ
Peace.
:o Next internal scholat in line:o :o
hi maoshan,
intresting views,
You seem to make many statements on TC as if it applies to all TC not just the ones that you are familiar with.
I donât understand how you could have studied TC for 20 yrs and not found the other arts contained within it.
As for training methods,
I think history reflects those that tell the story.
Actually it doesnât really matter. Itâs a live art expressed though the understanding of practicner as all arts are.
I think and concur with Water Dragon. TC seeks balance; anything that is unbalanced gets thrown out. Itâs not the intent but more of a reaction. This is the main difference that I have found in respects to TC and all other arts is the MA intent.
This usually is most strong with those who seek power, speed and movement to overcome others. They donât understand that there is another way. Not a better way just another way.
I think TC maybe depending on the style really requires a different mindset. (I am not going to kick your ass; I am going to help you kick your own ass)
totally agree that it must be as you say pressure tested/ very much not easy to really do!!! 
Interesting posts
Hi Maoshan,
good points. Your first issue was âwhy would someone think it took longer to learn to apply tjq than bagua.â I thought you were disagreeing with that. I was agreeing with you, actually. I donât think that tjq is more sophisticated than bagua. Anyway, as a âtaijiâ guy, Iâll give it a go, but these are my own opinons.
Esteban:
[I have also heard that it takes less time to apply bagua than tjq.]
[M]
I disagree, for two reasons
- The body articulations are not easy . . .
- The Timing of a true Bagua practitioner is a b***h .
The combination of these two aspects on the higher levels takes years to accomplish.
Esteban:
I think that bagua players usually work on applications that are based on their particular training earlier than tjq players do. This is not universal; it depends on oneâs tjq or bg teacher. Ime, however, a lot more people do tjq for purely health reasons than bagua people do.
[M]
Also, the ability to get behind your opponent ⌠requires meticulous training.
Esteban
Sure, never said different.
[M]
Tai Chi on the other hand is Shaolin combined with Taoist theory.
Esteban
You should start a thread on that. But, even if I agreed, that doesnât meant that tjq requires any less meticulous training.
[M]
While you may not be able to apply the theory you can use the moves because in general all fighting is the same.
Esteban
Not true; if it was all the tjq players would be able to use the moves. Many donât know the apps. In fact, the moves are not as obvious as the Shaolin appearance. Otherwise, it would just be âsoftâ Shaolin. Tjq, bg, xy are all derived from Chinese martial art.
[M]
From the very onset BaGua does not conform to that general theory EX: Constant motion, the body moves in different directions simultaneously.
Esteban
Well, thatâs why I argued that it was more useable earlier. No sense for me to disagree with you here since I think I tried to make the same point in my earlier post.
Esteban
[I think it has only to do with the theory/strategy and the training. Bagua is more âdirectlyâ martial in intent, though the strategy is different.]
[M]
Tai chi is and always was a Martial Art. âMartial in Intentâ?
Esteban
Wow, who ever said tjq wasnât martial? But, I guess what I wrote could be interpreted that way. Youâre right, tjq is no less martial âin intentâ than bagua. We were talking specifically about the time it takes to learn to apply, and why. I donât think it takes less time to learn to apply tjq, unless weâre talking about low-level tjq: i.e., such as âpushâ or âpunch.â Those are just the obvious methods of attack; theyâre not the art, at all.
[M]
All styles of tai Chi that we see today all derived from Chen village, and they fought. The yangâs fought. Only after yang cheng Fu did it become as we see now, (less intent). Itâs a written fact that he taught this way only to the general public.
Esteban
I appreciate your reviewing the history for me, but itâs not necessary. This part was interesting, though.
[M]
but itâs also a fact that Yang cheng Fu used to practice with a 40 pound weight attached to a string-rope tied to his index finger.
Do you have any references for this? Iâve never heard it before. I agree that there were lots of supplemtal exercises, specially the âlong poleâ for YLC (the spear man). Anyway, if you know of this stuff in the Yang family literature, Iâd appreciate getting the citations. Iâll ask someone in the family about it.
[M]
Fu Chen Sung, founder of the Fu style used to practice with a stone ball, which he learned from Yang Cheng Fu.
Esteban
Well, itâs the Chens, afaik, that have the tradition with the stone ball.
[M]
The Taoist Kwan Sai Hung who learned directly from Yang attested to this and more. I see nothing of it today.
Esteban
http://www.nnrs.org/sphere.html is someone still practicing.
Iâd like to read more about Kwan Sai Hung.
[M]
So that less intent bit is out the window as far as Iâm concerned. The scholars did that. That theory is not true Tai Chi.
Esteban
Youâre right. My poor choice of words. Tjq is absolutely a martial art. There may be a difference between the way some people practice it now and the way it was practiced in the past, but thatâs irrelevant to its martial intent. I agree.
Esteban
[Tjq contains âkobuâ and âbaibuâ too]
[M]
Youâll have to tell me where tai Chi contains these stepping methods. Itâs in the Fu style and Sun style because these founders were Ba-Gua practitioners Other than that it doesnât exist.
Esteban
Well, the hook step is apparent in most Yang style Single Whips. The Kaibu is used in Fair Lady Works Shuttles. There are numerous examples depending on particular style.
[Well, of course imo, tjq does depend on âsteppingâ and transitions, not posture.]
[M]
Then what are the thirteen postures all about then?
Esteban
There are no such things as âposturesâ in true tjq. Itâs all about movement without stopping. At best, each movement has a âding shiâ or finishing point that determines the intent of the movement. Advance, Retreat, Look Left, Gaze Right, are not postures. Besides, in Chen style, the original?, there are more than 13 postures. There were thirteen âforms.â Fwiw.
Esteban
[I think the âsensitivityâ aspect is more refined in tjq because the physical is often de-emphasized.]
[M]
Dead wrong!
Ba-Gua is just as sensitive as TIQ. We train in push hands as much as free fighting.
Esteban
I was trying to say that in general, tjq practitioners concentrate more on sensitivity training, than on physical work. This is a generalization. Xingyi and Wing Chun also have sensitivity training, but the trainings are different because the strategies are different. Your point above was that since tjq was Shaolin based it had more apparent martial content. That seems to go against the idea that tjq is a âformlessâ martial art constructed around, as you point out, Taoist principles. So, the movement that you see is like the Dao.
[M]
Also, walking the circle has levels . . .. It was originally a form of meditation where the theory âstillness in movement, Movement in stillnessâ was physically manifested by a still upper body with the legs in motion all the while relaxing. âŚa Wu stylist) and I practiced for 10yrs learning how to use our systems, and he was no more sensitive than I and this boy is bad! Heâs one of the few Chinese that I know that can really use Tai Chi.
Esteban
Who said that sensitivity was limited to tjq players and that bagua players didnât have it? I said that bagua players can usually use their art sooner, and I said âimoâ several times. If you want to say that this is not true. OK, but itâs not necessary to argue about something we agree on. And, Iâm not speaking for anyone else, or the majority or minority of tjq players.
[M]
And again, that less physical aspect is not right, the true practioners train in many similar methods that we do such as banging trees, and other conditioning methods as well as free fighting. The only way youâll be able to truly apply the soft is to be attacked hard. (Hard in an intense way) if you canât do it under pressure itâs fake.
Esteban
I can agree with some things you say above, depends on which tjq person you speak to.
[M]
Now this was not to dis anyone. But I am seeing that most are not doing their research on their systems . . . I know tai chi Teachers that are known for their Tai Chi but also know Ba-Gua and wonât teach because:
- For the most part itâs to complicated to learn and they donât have the patience to teach those with no potential.
- Itâs of a higher level because it was designed to face multiple opponents
Esteban
Oh well, if they think bagua is higher level, do you agree?
BTW, I donât think youâre dissing anyone. Youâre just speaking your mind.
[M]
And again unless the student had potential it would take too long to learn.
Other aspects about Tai chi that are not trained are that like, Ba-Gua your supposed to learn on the left and right sides. All the practitioners Iâve encountered were right sided which gives me an advantage.
Esteban
Well, youâre speaking from your experience, and thatâs cool. But, there are tjq people who train both sides. And, all the two-man exercises are done on both sides. BTW, boxers donât train both sides, and they do all right. Of course, Fuâs tjq trains both sides. There are others. WCC Chen, if I remember correctly, used to encourage his students to train the right and left side forms. Maybe youâll know whether YLC did as well. I wouldnât doubt it, but âformsâ in tjq as we know them are a relatively recent development. At first, there were individual movements that were practiced on both sides. They still exist in the Brush Knees, Repulse Monkeys, Cloud Hand, Pi Pa, etc., etc. The form is just an organization of movements, any of which can be (and imo should be) done on both sides.
[M]
Also Most Tai chi people have no stamina because all they do is the slow form.
Esteban
Well, Iâll be, this was what I meant when I said that tjq placed less emphasis on the physical, so practitioners focused on the other skills (ting, dong, etc.) And, itâs one reason why it took longer for them to be successful fighters. It doesnât have to be that way, but that seems to be the way it is.
[M]
I suggest more research and Training.
Esteban
This is what all the great masters have suggested.
[M]
No disrespect toward anyone intended but Iâve been here a long time.
If someone has some thing to teach me please do
Esteban
I pointed out where I thought we might disagree, though overall I donât think we do. But, any questions I had are in the post, and I donât feel disrespected in the least little bit.
Best,
Esteban
A little confused TC depends on sensitivity (ting jin).
Is it possible to have MA intent and listen at the same time?
If my movement comes from the others movement wouldnât the intent that you speak of get in the way?
i feel this is one of many basic fundamental diffreances between TC and the other arts.
maybe the way intent is used means something differnt?
In my experience, listening is just as prominent in bagua as in taiji - although Iâll say up front that Iâve got my âtraining biasâ in bagua.
The main problem is that everyone is familiar with taijiâs pushing hands, but very few people are familiar with the comparable training in bagua. In taiji you have press, roll back, etc. In bagua you have stepping and turning. So overtly, they look very different - but the âengineâ of both is the same. And neither is more âphysicalâ than the other, nor less âsensitive.â They are simply two tactically different approaches to the same principle.
While I do not have the experience to jump into the âwhich is harderâ/âwhich is easier to applyâ discussion, I think people with no experience in bagua should be wary of concluding that the movement makes it more martial. In movement there is always the problem of floating for beginners (like me!). Specific to bagua sensitivity exercises, there is the remarkable challenge of keeping the legs doing their thing, while the torso does it thing, all with coherent structure, and all while the waist is so twisted. But it is important to remember for people who have not experienced that we are not simply walking - we are listening and following just like in pushing hands, simply with a different âoutput.â (Or at least weâre trying too! )
Good reply Braden.
Tai Chi practitioners learn to utilize the circle. BaGuaZhang practitioners are the circle." 
Hi, yâall.
Let me preface this by saying I haven't read all of the preceding posts/opinions. That being said, I'll give you mine.... ;) ..... briefly.
Of the "Three Sisters", I'd say that TCC takes the longest to understand on a physical level due to the lack of in depth core training. The training relies on the practitioner himself/herself to break down the form, and discover what ever core training(s) are in said form for himself/herself.
Pa qua/bagua seems to have a more systematic developmental system/training regimen. That provides the individual practitioner an easier time of training core principles in order to use the style quicker.
Hsing-I seems to have the best overall developmental sytem of the three. This seems to allow the individual practitioner the opportunity to train core principles in a more basic manner. It seems to afford the practitioner more opportunity to succeed the fastest of the three in his/her chosen art.
Just thought I'd chime in with some thoughts. Does this seem fairly accurate to those of you who train in multiples of the Three Sisters?
Happy Holidays!!!
Best regards,
R.Drake Sansone
(swmngdragn@attbi.com)
http://www.liuhopafa.com/
"Train, or go to hell". Terry W.