Question for water Dragon

Nei Jia: the Qigong and Taijiquan Forum Taijiquan and the Internal Martial Arts
21

Hi All,

oh well, this may end up being a project. There are a lot of issues; even though one seems to be “which is better.” Anyway,

Bamboo Leaf
“Is it possible to have MA intent and listen at the same time?”

Esteban
If one cannot, what sense is it to have the ability to “listen”? Eventually, the “listening skill” is used as part of the martial art. It is necessary to listen in order to “hua” (neutralize), and there is usually something coming (an attack) to neutralize.

Braden
“In my experience, listening is just as prominent in bagua as in taiji - although I’ll say up front that I’ve got my ‘training bias’ in bagua.”

Esteban
The question is the type of sensitivity, the degree of dependence on it, and the use to which it’s put. One problem is that sensitivity is a big word. Is a geiger-counter more or less sensitive than a Bloodhound? Is a judo player more or less sensitive that a violinist? Tjq, bg, xy, judo, aikido, wingchun, white crane, western boxing, all are sensitive. Anyway, I originally came to this thread looking to support the bagua people, whom I do believe have gotten short shrift. I don’t believe that there is anything in tjq that is not in bagua.

Hi Drake, I agree, that that’s the way most people I know have seen it. They’ve never suggested that one style is superior. The argument was that Xingyi was something that could be taught fast to soldiers so that they could work in formation. Of course, as soon as you get to the linking forms, it’s possible to see that there’s a whole lot more. The same applies, imo, for all these arts. Maoshan is right, that if tjq people trained differently, they’d be able to apply it sooner. But, the fact is that many tjq practitioners aren’t interested in the martial aspect. And, though it became famous as a combat art, it is not famous now for the same reason. Bagua has always been known as a fighting art -by the people who knew about it. Well, I’d be interested to hear where you’d place liuhebafa in this, in terms of time of training, focus on application, martial intent, and sensitivity.

Best,
Esteban

22

Peace All,

Bamboo leaf,
To Clarify things, the Nei Chia are the same. It’s just different approaches to the same end.

[I think and concur with Water Dragon. TC seeks balance; anything that is unbalanced gets thrown out. It’s 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.]

The same applies in Ba-Gua, how we achieve this end is the difference.
Reaction is gained by the no-mind state. But let’s look at it like this,
In general, if I’m attacked, I simply react, but there comes a point depending on the opponent, where you have to attack. How do you apply that with what’s been written on this post?
You have to have intent when you attack. No, not the same as say shaolin,
But rather as an object to be destroyed (no anger).

Esteban.

[You should start a thread on that. But, even if I agreed, that doesn’t meant that tjq requires any less meticulous training.]

The Internal period require more pinpoint concentration. I never said TC
Didn’t require the same.

Esteban
Not true; if it was all the tjq players would be able to use the moves. Many don’t know the apps. In fact, the moves are not as obvious as the Shaolin appearance. Otherwise, it would just be ‘soft’ Shaolin. Tjq, BG, xy are all derived from Chinese martial art.

Your right. I’ll give you that. But what I was trying to say was the postures with out the knowledge of the theory could still be used in general. It’s not the same with Ba-Gua. When you look at let’s say the 1st Palm of the original form of Jiang jung Qiao, very little of it makes any sense in terms of how to apply it if you have no point of reference.

[M]
but it’s 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? I’ve never heard it before. I agree that there were lots of supplemtal exercises, specially the “long pole” for YLC (the spear man). Anyway, if you know of this stuff in the Yang family literature, I’d appreciate getting the citations. I’ll ask someone in the family about it.

It’s in one of my books from years ago. I’ll have to find it as soon as I do I’ll give you the Info.

I’d like to read more about Kwan Sai Hung.

Last I heard he was still in Mass. His student Deng Ming dao calls his biography chronicles of the dao Written. It’s good check it out.

since tjq was Shaolin based it had more apparent martial content. That seems to go against the idea that tjq is a “formless” martial art constructed around, as you point out, Taoist principles. So, the movement that you see is like the Dao.

TC is formless. The forms are only for a point of reference, the same applies
To Bangui. I understand why you took it that way.

[M]
Also Most Tai chi people have no stamina because all they do is the slow form.

Esteban
Well, I’ll 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, it’s one reason why it took longer for them to be successful fighters. It doesn’t have to be that way, but that seems to be the way it is.

Yes, But is that right? I have a problem with that.

Esteban, you and I have no beef in fact I your Cool man. I’ll find that book and get you that info.

Nice reply Braden

Esteban.
Maoshan is right, that if tjq people trained differently, they’d be able to apply it sooner. But, the fact is that many tjq practitioners aren’t interested in the martial aspect.

Thus the reason that TC has fallen from its previous position. Many of the practitioners that I have meet along the years who are serious about it, what to change this consensus .

This has been a cool and intelligent debate fella’s thank you.

Peace to All
And Happy
Holidays

Maoshan

23

Hey Maoshan,

Peace, very sincere respect, and best wishes for the holidays.

I think that we agree on most things, and I think you are very right about many things. The problem is that stuff on this list can get too general. Anyway, we should talk off-list sometime. Before that, let me point out where I agree with you most.

[M]
“To Clarify things, the Nei Chia are the same. It’s just different approaches to the same end.”

Absolutely true. The longer one studies, the more apparent it becomes.

[M] (re: tjq’s relation to Shaolin}

“But what I was trying to say was the postures with out the knowledge of the theory could still be used in general. It’s not the same with Ba-Gua. When you look at let’s say the 1st Palm of the original form of Jiang jung Qiao, very little of it makes any sense in terms of how to apply it if you have no point of reference.”

[E]
I agree with you. Bagua is much less obvious than tjq. You see, as you suggested in an earlier post, bagua is often trained “after” someone has some familiarity with another martial art --often Xingyi, but it could be Baji, Pigua, Shuaijiao. So, for me, that’s pretty traditional for someone who studies bagua to already be a good fighter, otherwise they might not be getting the teaching. Anyhow, what you say about the obvious stuff in tjq is true.

[M]
"but it’s 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. "

[E]
I asked for references for this specific exercise, but it’s not important. There’s no doubt that some of the Yang family did do supplemental exercises that would create strength. You can look at Chen Weiming’s “Ta Wen” (Questions and Answers, I think in English).
He (Chen) asks:
"Does Taichi have the Pa Kua boxing method of walking a circle and changing without limit?
YCF answers: “Yang Shao-hou once taught me a method in which two men, their right hands touching, from low to high drawing a circle, simultaneously circled to the right with their right legs inside . . .”

Anyway, I don’t want to get in copyright trouble, so it’s on p. 27. I also looked up the Wandering Taoist. Very interesting guy. Thank you for the tip. Oh, and I am sure that there are supplemental exercises. They produce strength, no doubt. But, I think its a special kind of strength. I’ve read that you do the Da dao. You gotta be strong to do that, but nobody I know can just “lift” the thing up. I think you have to use your entire body.

Well, I have to say that I agree with the emphasis you put on study and practice. I know that you’ve seen some things that lots of other practitioners, of tjq especially, haven’t experienced. That, imho, gives you a great advantage. I admire your last post.

Best,
Esteban

24

Esteban - “The question is the type of sensitivity, the degree of dependence on it, and the use to which it’s put.”

It’s difficult to reply to that, since you don’t assert that the ‘type/degree/dependance’ of/on sensitivity in taiji vs. bagua is different, and how it differs. Although I assume that this IS what you’re implying.

25

Hi Braden,

I wrote;

“The question is the type of sensitivity, the degree of dependence on it, and the use to which it’s put.”

You replied:

“It’s difficult to reply to that, since you don’t assert that the ‘type/degree/dependance’ of/on sensitivity in taiji vs. bagua is different, and how it differs. Although I assume that this IS what you’re implying.”

I wouldn’t say it is a bagua vs. taiji sensitivity issue. Describing the difference between senses of touch is about as easy as describing the difference between senses of smell. What I’m talking about is what one “does” with the touch, what one uses it for. If you’d argue that bagua strategy is the same as taiji strategy, then I’d agree, they’d be exactly the same. Let me put it another way. Shuaijiao uses sensitivity, but they often look for opportunities to “pull.” Sumo players use sensitivity, too, but they tend to “push.” Which one is better? Imo, there’s no answer. But, imho, they’re not the same. Specific tjq example. Bamboo leaf’s argument surrounds the skill of “listening”. In tjq, ime, the highest “ideal” is not to let more than “x ounces” be exerted on one’s body. So, and BT would know this from BP Chan, for ex., as soon as the opponent exerts the least bit of pressure, you are supposed to move. The rule is “no resistance, no letting go.” Again, don’t think I’m saying that bagua doesn’t have the same level of efficiency. I’m saying that, in some other martial arts, if the other guy only uses x ounces, you are supposed to blast him with 1,000 lbs. In fact, in competitive tjq, where people expect to get hit, there’s no requirement that one must “always” move out of the way, especially if the other person can’t hurt you. This is not tjq, btw, this is simply Sun Tzu, and the tjq classics (obviously Li Yi Yu’s and the Wus) cite Sun. He writes something like, “if you have 1,000 men, and the opponent has 10” it’s kind of silly to run and hide or fight a guerilla war. Reverse the numbers or the power equation, and it’s kind of dumb to make a frontal attack. So, several teachers have suggested the same tactics apply in any battle. Lots of people depend on strength, though, and so the tjq practitioner avoids it in order to develop his idea of guerrilla tactics. Both armies depend on “intelligence,” and this is what I equate to “sensitivity.” What one expects to do with the intelligence depends on the strategy, but tactics can change according to circumstances. I know, that seemed like a digression. Anyway, I just wanted to point out why I said I thought the two forms of sensitivity were different. I’ve never meant to say that one is better than another. You see the issue I have with saying that they are simply the “same.”

Best,
Esteban

26

“Anyway, I just wanted to point out why I said I thought the two forms of sensitivity were different.”

That’s what I’m asking about. You’ve yet to do that. Your ‘expounding’ upon taiji sensitivity in your last post applies equally to bagua sensitivity.

27

Hi Braden,

my point, perhaps badly stated was that the type of sensitivity that anyone describes is related to what that sensitivity is for. If you feel that bagua sensitivity is meant to accomplish the same things as tjq sensitivity, then ok. Maybe I’m not proficient enough with words to describe what that difference “feels” like. I tried to point out that there were different types of sensitivity. If your argument is that that premise is false, then cool. However, if you’re stating that bagua and tjq sensitivity are the same, then I’ll accept your opinion and positive examples. If you’re saying that “all” types of sensitivity in the martial arts are the same, that’s a claim I think you should make directly. Then, a wing chun guy or the practitioner of another martial art might be able to agree or disagree. Lastly, I’m not saying that that all these forms of sensitivity --if you accept any difference-- are mutually exclusive. A brain surgeon with good “touch” may or may not be a tjq practitioner. Anyway, though I think there’s a difference, and I explained why, I’m not sure any of these can be described. I’m open to your suggestions.

Best,
Esteban

28

I’m not following your argument. On one hand, you differentiate between sensitivity (the ‘intelligence’ in your military analogy) and tactics (what you do with the intelligence) and on the other hand, you define sensitivity based on what is done with it. These two definitions seem mutually exclusive to me.

My curiosity was initially piqued when it was suggested that taiji emphasizes sensitivity whereas bagua did not.

Semantically, I would follow the former of the definitions given above - that sensitivity is a quality distinct from what you do with it. You gave the example of sticking and yielding to pressure in taijiquan - “no resistance, no letting go”. To me, this is sensitivity - this is the military intelligence. But what do you do with this? There are a vast array of things you can do while demonstrating “no resistance, no letting go.” This rule is as fundamental in baguazhang as it is in taijiquan - however, the sorts of things each focuses on doing with it can vary. Thus, from my perspective, the sensitivity is the same, and the tactics vary.

On the other hand, many martial arts do NOT cultivate this kind of sensitivity. It’s not that their sensitivity is different because they do different things with it, as you seemed to argue - they simply don’t cultivate that sensitivity at all. In other words, they don’t have “no resistance, no letting go.”

29

Hi Braden,

you wrote:

“On one hand, you differentiate between sensitivity (the ‘intelligence’ in your military analogy) and tactics (what you do with the intelligence) and on the other hand, you define sensitivity based on what is done with it. These two definitions seem mutually exclusive to me.”

Rather than argue the semantics, I’ll simply say that “intelligence” is finding out what the opponent is doing, and ideally what he plans to do. If applied to push hands, this would be equated to “sensitivity”, particularly to the direction and strength of the opponent’s force --and this also necessarily includes his balance: i.e., where his forces are. Strategy is what one plans to do with the information, but strategy also includes the tactics used to glean intelligence. Tactics are how one accomplishes those plans. Of course, in war, things change all the time. So, intelligence, strategy, and tactics change according to circumstances. How to deal with those changes is also a strategy. Anywway, I don’t see how they can be mutually exclusive. But, it’s not important. I may just be unclear.

[Braden]
“Thus, from my perspective, the sensitivity is the same, and the tactics vary.”

[Esteban]
I think the only difference I stated suggested was that the tactics determined the type of sensitivity needed. I.e., does a bagua practitioner want to do the same thing. We all can agree that all human beings have the same general central nervous systems. From that point of view, all sensitivities in all martial arts are the same.

[Braden]
"On the other hand, many martial arts do NOT cultivate this kind of sensitivity. It’s not that their sensitivity is different because they do different things with it, as you seemed to argue - they simply don’t cultivate that sensitivity at all. In other words, they don’t have “no resistance, no letting go.”

Esteban
I think you might be exaggerating slightly. True, not all martial arts emphsazize “no resistance.” If you mean, not go “force against force,” then I think most martial arts are based on that “science.” Even Sumo. The “no letting go” or adhering/sticky aspect is also not unique to the internal ma. So, I don’t disagree with your argument about the similarity of human sensitivity, but I don’t think you’ve argued successfully why bagua and tjq “should” be considered similar, yet xingyi, shuaijiao, or wing chun might not.

Best,
Esteban

30

After reading all the post, damm, I’m lost.

I will say one thing. All of you are some thinking people.

It shows in your writing and points made.
Most notable I didn’t see what is better only different and this is how I understand it.

To all this is what I come here for, very nice.

Happy holidays, peace to you and the ones you love

david

31

It’s only an opinion…

>Hi Drake,…<

'lo, Esteban. :slight_smile:

>I agree, that that’s the way most people I know have seen it. They’ve never suggested that one style is superior. The argument was that Xingyi was something that could be taught fast to soldiers so that they could work in formation. Of course, as soon as you get to the linking forms, it’s possible to see that there’s a whole lot more.<

  Agreed. There's quite a bit more in depth training(s) involved in Hsing-I than a majority of folk realize. Granted the basics can be grasped quickly, and trained for use immediately, but the "inner" workings wouldn't become readily apparent for quick usage. That takes time. What you'd have in the beginning is basically an external form of an internal style, but you'd be able to use it very quickly.

> The same applies, imo, for all these arts. Maoshan is right, that if tjq people trained differently, they’d be able to apply it sooner. But, the fact is that many tjq practitioners aren’t interested in the martial aspect. And, though it became famous as a combat art, it is not famous now for the same reason.<

  True. TCC isn't trained "properly" in these times. Time becomes the relevant factor, and the fact that in today's society the martial aspects in everything are downplayed. What's become relevant to the people of today is

“health”. Not realizing that in order to get the full benefit(s) from TCC, or any of the internals is to train to fight. Like your life depended upon training correctly.

>Bagua has always been known as a fighting art -by the people who knew about it.<

  It's been known as a fighting art, but it suffers from the same malaise that the other "Sisters" do, and that's either the casual pracitioner, the health oriented practitioner, or the lazy practitioner. In any case it's a sad state of affairs.

>Well, I’d be interested to hear where you’d place liuhebafa in this, in terms of time of training, focus on application, martial intent, and sensitivity.<

  I'll put it this way..... Hsing-I's motions are based on a man running, Pa Qua's are based on a man walking, TCC is base on a man standing. LHPF is based on a man's movements. Longer to train, more difficult  to fully understand/train from a physical standpoint, very application oriented , a rich fighting art, containing all of the sensitivity training(s) that the "Sisters" have, and more. The progression of training is, I've found, the best. For me. :)

>Best,
Esteban<

   Same to you, Esteban. Feliz Navidad, Buon Natale, Joyeaux Noelle, Merry Christmas to all of you, and yours.
32

This has been a great thread.

I train Yin Fu Baguazhang, Chen Taijiquan and Xinyi Liuhequan, this is how I will distinguish them. I find that they are all one at a certain level. They all share traits of internal understanding and deep body connection. They all are based on the application of energies and not techniques. They all rely on body structure and change. These are strategic considerations, as strategy is what happens before battle battle is engaged.

At a tactical level I find that they are all entirely different.

Taijiquan is the defence of the village, stand your ground and defend the walls. Let the opponent blunt themselves on the battlements then sally forth to lift the siege.

Xinyi cracks the enemy formations with a blitzkrieg. If the opponent wants to hold ground then pound that ground until it is a wasteland. If the opponent wants to be evasive then cut off their retreat and annihilate them. If they are strong, be more ferocious and ruthless.

Baguazhang gives up the ground they hold to suddenly take the opponent from an unprotected angle, sometimes from the ground the opponent has launched their attack from. Baguazhang continually redefines where the front line is.

Each of these arts plays a different but key role in my training. In many ways Chen style is the heart of it all because it is he clearest study of Beng and Song, key qualities to connection both external and internal. Xinyi is the training of energetic change. The transformation of animal energies and emotions. Bagua is the refinement of weapons and angles, and the study of multiple opponents.

33

Hi Drake, Kevin W.,

I generally agree with everything you’ve said, but I just had to add my .02.

Drake wrote:
“TCC is base on a man standing. LHPF is based on a man’s movements.”

Kevin wrote:
“Taijiquan is the defence of the village, stand your ground and defend the walls. Let the opponent blunt themselves on the battlements then sally forth to lift the siege.”

I don’t really know anything about LHPF, but I think it’s a common misperception to think that tjq is more “static” than the other arts. As Maoshan pointed out, all know that there is “stillness in motion, and motion in stillness.” I’d describe the tjq battle plan something like this: “Let the opponent attack, and let the attack fall on nothing; then use your superior position to launch a counterattack.” That’s fairly classical strategy. In terms of tactics, however, there’s no rule that one has to stay in the same place. If the enemy of superior strength attacks village A, the object is to empty that village, not defend it. Of course, the art of tjq is the ability to change “Yang” to “Yin” without the opponent knowing it. So, the villages are mapped on the body. Still, even if it doesn’t require a large movement, there’s no reason not to move if it’s required. I.e., the “not move” works, except against freight-trains and hurricanes. Anyway, Drake wrote a bit about the idea of “walking”. In the more combat-oriented tjq schools, this is a key component. It’s absolutely clear in Sun-style “active step” tjq. There are those who argue that all tjq was practiced with active steps until post-YCF. There are many who’d say that nobody fights standing still. If you train to stand still, then you may be likely to fight the way you train, though. This is B. Lee’s complaint about the “classical mess.” Anyway, I think Kevin’s right that each of these arts is just a vehicle for the person. Good training in any of them yields good results. With good results, you can choose any tactics you want or that are necesary.

Good training, and
Happy Holidays to all,
Esteban

34

Etseban,

I absolutely agree. The village analogy only really works if you consider a village where the walls may suddenly disappear.

Taiji surely can move around, such as in cannon fist. My experience is that it is not as good for covering ground as Bagua or even less so than Xinyi.

The fastest that I have stepped in Taiji was doing some moving step push-hands and the Yang style 88 move two-person form, with Sam Masich. In Bagua I think 9 Palace stepping and multiple opponents sparring has inspired the greatest speed in my footwork. However, in 6 Harmonies Xinyi some things are done at the run. Its rather difficult ot stay connected, but when it comes you can just fly at your opponent.

Merry Christmas, Joyous Kwanza, Happy Solstice and may you have gentle visits to the vomitorium at Saturnalia.

35

In usage, I can see very little difference between any of the internal arts. They all seem to meld into one cohesive whole. While I don’t have any training in Xingyi, I have trained in both Bagua and Taiji for a while, almost the same time period. The first Taiji applications I learned were very direct and brutal, and yet very subtle. In fact, they were very similar to Bagua applications I learned later on.

On the subject of footwork, I must say that one of the styles of Taiji I have studied does contain both Kou and Bai bu steps in its forms, greatly resembling Bagua’s circle walking footwork. In addition, the forms also contain numerous examples of Bagua’s outer direction change. In another style of Taiji I study, the inner change permeates one of the shorter forms. In addition to this, I am told that both the styles of Taiji I study resemble Xingyi in some ways, (one much more than another, in my opinion).

The more I think about them, the more they all meld into one extremely large system.

36

good conversation you guys…my 2 cents

It is said that Hsing-I goes through the front door, Tai Chi uses the side door and Bagua uses the back door. But this is only true in a very general way. The door you choose depends on the fighting range. The range you choose depends on the individual and their comfort level. That is why I feel bagua is harder to use. It requires a greater comfort level from a closer range. In that aspect the training is more complex from a physical and emotional standpoint.

But before you say I am bagua biased, I too have had a fair amount of Tai Chi Chuan. Both Yang and Chen styles.

Maybe there are general differences in strategy and some terms but I think there are many more similarities between all internal arts and the levels of development. It depends of course, more on the teachers, and their method of getting you there. Internals are all based on 5 elements, 6 harmonies, chan su jin and fa jin, etc., etc., etc… All internal arts require that you feel your opponents balance point and break it down either by stealing or uprooting. All the internal arts suggest you feel where your opponent is going and either beat him there or take the space they leave. Speed and sensitivity are key in all. In fact, there are too many similarities to list.

I’d be interested in hearing how you “tai chi guys” are learning and training that makes things so complex and time consuming? Don’t you drill each posture/form on both sides? What about steps and walking? What about specific chan su jin drills? What kind of fight training are you doing? Dealing with different ranges, angles, hitting or getting hit? In general, what is your class like?

37

Well guys

This is the reason I come to this forum. Excellant posts everyone.

38

Hi Count,

well, I called myself a “taiji guy” once in this thread, so maybe you’re asking for my response. Like I said, I speak only for myself, not for tjq pracitioners, in general. And, I certainly haven’t seen everything or all different styles of tjq. But, you raise some good questions that aren’t hard to answer.

[Count]
“I’d be interested in hearing how you “tai chi guys” are learning and training that makes things so complex and time consuming?”

Esteban
If you read the other stuff I’ve said in the thread, you know where I’m coming from. Nothing I say means that bagua or any other art doesn’t have the same skills or work on them. But, from what I’ve seen, there are two general sets of reasons that tjq practitioners feel that their skill takes longer to acquire. One, the technically sound, classical reason is that they are supposed to absolutely avoid the use of “li” or muscular strength, or rely on physically superior “speed.” Now, before anyone goes crazy, this doesn’t mean that a tjq person should be “weak” or “slow.” It doesn’t mean that a strong person “can’t” do tjq, or give up tjq. As I said earlier, we were told that if you were stronger and faster, you didn’t need to use tjq. The idea was/is that a tjq practitioner should imagine fighting an opponent that he cannot overpower: i.e., the proverbial “750lb gorilla” or “Hulk Hogan” or “Mike Tyson.” That’s the standard to compare the level of skill needed with what one is practicing. But, how is someone not going to use strength and defeat Hogan? That’s the study of tjq. Again, this is not to say that bagua can’t or doesn’t use the same ideas. Anyway, that’s what I feel is the classical reason why tjq players should believe that learning their skill takes longer than some others. The second reason is, imo, more cultural. In the states, in general, the idea of “not using strength” has often been equated with “softness.” Worse still, there has been the belief that acquiring the “softness” did not require hard training. Because the tjq form can be done by the elderly and the infirm, it has been used as a kind of health therapy. Often, young and strong people imitate the movements of the ill and elderly. As Sam Wiley pointed out, there are schools of tjq that practice more “actively,” and these schools are often derided by those who practice more “statically.” When they see someone move quickly or have power or do something that looks as if it would actually do some damage, they claim that it’s “not tjq.” They extend this complaint most strongly against the people who practice “wushu” style, or who engage in competitive push hands. So, there’s an entire tjq culture based on the belief that doing the slow, often shortened, form is the art. This is not even to mention the people who are convinced that the martial skill of tjq is based on “qi.” They’re right, but qi is there, tjq or not. That’s another topic.
You also asked:

[Count]
"Don’t you drill each posture/form on both sides? What about steps and walking? What about specific chan su jin drills? What kind of fight training are you doing? Dealing with different ranges, angles, hitting or getting hit? In general, what is your class like?

Esteban

Well, as to the last part, I train when I feel like it and practice all day. I did the tournament stuff when I was much younger, and then btw, we were told that “if you want to beat a karate guy or a boxer, you had to kick and punch as much as he did.” IOW, you couldn’t expect to get by doing the form a few minutes in the morning and evening. In fact, no one in the internal arts I know who competes successfully feels any differently. A tjq person should work out with people from all sorts of arts and gain as much experience as he or she can. But, anyway, was your question above serious? The tjq guys who do what you suggest shouldn’t have much problem, should they? What you list is traditional training. Whether it happens or not depends on the teacher. That also goes for how soon it happens.

Again, these are just my observations and opinions,
Best,
Esteban

39

Thanks Esteban,

Good post and I agree almost 99% except I think these concepts are found in all CMA’s and not only in Tai Chi Chuan. The part I disagree with is that a person must kick and punch as much as the “Karate” fighter to win. But than, that all depends on what a person considers winning. Tournaments aren’t the best way to test the skills of CMA’s. To much of CMA’s happens after the initial contact so it’s hard to score points. Stopage and breaking the fight after contact only disrupts the flow. Judges never can see everything so often the real winner is only known by two. And yes, my questions are serious. This is the kind of training I know, so I wonder what other teachers emphasis to get you to the point where you can use your art.

So, Waterdragon,

This is the reason I come to this forum. Excellant posts everyone.

Well, YA but, How 'bout answering some of these questions?:wink:

40

Hey Count,

I think you got what I was trying to say. Let me make just two clarifications.

[Count]
“I agree almost 99% except I think these concepts are found in all CMA’s and not only in Tai Chi Chuan.”

Esteban
Absolutely, I think that tjq is “just another Chinese martial art.” I believe it differs only in training. Its theory, like the theories for most all other CMA, can be found in Sun Tzu.

[Count]
“The part I disagree with is that a person must kick and punch as much as the “Karate” fighter to win.”

Esteban
I didn’t really mean to imply practicing a particular technique. In reality, if you knew you were going in against a good striker or a Bill Wallace, say, it wouldn’t make sense to try to outpunch or outkick him. What I meant was that the tjq practitioner had to practice as long and hard at what he intended/was able to use as the karate guy did. Yep, this meant taking parts of the form and doing the traditional 10,000 “fists.” It didn’t mean not practicing “nian, lian, ting, hua”, btw. But, you couldn’t expect to do a little a get a lot, even though the ideal in usage was just that. But, you also point out the idea of winning, which raises another “difference” in the tjq approach. Ime, the Taoism in tjq changes the idea of “winning and losing” a little. Tactically, for example, it might imply some sort of “scacrifice” (as in “give onself up and follow the other”) or “yielding.” That involves a philosophical approach to violence and the possibility of injury. Again, if you say that this is common in CMA, I’d agree. It’s not the only theory either, and different arts, emphasize different aspects of the encyclopedia. Incidentally, personally, I think that bagua uses the “highest” theories in CMA. But, I can only speak as a “taichi guy” who thinks that it’s all relative.

Respects,
Esteban