Hi Taichichuan-student,
you wrote:
“Both paths end up fulfilling these goals and accomplishing these skills.
But, the two masters might have different “kinds” of bodies, or different qualities, and may have very different methods of power generation and think different ways in terms of combat. So yes, both end up with combat skills and health, but the qualities of these states in each person will most likely differ.”
I agree, especially to the last part. Even masters/practitioners within the same style from the same lineage will somehow manage to express the same art differently. And, it will be noticeable, as in the case of the Yangs who were all considered to have different specialities. The same is true for the masters of bagua and xingyi, and I’d imagine for most arts, no? Anyway, I also agree that some of the reason for grouping xy, bg, and tjq together is somewhat political in that, perhaps, it might not be an “exclusive” definition. The connection between the three is often said to be related to “internal,” but there was already a “neijiaquan” and other arts that might be considered “internal” depending on what one thinks that means. Some, like M. Patterson, might say that it means “internal to China.” It might then be argued that the arts were connected because they were based on Taoist, not Buddhist philosophies. But, maybe it’s also possible to argue that all three arts talk about the same thing, but just use a different language. For example, ideas like “Bear shoulders,” “snake hands,” etc., are common to all three styles (and also make sense in general), but tjq practitioners are generally advised/told to “drop shoulders and elbows.” Certainly, not all cma styles do this, or emphasize this, or do so for the same reason. Anyway, I’m not disagreeing on the fact that there are differences. There are lots of categories on which to base comparisons. For example, short-range v long-range, waist movement v arm movement, whole body - local muscle, technique based training v principle based training, and, besides these, the fact that these things are distinguished in the training and philosophy. True, other martial arts make these distinctions, but the “3 sisters” don’t exist in or emerge from a vacuum. It does make sense to just say CMA, and then just describe training methods and “expected” outcomes. That’s fine, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t possible to see similarities between the “3” that don’t exist with others. I mean, if there were no differences, then we wouldn’t have anything to talk about.
Regards,
Esteban
