I’d like to know who here has chosen to train in internal arts with the highest priority being skills for self-preservation, as opposed to health, stress management, cultural appreciation, enlightenment, philosophy, etc.
My primary interest is in combat applications. Other aspects you mentioned (health…) are a nice side benefit but if, for example, health was my primary concern that perhaps yoga or a system consisting strictly of qigong would be better.
I practice martial arts because of the martial aspect. One can meditate, reduce stress, gain cultural knowledge, or get healthy in a variety of ways that have no martial aspect at all.
Seeya
I fit into that category but health is up there along with it after I began to see the benefits beyond power generation.
Combat application is my primary reason.
All the other goodies are additional benefits – some of 'em great additional benefits, but nonetheless. If I wasn’t interested in martial arts and only that other side of things, I’d do yoga. Simple as that.
Funny but practicing kung fu was desingined for those things and combat benifiets ARE the side effect. Funny how purposes get changed around due to the interest in the secondary aspect.
Allow me to ask you guys why you would be interested in focusing mainly on the combat side? do you plan on fighting in the near future? or defending your life? or is it just the combat side is more fun to practice?
No, no, no, the chicken not the egg. Wow, I was just doing this healthy deep breathing exercise, and the uplifting arm swings would make a great backfist to a backside attack bt vagrants! Hoorah, hoorah!!
“Funny but practicing kung fu was desingined for those things and combat benifiets ARE the side effect.”
I can’t find myself agreeing with that. As with many things, it may be true in some instances, but it is not the rule. Martial arts sprung out of warfare (though also merging with other disciplines).
Yes, I practise martials arts for self defense. It’s doubtful I’ll be attacked (or my loved ones), but I want to be on the safe side. I want to be able to give of myself capably and effectively in this respect (just as in others), if the need arises.
I wouldn’ mind competing as well, but that would be just to test myself and drive myself ****her – it would be a product, not the goal, of training. Or perhaps a training tool.
However, all that’s not really the point as martial skill can be learned in an art more wholly dedicated to only that (MMA, perhaps). Sure, I’d search for these other effects in other disciplies. Now, I can group them under one practise which is excellent. My martial intent then also serves so many other purposes and becomes something else. My practise of the martial arts becomes something far greater than “the sum of its parts”, so to speak. This way I maintain can maintain a life-long interest in the art, my needs and expectations changing and finding new ways of fulfillment, with the art always following me and me following it.
Ah hell, I find it very difficult to answer the question “why do you do martial arts?” It’s such a big, impressive and deep thing. My point here is that self-defense is certainly a large part of it.
This is a hard question.
I practice taiji with martial intent, with practicality and effectiveness while sticking with the taiji principles being a big thing in my training.
But the health side is also there. If I didn’t do neigong and taiji I wouldn’t have as much stamina and wind as I do to play the saxophone.
If I am practicing regularly (i.e. everyday) which I almost always am then my body feels strong and my qi is full (not that I have massive amounts of qi or anything). If I miss practice for more than about a day, I feel weaker.
Practicing taiji for me is also a self-healing thing, where if I have an injury or feel weak taiji will regain that strength or speed up the recovery process.
However, the primary intent and focus of my taiji is self-defense and martial practice. Without that intent, I would say you’re not getting half of what the art is about. That being said, and not be a CMC classics-quoting hippy, the Yang Family classics do say that the right balance of the martial and the civil is necessary. I’d venture to say the Yang family knew their stuff, too.
I started martial arts so that I could live into my 100’s and still perform. (That includes sex with young girls and martial practice. 
I would say “self preservation” requires health, stress management, cultural understanding (if not appreciation), enlightenment, etc., etc… While the direction in my training has followed many roads including fighting to philosophy I picked a taoist internal style so I could have the best mix of it all. I hope you all took the time to vote in my thread, Setting Goals in Martial Arts down below. 
“That being said, and not be a CMC classics-quoting hippie”
Interesting statement, can you talk of what is a CMC classic quoting hippie. 
As to the topic. This is what I have found.
Some of the more noted TC people org. learned TC to correct some health problem. As they got deeper into the art the combative aspects became available through “correct practice.” Some are known for their ability to really use softness to defeat their opponents.
I feel that it is very hard to teach or even think of TC if your mind is filled with trying to fight or knock the others head off. If I become one with your movement and help you to lose your balance is this the same as fighting with you?
Even the postures if you look one way i.e. with what some call MA intent they can be used very differently then those that see them as a way or result of another’s actions.
Lets take the dreaded “fa jing” that many talk of.
One way to look at it is you use your structure and bounce someone out with it, according to what I read on this forum.
Another way of looking at it is to release your mind intent along the same path / direction as the other.
Both look like the same thing but are very different in applacation.
I don’t think i fit into the TC martial intent/ I look at it more along the lines of maintaining inner and out balance.
Softness can be the hardest thing to really learn, but I think the most effective thing to deal with unbalanced movement of others or ideas that come into ones life.
Some good points made.
At one seminar a couple years ago, my teacher asked everyone “How many people here think Taiji is practical for self-defense?” A few people raised their hands, and he said to them “Are you crazy? Didn’t you see Raiders of the Lost Ark? That guy spent his whole life practicing the sword, and Indiana Jones just shot him!”
When I’m studying Taiji saber, and I’m learning to draw the sharpest part of the blade across the length of the stomach so it cuts it open, instead of just bluntly striking square-on with the blade—that’s not really a skill I’m likely to use in real life. Sure, some of the principles can be transferred to an umbrella or cane, or what have you----but if I really needed to use an umbrella on the street for self defense, then I should train umbrella, and not waste my time with a saber.
Things like qigong, meditation, traditional weapons----those things aren’t really necessary if you want to become a good fighter in a short time.
Do I think Taiji is a very effective martial art? Yes. Do I think that people should be fully exploring the depth of combat applications an art contains? Yes I do, because that’s the nature of learning a martial art, and without that you’ll never reach a deep understanding of the art. Do I think Taiji is a PRACTICAL way to learn to defend yourself? No.
I’m interested in the whole art. Combat is part of it, but not all of it.
“Interesting statement, can you talk of what is a CMC classic quoting hippie.”
That was said ina joking way. (I notice you do CMC style. That is one of the forms I do, too.)
Although, there is a serious side to this topic. Many students in the CMC lineage, especially a lot of the NYC students and 2nd generation and onward students, really don’t have much. They like to talk of softness, quote the classics a lot, and say that it takes years and years to get anything(softness is one of the keys to success in taiji, the classics are full of great advice and wisdom, and you don’t become a master overnight, but many of these guys take it to the extreme)–or worse yet, say stuff like after 10 years, you’ll be good enough to know you know nothing. But in reality, most of them have no juice. This isn’t true with everyone, but sadly this is the state of most taiji today, especially in this lineage. But don’t get me wrong, I have nothing against CMC himself. He was a great taiji guy, great martial artist (although some debate this), and is probably best known in Mainland and Taiwan for his painting/calligraphy, too. It’s just some people in his lineage don’t have any real skill, but like to talk a lot. Oh, and also, a lot of people make CMC out to be some sort of god or something, which isn’t cool. Sorry for going on and on–you get the point.
Don’t take it personally or anything, though. Like I said, I do Cheng’s form, too.
I definitely started (and continue) with fighting application in mind. All of the health benefits, and other areas of growth associated with IMA can’t be overlooked, but learning to fight very well was and is my primary goal.
A little off topic:
Sorry TS,
Just wondering
I think for many he was teaching far above their level of understanding and usage.
I only know directly a couple of people in his lineage. Notably, Ben Lo. “ Tai Chi is a martial art”
He used to express this also “ Tai Chi is like a machine gun it takes awhile to learn how to use it”
My ideas are expressed a little differently but the main point is demonstrable usage. If Ben said “be straight” he meant be straight, if he said relax he really meant relax. His classes where very hard.
If you had a chance to met him or maybe some of the others I don’t see how one could say some things that have been said about the CMC style.
I guess I need to get out more, most of the TC people that I see here are very into usage. The question then becomes who really expresses the real TC principles, this is most often talked about with some people that I know. When I say expresses this is usually done through the medium of free style push hands.
Any comments that I make regarding the CMC style or TC viewpoints are mine alone, they should be taken as my thoughts not of other people or org. that many be in the CMC lineage.
Bamboo,
I think Ben Lo is great. My teacher has met him a few times, and has nothing but good things to say. Like I said, not everyone in the CMC camp are into the new-age, dance, health-oriented version of taiji, but most are, and probably the most famous student to write about CMC and his teachings (who I won’t name but I’m sure you can guess;) ) has carried this on.
The thing about CMC’s american students is that when he was teaching in NYC, he was teaching to an audience. He was primarily teaching young, liberal guys with long beards who smoked pot a bunch, and were into the softness and yielding of taiji and the relaxation benefits. They didn’t need to be taught 10 different ways to close someones windpipe. There was no reason for CMC to give away that stuff to the NY students.
Look at William Chen, who is a great fighter, and won a full contact fighting tournament (I can’t remember which one). Ben Lo also has the stuff, and another Taiwan student I can’t remember is also radically different in style than the NYC guys.
Dare devil
You say that you cant agree with what I said, but if I may it is known fact that martial arts were designed by monks and hermits whose religion of taoism, buddahism and confusuism forbid them of inflicting harm upon any living creature. Thus fighting and or combat was not a factor in the birth of kung fu but a secondary effect.
So where you said that…
Martial arts sprung out of warfare (though also merging with other disciplines). I would have to say no.
Ben Lo also has the stuff, and another Taiwan student I can’t remember is also radically different in style than the NYC guys.
That would be Dr. Tao Ping-Siang. At age 82, he is probably the scariest person I have seen yet.
Awesome picture!
Yeah, I’m pretty sure that’s who I meant.
Wow, I didn’t think this thread would take off so fast. Nice to know people are interested in responding to it.
Earth Dragon,
You wrote " Allow me to ask you guys why you would be interested in focusing mainly on the combat side? do you plan on fighting in the near future? or defending your life? or is it just the combat side is more fun to practice?". I don’t currently plan to ever fight anyone. However, as my own past experiences have shown, our plans often have nothing to do with it. Instead, what I am planning is to be as prepared as possible to defend both my family and myself should the need arise.
RE: “…if I may it is known fact that martial arts were designed by monks and hermits whose religion of taoism, buddahism and confusuism forbid them of inflicting harm upon any living creature. Thus fighting and or combat was not a factor in the birth of kung fu but a secondary effect.”. As a sweeping generalization, this is neither “known” nor a “fact”. While it is true of certain styles, even certain families of styles, it is by no means true of all or even most of the fighting methods of China’s history.
Perhaps I’m reading you in a moment of weakness or something, but surely you are aware that while Buddhism preaches a generally non-violent lifestyle, neither Taoism nor Confucianism hold such a prohibition.
Also, RE: “Martial arts sprung out of warfare (though also merging with other disciplines). I would have to say no.”. Especially if we are talking about martial arts in general rather than specifically CMA, by saying no you would most certainly be in error. Again, I’m puzzled by your response here, given what I’ve read of you in the past both here and at your own website. Oh well, no harm done, just simple disagreement.
bamboo leaf,
Your insight into your lineage’s namesake is admirable. You wrote “I think for many he was teaching far above their level of understanding and usage.”. That is more than likely true, especially given the climate of the culture to which he was teaching. Namely, 60’s era San Franciscan young people, most of whom were by and large part of a cultural backlash movement which often rejected wholesale the institutionalized beliefs of its culture and just as indiscriminately (and superficially) embraced all manner of exotic and foreign cultural influences. The level at which CMC taught might go a long way toward explaining the tendency of many if not most of his lineage’s American adherents’ reputation for low-caliber fighting skill.
While CMC would not be the first Chinese teacher to fail to pass on his knowledge and skills due to a lack of students he found worthy, he would also just as importantly not be the first Chinese teacher to hold back essential information from, or even to purposefully mislead, students of non-Chinese ethnic origin.
I would not hold him solely accountable for what happened, however. The lackadaisical “good times & rock n’ roll” attitude of the Americans he encountered goes at least as far in explaining the situation.
You wrote regarding the generally known fighting ability of students of CMC lineage, “I guess I need to get out more, most of the TC people that I see here are very into usage.”. I would respectfully agree with you here regarding the usefulness of a bit of exposure. It is not clear whether you have done similarly or not, but I have travelled quite a bit here in the U.S., and the consistent pattern of those Taiji students of YCF/CMC lineage is that they are generally significantly nicer and more interesting people to meet than the average and that they generally can’t fight to a degree even worth mentioning, relative to practitioners of other martial art styles. While I am open to considering that this is merely my own experience and doesn’t necessarily reflect the situation at large, I would suggest based on the opinions I’ve encountered that you would find my assessment more common than not among other practitioners. Indeed, the popularity of that opinion is such that it has become somewhat of a stereotype regarding YCF/CMC practitioners, whether entirely deserved or not.
taijiquan_student followed your post with as succinct and, I believe, correct an explanation for it as one could want, the one wherein he talks about CMC teaching to an audience.
Chris M
As my training has lead me to be lucky enough to train under 2 chinese masters I have learned quite alot about the reasons for the introduction of kung fu. And I can assure you that the original reason for the invention of such skills did not have combat in mind. (Mind you I am speaking of the introduction not what came many years after). It was merly a side effect or bonus reason that one aquired when practicing. I have known many people to say that kung fu masters learned martial or combat techniques first. However this is not true for true mastery of kung fu focuses first and formost on health and the regeneration of health. I am talking medically not just personally.It is a masters first trining that encompasses the anatomy, chi flow, meridan locations and herbology. Not how to fight for fighting can be dine by anbyone with fists and considered barbarick in a religious mind weather that mind is buddahist or taoist. It was da mo who observed the monks in great diffecientcy both physically and mentally. And it was the reason for the YIN GIN CHING and the SHII SOEI CHING intorduction to them. It was not until many years later around 530 A.D that the lohan excersises were introduced that the abbott realized that if trianed at full speed could be used to defend the monks and the temple, however at the introduction of lohan 530 A.D china was not at a fudel time so combat was NOT the main reason for the practice. I am not saying that all matial arts felt this way but we are talking abouut the introduction and internal right?
So just to touch back on what you said
“While it is true of certain styles, even certain families of styles, it is by no means true of all or even most of the fighting methods of China’s history”
I am not talking about all of china’s history, nor all the martial arts that came out of it but just the “introduction” of martial arts was what I orignally said was first and foremost for medical and a side benifiet was combat effectiveness…