the rum soaked fist: internal martial arts forum

When you are walking down a flight of stairs in the dark and you're positive you're at the last step and will be stepping onto solid ground, you find out you miscalculated and there's one more step, feeling like you almost kill yourself as spine, hips, knees, shoulders etc literally go all over.

Taiji is, through it's clever strategy and body method, the skill of recreating that same situation in the opponent.



.

johnwang wrote:Because I have not met any Taiji master who are willing to admit there are something missing in the Taiji system. Some enhancement will be needed for the Taiji system to be combat effective:

The other day you denied that you were trying to convert Taiji people. From my POV Taiji is a far more complete system than SC.

johnwang wrote:- There should be some training beyond push hand.

There is and always was training beyond pushands. This is very clear in the style I'm from. Also look at the "What does your Taiji curriculum consist of?' thread

johnwang wrote:- Grabbing should be added to disallow your opponent to have freedom of "change".

In Taiji, if you can achieve a desired result without grabbing, it is so much better. Grabbing is in many cases an unnecessary commitment that doesn't only tie up your opponent, but yourself too. And since you're so combat interested I'ld like to ask you: Why grabbing the opponents jacket or wrist, when you can use the hand to knock him out or stab him with a spiked ring ?

johnwang wrote:- Leg moves and contact point concept should be included instead of just "push at the center" and allow your opponent to have freedom on his legs.

There are lots of leg moves in my Taiji.

johnwang wrote:- Giving force so you can borrow your opponent's resist or yield.

This is actually done in Taiji, but in a TJQ way not in a SC way. I quoted a passage from Wang Peishengs book some time ago in the "Taiji Classics" thread that was imported to this new board.

johnwang wrote:- Don't be afraid to let your opponent to feel you. His feeling can trigger his action, and his action can trigger you to borrow his force.

A very important skill in Taiji is luring your opponent into commitment.

johnwang wrote:- Finish moves training should be emphasized.

There are a lot of devastating finishing moves in TJQ. However, training the setup for these moves is much more important than the actual technique. It's similar to what Bruce Lee said about trapping. IIRC he said something like: "In training it's 90% trapping and 10% striking, in fighting it's 10% trapping and 90% striking.

johnwang wrote:- Yang should be treated as important as Yin.

No, and that's for the same reason like above. The Yin part is the harder one to acquire.

D_Glenn wrote:When you are walking down a flight of stairs in the dark and you're positive you're at the last step and will be stepping onto solid ground, you find out you miscalculated and there's one more step, feeling like you almost kill yourself as spine, hips, knees, shoulders etc literally go all over.

Taiji is, through it's clever strategy and body method, the skill of recreating that same situation in the opponent.



.

QFT

bruce wrote:my point in this thread is to demonstrate that all the labels while useful for conversation and explaining ideas i think get in the way of the way an individual may use their skill or method. i think too much is invested in this is " xyz" style and we do this and dont do that etc etc.
it is a double edge sword and a fine line but i think freedom is important.

I think exactly the opposite way. People these days are looking around for material from other arts too quickly, instead of investing time in developing and understanding their art to it's fullest potential. Often times the "missing elements" are missing for a reason or not missing at all.
But at the same time I don't disagree with your reasoning completely. It's a matter of emphasis.

bruce wrote:i fully agree with these statements. for my practice i have been told i am not doing "tai chi chuan" for doing the very things you mention above in "push hand" practice. for me the definition of push hands is different than 99% of other tai chi chuan people though.

You call your 'free play' or 'sparring' 'push hands'. Wrong label, that's all.


CD

RE: What is Taiji:

A question for the board. Sure there are some (I would consider it a tiny minority, far less than 1 percent of overall practitioners) who train martially,but these days, Taiji, on the whole, is not a viable martial system, and, indeed, is not taught as such.

Question: Why and when did Taiji de-martialize?

Sophia Delza, learned in Shanghai in the 1930s, IIRC, and she was a dancer, with, AFAIK, no martial interest. Moreover, there are reports in the English Language Shanghai newspapers of CMA people performing acrobatic routines and nice forms, but not showing the fighting moves that Indian, Japanese and European martial artists (boxers, wrestlers, judoka) could and did.

Sayings about CMA ('tofu fist and embroidered feet' etc) make clear that many CMA systems were not for fighting, they were exercise or aesthetically based. But Taiji seems to be the worst effected,and clearly, this focus pre-dates communism in China.

If the mid-late 19th century masters were such masterly fighters, what made the literati take it up?

johnwang wrote:

Walter Joyce wrote:after reading his posts for years now I have yet to see one that gave credit to any taiji master.

Because I have not met any Taiji master who are willing to admit there are something missing in the Taiji system. Some enhancement will be needed for the Taiji system to be combat effective:

- There should be some training beyond push hand.
- Grabbing should be added to disallow your opponent to have freedom of "change".
- Leg moves and contact point concept should be included instead of just "push at the center" and allow your opponent to have freedom on his legs.
- Giving force so you can borrow your opponent's resist or yield.
- Don't be afraid to let your opponent to feel you. His feeling can trigger his action, and his action can trigger you to borrow his force.
- Finish moves training should be emphasized.
- Yang should be treated as important as Yin.

This is JW and I support this message.

I agree with everything.

This thread I started a while back sums up my view on taiji and fighting. viewtopic.php?f=3&t=258&st=0&sk=t&sd=a

Taiji is a subset of skills within the larger framework of fighting. I will never recommend taiji to someone with no martial arts experience if they are looking to learn to fight or defend themselves. Quite simply the way it is usually taught, the students don't learn basic fighting skills. There are always exceptions, but your average taiji teacher you look up in the phone book won't be able to teach you how to fight, even if they think they could whip ken shamrock.

.

Andy_S wrote:RE: What is Taiji:

A question for the board. Sure there are some (I would consider it a tiny minority, far less than 1 percent of overall practitioners) who train martially,but these days, Taiji, on the whole, is not a viable martial system, and, indeed, is not taught as such.

That's your personal experience - mine is different. Your criticism applies to all traditional MAs that don't have a full contact sport competition format.

Andy_S wrote:Question: Why and when did Taiji de-martialize?

Sophia Delza, learned in Shanghai in the 1930s, IIRC, and she was a dancer, with, AFAIK, no martial interest. Moreover, there are reports in the English Language Shanghai newspapers of CMA people performing acrobatic routines and nice forms, but not showing the fighting moves that Indian, Japanese and European martial artists (boxers, wrestlers, judoka) could and did.

Sayings about CMA ('tofu fist and embroidered feet' etc) make clear that many CMA systems were not for fighting, they were exercise or aesthetically based. But Taiji seems to be the worst effected,and clearly, this focus pre-dates communism in China.

If the mid-late 19th century masters were such masterly fighters, what made the literati take it up?

Bad enquiry , she lived in Shanghai from 1948 to 1951. And she was deliberatly ignoring the martial aspects. So you can hardly take her to proof your idea that Taiji wasn't a fighting art anymore at that time. I know several people from the Wu style who were participating in full contact fights during that time. One of them was the young Cheng Tin Hung.

CD

Bhassler wrote:Has anyone EVER changed their opinion about taiji AT ALL through one of these threads? I look through and I see the same people posting the same shit as in 50 other threads (myself included). Just out of curiosity, does anyone feel that they've actually learned anything significant or applicable about taiji via this thread? Any thread?

The last one I can think of is the Optimally Structured Sparring thread back on the original eF from a few years ago...

I have taken quite a few things from threads here and been able to look at them, try them out,, and see how they work. Problem is the threads with the most potential to be useful usually get derailed or just don't have much interest.

DeusTrismegistus wrote:
Taiji is a subset of skills within the larger framework of fighting. I will never recommend taiji to someone with no martial arts experience if they are looking to learn to fight or defend themselves. Quite simply the way it is usually taught, the students don't learn basic fighting skills. There are always exceptions, but your average taiji teacher you look up in the phone book won't be able to teach you how to fight, even if they think they could whip ken shamrock.

good points deus ... i agree. if i had not had a background in boxing, wrestling and had been in fights before i started training tai chi chuan i do not think i would have developed what little i have now.

one story my teacher told me about yang luchan teaching tai chi chuan to the imperial guards was about how they already knew how to punch/kick/fight what they needed was a better way of using their body.

Bhassler wrote:Has anyone EVER changed their opinion about taiji AT ALL through one of these threads? I look through and I see the same people posting the same shit as in 50 other threads (myself included). Just out of curiosity, does anyone feel that they've actually learned anything significant or applicable about taiji via this thread? Any thread?

The last one I can think of is the Optimally Structured Sparring thread back on the original eF from a few years ago...

i learned a lot from this one.
viewtopic.php?f=6&t=44

cdobe wrote:The other day you denied that you were trying to convert Taiji people.

Why grabbing the opponents jacket or wrist, when you can use the hand to knock him out or stab him with a spiked ring ? .

I'm still not trying to convert anybody. I give my opinion. Whether people want to use it for reference or not is all up to their own choice.

The reason that SC jacket was designed in the 1st place is to "prevent your opponent from running away from fight". If I just dance around you and refuse to commit on anything then even if you are the best MA master in this world, you still can't do anything about me. The "grabbing" is to prevent me from "dancing around" and don't give me the fredom of "changing". If I don't have SC jacket on then "arm wrapping" will be another way to stop me from "dancing like a butterfly".

If I can run faster than you then you have to beat me in running first before you can knock me out. If you grab on my shirt then I no longer be able to run and have to fight you no matter I like it or not.

This is pure "tactic" and has nothing to do with "internal" or "external".

I don't know who all I can speak for in this, but if the other guy runs away then the fight is over and I can get back to my life, you know. I don't need to hang on and finish it for any reason.

TaoJoannes wrote:I don't know who all I can speak for in this, but if the other guy runs away then the fight is over and I can get back to my life, you know. I don't need to hang on and finish it for any reason.

I wish your statement will hold if Bin Laden is jumping aroung GWB.

johnwang wrote:

TaoJoannes wrote:I don't know who all I can speak for in this, but if the other guy runs away then the fight is over and I can get back to my life, you know. I don't need to hang on and finish it for any reason.

I wish your statement will hold if Bin Laden is jumping aroung GWB.

For something like that I'd use a little ICBM-fu and take both the bastards out.