Do we try too hard to analyze and break down what we do?

[klonk]

If you're looking for useful self defense, the way you move and act must become ingrained below the analytical level, in the unconscious level. No time to think!

So there are really two things going on at the same time, in learning martial arts, the body awareness/muscle memory learning, and after the fact analysis, trying to perfect or better understand the movements themselves. The body skills are the central thing. The theory is merely ancillary, and useless if it does not enhance the body skills by pointing out how to move better. (I'm thinking about the Taiji Classics here; there is a lot in them that tries to convey certain things about how you should move.)

Some people, natural brawlers, fight pretty well without much in the way of theory or analysis. I regret to say the reverse is true as well. There are some people who are up on all the theories, and can't fight well. This suggests to me that the theory is plainly secondary. On the face of the question, anyway, it seems that you should learn the motions first and the analytics later.

But I am not so sure in the case of taiji, for some of the things you do are far from the ordinary person's intuition about how to fight. It may be possible to teach taiji without all the wordiness, and mainly by example. But has anyone seen it done?

[Chris Fleming]

Do we try to hard to analyze? In a word, yes. It often starts with too much talk about what is internal and what isn't.

[ppscat]

Sometimes it takes more faith than theoretical knowledge to "get through" to an art as taijiquan. It is hard to believe in relaxation and softness before you figured out by yourself and proved for yourself that it actually works.

Couldn't agree more with this statement.

[RayPina]

There are definite principles one must adhere to in order to maintain structure. Internal technique in practice is also a wonderful study in efficient movement. Very good at producing power.

With that said, Internal Martial Arts and most Kung Fu has become too cerebral. Too many experts in theory. Too many people with too many things to say and not enough people out there actually pushing and evolving their art.

Learn principles that you believe in. Take them with you everywhere you go without being mindful of them. If you have them they're built in to everything you do.

My BJJ is internal. My surfing is internal.... so is my writing.

[shawnsegler]

Wow, that's fascinating...oh wait, you're gone.

S- fuck that guy

[Chris Fleming]

HA HA!

[Ron Panunto]

I think it's more the way an individual learns. Some people learn better by watching and imitating, but that doesn't work for me. I like to analyze the shit out of everything. This provides me with a schematic, or road map, of the system so that I know what the goals are and how to get there. I've seen too many people practice for years and not make any progress because they just do stuff without knowing what the purpose is. However, as I said, analyzing is just my personal way of getting a handle on a discipline.

[xuesheng]

But I am not so sure in the case of taiji, for some of the things you do are far from the ordinary person's intuition about how to fight. It may be possible to teach taiji without all the wordiness, and mainly by example. But has anyone seen it done?

Yes - my teacher is pretty strongly biased against "scholars" - he pretty much divides the world into scholars and practitioners. If you spend all your time reading and talking and writing, when do you practice? is what he likes to say. I don't see it quite so black and white (after all, here I am posting rather than training) but I think he has a point.

He doesn't talk much, never anything philosophical (even in the Daoist meditation training). He teaches the form and makes you really get it down well. Then he teaches pushing, then self defense and fighting training.

What I've found is that you need a student with "faith" as CJ Wang so nicely stated. If that person will invest enough time in the form (know yourself), then pushing (know your opponent), and then put it together with the self defense/free fighting training techniques, you can train good fighters using taiji methods. I think it helps a helluva lot if the student has prior "external" experience, but it's not essential.

His approach in teaching Xingyi and Bagua is the same.

[Robert Young]

Yes - my teacher is pretty strongly biased against "scholars" - he pretty much divides the world into scholars and practitioners. If you spend all your time reading and talking and writing, when do you practice? is what he likes to say. I don't see it quite so black and white (after all, here I am posting rather than training) but I think he has a point.

He doesn't talk much, never anything philosophical (even in the Daoist meditation training). He teaches the form and makes you really get it down well. Then he teaches pushing, then self defense and fighting training.

What I've found is that you need a student with "faith" as CJ Wang so nicely stated. If that person will invest enough time in the form (know yourself), then pushing (know your opponent), and then put it together with the self defense/free fighting training techniques, you can train good fighters using taiji methods. I think it helps a helluva lot if the student has prior "external" experience, but it's not essential.

His approach in teaching Xingyi and Bagua is the same.

Old CMA saying; Scholars practice their Kung Fu by mouth(talking) and pen(writing), Real MA (practitioners) practice their Kung Fu by hand and foot.

[klonk]

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is why I'm no damned good at taiji! My karate teacher kicked me, my wrestling teacher liked to grind people into the floor, and my taiji teacher told me to relax.

[river rider]

I had a teacher who was always talking about there being 2 kinds of knowing, cerebral knowledge and experiential knowledge. He liked to use the example of verbally defining the word "wet" vs just jumping in the water. Learning his taiji syllabus was the process of experientially analyzing our body and its movement with the goal of learning how to correctly "do" taijiquan. Verbal analysis was supplemental... a finger pointing back to the correct path. It'd be hard to over-analyze and break things down if you find the way to do it right.

[twocircles]

I think that martial arts and Taijiquan are not much different than any other physical skills, like throwing a baseball or shooting a basket. If I give you a bucket of balls and draw a circle on the side of a barn, show you the basics and say hit the circle and you threw the balls faithfully every day, it is likely that you would learn to hit the circle pretty consistently by throwing the ball.

Does that mean that you would not benefit by analysis of your technique and correction. Of course not. The chance that you would discover the best way to throw by yourself or even pick up the nuances of my example are slim.

On the other hand, if I just show you how to throw and explain the theory. If you never touch a ball, can you then throw? Not well. If you then start throwing, then you are likely to improve.

I think the martial arts are similar. If there is no practice, there can be no improvement, no matter how thorough your understanding or deep your insights. At the same time, analysis and feedback on your development can be beneficial, but not to exclusion of practice.