This isn't the thread you're looking for.

[D_Glenn]

I've been trying to read and follow some of the Non-Aikido Martial Traditions sub-forum and the thing that keeps coming up and the question I have is why do they seem to think that Chen Xiao Wang is the best example of Chinese Internal Power?

I've met many, many Chinese and Non-Chinese who are better at exemplifying Internal Power then CXW.

He's good but not great.

If that's the best example that countless Aikido practitioners are shown then it's no wonder that Dan and others are having a hard time conveying the traditional Chinese methods to them.

I've used the term "Street Cred" on RSF before and the manner in which I use it is in regards judging other people's capabilities, what they've learned, etc. by who they think are great. So, cut to the chase, people that laud CXW probably just haven't been exposed to great practitioners of CMA, and/ or don't themselves physically possess the methods in order to register what capabilities they're looking for. (有眼不識泰山)

Obviously I realize that most of the guys doing Chinese styles don't really want to be known for one reason or another and CXW is probably the most popular in the West and the East, so that whole avenue of discussion is already presumed and I'm looking for any other ideas?


.

[Bhassler]

CXW may or may not be great, but as far as I know it's been years since he's really been willing to grab random schmoes and throw them in the dirt a few times to make his point. So whether he's great or not, from my perspective he's not particularly useful, because it's all just hearsay.

And now I'm gonna get my panties all in a bunch...

I also think referring to "traditional Chinese methods" is in many respects bullshit. Outside of a few classic jibengong, even the Chinese don't seem to agree on what the traditional methods are, and in the rare instances when so-called experts do agree, they can't agree on the same words to explain it (which invariably bear little or no relation to correct scientific or professional terminology). Everybody has their own versions, and they're almost universally nonsensical, so abstract as to be useless, or both. Don't even get me started on "Internal Power" since no one has ever been able to agree on what that is (or even if it exists) since the beginning of the internets.

My own criteria is that things that I write have to stand on their own merits both logically and practically, and folks can take it or leave it as they choose. In person, it's either put up or shut up-- not that everybody has to be a bad-ass ('cause I'm a big sissy), but if you're going to talk about it you should at least be able to manifest it convincingly under sterile training conditions. At some point shouldn't we just go all Bruce Lee on the whole topic and subjugate everything to what meets our own practical ends?

I think the reason people can't convey what they mean is because they don't really understand it, or because they don't have the skill to articulate it correctly (and usually both).

Thanks, I feel better. That's really just the teaser for the rant on teaching IMA (and martial arts in general), but the full version would take way too long to write.

[Ralteria]

Agree, +1, and all that jazz

Also...the practices one uses to develop also will invariably effect the quality of whatever you are producing so someone who has been practicing Cheng Bagua and JUST Cheng Bagua are going to have a different feel and effect to what they are doing than someone who has practiced something different. Combining methods/cross training also changes the feel and effect. Each one is tailored to the principles and application style. So I'd say that assessment is just based primarily on exposure. Sure they have commonalities...

If I was an aikido guy looking for good power demonstration, CXW is probably the first and easiest demonstration i to find. Most of us have personal exposure and a sort of vetting process for this stuff, though. When you've sampled different flavors, you look for different things.

Eventually it comes down to what you are doing with it. If the barometer is fame and success, than CXW seems extremely effective. IF that's your barometer.

[yeniseri]

Just as there are those who worship CXW, there are others who see thier non-CMA art as better. That is just the game as played. Everyone get to have their own rice bowl.
Face and its concept just would not last when a non CMA art beats another at its game and the egos of many are extremely fragile so in the long runn it may be better to leave things as they are.

[D_Glenn]

Just as there are those who worship CXW, there are others who see thier non-CMA art as better. That is just the game as played. Everyone get to have their own rice bowl.
...in the long run it may be better to leave things as they are.

Thank you for posting that!

I just had a vivid flashback to the time I sat-in to observe a traditional Japanese Jujitsu class. It was a bunch of people kneeling around the teacher and his assistant. He had a training knife but never actually demonstrated anything. Just went on and on talking about this style and that style's approach. I'd already seen enough Silat to know that everything he said about knife skills was utter BS. I suffered through a good 45 minutes of his non-stop droning before I faked a cell phone call and got the hell out of there.

And now I think about all those aikido clips where they use empty farce and all the people lined up pushing on an "immovable root" and how CXW is maybe playing to that with his own pushing clips.

So on second thought: Things should definitely stay as they are!

Forget I started this thread.

If there's no objections, I'd like to maybe delete or something?

I'm at least going to change the title for now.


.

[yeniseri]

From my limited experience, most people will never speak to, or about the reaity of CMA. That being said, people making a choice, to, and about their art, is still a good thing.
People look at me funny when I mention that if they are unsure of an art and the teacher asks for volunteer, VOLUNTEER. That is step 1.
STEP 2 - Investigate
STEP 3 - Practice
STEP 4 - My main teacher always said (my paraphrasing) ' Strive to be better than the teacher". Be diligent. Be observant! My own owrds to add based on what I thought he stated (my error only) Steal what you can steal and do it honorably through steps 1-3

[gzregorz]

I can't say I'm really surprised. I imagine aikido people who are willing to explore CMA to supplement their aikido would probably want to go with the lineage/family connection.

I know of teachers who are more accessible and willing to share their art than those are members of a martial art family yet they rarely receive the same amount of recognition unless their students somehow become famous. This isn't unique to CMA by the way. I've seen it in other styles as well, when your father was a famous martial artist and you want to go into the business too it definitely helps. Just look at the Gracies, for example. If you wanted to learn bjj and had the choice between a Gracie and some no name American who would you choose?

Also from my past experience of going on aikido boards, something I never do anymore, I got the impression that most aikido people see CMA as a bunch of un-natural moves. Then again those shaolin monks and crazy wushu forms don't help either. So something like bagua although similar to aikido in some ways is not something I think they'd identify with. Also forget xingyi because they seem to look down at strikes. So this leaves tjq. If you look at tjq as an outsider then chen seems to be the most martial of those because they move faster and most chen people I've met love qinna, so it all makes sense to me why aikido people would choose that style.

Also CXW isn't putting on boxing gloves and hitting people. He isn't mixing his Chen with other internal styles and creating some forms they could never understand. He isn't from outside of the Chen family. He's out teaching his internals and that's what they want to learn to improve their aikido.

It might not be fair. But who said life is fair?

[D_Glenn]

From my limited experience, most people will never speak to, or about the reality of CMA. That being said, people making a choice, to, and about their art, is still a good thing.

That's also been what I've seen in the what you could say has been a rather expansive experience because almost all the people that attend our YSB seminars were already doing IMA.
Xingyiquan, in particular TST and Kenny Gong's school, are exceptionally powerful. Afaik the TST schools also have 2 maybe even 3 generations of Americans who are walking examples of internal power. 5 minutes of close contact, standing nearby, with anyone of them and you'll be sure to see, hear, feel, and know what Internal Power is and want to develop it. I got into martial arts because of the Pakua Journal but for a short time when I was doing Gao style I went to a sort of seminar with this guy who did TST Xingyi and the sheer power in this older, short, balding guy who only started doing Xingyi in his 40s left me with a choice. After 2 weeks of debating over the 2 styles I decided to go with Xingyi but when I went to do it the teacher had got transferred by his work to another state. But it turned out for the best because then I saw the flyer for a YSB seminar and I've never looked back.

One thing that is consistent across the board is that the TST guys all seem to be very secretive and I've always tried to promote the whole organization but I never want to get into any specifics. It's not really my place to get involved.

People look at me funny when I mention that if they are unsure of an art and the teacher asks for volunteer, VOLUNTEER. That is step 1.
STEP 2 - Investigate
STEP 3 - Practice
STEP 4 - My main teacher always said (my paraphrasing) ' Strive to be better than the teacher". Be diligent. Be observant! My own owrds to add based on what I thought he stated (my error only) Steal what you can steal and do it honorably through steps 1-3

That's essentially what my teacher said. They all learned without videos of applications. I count myself lucky as all the years of skateboarding taught me how to fall onto concrete while avoiding catastrophe, so I made for a good demo partner. He told me that being the application dummy is the way you steal the art from the teacher because at any later time you can go into your minds eye and figure it all out. Sometimes though you have to be a little mischievous to steal even more of their art.


.

[D_Glenn]

Also from my past experience of going on aikido boards, something I never do anymore, I got the impression that most aikido people see CMA as a bunch of un-natural moves. Then again those shaolin monks and crazy wushu forms don't help either. So something like bagua although similar to aikido in some ways is not something I think they'd identify with. Also forget xingyi because they seem to look down at strikes. So this leaves tjq. If you look at tjq as an outsider then chen seems to be the most martial of those because they move faster and most chen people I've met love qinna, so it all makes sense to me why aikido people would choose that style.

Also CXW isn't putting on boxing gloves and hitting people. He isn't mixing his Chen with other internal styles and creating some forms they could never understand. He isn't from outside of the Chen family. He's out teaching his internals and that's what they want to learn to improve their aikido.

It might not be fair. But who said life is fair?

First off my question has nothing to do with fairness. It is what it is. All I wanted to make apparent is that there's a lot of non-Chinese guys doing Xingyiquan who can demonstrate a greater level of power then Taijiquan. A chance to see what any average human body is ultimately capable of and to set the bar high. You don't necessarily have to go on to study it but the more people you experience who have it, the more you know that it's not just a fluke occurrence.

If what you write on their view of Xingyi is true then this thread is... pointless.



.

[D_Glenn]

Interloper, My attempt at employing Jedi Mind Tricks has failed.

.

[D_Glenn]

I also think referring to "traditional Chinese methods" is in many respects bullshit. Outside of a few classic jibengong, even the Chinese don't seem to agree on what the traditional methods are, and in the rare instances when so-called experts do agree, they can't agree on the same words to explain it (which invariably bear little or no relation to correct scientific or professional terminology).

I think that problem is caused by too many people thinking of it in terms of 'What to train'. Rather than seeing that the traditional Chinese method is 'How to train'. There's no real need to identify what it is exactly because ultimately one is going to learn all the different ways something can be done. The 'How to train' is perseverance and diligence under a proper teacher's tutelage. Finding Zen in the training, if you will.


.

[Bao]

I think that problem is caused by too many people thinking of it in terms of 'What to train'. Rather than seeing that the traditional Chinese method is 'How to train'.

.

Forms,forms, forms and rubbish like this represents modern TMA practice:

[NoSword]

This is a good thread with a lot of good points.

One of the many arguments I had with Siggy before he kicked me off his board was over why Chen style taiji, particularly village Chen, should be regarded as the "full banana" real-deal CMA while other lines of taiji (or, heaven forbid, other CMA) were treated as second-class citizens. Although I disagreed with Sigman's reply, I did think it was well considered and worth repeating here.

Basically, he acknowledged that while there were impressive skills in other styles of CMA, including "external" styles, most lineages of CMA were mired in secrecy and tended to change a lot over time and from practitioner to practitioner. From the perspective of a researcher gathering specimens of an alien substance ("Internal Power"), the other CMA were relatively "unstable" and therefore unsuited to objective study. What the village offers is a CMA collective which exhibits some consistency in its methods across a wide range of subjects. Not to mention a relatively open curriculum by CMA standards.

Like many of the discussions in that community, I thought Sigman's reply reflected a real JMA bias -- namely, that standardization in the martial arts is a good thing. (In large part, that's the mentality which drove me away from JMA in the first place.) Moreover, having come to the CMA from JMA myself, I think that Chen style holds a certain intuitive appeal for JMA practitioners. Its mechanics -- broad, deep, sunken, centered, not particularly agile by CMA standards -- are a shorter leap from JMA than other styles like bagua.

I think that Sigman and his buddies came to CMA with the preconceived notion that the dantian/hara is where it's at -- with, IMO, a pretty crude and half-baked idea of exactly what it is. Since that's what they were looking for, that's what they found. In our conversations he couldn't quite accept the idea that there were styles which didn't emphasize the dantian as strongly as Chen did, or that they might have a different take on it. Thankfully, I know better than to get involved in conversations like that these days.

AK

[somatai]

I also think referring to "traditional Chinese methods" is in many respects bullshit. Outside of a few classic jibengong, even the Chinese don't seem to agree on what the traditional methods are, and in the rare instances when so-called experts do agree, they can't agree on the same words to explain it (which invariably bear little or no relation to correct scientific or professional terminology).

I think that problem is caused by too many people thinking of it in terms of 'What to train'. Rather than seeing that the traditional Chinese method is 'How to train'. There's no real need to identify what it is exactly because ultimately one is going to learn all the different ways something can be done. The 'How to train' is perseverance and diligence under a proper teacher's tutelage. Finding Zen in the training, if you will.


.

Great post delving I agree 100%......it is method not shape....shapes can be learned if method is understood

[Bhassler]

I also think referring to "traditional Chinese methods" is in many respects bullshit. Outside of a few classic jibengong, even the Chinese don't seem to agree on what the traditional methods are, and in the rare instances when so-called experts do agree, they can't agree on the same words to explain it (which invariably bear little or no relation to correct scientific or professional terminology).

I think that problem is caused by too many people thinking of it in terms of 'What to train'. Rather than seeing that the traditional Chinese method is 'How to train'. There's no real need to identify what it is exactly because ultimately one is going to learn all the different ways something can be done. The 'How to train' is perseverance and diligence under a proper teacher's tutelage. Finding Zen in the training, if you will.

I think we're talking about different things. It takes a lot of practice to ingrain body mechanics so they become powerful and automatic in all the various permutations and variations of fighting and recovery, but the actual teaching of the stuff shouldn't take long at all. A good teacher should be able to teach a moderately advanced yoga, dance, or Pilates student (or anyone else with a moderate baseline of strength, flexibility, and proprioception) to generate meaningful internal power reliably in just a couple of lessons, at most. Once you get the basics you can refine it for a lifetime, and individual physical and mental limitations can change the learning trajectory, but the whole idea of needing years to learn it or it taking thousands of repetitions is bullshit.

EDIT: I say that because I, like everyone else, have been fed the "perseverance and diligence under a proper teacher's tutelage" line for years and years, and the reality is that only a very small percentage of students get anywhere in terms of the really cool IMA skills. That's not because 99.9% of students suck-- it's because most so-called teachers suck at teaching. Saying the students don't get it because they're not diligent in their training is like saying people are broke because they haven't been diligent enough in playing the lottery.