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

[Ralteria]

Additionally, Chen wears a lot of it's Shen Fa on it's sleeve where as a lot of other styles spend a good portion of time making it look like nothing is going on. In private/training your movements may be huge, but in public/usage your shit needs to be tight(in most CMA I've seen). It's part secrecy (meh) part efficiency. A movement that sends someone flying doesn't have to look like break dancing and is actually more effective if it isn't. But unless you know what to look for you can be lost, let alone having to drill down into "alchemical" code to decipher what's being said. \

FWIW,
I think what Bhassler is saying is being taken waaay out of context, btw. If you can't confer basic ground to hand + structure + intent in a short time span than how the method is taught needs to be reevaluated. No one is saying that it needs to be immediately usable in real time, but it should be workable. If not, the student is sent home to practice random flailing in hopes that cramming enough metaphors down his throat will cause ephiphany.

*edited for clarity

[Shooter]

What Rams said.

Any one should be able to glimpse the magic through some very simple methods/exercises. Where they go from there is up to them. The idea is to impart the primer and let folks explore their own methods of creating and inculcating more expansive experiences, and in turn, fortifying/intensifying that physical state.

Sharing the energetics of what each person is cultiivating shouldn't be a comparative as that often leads to competition where one person's energetics dominates that of the other. One should be allowed to be weak and the other strong because that's naturally always going to be the case.

Nothing necessarily 'wrong' with being comparitively weak, or 'right' with being comparitively strong.

[NoSword]

Also, another point Sigman made, which I forgot to mention:

If you want to learn Chinese martial arts, you could do worse than finding a teacher who is famous within China as a teacher. Without a doubt, CXW and the other Village People are highly regarded as authorities on taiji in China. (I'm sure there is lots of talk behind their backs but at least they are publicly acknowledged as experts.)

This betrays another bias with which I take issue: that fame can somehow be equated with skill. I read in some jazz great's autobiography -- I'm pretty sure it was Mingus -- that the best jazz players who ever lived, were local jam sessioneers who never recorded a note. That's consistent with my own experience in martial arts: 名师不一定是明师 (a clunky paraphrase on my part -- if anyone remembers the real saying in Chinese, please enlighten me). Basically, it's a pun on the homophonic characters for "name/fame" and "understanding/enlightenment": "Just because a teacher's got a name doesn't mean he's got game."

To be fair, I think Sigman's got some good points, from a certain perspective. That's the perspective of wanting to gain an objective, intellectual understanding of "IP" rather than direct experiential knowledge thereof. Taking something apart and figuring out "how it works" (conceptual knowledge) is very different from figuring out "how to do it," behind the wheel (procedural or 'tacit' knowledge -- see Somatai's recent thread). This is a really stale point, but it has to be continually reiterated when it comes to martial arts. In fact, that's one of the great things about martial arts -- apart from music, I can't think of any other discipline in which "what you know" can be so far from "what you can show." This has a wonderful leveling effect.

So at the risk of giving Sigman et al. a backhanded compliment, I think that from their perspective it does make sense to privilege orthodox Village-style Chen taiji over other sources of data on CMA. Just that it might not be the way to go if your goal is to actually develop skill for yourself.

AK

[gzregorz]

 (That's not because 99.9% of students suck-- it's because most so-called teachers suck at teaching)

why not say that it's hard to get even with a good teacher, teaching the skills they seek..

.(In the book Black Hawk Down by Mark Bowden, he talks about Sgt. Paul Howe. He mentioned that about 180 motivated Soldiers began the Delta screening and that only 12 or so graduated.)
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index ... 119AAusWXv

not everyone is able to achieve what they want..

In addition to that people who are just interested in fighting can just join an mma gym without going through all the hard work of finding a good ima teacher. On top of that if they really want to test their skills they can become competitors. If an ima player wants to test their skills what do they do? Go to a bar?

[windwalker]

fighting is going to an mma gym?
(If an ima player wants to test their skills what do they do? Go to a bar? )

you might be surprised, testing is testing weather its in a competitive environment or not, testing is not fighting ..
I have kung fu bothers that often work with people who compete in competitive environments.

Whats strange is that those they work with, are not really able to do much against them with their current skill sets and very much respect the skill sets they feel from them....
as was mentioned earlier the there are many skilled unknown people who are quite low on the radar does not mean they're not out there..

IMA skill sets should be quite different then most other skill sets,,,,they should give one a big advantage provided they've been developed to the point of usage...
Teachers often hesitate teaching others these skill sets for fear of them being misused which tends to weed out those who like the (fighting) competitive environments. ,,,

sorry had to re read your post,,,the testing of skills Ima skills is best done with others who can evaluate them...this is the only way....to see if one really has a true skill...
what you suggested is that for testing its easier for mma skill sets because that’s what they use, there are many who meet off line for testing,,,as you suggested,,,
For most IMA people who can use their skills, those that I know, probably would not be interested in testing in mma type environments, they understand their skill sets and also are able to use them...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZhxDQgbu ... _embedded#!

Just as these guys found out their skill sets didn't translate to well to the type of combative s that the USMC trains for.

[gzregorz]

I don't disagree I said if they're only interested in fighting.

IMAs are obviously about more than just that.

I already know your thoughts on MMA you don't need to repeat them here.

[Ralteria]

Interesting points AK,

Something to consider is that systematic representation, while generally good at keeping things up to par, is good at also keeping them there. So while looking at things from the Chen/CXW lense may be decent for some who need a measure in the first place, it can be extremely confining. As you mentioned with the fame/name game there is only sometimes a correlation between success and skill level when it comes to "art". I'm sure there are people on the family/small group/behind closed doors who would make the famous look like n00bs. And they probably do stuff different, or came about it in a different inventive way.

This is a very personal journey, sometimes i feel like no matter what is defined on a "conceptual" level, that it's always going to miss the mark. Even if it was reduced down to bare bio mechanical/neurological level it's still missing the qualitative aspect of the experience. Which is why, even though the basic IP can be taught and transferred fairly directly, the heavy deep stuff is subjective as hell.

[windwalker]

@ g,,,, you have some good thoughts,,,good for reading ,,,,always provides much thinking....

[somatai]

No thing has ever happened to any one........the idea of reduction into a thing that can be pointed to and then duplicated in time is problematic in all things including ima.......the paradox of structure vs. no structure is the heart of real learning

[gzregorz]

@ g,,,, you have some good thoughts,,,good for reading ,,,,always provides much thinking....

Thanks brother.

How's training in Beijing?

[windwalker]

The training here has been interesting.
This is the place that I come to test, confirm and deepen my own taiji skill sets.

[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.

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.

I too think we are talking about different things or rather we're definitely not on the same page.

I'd started writing a response to your post but Charles essentially wrote what I would have:

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...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.

To a point. That's rather like saying you can teach the basic movements of each piece in the game of chess in just a couple of lessons, at most. Once you get the basics, you can refine it for a lifetime. Anyone can learn the basic movements of the chess pieces, but it takes a whole lot of practice, thought and loosing before a player has any real grasp of the game and has any real facility with it.

Or tennis. Anyone can learn the backhand, the forehand and the serve in just a couple of lessons, at most. It's easy and once you get those you can refine it for a lifetime. But, after those few lessons, one isn't going to win any games or have any "reliable" competency. That takes lots of practice...

Then, of course, there is the issue of what, exactly, does "generate meaningful internal power reliably" mean. After a few lessons, can one expect to manipulate like a rag doll an opponent half-again one's size? It's not a discussion I'm interested in, but it needs to be pointed out, I think.

***
I would have liked to share a really good metaphor for the whole martial arts teaching/ student relationship thing that my teacher shared with me but I don't know that it would be a productive use of my time and if we really want to keep this tangential-argument going because clearly you're imparting your own personal experience and filtering everyone's posts through the bad experiences you've had in the past:

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... I've spent years of relatively unproductive training due to well intentioned but wholly inadequate teaching, and it would be great if someone else could be saved from that.

"Everyone else", Really?

I can only speak for myself but I've had only good and productive instruction from the teachers I've studied under, the other teachers I've gone to meet, and the fellow students I've learned alongside of. Although, I've also been told by everyone that I'm extremely lucky to be the age I am and to be studying with the people I'm with, so maybe there is a lot of bad teachers out there but I don't think there's anyway to have a meaningful discussion about this when people bring their own biases and baggage to the forum.




.

[D_Glenn]

On the original topic: I guess I just wasn't really aware of what Aikido was and the Japanese culture that goes along with it.

So in terms of being similar enough that it doesn't scare off anyone and the whole cult of personality that CXW brings along, then Taijiquan really is a perfect fit and would make for a good introduction.

And on the culture side of it you probably need someone with that sort of pedigree and prominence just to get them to show up.


.

[Bhassler]

Hey D,

What grates on me is not that I've received "bad instruction"-- on the contrary, in my experience I've received better instruction than most. However, the quality of teaching across the spectrum could be so much better if people displayed the same skill level there as they do in their chosen art. Instead of developing that teaching skill, people stick with the same ineffective methods that have always been used (ineffective means on average, not that it can't work for anyone. What percentage of a teacher's students actually "get it" and can use their skill in a timeframe that is equal to or shorter than what their teacher took? That percentage is also the relative quality of one's teaching). In and of itself, that's fine, but until people acknowledge it, they don't have any choice in the matter and it can never improve. It gets annoying to hear again and again how students are lazy or how such-and-such is the only way to learn something when I know damn well that's not the case.

It's drifted a little bit, but the basic premise is on topic: you suggested that it was hard to get Aiki guys to grasp internal stuff because their points of reference were not that great, i.e. CXW. My point is that it doesn't matter who your point of reference is. If you can teach it, it should be manifest and no one should have to take anything on faith. If someone is not able to get their message across, it's because they are either unclear themselves, because they don't have the requisite communication skill, or because everyone is invested in their own opinions and no one wants to hear it, anyways.

[charles]

My point is that it doesn't matter who your point of reference is. If you can teach it, it should be manifest and no one should have to take anything on faith. If someone is not able to get their message across, it's because they are either unclear themselves, because they don't have the requisite communication skill, or because everyone is invested in their own opinions and no one wants to hear it, anyways.

It's a good point, but you left out other common reasons why "the good stuff" isn't taught. One reason is because it isn't demanded by students - many students are happy to be in the presence of "greatness" and hang on every word of the teacher. The teacher can then teach "easy" stuff - rather than "the good stuff" - that separates the students from their money and keeps the students returning, while the student is thinking they are "getting the goods". It's much easier - and less risky - to teach standing, forms, silk reeling, than it is the important details, or applications. This isn't limited to Chinese teachers.