dedicated to the discussion of the chinese internal martial arts of xingyiquan, baguazhang, taijiquan, related arts, and anything else best discussed over a bottle of rum
charles wrote:Bhassler wrote: 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.
gzregorz wrote:another thing that is being overlooked is if you were an aikido guy and you had a chance to train with an amazing ima teacher, who could not only demonstrate this stuff but actually teach it in a way with a pass on the skills, why would you do aikido?
nothing against aikido, but most of what I see them do is involves two arms on the opponent's one arm and then from there lock, throw or both. where as most Chinese internal styles have so many more applications including striking.
Users browsing this forum: whiskeytangofu and 7 guests