Rehashing an old topic; re: Taiji

[Juan]

Hello Fellas,

I know this was discussed in the past, and I apologize if I am "beating a dead horse", but when this topic was discussed a few years ago when my understanding of Taiji/MA was not waht it is now and I was not fully able to grasp what was being discussed.

Anyhow, my question is about teaching/learning Taiji for fighting without the form. Can it be done? This is something that I began to think about as my understanding of MA and fighting kind of grows. Does one need to learn the form to learn the form to get the principles of Taiji such as using the whole body for power? Aren't there other excercises in the system such as the Chan Ssu Chin that can teach this as well? Can it not be taught in drills and/or sparring? For self defense the postures have some very clear applications, can those applications be taught as drills?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to do away with the form or trying to get out of practicing the form. These are just some things I was kicking around in my head and thought it'd be interesting to discuss.

[everything]

This is a controversial topic. I go back and forth on it. Most people learning taiji jiankang (not quan) learn empty form ad nauseum so ruling them out... If you want to "use taiji" in your fighting I think you have to do a little form.

I saw you practice MT from your cool videos, so I would ask: can you learn MT without doing some shadowboxing/drilling of the main moves? Sparring may be paramount, but getting certain moves better requires some specific solo practice, I'd guess.

Same thing with ground grappling. Just rolling gets me so far. I find it helpful to do certain solo "form" - like moves.

Same thing with push hands.

Edit: OTOH, if you claim postures in the forms are just templates and you're really after the principles in a "formless" way, I think that's probably possible for you to do... I like having some examples, personally.

[neijia_boxer]

I did a (taiji San shou for fighting) seminar with a guy who learned some san shou from willian CC Chen-

in the seminar he taught to punch at various locations so that hitting in these areas also allowed to make the person lose balance the same way push hands training does.

we did striking drills alternating weight between the substantial and insubstantial foot shifting and separating weight.

alot of the strikes were open hand too but most were with fist (chuan) and studied striking areas for each. We did the same with kicks as well.

[DeusTrismegistus]

Yes you can. IMO so far the form is best at teaching to relax and focus for an extended period of time as well as work on flowing from one movement to the next in the correct manner. The alignment and rooting and other things can all be taught from single movement drills and basic non-moving exercises as well as simple shifting and stepping exercises. Controlled slow sparring with the focus on specific taiji principles such as following and flowing and maintaining correct structure will teach the same thing the form does IMO. Combining the two approaches is ideal though.

[Dmitri]

Taijiquan without form won't be taijiquan anymore. Form is an intrinsic part of that style.

Of course there are other ways, many paths to the top of the mountain...
I can think of a couple of rather formidable internal training regimens/styles that don't (or didn't until very recently) have any forms.
Just name it something else then, IMHO.

FWIW

[DeusTrismegistus]

Taijiquan without form won't be taijiquan anymore. Form is an intrinsic part of that style.

Of course there are other ways, many paths to the top of the mountain...
I can think of a couple of rather formidable internal training regimens/styles that don't (or didn't until very recently) have any forms.
Just name it something else then, IMHO.

FWIW

If you don't mind me asking why do you think taijiquan needs the forms to be taijiquan?

[Bao]

Anyhow, my question is about teaching/learning Taiji for fighting without the form. Can it be done

One of my teachers was only taught 5 movements "drills" for the first two years. But he learned the principles very well. He is now a terrific fighter and one of the best practitioners I have met.

With that said, I would state that taijiquan is based on principle, not form. Form is only a way to stack and organize a certain kind of knowledge.

[Juan]

Taijiquan without form won't be taijiquan anymore. Form is an intrinsic part of that style.

Of course there are other ways, many paths to the top of the mountain...
I can think of a couple of rather formidable internal training regimens/styles that don't (or didn't until very recently) have any forms.
Just name it something else then, IMHO.

FWIW

If you don't mind me asking why do you think taijiquan needs the forms to be taijiquan?

Good question.

[Dmitri]

Pretty simple, "taijiquan" is a particular martial art and like any MA it has some "standard" curriculum bits that are specific to it, often unique, and, in part, make it what it is. Take them away, and you would be coming close to redefining what the name really implies.

Would bagua still be bagua if you take away circle walking?
Would xingyi still be xingyi if you take away santi work?

I would say 'no', but that's just my humble opinion... YMMV.
Even if you do say 'yes', you might agree that it would constitute some serious changes (or some might say, 'crippling' changes) to those arts.

[Bao]

Would bagua still be bagua if you take away circle walking?

yes

Would xingyi still be xingyi if you take away santi work?

no

I am not sure about your thinking here, but I think you mistake "building shenfa" and "working with principle" with the external frame set. Style is beased both on a curriculum and principle. The curriculum guide you to what is needed to learn principle and methods. But the curriculum is not principle.

[Dmitri]

But "the external frame set" is one of the major ways of HOW you "build shenfa" and "working with principle", in tjq.

Every single style of taijiquan has a form. When people see form they KNOW it's taijiquan. Form IMHO has become, for better or worse, a defining part of tjq's curriculum, and of the art itself. (I.e. literally, an answer to "what is taijiquan" should IMO include form practice.)

Like I said, YMMV...

[Bao]

Yes Dmitri, I understand your point and it is a good one.

Ok, maybe we should ask how important form is and what place it has. Different styles have different curriculum. Is one style more taiji and another less? More forms equal more taiji? Stupid questions, yes I know, but personally I don't believe that taijiquan was creatde when a certain form was created. There are many loose threads, exercises, principles and taken together they can be called taijiquan.

And another thing is that you can recognize taijiquan from many things. Push hands is one. And you don't need to watch a whole taiji form to understand that it is taijiquan. A short part is enough, "retreat, parry and punch" or just the single whip posture is enough. And yet, just looking at a person practicing some exercises, it will be very hard, maybe impossible to know if he has other skills than what you watch or if he knows more than that.

So from this pov, I believe that a taiji form is more something that symbolise taijiquan, or is an expression of the art, but not the essence of it.

[GrahamB]

Whether something can still be called "Taijiquan" with or without a form is a bit of a side issue. Back to the original question. I think the answer is that somebody who already understands Tai Chi, i.e. has mastered it, could do without the form quite happily. For the rest of us mere mortals, having lots of 'examples postures' as found in the form, is pretty damn handy.

Having said that, technique is a passing faze. After all, only a tiny fraction of the techniques available in TCC actually appear in any Form. TCC isn't in the form - it's in you.

Perhaps another question to ask is whether learning a short form is sufficient, compared to the long form found in each style?

[nianfong]

the form is a path to learn the body method of taiji, and conditioning to perform many of the techniques. that said, you cannot fight with ANY martial arts, if you do not practice fighting. and yes...

but it hasn't been discussed in a while, so as long as it doesn't spiral into a nonsense thread, I'll allow it.

[Walk the Torque]

And yet another question is , What exactly is it that the tai chi form gives us?

Once we work that out it may be easier to make a decision on the necessity of the practice. I consider the form as providing an opportunity to slow down and examine (experientially of course) the postures and movements. This opportunity to really feel and plunge into the movements at great depth, is what I would say is indispensable to the training of tai chi.

Can this be done without a form? Well probably, but can learning tai chi be done without the meticulous and slow examination? I think not.

Even if you have two person drills only, I think you'd have to slow things right down in order to get any idea of what is going on.