taijiquan--how do you measure proficiency?

[Darth Rock&Roll]

gotta register to read.

can ya give us the gist of it?

as an aside, I measure proficiency in any martial art by the user of it and their ability to use it to gain a victory or at least hold their own somewhat over an opponent in a physical conflict.

if you can fight with your tai chi, you are doing ok with it!

if you can only do the form, well, at least you're getting "some" exercise.

[chud]

I think when you get past learning the form, and learn how you're actually supposed to be moving your body.

[bruce]

if you can fight with your tai chi, you are doing ok with it!

if you can only do the form, well, at least you're getting "some" exercise.

and there is part of the problem with the question at hand. everyone seems to have a different definition of what tai chi chuan is. while i say i can fight with my tai chi chuan another may say that it is not even tai chi chuan.

[stma]

When you see the blue light, you know you are a master.

[Dmitri]

Apparently by how much more homosexual you have become, over time.

http://www.weirdnewstoday.com/2005/12/t ... uality.htm

Sorry, couldn't help it.
Can't seriously answer that anyway, it's different for everyone. How do they say, "it's the journey, not the destination", right? Think of it as Special Olympics; as long as you (continue to) participate, you're doing fine.

[klonk]

If it is a fighting art, you can frame the answer pretty succinctly. You are sufficient in a (any) fighting art if you are more danger to the other fellow than he is to you.

But what I hear often is "Taiji is whatever you want to get out of it." If that is your definition, then you can do anything you like, and you will be a complete success.

[wiesiek]

if you can fight
and
sometime win
is somehow beginning of the proficency level in any fighting art , i think
is it different for TJ?

hmm...i can think of:
breakin` boards by you ars only - Level one
breakin` boards by mind only - level two
breakin` boards without even thinki`n of it - GM level one...

[Jonny]

I train taiji to fight... don't get me wrong. No hippy tree hugger here.
But I live in a civilized, middle class part of town. I hope I never have to use my skills against another person.

So while I train for combat efficiency, I don't believe I would gauge my proficiency in the art of taiji solely based on fighting.
Because I try and integrate it into all aspects of my life, including my posture, health, how I walk, even how I talk. The concepts are deep, and should not be gauged solely on combat.

Scenario 1: Taijiquan man encounters possible combat situation. Eager to test his skills, woops the guy. Leaves him on the street and doesn't look back.
Scenario 2: Taijiquan man encounters possible combat situation. Knowing his skills, chooses to calmly talk the man down and avoids conflict.
---

I just think that it's more of a journey and testing your proficiency in the art will be different for everyone, based on what goals they have.

Jonny

[martialartist]

one martial art style known by 1,000 different people is 1,000 different martial arts

[DeusTrismegistus]

Interesting question. We all do this when we watch a form or something. When we say how good we think it is we are guaging proficiency.

I look at the quality of movement and ability to use the prinicples in a sparring or fighting context. Of course my frame of reference is from my own experience too and watching is not the same as feeling.

[Chris McKinley]

It is essential that one first answer the question, "how do you define proficiency" before you can measure it in any meaningful way. Sadly, there are probably too many mutations off of the original objective these days to have much of a meaningful discussion about this topic. Some people would call it a day if they merely achieved what they consider excellent form.

[C.J.Wang]

I look for 3 basic skills:

1)Rooting: The ability to stay rooted in a stance while encountering resistance from various directions.

2)Power issuing: To generate knock-out power that doesn't require external distance for acceleration.

3)Neutralizing: To be able to redirect and neutralize a realistic, forceful attack and off-balance the attacker all at the same time with minimum movement.

[Dmitri]

Guys, I can't believe you're seriously discussing this... It if weren't Tom, I would suspect it's a troll... (but because it's Tom, I'm positive it's a troll. )

Seriously, take for example the 3 points above -- my question is, against whom would you compare these abilities? Anyone you try to root against, or knock out, or neutralize, will be different every time. Even if you use someone you know (a training partner) and compare these with that same person, say, every year, all you'll be doing is comparing your relative progress (presuming he's training.) Even if they are NOT training, their memory from a while ago will be different, so you can't really use that as an objective measure of anything. The only thing you could measure I guess, is your power release, against (the same) heavy bag and see how far it swings from this hit or that hit, but then again, what the hell's the point in that?

This whole idea of "measuring" all this stuff is extremely silly, IMO.

[Dmitri]

I never left TJQ, I only added GJJ.

It's sort of meaningless, yes, because it's a mix between statistics and faith (or "level of self-delusion control" if you prefer ), and those don't mix well, so I don't really care about "proficiency" as such. I just enjoy the exploration/growth/process and the "side benefits" it brings. It's like trying to see how proficient you are at watching a movie or reading a book -- how much have you learned, how much information you were able to retain, etc. Let's measure evaluate that, shall we?

[Dmitri]

Yeah it's a bit more specific than "BJJ" -- Gracie family stuff focuses more on what will work on the street and/or against someone bigger/stronger than you, as opposed to some fancy moves that one could only pull off on someone of similar weight (or smaller), hopefully wearing a gi, and in a competition format.