when the MA is not watered down.

[gretel]

Graham,

RE: "I guess we want to create an army of previously sickly little old ladies who can kick a young man's ass with Tai Chi, then everybody will be happy?". No, but I would. In fact, I'd love to see the roving gangs of grannies make a comeback.

i don't know how i missed the opportunity to comment on this earlier, but i'm in favor. in fact, i'm one of 'em. besides, i like taiji much better than ballroom dancing. i'm going to keep doing it. i don't really care if it's "watered down." i don't actually have any illusions about kicking young guys' asses but they might be surprised.

gretel

[Chris McKinley]

Brian,

RE: "As I just posted in another thread, push hands is a very broad term that can include everything from single hand choreographed movements to running through the fields kicking, punching, locking, and throwing.". Yeah, you did mention that. The problem is, it's factually wrong. Push hands isn't and never was a colloquial catch-all term that included all relevant aspects of actual combat, whether historically or in relation to modern-day competitive venues. There are too many elements of real combat that have never been a part of push hands, whether in its historical form or its modern competitive format.

RE: "...if Feng Zhiqiang says "form, qigong, and push hands is all you need" that he's talking about playing patty-cake and not throwing people on their heads in the dirt.". I am unaware of Mr. Feng's statement to that effect. However, if he did make the claim that form, qigong and push hands are all you need for real combat, then Mr. Feng is quite simply wrong. To begin with, we have no reason to believe that, as a representative of the very specific Chen branch of the specific Chinese martial art of Taijiquan, Mr. Feng necessarily has any particular authority or credibility to speak on matters of real combat.

The almost incredible convenience of his proclaiming no more and no less than the exclusive elements of Chen Taiji as fully sufficient for real combat is as predictable and frankly, as credible, as the Chairman and CEO of a snake oil company proclaiming that, conveniently and auspiciously, snake oil just happens to be fully sufficient for all health concerns, or Vince coming on my TV and proclaiming that the Slap Chop is fully sufficient for all my kitchen needs.

[Chris McKinley]

Deus,

RE: "To me saying push hands by itself will prepare you for combat is the same as saying focus mit work will prepare you for combat. It might help to a certain extent but by itself it is obviously not sufficient.". I couldn't have put it any better or more succinctly than that. Thank you.

[Dmitri]

"pushing" isn't "push hands"

I was responding to the "I am genuinely curious when "pushing" became accepted as a viable combat skill by people" clause -- I guess the author might have meant "pushing" as a synonym for PH, whereas I (and apparently some others as well) read it more literally, as "actually pushing someone away", i.e. as a "technique".

[Chris McKinley]

Ah, gotcha. Then in the immortal words of Roseanne Roseannadanna....nevermind.

[Bhassler]

Brian,

RE: "As I just posted in another thread, push hands is a very broad term that can include everything from single hand choreographed movements to running through the fields kicking, punching, locking, and throwing.". Yeah, you did mention that. The problem is, it's factually wrong. Push hands isn't and never was a colloquial catch-all term that included all relevant aspects of actual combat, whether historically or in relation to modern-day competitive venues. There are too many elements of real combat that have never been a part of push hands, whether in its historical form or its modern competitive format.

Well, as a student of a Chinese man who was a member of the Beijing Chen Style Taiji Association and is directly from the lineage of Chen Zhaokui and who frequently uses the term in just that way, we may have to disagree on that. I would be willing hear a list of the types of elements of real combat you feel cannot be easily addressed with push hands-- off the top of my head I can offer that I've never seen multiple opponents addressed in that format, though I have seen cold weapons used.

RE: "...if Feng Zhiqiang says "form, qigong, and push hands is all you need" that he's talking about playing patty-cake and not throwing people on their heads in the dirt.". I am unaware of Mr. Feng's statement to that effect. However, if he did make the claim that form, qigong and push hands are all you need for real combat, then Mr. Feng is quite simply wrong. To begin with, we have no reason to believe that, as a representative of the very specific Chen branch of the specific Chinese martial art of Taijiquan, Mr. Feng necessarily has any particular authority or credibility to speak on matters of real combat.

The almost incredible convenience of his proclaiming no more and no less than the exclusive elements of Chen Taiji as fully sufficient for real combat is as predictable and frankly, as credible, as the Chairman and CEO of a snake oil company proclaiming that, conveniently and auspiciously, snake oil just happens to be fully sufficient for all health concerns, or Vince coming on my TV and proclaiming that the Slap Chop is fully sufficient for all my kitchen needs.

I was using that as a made up example-- I have no idea if Feng ever said any such thing. I chose Feng for my example because he at one point WAS a noted fighter, with a background in Tongbei, Xing yi, and Chen style. One can either conclude that if he were to say that that either:
a) he's full of shit
b) he's not using the term in the same way you are

There's too much of Assumption A going on and not enough consideration for Conclusion B. Much like the guy who's selling cooperative push hands as self defense, it's at best naive and at worst outright dishonest and harmful.

[Chris McKinley]

Brian,

If you want to dissect it further and argue assumptions and conclusions, I'm game. Let's start with the intellectual dishonesty of exercising liberal amounts of linguistic legerdemain in taking a practice that is known the world over to represent a certain particular activity within flexible but fairly well-established parameters and expanding it for the sake of convenience to include everything under the sun that might possibly be related to combat up to and concluding, and I quote, "cold weapons". This stretches the bounds of acceptable inclusion in the practice beyond any reasonable level of credulity.

Note: that you've witnessed the inclusion of weapons in such a session isn't being disputed. Frankly, I don't care either way....I've seen a knife pulled in what was otherwise a friendly horsing around session at a party. That it happened doesn't now automatically change the definition of friendly exchanges to include deadly weaponry.

RE: "I would be willing hear a list of the types of elements of real combat you feel cannot be easily addressed with push hands...". If we operate out of your rather silly "nothing excluded" definition of push hands, then I suppose even sniping, sentry removal, explosives, squadron assault firing solutions, hostage rescue, and tactical breach are all also included. Such a definition removes the practice from all useful and meaningful discussion or consideration.

If we're going by what just under 100% of the whole world defines push hands as being, then a complete list isn't needed. How about striking, taking strikes, chin na, shuai jiao, points of entry, creating egress, weapons (both usage and counter)...and on and on and on.

[Bhassler]

Your point is well taken, Chris-- I didn't mean to be ludicrous or snide. I'm tempted to delete the offending posts but in the interest of continuity I'll leave them.

My experience of "push hands" most definitely includes na, shuai, strikes, etc, and includes those things so casually that I have a hard time accepting that to do so is really that rare of a practice. I had thought that in China it was still fairly common, and (perhaps mistakenly) assumed that anyone who was serious about the art would eventually figure that out. I guess I just have to accept the ugly truth and refrain from commenting on the strange little activity that push hands has become these days.

[Daniel]

...sniping, sentry removal, explosives, squadron assault firing solutions, hostage rescue, and tactical breach are all also included...

Ah, finally. Push hands for real life.


D.

Sarcasm. Oh yeah, like that´ll work.

[Dmitri]

I guess I just have to accept the ugly truth

Join the club...

[daniel pfister]

daniel pfister,

RE: "Actually this is where I think your argument may go too far. You mentioned a scenario earlier about a drunk uncle I believe.". The drunk Uncle Fred analogy, yeah. There's only one problem...that's not a real situation. That's not even close to the real thing. That doesn't even qualify as a fight. My statement still stands regarding push hands by itself being completely inadequate for real combat.

RE: "For many people this situation could be far more common than getting attacked in the street by a stranger.". As I've explained before, it's ridiculous to set the adequacy of your training as being a function of the frequency with which you may need to use it. You wouldn't let your kids half-ass their way through a practice family fire drill and use old batteries in the alarm just because the odds are that your house will never catch fire.

It's not a matter of someone thinking they are "invincible" due to just practicing push hands; the problem is in a lot of people thinking they are even just "prepared". Push hands by itself, regardless of the skill level, will not yield either quality.

I think you're way off base here. Of course, you should take into account the frequency you may need or want certain skills. otherwise you might spend all of your time preparing to fight the Martian Invaders in the cabin of a sinking airplane underwater in a lightening storm. Ridiculous!

If the violent relative could possible kill you, does that not make the situation "real" enough for you. Do you consider a boxing match with judges and protective gear to be more "real" than that? By your definition, it would seem that no one can ever truly prepare for anything when anything can happen. If that's your position I basically agree, but then push hands is no worse for preparation than doing push ups or punching a bag.

[daniel pfister]

My experience of "push hands" most definitely includes na, shuai, strikes, etc, and includes those things so casually that I have a hard time accepting that to do so is really that rare of a practice. I had thought that in China it was still fairly common, and (perhaps mistakenly) assumed that anyone who was serious about the art would eventually figure that out.

Indeed, my experience in Taiwan was the same. It is unfortunate that more people don't do PH that way, yet it is also unfortunate the others see that kind of PH as the standard way it is practiced and thus judge TJQ accordingly without seeking to learn more.

[Chris McKinley]

Fair enough, Brian. And it's big of you to acknowledge. If I may attempt to return the favor, I'll include that I normally find you to be one of the more reasoned and logical posters on the forum, especially in the last few years. It's perhaps at least fair that I mention that to give credit where credit is due if I'm going to criticize. I should also mention that my exchanges with you are some of the most enjoyable on the forum for the fact that it's not infrequent for you to make very salient points and/or to spur me to a bit of thinking I might not have had before. After a very lovely dinner, I realize that I was grouchier than I needed to be, especially with you, and for that you have my apologies.

As a further concession, I only wish that push hands (or whatever else one might wish to call it) were as comprehensive an education as you describe for all practitioners of Taijiquan. Somehow I suspect we might not have the same PR problem today with the art if it were more commonplace. I'll also give you this, if you promise to include this type of information to your students when you're doing the teaching, I'll be glad to endorse it as heartily as I can to whomever will listen. I don't even care what you call it; if you're providing legitimate combat training within the art of Taijiquan, I'll bend over backwards to help put in a good word for you.

[Chris McKinley]

I guess I just have to accept the ugly truth

Join the club...

Sadly, I remember going through that realization when I first found out that most Taijiquan training wasn't like what I was receiving. I was just plain astonished that it was even called by the same name. Just another reason to be forever grateful for the gift of quality instruction and the training opportunity I had.

[Chris McKinley]

daniel pfister,

RE: "Of course, you should take into account the frequency you may need or want certain skills. otherwise you might spend all of your time preparing to fight the Martian Invaders in the cabin of a sinking airplane underwater in a lightening storm. Ridiculous! ". Just as ridiculous as your using reductio ad absurdum as a cheap and weak attempt to refute my point. If you want me to take your viewpoint seriously, I'm going to have to insist that you stay reasonable about the discussion. We're not talking about preparing for every possible variable; we're talking about preparing for the worst among the sadly all too common types of more likely situations, then being able to dial it back as necessary when things aren't that bad.

You don't gamble your life on the probability that the guy you face will be weak, slow, untrained, undetermined, unarmed, lacking the intent to actually harm or kill you, and easily dissuaded from continuing his attack by a good shove. That's a classic case of underestimating your enemy that every martial art teaches as a basic no-no the first day of class. That guy honestly takes no formal training of any kind to deal with. You prepare for the one time that you're going to need to defend your life or the life of a loved one or family member from someone determined to harm, abduct and/or kill them. It doesn't require any paranoia or even an inordinately large amount of time to get there, and once you have it, it's much easier to have it and not need it (for lesser situations) than to need it and not have it.

RE: "If the violent relative could possible kill you, does that not make the situation "real" enough for you.". That's not what I was talking about when I brought up the analogy. Machine-gun-armed monkeys could fly out of the ass of the guy who cuts me off in the Wal-Mart parking lot, too, and that would make the situation all too real. But nobody's talking about that. I mentioned my time-worn analogy of Drunk Uncle Fred as an example of a situation in which someone gets belligerent and needs to be possibly physically restrained or escorted out but without harming them or using any real damaging force. You could take any such analogy, twist it out of proportion, then use it as an example of how my reasoning is somehow flawed. Unfortunately, I'm not that easy to pull that crap on, so let's keep it reasonable, shall we?

RE: "Do you consider a boxing match with judges and protective gear to be more "real" than that?". No, but then that was your twist on my analogy, not mine, as explained above.

RE: "By your definition, it would seem that no one can ever truly prepare for anything when anything can happen.". Wrong. Let me correct that statement..."No one can ever truly prepare for everything when anything can happen". That doesn't mean that one cannot prepare for anything. I never stated nor even implied anything close to that.

RE: "If that's your position I basically agree, but then push hands is no worse for preparation than doing push ups or punching a bag.". That's not my position, and your conclusion in this statement requires that we artificially flatline every variation of training as being equally ineffective. That's nothing close to reality. Some practices are demonstrably better preparation for combat than others.