“OOH, I do believe that Tai Chi people should do a whole lot more of sparring and similar, and preferably enter free style competitions. OTOH, I don't believe that Tai Chi people tend to approach sparring wrongly.”
One can not ask them to enter into the competitions and then ask why they're not using taiji skill sets
when they haven’t developed any to use. It's a lose, lose situation
“He does not leave the house for 10yrs” an often used saying in CMA meaning until one has reached a sufficient skill level it would be unwise to do so.
For what are called combative sports they quickly transition to the intended usage building skill sets that comparatively to taiji skill sets are relatively a little easier to understand and gain.
Back in the 70s some local CMA promoters tried to mitigate this by having people prove that they were in fact CMA practitioners.
Stylistic usage was also part of the criteria for judging. Unfortunately this lead to the question of who was able to judge what. A little hard finding qualified judges.
Even when the skill sets are developed for ring usage as shown in another thread here the event itself is questioned. From the teacher, practice down to the opponents, mainly it would seem on the basis of “it’s not how I do it”
We don’t speak of boxers for example in the same way.
Ie its very apparent that the person is a boxer and using boxing. With taiji the distinction or focus is on whether it’s taiji or not.
It should be very apparent as to what one is using or not.
This is why I look at training methods and practices and compare to free style usage
whether I agree with what is being done or not.
One would not say thats “x” he or she is a boxer while watching a match.
Why is that many question or even have to make a distinction about what is used
When it comes to “taiji”
