the rum soaked fist: internal martial arts forum

Bill wrote:A wise man once said.....

Using Tai-chi for combat is like using a Renoir for toilet paper.

even the toilet paper can be deadly
if
you know and checked how to use it

Using Tai-chi for combat is like using a Renoir for toilet paper.

I think it's a matter of art versus utility. You certainly can use a Renoir to wipe your butt, but there are better ways. The fact that you wouldn't use it is what makes it useless. There's no need to use tcc for combat at all, or any other martial "art." The art can be eliminated in order to increase utility. Fold that Renoir up, crush it, roll it around, and then it could make great tissue. Function can determine form.

I hear you,
but
shouldn`t be the formless , then?

Bill wrote:A wise man once said.....

Using Tai-chi for combat is like using a Renoir for toilet paper.

So it's something to be looked at and admired rather than having a practical function?

Addressed to no one in particular. I wonder how many of us have actually trained taijiquan. Further, I wonder how many of us only trained taijiquan for at least some time before doing other arts. I only did so due to my dad being into it. It seemed odd to be fair.

After studying some other arts, for better or worse, taijiquan's utility and specific approach was easier to see. Some of its attributes are clearly useful in standup grappling sparring. When I went to judo, they thought I had "natural" talent but that wasn't so; just balance and following/listening from ph. Only jacket gripfighting and ne waza seemed weird. Otherwise transitioning from (kinda lame in our usual collective opinion) fixed step ph to a more free grappling sparring is such a logical step.

So I end up viewing everything else through a taijiquan lens, whereas I venture to say most of the board views taijiquan from some other lens. Hopefully I'm not alone here, but if so, I'll try to give you some of this perspective from a "taiji-first guy". Still, I fully 100% agree with all the criticism. The art has good stuff but the training methods of 99% of schools are lacking.

I wouldn't say that the tcc training is lacking, because I think many people started taking up tcc with no intention of fighting or competing. However, that meant that people with little or no fighting ability began to teach tcc. But, historically, tcc (and the other arts) had produced great fighters. Every teacher could cite the same theories, point to the great ancient teachers, talk about things that couldn't be used in competition, but then go on to say what tcc was and what it was not.

This happened in the states at the same time as the opening of relations with China and the beginnings of mma. There'd always been high level boxing and wrestling, but they weren't mixed. In order for a tcc practitioner to compete in those arenas, he'll have to become familiar with dealing with specialized grapplers and strikers.

There's one big caveat, though. While all this was happening, there was also an increase in interest in arts such as krav maga, kali, silat, and arts developed primarily for self-defense, and not competition. I think that the tcc practitioner who needs self-defense doesn't necessarily need to "spar" in the conventional sense. He or she should extract what would work for them individually from whatever source. If it can be found in the tcc form or adapted from krav maga or kali, that's all to the good. And, it doesn't change tcc.