Tai Chi Basic Exercise: Hold the Ball

[charles]

Is that always true?

In my opinion, yes.

I want to teach my children patience and humility and therefore I am following Maarten's example of training them to be teachers, and not fighters. I think the world needs more teachers.

I think it is good to teach people patience and humility. Whether or not the practice of Taijiquan is particularly well-suited to doing that is an open question.

I don't think the world needs more fighters. However, I also don't think the world needs more people teaching material they don't know and don't have skills in.

please keep in mind that this exercise is a "white belt" exercise being performed by a 12-year-old girl. Even if I were to pick some other exercise, it would not really matter and it would be performed in an equally poor manner.

I think that age is somewhat less relevant to number of years training. I've seen demos by 6-year-olds that were very impressive.

That she would perform any exercise equally poorly is a bit of a sad statement.

As you know, each exercise has certain requirements.

That's true. A good teacher prioritizes what requirements are most relevant and when to teach/correct others.

I've known a variety of teachers who have little skill but lots of requirements. In many cases, I've discovered the endless "requirements" they teach are irrelevant to progress. In many cases, the "requirements" are academic minutiae that the teacher has made-up that are irrelevant but make students feel like they are learning depth.

There is also a huge point to be made about getting up every day and doing dongyidong for 2 hours.

Certainly, it is good to learn and abide by discipline. If one spends eight hours a day doing stuff that is largely irrelevant to making progress in one's chosen endeavour, then it is largely eight hours that isn't well spent. What matters as much or more as how long.

I hope you will agree with me the least benefit is that this is actually a position in the 24 form so it is better than just randomly walking around. Even if that benefit is rather natty.

The art is not its choreography (e.g., form). The 24 form can be mindless repetition of choreography or its practice can be imbued with real depth. It is up to the teacher and practitioner to find and implement that depth. How many years should one have practiced before starting to find depth and impose meaningful requirements?

[Appledog]

That she would perform any exercise equally poorly is a bit of a sad statement.

On practicalmethod.com Byron Lerner wrote, "The requirement for learning movement is to act like a child. Closely observe how the teacher is moving and then attempt to replicate that same movement. Then repeat ten thousand times. Monkey see, monkey do. The Zen Buddhists call this beginner’s mind. Others have referred to this state of mind as the empty cup. Any beliefs you have about what is correct or incorrect actually prevent you from being able to learn." In another article someone else wrote that how do we know who to copy? Just to copy master Chen and no one else. Okay, but this is no different that what I teach; to just copy the teacher until you can understand it on your own, which is also what my teacher told me. Don't change anything, just follow the rules.

The art is not its choreography (e.g., form). The 24 form can be mindless repetition of choreography or its practice can be imbued with real depth. It is up to the teacher and practitioner to find and implement that depth.

It is also written there, "5 Learning Stages". '1. Choreography., 2. Coordination., 3. Clarity and Energy, ....' but 'Notice that most people follow this: 1. Choreography., 2. Flow., 3. Clarity and Energy., ...' and in "Stages of practice" we read "1. Choreography. This is the first stage. The student only learns to remember the choreography of the routines. Memory of the movements and names of the moves can be used as a method for learning."

So while you are correct that the art is not merely the choreography, it is also true that the art always begins with choreography, and that the memory of the movements and the names of the moves is certainly a valid and important method for learning. This is when I tend to take the videos. Most of the videos are taken directly after teaching as a documentary of what we are doing, or after just a few days of practice. It's an incorrect perspective on these videos to judge them as anything else. However, it would be welcome if you were to point out some aspects of coordination that she is missing and I will be sure to pass them along, maybe it will even help me down the road a little too!

How many years should one have practiced before starting to find depth and impose meaningful requirements?

According to Master Chen Zhonghua on https://practicalmethod.com/2012/01/progress-stages/, people spend 3 months to 1 year learning foundations and yilu, then spend an additional 3 months to 1 year at that stage. He states it takes between 3 to 7 years before you reach the second plateau and can learn erlu. So, I would say, 2 to 3 years minimum. The articles "How can we make progress?" and "Are you Learning?" raise several interesting practical concerns surrounding how this method plays our in practice for different kinds of people. The conclusion seems to be, "If these people can persist, one day they will learn. When that happens, their learning will be in leaps and bounds. That is because by this time, they will have a very good foundation for learning. Their understanding will be based on facts they know."

[charles]

Monkey see, monkey do... Any beliefs you have about what is correct or incorrect actually prevent you from being able to learn."

I'm not going to go too far down this rabbit hole because I feel that regardless of what others say you are largely engaged in justifying what you do and think. That doesn't make for meaningful exchange.

There is truth to the idea of "emptying one's cup" to prevent current misconceptions from hindering further progress.

However, Of the teachers I've had, Chen Zhonghua is, in my opinion, one who teaches with the most explicit detail. He does not heavily rely on "monkey see, monkey do" as his primary pedagogic strategy. He teaches a lot of explicit detail that includes a lot of direct feeling of his body as he does it. He isn't relying on "copy what you think you see me do". He does teach using the "onion" strategy, where as one "gets" one layer, additional layers of detail are revealed. I described this earlier as prioritizing "requirements" and revealing new one's as the student progresses.

The "monkey see, monkey do" approach is very common. It is also a very ineffective teaching method. It is one that almost guarantees that most students will never get it.

So while you are correct that the art is not merely the choreography, it is also true that the art always begins with choreography, and that the memory of the movements and the names of the moves is certainly a valid and important method for learning.

Up to a point. If all one ever learns in choreography, one has largely missed the core of the art. One of the pedagogic methods for focusing on the core of the art is to work on isolated exercises that aim to facilitate specific aspects of the basics. Doing so minimizes choreography and memory work. Since you are quoting CZH, note that there is a set of individual exercises - Hong called them jibengong - that he uses for that purpose. They are taught alongside the form. Be clear, however, that the form is being used as a vehicle to learn the core of the art. That is the focus of the form.

According to Master Chen Zhonghua... between 3 to 7 years before you reach the second plateau and can learn erlu.

Yes, but by the time one reaches that "plateau", his students are pretty well versed in the basics of the art and have skills and abilities to show for it. It isn't like all they've learned is the choreography of some form (i.e. Yi Lu).

My suggestion is that rather than turning it into an academic research project of quoting who said what, go and actually study with CZH.

[Appledog]

Monkey see, monkey do... Any beliefs you have about what is correct or incorrect actually prevent you from being able to learn."

I'm not going to go too far down this rabbit hole because I feel that regardless of what others say you are largely engaged in justifying what you do and think. That doesn't make for meaningful exchange.

I feel the same way. I've spoken with Chen Zhonghua before and I respect him a lot. Unfortunately, Chen Zhonghua is not my teacher right now, I have a different teacher, we use a different teaching method, and I have different goals than you do. So I disagree that I am largely enaged in justifying what I think or do; I am just sharing what I do with the forum. It's unfair and I think, uncharacteristic of you to criticize me because you feel I am not following a standard set by your teacher. Can't we just take the video for what it is, and maybe give some practical or constructive criticism?

However, Of the teachers I've had, Chen Zhonghua is, in my opinion, one who teaches with the most explicit detail. He does not heavily rely on "monkey see, monkey do" as his primary pedagogic strategy. He teaches a lot of explicit detail that includes a lot of direct feeling of his body as he does it. He isn't relying on "copy what you think you see me do". He does teach using the "onion" strategy, where as one "gets" one layer, additional layers of detail are revealed. I described this earlier as prioritizing "requirements" and revealing new one's as the student progresses.

I have noticed that, and it is one of the things that attracts me to that school. I have dabbled in things like carry water and twist towel, and push hands, informally, with some of his disciples. I plan on taking some formal lessons when I go back to Canada. It's definitely a good school, there is no disagreement there.

The "monkey see, monkey do" approach is very common. It is also a very ineffective teaching method. It is one that almost guarantees that most students will never get it.

That may be true, but there are other factors in play than monkey see monkey do choreography, most of which are beyond the scope of this forum (In general, I would say, the video and discussion is about right for the level of this forum). After all, it did spark an excellent discussion on teaching pedagogy! And I think we basically agree ("up to a point...") so why bother with the "if..."? We agree, the only thing I am trying to justify is what we agree on

My suggestion is that rather than turning it into an academic research project of who said what, go and actually study with CZH.

As I have mentioned, I do plan to do this, and I have studied informally with some of his disciples in the past. For now, do you think I should abandon my current teachers until I am able to move back to Canada and train with Master Chen?