Steve James wrote:
Many critics, especially students of non-imas, have asked "is that what master level tcc looks like?" They don't ask that out of the blue; they ask because of the claims that many tcc people make about their art. Then, tcc practitioners, particularly those who argue that tcc is special, have to respond. So, for years, we hear more and more reasons why, in fact, the "fight" isn't representative of their art. If I'm wrong, then those who believe that it is should step up and explain --and I don't mean post links.
Sad but true... and Unfortunate..
And here (the poor prowess on display) is what you get when u focus to the extreme on specific skills sets such as push hands etc
And Yet..... It depends on how one looks at TJQ. Or IMA in general... for that matter all ICMA in general (I can't speak about White Crane for I know little about... skill wise... if the guy was considered a master... then the bar for mastery in Macao was quite low at the time. )
I've often stated here at RSF that IMA's (in particular TJQ's) Attaching, Adhering, Sticking, Warding etc etc... are misinterpreted by a large Non-martial population. I've stated IMO these are Macro broad based concepts that many martial skill sets fit neatly into.. (A macro example of what I'm referencing:
attaching " one can attach to the angle of an attack by consistently moving to the outside of it... which is more realistic than actually thinking one can attach to an actual Jab..( without eating a cross ) like the mass TJQ population thinks someday they will be able to do if they keep doing push hands...
I just can't wrap my head around the staunch belief by most TJQ practitioners that these skills are somehow attainable. Somehow just within reach!
Back to my main point! Depends how you look at TJQ. To me its an art based right in the middle of wrestling and striking. Hence the Yin & Yang affiliation ( I know that came much later... but I can't help to think the popularity of attaching Yin and Yang to the art is because of the equilibrium of the four; i.e. striking, kicking wrestling and chin-na )
In my world... TJQ is totally doable if it acts like every other MA. (which runs counter to what the general population thinks. Every art has unique strategies and tactics... TJQ is no different.. but Physics is physics... kinetics are kinetics. As of now.. I never seen anyone do what "many" think TJQ is supposed to be, supposed to act like... in a competitive venue. And when I question this... the reply is (usually by the person who thinks they know... yet has never sparred or competed is.) "Just because you haven't seen it... doesn't mean it doesn't exist". I find that akin to an ostrich sticking its head in the sand.
Now, if you're of the opinion that TJQ is an art that based right in the middle of striking and wrestling... with no specific focus on unattainable skills sets..with a strategy of moving in close and having the tactics that facilitate this... Then TJQ is more than doable.. (didn't see anything special to highlight that in the infamous Macao vid... but I did see some ok "parry, deflect punches... ala... Ban, Lan Chui.
My opinion of the fight... it showed some doable TJQ... nothing to write home about ...but doable none the less..