Appledog wrote:There is a big difference between someone who is following this road and someone who butts against it with statements such as, "I don't believe in Chi". To me, people like that are not even doing Tai Chi in the first place, no matter what anyone else says. Actually a lot of name-brand masters have said exactly the same thing.
I'm just pointing out, for the sake of discussion, that the way people seem to think tai chi works is diametrically opposite from what is written down in the yang family manuals.
From personal experience it seems that the reason I get personally attacked for it is that people have felt betrayed, lied to, etc. by the whole "magic kung fu mythology" and view anyone "believing in it" as a fool, or an idiot, and treat them as such.
But just because you believe tai chi should be one way does not make it so.
You need something more credible. Like, for example, your name on the yang family lineage chart, or a book like Chen's.
So I decided to throw in with the big-name family teacher crowd and not the small-time park practitioner crowd.
My approach to push hands is more like in the following two videos than not. Call me a fan and nothing more.
It really has nothing to do with who I studied with. I've mentioned before I spent some time in Eddie Wu's school. However I would say 90% of my time was practicing with old people in the park.
About push hands specifically. I think you should know by now I am against the freeform shoving hands crowd.'
How then should we do push hands, in a Tai Chi setting?
What do you think now that I have refuted that a few times (including in the message you are responding to above)?
The Yang family manuals are very difficult to understand and interpret. Consequently, there are many translations and many interpretations, some of which are diametrically opposite one another. If one uses those as the standard by which to compare people's understanding, it's somewhat of a moving target: who's interpretation/translation are you going to use and how can that be subjective proof of anything?
BruceP wrote:Graham posted bait to sigman's blog. Apparently, something he wrote helps Graham figure out the difference between push hands and fighting
Appledog wrote:Really? Chen Zhenglei said anyone who doesn't believe in "qi" isn't doing taijiquan. Given that Chen Xiao-Wang's own "five levels of kung fu" (see: http://www.shou-yi.org/taijiquan/5-leve ... -taijiquan) talks about qi extensively even in the first level though, I think your statement is probably in error. If CXW said that, can you provide a quote?
charles wrote:The Yang family manuals are very difficult to understand and interpret. Consequently, there are many translations and many interpretations, some of which are diametrically opposite one another. If one uses those as the standard by which to compare people's understanding, it's somewhat of a moving target: who's interpretation/translation are you going to use?
Can you give me an example? I don't find them difficult to understand at all, being written in an almost conversational style.
charles wrote:So, here's the dilemma. If 10 people as say that Taijiquan should be a specific way, and state that it is something different than the others, are they all wrong? Is one right and the others wrong? Are they are right? Who's to determine which is right and which is wrong, and by what criteria?
Well, what are some possible criteria? Perhaps a manual written down to include all of tai chi's theory and practice could be one. Perhaps the main-line famliy lineages such as chen, yang, wu, and what the top level practitioners say it is supposed to be like could be another.
charles wrote:You need something more credible. Like, for example, your name on the yang family lineage chart, or a book like Chen's.
That may bring credibility, but doesn't make one "right". Look at the number of "masters" all claiming the other "masters" are wrong. Each group insists they, alone, have the one true teaching and the others are wrong.
Can you give an example? I find what you are saying to be incorrect. I can't think of a single example where some big name lineage holder actively disagrees with another over the basic core principles of tai chi. Form and application aside, tai chi is essentially one big family.
Appledog wrote:dspyrido wrote:Appledog wrote:Maybe what I need is to practice this kind of rope pulling and tree hitting myself for a couple of months and see what I get out of it.
From what I have seen this is a secret of internal stylists who could deliver the goods. Go out and show people a form and do push hands paying close attention to structure & sensitivity. Then behind closed doors lift weights using the whole body and the right structure, pull ropes or whatever and hit things. The bones get denser and the tendons get stronger. When working heavy weight in a fluid fashion you need to use the whole body or else the limbs won't be enough.
Then when doing gentle push hands in a soft fashion there is a roaring powerhouse that is backing it up. People go flying and think that it was all because of a form but that was one part of the picture.
My experience has been the exact opposite. This kind of exercise is really damaging to your tai chi and push hands skill, and I will explain why. It's a very simple idea.
"In a room full of Sifu's...everybody is #1"
Return to Xingyiquan - Baguazhang - Taijiquan
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 60 guests