"A ha! YOu cannot control your temper, your tai chi is fake!" explained the challenger.
Appledog wrote:So what I said stands, no two big name masters disagree on any of the fundamentals, and in that sense Tai Chi is one big family? One art?
Okay, so lets start with you. Do you have a comprehensive training regimen which doesn't mention qi? If not, as a secondary question, are you familiar with the traditional way?
Why should I listen to you over someone like Ma Yue Liang?
If you had a western approach which was stepwise and solid you would probably make a million dollars on it.
Now you think your going to rewrite it into a completely different culture and mindset and that will HELP you to understand it?
I don't find the approach arrogant at all. I find it illogical.
charles wrote:I don't know whether or not "qi" exists or not, and don't care: whether or not it exists is irrelevant.
If you are experienced enough to make that judgement call you need to write a book on the subject immediately. I have never seen such a book.
So whats the right stuff? The below troubles me... You know the form. So why don't you just practice it over and over and see for yourself?
You obviously have a long and interesting experience and I am sure you have come up with "something". Maybe you are afraid to put it into words because you think people would not accept it.
But if you really do have any skills whatsoever, and if they are tai chi skills, you certainly avoid talking about them in any traditional way and seem to spend a great deal of time avoiding traditional methods and explanations.
If you have anything close to tai chi skills you need to write a book about your experiences and what you feel is a good way to train them.
Appledog wrote:I can't imagine how it is possible you missed the whole qi thing.
MaartenSFS wrote:You make some really great points, Charles, and haven't stooped to name-calling and base assumptions like the rest of us. *Raises glass*
Just watched your videos. Do you do any training by pushing, pulling and/or hitting trees?
Appledog wrote:Whether or not qi exists in the same sense that God exists in your example is a false analogy, because the feeling of qi (whatever that feeling is) is a requirement in order to inform the way in which you perform the movements.
I just find avoiding talk of qi, after admitting you understand it and can feel it and use it in the traditional paradigm, sounds a little bit like holding back. But, if a western sports medicine explanation is desired for whatever reason, or even if it is possible, then I think you can do it.. I just don't see the point. Since in the end you are just doing the same stuff and feeling the same stuff and just calling it a different name than qi.
charles wrote:I attempt to have civil discussions and discuss the content of the message, rather than attack the messenger.
Return to Xingyiquan - Baguazhang - Taijiquan
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 55 guests