Kong Bao Long wrote:I don't do Taijiquan, but if I did... given the less than lack luster results achieved by established training methods, I would be training totally different.
They are too easily checked, in the age of the video, the results of going down those established roads have been well documented.
So if all the softness and "Matador vs the Bull" strategy doesn't work... and if the above is the original Yang Lu Chan Taijiquan form (why wouldn't be? it has the most solid credible evidence of all) and if Yang Lu Chan was indeed the Mike Tyson of Beijing during the 1830's-40s
Just what the hell are we looking at? lol
I personally think, (just my opinion... reader, don't take offense) given how ineffective established methodologies are, that what we are looking at (at the time of it's origin) was much more harder, much more external... and this slowness was to internalize the movements only. From my view, concepts like "attaching and adhering" have been lost by the Scholar who had no experience in other martial arts, who in the following generations passed the art along. Western Boxing, Sanda, San Shou, Kick Boxing, Chang Quan etc the concepts of "adhering and attaching" usually are referring to angles and positioning, rather than limbs, body mass and actual sensitivity of a persons center. Just throwing this out there... I don't practice Taijiquan Maybe, approaching this art in that premise could prove more plentiful when it comes to prowess. One internally feels when when they have the initiative, metaphysically one attaches to the angle to control the opponent's offense etc etc... these are not advanced concepts to people with prowess, who spar, who have immersed themselves in competition against other martial arts. Maybe what Taijiquan has been all along is some form of Iron Palm long fist with highly developed clinching methods used as a close in defense
I don't know how much time you spent lurking (if any) before your join date, but what you posted regards practical tai chi fighting method has been run through the mill a few times since RSF's first days.
Yeah, ineffective, established methodologies...
This might be for another, different discussion, but since you brought it up,...and apologies for the hijack, windwalker
In this thread, you have three so-called tjq 'teachers' replying to your comments... words, opinions and arguments on the Who, When, Where and What, but never the How - nothing (aside from choreography) pertaining to practical method that can be taken from text and applied to practicable, repeatable training. Case in point; up until a couple of weeks ago, all three of those 'teachers' (and others) rejected the most basic of basics of tjq's internal work. They along with others were dismissive of the methodology of actively internalizing tjq's foundational principles. Leading up to that was their thinking that people don't have 'enough'(?) qi, yi and jin to understand those foundational principles, or that beginners would just be confused or misguided by the work of internalizing the principles and methods. When asked about those things, I was told that they were "standard practice...general movement principles..are meaningless these days". They have the message of that particular basic, but not the code.
Then, when a methodology actually is made clear, they play catch-up-keep-up as their former notions are crushed under the truth of things and they 'adjust' their seeming understanding accordingly because 'well, yeah that's just how tai chi works'.
'Just practice the right thing, the right way, with the right intensity and all will come clear', I heard. Ask one of them to outline the changes of Six Harmonies in the Cloud Hands sequence - I dare you!
They think cultivating qi is the goal of qigong and tjq. How can one cultivate what is already at its maximum as it is at any given time? Ask them that and see what kind of answer -if any -you get. What is the goal, then? What purpose does qigong serve if not to 'cultivate' qi? Of what use is qi if not for a purpose?
What the hell are we looking at?...indeed