Determining Your Focus

[johnwang]

IMO it's the body method, the engine, which is important, not the actual techniques or that the style must look like this or that. You can use the body mechanics of the large circular movements to drive smaller linear movements.

So if the art becomes an effective combat art or not depends on the teacher and on the student. As always.

The engine that you develop by using the large circle may not be the same as the engine that you develop by using the small circle.

The long fist system uses large circle. The preying mantis system uses small circle. Many long fist guys think if they can do large circle, they can do small circle. The problem is when you train

- large circle, you are thinking about the moving path (how to make as big circle as possible).
- small circle, you are thinking about the target (how to reach to the target as fast as possible).

IMO, to think that if you can do

- slow, you can do fast.
- large circle, you can do small circle.

are both not realistic. It's hard to believe that the following 2 clips are doing the same thing.

Large circle:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rmr6Cwh ... e=youtu.be

Small circle:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-JMwdMU ... e=youtu.be

[MaartenSFS]

I agree with everything that Bao said, but I also agree with John that training large circles doesn't necessarily mean that you can perform small ones and that doing things slow doesn't mean that you can also do them fast. A good system will have both.

Frankly, I've seen a lot of bad Longfist...

[windwalker]

The engine that you develop by using the large circle may not be the same as the engine that you develop by using the small circle.

I use a taiji engine for my work using what we call long arm

The long fist system uses large circle. The preying mantis system uses small circle. Many long fist guys think if they can do large circle, they can do small circle. The problem is when you train

- large circle, you are thinking about the moving path (how to make as big circle as possible).
I think of space and gap

- small circle, you are thinking about the target (how to reach to the target as fast as possible).
what you call large circle also does the same thing only depending on style not as directly

IMO, to think that if you can do


- slow, you can do fast.
- large circle, you can do small circle.

are both not realistic. It's hard to believe that the following 2 clips are doing the same thing.

Large circle:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rmr6Cwh ... e=youtu.be

Small circle:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-JMwdMU ... e=youtu.be

You clip shows liner foot foot work with circular hands, in most cases IME it will not work..hop gar would be a better example of whats called long arm combined with circular foot work. The foot work is what makes it work...

Studied 7* under teacher Lai. while he does use small cricules his foot work and stepping is very linear, also studied plum flower mantis which tends to have more of a circular stepping approach in its applications. Mantis has some interesting foot linear foot work that make the small circles functional.

Boxing another style that uses circular stepping with both long and short arm applications.

Foot work is very key to how any method works or is said to work...

[johnwang]

You clip shows liner foot foot work with circular hands, in most cases IME it will not work..

You pull your opponent's arm, borrow the counter force to pull yourself into your opponent. Of course the footwork is linear. The shortest distance between 2 points is the straight line.

[Bao]

The engine that you develop by using the large circle may not be the same as the engine that you develop by using the small circle.

The long fist system uses large circle. The preying mantis system uses small circle. Many long fist guys think if they can do large circle, they can do small circle. The problem is when you train

- large circle, you are thinking about the moving path (how to make as big circle as possible).
- small circle, you are thinking about the target (how to reach to the target as fast as possible).

IMO, to think that if you can do

- slow, you can do fast.
- large circle, you can do small circle.

are not realistic

It's not by doing large that you can do small. I am not concerned about the outer appearance. I spoke about the engine. The idea behind the tongbei method is not to do something large and circular. The idea behind the engine is "through the back", to drive movement from the core. The long arm movement stretch the limb from the spine, by engaging the spine. The movement of the spine, ribs and scapula is what is important, this is the engine. The rest is just there to help the body to engage the core. The arms are like the string you pull to start a motorboat. When the engine has started running the string is not important. In tongbei, small or large doesn't matter when you have understood the engine.

[windwalker]

You clip shows liner foot foot work with circular hands, in most cases IME it will not work..

You pull your opponent's arm, borrow the counter force to pull yourself into your opponent. Of course the footwork is linear. The shortest distance between 2 points is the straight line.

Your examples shown in the two clips are very different.
In the Mantis clip as he touches the opponent the arm is allowed to continue. This allows the other person to run into the circular technique.

In your description you're actively causing a reaction, that may or may not happen.

All lines can be thought of as points on a circle. He starts late but arrives first. Meaning not where the other is but where the other will be. Footwork.

[Appledog]

What you are describing is not a martial art. Call it Taiji Qigong and leave out the Quan and I'd be fine with it, like Taebo or Boxercise.

I'm not sure what you mean -- if you don't do what I said you can never go on to learn the rest of the art. Learning applications is nice, but you have to have the basic skills in order to use them. Otherwise you might as well just learn judo or some other martial art that doesn't require Tai Chi's fundamentals.

Proper push hands with a good teacher is 90-95% of what you need to start fighting using Tai Chi. Of course it goes without saying I am talking of extensive practice, at least 2-3 hours a day.

[Bao]

The teacher should be able to handle themselves quite well in wrestling and use most of these techniques in the curriculum against a fully resisting opponent. The striking aspects can also be taught, but more as additional self-defence techniques when the shit hits the fan.

Proper push hands with a good teacher is 90-95% of what you need to start fighting using Tai Chi. Of course it goes without saying I am talking of extensive practice, at least 2-3 hours a day.

Agreed that free push hands will teach you a lot about fighting, probably much more than what the average beginner would suspect at first glance.

Striking/punching technique is also very important. I can't see why this should be "additional self-defence techniques". There are fist punches, palm strikes, elbows and shoulder strikes in the form. There's nothing additional to be taught, it should all be there in any more complete Tai Chi curriculum. Punching has always been an integral part of my Tai Chi.

IMO it's important to incorporate striking technique early in the practice. And by this I mean relaxed, full body movement powered strikes. It's important to start develop this early because it can take quite a long time to get rid of the natural reflex to tense up while striking as well as the urge to feel strength. There's a certain process involved to learn how to relax while keeping alignment when you actually strike against something, when there's an impact against a bag or a protection. To become really good in these methods can take many years. So why not start right from the beginning?

[johnwang]

if you don't do what I said you can never go on to learn the rest of the art. Learning applications is nice, but you have to have the basic skills in order to use them. Otherwise you might as well just learn judo or some other martial art that doesn't require Tai Chi's fundamentals.

If your focus is to be a good

- fighter, Taiji path is not your only choice.
- Taiji master, Taiji path will be your only choice.

I don't think the OP's "focus" is to be a good Taiji master.

[MaartenSFS]

The engine that you develop by using the large circle may not be the same as the engine that you develop by using the small circle.

I use a taiji engine for my work using what we call long arm

The long fist system uses large circle. The preying mantis system uses small circle. Many long fist guys think if they can do large circle, they can do small circle. The problem is when you train

- large circle, you are thinking about the moving path (how to make as big circle as possible).
I think of space and gap

- small circle, you are thinking about the target (how to reach to the target as fast as possible).
what you call large circle also does the same thing only depending on style not as directly

IMO, to think that if you can do


- slow, you can do fast.
- large circle, you can do small circle.

are both not realistic. It's hard to believe that the following 2 clips are doing the same thing.

Large circle:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rmr6Cwh ... e=youtu.be

Small circle:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-JMwdMU ... e=youtu.be

You clip shows liner foot foot work with circular hands, in most cases IME it will not work..hop gar would be a better example of whats called long arm combined with circular foot work. The foot work is what makes it work...

Studied 7* under teacher Lai. while he does use small cricules his foot work and stepping is very linear, also studied plum flower mantis which tends to have more of a circular stepping approach in its applications. Mantis has some interesting foot linear foot work that make the small circles functional.

Boxing another style that uses circular stepping with both long and short arm applications.

Foot work is very key to how any method works or is said to work...

I totally agree. The footwork for each type is quite different and the key to hitting your target.

[MaartenSFS]

The engine that you develop by using the large circle may not be the same as the engine that you develop by using the small circle.

The long fist system uses large circle. The preying mantis system uses small circle. Many long fist guys think if they can do large circle, they can do small circle. The problem is when you train

- large circle, you are thinking about the moving path (how to make as big circle as possible).
- small circle, you are thinking about the target (how to reach to the target as fast as possible).

IMO, to think that if you can do

- slow, you can do fast.
- large circle, you can do small circle.

are not realistic

It's not by doing large that you can do small. I am not concerned about the outer appearance. I spoke about the engine. The idea behind the tongbei method is not to do something large and circular. The idea behind the engine is "through the back", to drive movement from the core. The long arm movement stretch the limb from the spine, by engaging the spine. The movement of the spine, ribs and scapula is what is important, this is the engine. The rest is just there to help the body to engage the core. The arms are like the string you pull to start a motorboat. When the engine has started running the string is not important. In tongbei, small or large doesn't matter when you have understood the engine.

Absolutely, and eventually you can actually make smaller movements whilst still using that power.

[MaartenSFS]

What you are describing is not a martial art. Call it Taiji Qigong and leave out the Quan and I'd be fine with it, like Taebo or Boxercise.

I'm not sure what you mean -- if you don't do what I said you can never go on to learn the rest of the art. Learning applications is nice, but you have to have the basic skills in order to use them. Otherwise you might as well just learn judo or some other martial art that doesn't require Tai Chi's fundamentals.

Proper push hands with a good teacher is 90-95% of what you need to start fighting using Tai Chi. Of course it goes without saying I am talking of extensive practice, at least 2-3 hours a day.

I totally disagree. Tuishou helps train sensitivity and techniques in a safe environment. Wrestling is the next step up and necessary for practical use in fighting. Or we could call it free Tuishou, if that makes it sound more mystical. I'm not saying that Tuishou isn't necessary in Taijiquan, just that a teacher should be able to hold his own against a wrestler.

[MaartenSFS]

The teacher should be able to handle themselves quite well in wrestling and use most of these techniques in the curriculum against a fully resisting opponent. The striking aspects can also be taught, but more as additional self-defence techniques when the shit hits the fan.

Proper push hands with a good teacher is 90-95% of what you need to start fighting using Tai Chi. Of course it goes without saying I am talking of extensive practice, at least 2-3 hours a day.

Agreed that free push hands will teach you a lot about fighting, probably much more than what the average beginner would suspect at first glance.

Striking/punching technique is also very important. I can't see why this should be "additional self-defence techniques". There are fist punches, palm strikes, elbows and shoulder strikes in the form. There's nothing additional to be taught, it should all be there in any more complete Tai Chi curriculum. Punching has always been an integral part of my Tai Chi.

IMO it's important to incorporate striking technique early in the practice. And by this I mean relaxed, full body movement powered strikes. It's important to start develop this early because it can take quite a long time to get rid of the natural reflex to tense up while striking as well as the urge to feel strength. There's a certain process involved to learn how to relax while keeping alignment when you actually strike against something, when there's an impact against a bag or a protection. To become really good in these methods can take many years. So why not start right from the beginning?

If a teacher starts incorporating a lot of striking then they should be able to hold their own against any type of fighter, not just wrestlers. Wrestling is a fairly safe way to test skill. Full on free-fighting less so. Do you see what I am getting at?

[MaartenSFS]

if you don't do what I said you can never go on to learn the rest of the art. Learning applications is nice, but you have to have the basic skills in order to use them. Otherwise you might as well just learn judo or some other martial art that doesn't require Tai Chi's fundamentals.

If your focus is to be a good

- fighter, Taiji path is not your only choice.
- Taiji master, Taiji path will be your only choice.

I don't think the OP's "focus" is to be a good Taiji master.

No, it's not. I suggest only that one decides what they want to be good at and teach and to be able to prove that against a fully resisting opponent in whatever format they choose. Push hands and sticky hands are not acceptable in this regard, as they are too limiting and do not represent realistic combat - nor should they, as they are training methods designed to drill specific skills.

[Appledog]

if you don't do what I said you can never go on to learn the rest of the art. Learning applications is nice, but you have to have the basic skills in order to use them. Otherwise you might as well just learn judo or some other martial art that doesn't require Tai Chi's fundamentals.

If your focus is to be a good

- fighter, Taiji path is not your only choice.
- Taiji master, Taiji path will be your only choice.

I don't think the OP's "focus" is to be a good Taiji master.

No, it's not. I suggest only that one decides what they want to be good at and teach and to be able to prove that against a fully resisting opponent in whatever format they choose. Push hands and sticky hands are not acceptable in this regard, as they are too limiting and do not represent realistic combat - nor should they, as they are training methods designed to drill specific skills.

I think you hit the nail on the head J. However there is a limit to how far you can cross-analogy different arts and I think we've reached that point by now. I do find it interesting to listen to how people talk about Tai Chi through the glasses of their own arts. Longfist, tongbei, xingyi, others -- all interesting -- but I would have to say Tai Chi shed it's direct roots to those arts a long time ago. When M says that push hands is too limiting and does not represent realistic combat, he is simply talking about Shanzaiwuan, and is not correct from a Tai Chi perspective. However, since his own art does things a different way, he is actually correct -- push hands is, in fact, too limiting to accommodate the way M does things in Shanzaiquan. This is not anyone's failure. It is a different approach to learning; a different way of thinking. I think a very rough analogy could be it's like starting to learn guitar via scales or chords. Actually you are learning the same thing but you are learning it in different ways.

If I had to pick one art that I was going to practice instead of Tai Chi I would have a hard time choosing between any of the major styles -- hung gar, praying mantis, xingyi, etc. I think it's just that in the end the way I think and approach things has led me more towards the Tai Chi way of doing it. In fact I cannot imagine myself eventually coming up with some form of Tai Chi on my own, based on my understanding of how things work. This must mean I've been poisoned by Tai Chi or that I am too old and can no longer change

One thing I have learned is that CMA in general is very functional. It doesn't do anything which doesn't have a use. For a while I used this to figure out what certain things were for and how certain things worked. This was based on the (sometimes false) idea that there were no flowery movements. In the end I got lucky and my teacher had a reason for everything he was doing. I would then have to admit that we very rarely pushed hands -- perhaps no more than once per year.