Trick wrote:here i am .........no im not going to mention chakras.......but mentioning fighting and taiji in same sentence and implying the two are synonymous is not right since fighting implies an conflict and even aggression which Taiji is not about
windwalker wrote:Looks like you'r not going to answer my question , presenting one of your own.
As to what I think, I've presented examples of those in matches that show unique movement and clear strategies Indicative of their stylistic influences
And a question based on your comment referring to those who might not think of the OP's clip as taiji
Don't have a problem with the clip it follows their training, and outlook of taiji.
My point is that in looking at the clip, if one knew nothing about taiji,
how would one know which person was the taiji practitioner.
dspyrido wrote:
Queue now the rsf comments of this not being real tc because of not being able to manipulate chakras, not mentioning fascia or the greatest sin - not making people bounce around like possessed lunatics. Plus I didn't see anyone wearing silk pjs so it's definitely not tc or internal.
Why not approach it from a different way.
In your opinion what makes this any different from anything else ?
In movement, or application can you point to any defining characteristics or strategies
unique to what is called Taiji?
dspyrido wrote:
True! It's been decades since the term NHB was thrown around but even the early UFC's had a rule around shoes & not permitting kicks. I guess since they named it MMA so I just thought it was crappy footage. We had colour in the 90s/2000s but I guess we were still mostly on video tape.
dspyrido wrote:Trick wrote:here i am .........no im not going to mention chakras.......but mentioning fighting and taiji in same sentence and implying the two are synonymous is not right since fighting implies an conflict and even aggression which Taiji is not about
Would it make any difference if it was called taichi/taiji quan instead of the universal default of taichi? Is the fist part related to some other form of ... fisting?
I don't mind people talking about taichi neigong but tcc has always been presented as to how it applies to fighting. Let's face it if it was just neigong then why have demonstrations of bouncy bouncy students throwing pretend punches? Why even categorise it as a martial art?
Giles wrote:Bao: "The mindset is a complete rejection of aggression or fear and doesn’t look as an opponent as a threat. Instead the correct way is to deal with an opponent clinically without feelings as [if] the opponent was just an object in motion."
I would certainly agree with that as a higher (admirable) goal of Tai Chi Chuan and that this very much helps to avoid (unnecessary) conflict and be better all round. But the 'dealing with an opponent clinically' also means violence. Just not 'hot rage' or 'cold sadism'. In other words: fighting.
Yes Bao and you have some wrongs here. If mastery of Taijiquan has been achieved a fight is not a fight, and opponent is not an opponent.....and he/she is not an mere object either....You merge, and you lead them from their astray path of conflict seeking to the path of mutual understanding..this is the admirable goal of the Quan of Taiji....Giles wrote:Ah, well, so much for the Tai Chi Classics. Time to bin them, I guess...
As far as I remember, they talk about achieving certain states of body, certain states of mind and, er, also using them to fight.
Bao: "The mindset is a complete rejection of aggression or fear and doesn’t look as an opponent as a threat. Instead the correct way is to deal with an opponent clinically without feelings as [if] the opponent was just an object in motion."
I would certainly agree with that as a higher (admirable) goal of Tai Chi Chuan and that this very much helps to avoid (unnecessary) conflict and be better all round. But the 'dealing with an opponent clinically' also means violence. Just not 'hot rage' or 'cold sadism'. In other words: fighting.
Some RSF people will probably be facepalming already. 'Are these guys even discussing this issue seriously...?' Regard it as harmless fun...
Giles wrote:Ah, well, so much for the Tai Chi Classics. Time to bin them, I guess...
As far as I remember, they talk about achieving certain states of body, certain states of mind and, er, also using them to fight.
...
Some RSF people will probably be facepalming already. 'Are these guys even discussing this issue seriously...?' Regard it as harmless fun...
Trick wrote:Yes Bao and you have some wrongs here. If mastery of Taijiquan has been achieved a fight is not a fight, and opponent is not an opponent.....and he/she is not an mere object either....You merge, and you lead them from their astray path of conflict seeking to the path of mutual understanding..this is the admirable goal of the Quan of Taiji....
windwalker wrote:My question, with “examples” of what I look for
What makes the training shown by the OP different enough that people would understand what they’re seeing is Taiji with out being told it was.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 36 guests