Incorperating tai chi?

[WhiteWizard]

I've just started doing tai chi and was wondering do the tai chi practitioners out there just do it solely on its own or do you try and use it while doing other arts?

[Jonny Chee]

I have thought about incorporating it with my Kung-fu too. Let me know how it works for you.

[Kinjiro Tsukasa]

I might be able to incorporate it, as I notice a lot of similarity between some of the Tai Chi moves and Budo Taijutsu techniques. Sometimes, when our teacher is demonstrating martial applications (not slowed up), I could swear he's doing Budo Taijutsu. Of course, that could just be my inexperience talking.

[Kat]

I feel the body movement and power genreation of TJQ is easyily intergrated into most forms of fighting.If you use it as your base format for movement.Sensivtivity drills have helped me alot when practiseing wrestling or grappling.
Most importantly the Qigong gives me focus/ attention/relaxation that I can apply to lots of things in my life.

[nzric]

I don't have any formal ma training apart from tai chi and ba gua so it's not a question of if I incorporate it into anything else.

But I find it's not only helped me with my confidence and fitness, but also relaxation and peace of mind. Also, it is a point of entry for many of us typical westerners to understanding the concepts behind chinese philosophy, medicine, culture and history. If you don't research all these as well as the martial art, I feel you can only reach a certain level in the internal arts (can't understand qi flows without knowing the basics of acupuncture, can't understand balance of body force without knowing principles of yin/yang, which leads to the ba gua (and feng shui!) trigrams, then the I Ching hexagrams).

As it's basically a science of body mechanics, you can use many of the principles in other arts, although some of the principles don't fit well (or at all) with an external style. You can incorporate some of the ideas (like rooting, yielding and whole body force) in your general training but other ideas oppose each other (like internal power/muscle power, direct/peripheral concentration or sticking/'range' fighting) and you will need to choose to focus more on one or the other at some point.

If you are fighting and want to choose whether to use a technique with an 'internal' or 'external' focus, that is forgetting one of the fundamental rules of internal art, of 'wu wei' ("no effort"). Internal arts are supposed to be form-less - one of the main distinctions is it comes from the subconscious and there are no strict 'techniques' that an opponent can learn to counter.

You need to choose which principles (external or internal) you are most comfortable with and make these your unconscious style. If you don't, you won't reach the 'no form/no technique' stage of the art where fighting is instinctual instead of a long repertoire of "moves".

[WhiteWizard]

so do you think the use of the internal arts can become instinctivly mingled with the external arts after a time then so that you don't know you are using them but you actually are extracting the principles into some of your techniques.

[TkdWarrior]

so do you think the use of the internal arts can become instinctivly mingled with the external arts after a time then so that you don't know you are using them but you actually are extracting the principles into some of your techniques.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
that's one way of putting it...
to me, the differentiation as Internal n External is unnecessary...they are part of the whole...
-TkdWarrior-

[Kat]

I have to agree with TKDWarrior,I think the terminology of External and Internal has been vastly misunderstood and inappropriatly interpreted into a very simplistic division.Most styles of GungFu have a Nei Jia component.Most GF stylest will learn styles that are defined as external and internal.The definitions are mainly influenced by published writings rather then experience.
The goal of spontanous reaction is common for all styles.So that many would argue that once the individual has reached a level to incoporate principles(flow)they have in a sense moved on from there teachers style and into there own expression of power and body dynamics.
This is how more then one mainlander(one was Taiwanese) expressed Nei Jin, Internal expression,to me.Quite regularly,westerners seem to interpete chinese words in the most mystical way possible,often without the original context.

[nzric]

There's a guy in my class who has done full contact karate for years but is now into tai chi. His form is very 'external' but he has gained a lot of power and coordination from the tai chi. However, when I push hands or san sao with him, his body can't understand the concept of yielding and flow - he has a lot of trouble letting go of old habits and, e.g. letting someone get within his guard, not thinking about what 'moves' he will do and just reacting, etc.

Everyone has their own level and no-one will be completely external or internal, but these words are only descriptions of types of movement. Take a punch (I know I always talk about it, Kat, but it's one of the easiest ways to describe the differences between the two). An external, karate-style punch can't get it's power without the use of the arm (and shoulder) muscles. Internal training can increase that power by teaching the use of the hips and legs in the action. But a full internal strike can't have a great effect if you use your arm muscles, as the force comes from the whipping action and the looseness in the arm.

Or what about the torsion/spiralling of ba gua compared to the centrifugal power of tkd? I'm not saying one is better than the other, it's just that although they are similar, the movement techniques differ a lot and at some point you need to make a choice about what you're more comfortable with.

Like I said, as with everything the best thing to do is to try to incorporate everything and see what works. Sometimes you will have to make a choice about whether to throw something away that doesn't fit your style, depending on your own body size/strength, fitness, speed, agility etc.

The bottom line is it's always useful to look around, cross-train and experiment to create your own blend but if you want to have it all you're bound to fail.

[Kat]

Nzric
My post mainly refers to the difficulity of culture clash in lingustic areas.
But I am going to comment on your well troden defininations of External vs Internal.(yeah this is a "Thing" for me)Generally I find people use these labels to promote difference rather then see the simularities and overlaps.This is not to have a go at you,just that I have found more simularites in sincere practioners of MA then they are differences.Within China the 3 big Northern Internal MA(TJQ BGZ XYQ) are only the tip of whats out there.

Karate Punchs
:while I have never taken any form of Karate,and I understand what you want to say(re:tension) but I feel you are not giving Karate the justice it deserves.

Your definition of an Internal Punch could easily apply to most punches found within Boxing.

Comment such as, arm muscle shouldn't be used....,don't make much Physiological sense.

TKD:is larglely Linear,I am guessing you are interperting turning kicks and back kicks as Centrifical Power Generation.(this is another arguement in its own right)but(as you say) in no way has simularites to PG of BGZ.

Agreed,its about fomulating Body dynamics that you are comfortable with.(suit your structure,mindset etc)
Agreed noone is ethier one or the other(in fact I think they have to co exist)
Agreed what you propose is external is out there but I don't feel it is the true representation of those arts,I think its often a reflection of instuctors own personalities.

In a Big Ball
I find most MA have
: full body connected PG
: Body control excerises/drills
: overall goal of spontaneous reaction to incoming stimulas
: cultural components
: probally some sort of comp format(modern day)


And yeah I am in the minority among "internalists."
Hope that makes Sense.

[TkdWarrior]

i'll say TKD don't hav much coiling like ba gua but it's not linear art
those who hav learnt their styles as External, they made the differentiation themselves...
like for ur example as Kareteka's/TKdka's, their punch might be really ppowerfull but they mostly use forarm in their punches but
Tkd gets most of it's power from rooting(u cna found that in Sine Wave, one concept widely misunderstood)

anyways we r just taking this thread away from it's goal...
as always said "cross training doesn't hurt much ;)"
-TkdWarrior-

[Kat]

TKD Warrior
I am not sure that many Karate people could agree with this idea that all there power comes from the forearm.Considering the diversity of styles,and the evidence that very few arts utilize one part of the body for PG,I think that you are generalizing to a large degree.

TKD :the arguement about Centrifigal PG goes like this
:if you think hip twist/turning kicks spinning kicks = CPG then thats probally the term you would use
: CPG seen in the format of coiling/ spirling /compression and torsion of the body expressed in movement. which=
:Circular movement towards targets(often understood to mean spinning in circles??) focus on sutle angles of attack and defense.

This I think is again interpretational as to your experiences and instructors.
Personal Experience : ITF TKD when a kid(yeah I know crap,but it got me flexible,1st kup)all attacks and stategies where linear,straight forward straight back,sure we could jump to the side,but this wasn't emphasisized.Rooting was there (but as I said PG from the ground is in a llot of MA)but once in a comp every one jumped aound like on speed.I was never shown subtle angels etc.This is ofcause just what I experienced not in any way a description of TKD world wide.

[nzric]

Well, the arm muscle is always used at least just to guide the hand, but in a fajing punch it is just the end of the 'whip', as it were, there's more to it than just a loose boxing punch. I'm comparing that to the typical standing punch that karate is known for (as an example). I know a lot of arts also use hip rotation and looseness in their punching so you can't say anything is completely external or internal, the thing is that the movements are completely different at each end of the scale.

I always like a good debate, it would be boring if everyone totally agreed with each other, but I know we're getting off the main topic. Back to the original discussion, I think that it's possible to use tai chi on it's own, and I've found that since I don't come from a 'hard' martial art background, I don't have to unlearn old habits like a solid stance, tense attitude or forceful blocking (like I've seen in some of my training partners). I think tai chi/BGZ with as little external element as possible has a lot going for it, as you get the full benefit of the coiling/yielding/sticking of the art.

It's a good idea to learn the foundation principles of tai chi and you can use them in any MA - things like heightening peripheral vision, using angles and spirals instead of direct attacks, and rooting to deliver force, but many methods in the internal arts (like compression/twisting, 'sticking' sensitivity, fa-jing release of power, yielding and flowing through an attack) don't mix well with typical hard MA techniques. It's a balance. Bottom line is try everything, if it works you shouldn't worry about naming exactly what it is.

[Kat]

I am thinking I have 2 main points
One is linguistic:Fajin is not a type of punch unique to TJQ.The word itself simply means to use an explosive power method.
I understand that you may be taught that it refers to a particular tech that is utilizing a relaxed whipping motion.This is also not unique to IMA (if not MA).
In fact I think you could find many a boxer who could demostrate "fajin"without any knowledge of a TJQ system.I think you would find his movement totally within your princples for PG.
"there's more to it then just a loose boxing Punch"

And there's more to a loose boxing Punch then you think.By being so dismissive indicates that you think this is an inferior tech.
which is my second point,being a finite no. of ways to move the body it is highly likely that many MA overlap in many areas.By highlighting generalized differences rather then understanding simularites,individuals encourage the age old climate of "my style is better then Yours", an attitude which I feel has no relevence in training of any style.

Always here to simulate debate:p

[nzric]

Well you have to make distinctions in order to explain what you're talking about. It doesn't mean I think any one is better than the other.

Like I said, when you're practicing movements and learning the techniques of the arts, it's better to focus on the textbook descriptions because then you will learn which muscles to use and the kind of power generation that the teacher wants you to discover. Once you can confidently show you know these you can make it your own, adapt it and blend things together but there's no use trying to run before you can walk.

It know it's a huge generalisation, but for the sake of elaboration... many so-called 'external' schools start with the simple, isolating muscles way of punching (punching is just an easy, clear idea to talk about so I keep going back to it). That's the usual dojo system that most of us had when we were kids, standing and doing ki-ai's in a horse-riding stance. Many internal schools start instead with showing the student about power generation through whole-body coordination, like the beginner's long, simple steps and wide arm movements.

After a while, students from both styles will learn more and after a while their style may start to look similar, the only difference is one starts from A, one starts from Z and they meet up in the middle.

There's benefits with any art, but it is important to take the time and learn what the system is trying to show you. If you learn tai chi (or karate, or any art for that matter) for six months then move on to integrate what you've learned once you think you've 'got it', you're missing out on a rich source of systems for the future.

[Syd]

Can you mix oil with water? I had once pondered mixing arts and soon came to realize that one learn't well was enough. My bottom line is I don't have enough lifetime left as it is to really master Taijiquan and Qigong (Do you ever?) so why would I want to waste anymore time training in anything else? (Rhetorical) Besides which, I can't see what else besides Fajinquan I'd ever need; thats me though.

Erle does not recommend mixing Internal arts with External and infact suggests Bagua as the only other art that fits well with Taiji. Erle does not consider things like Wing Chun as internal and infact nor does he see Chen Style as Taiji either. This is controversial as usual but he see's Chen style as a Northern long fist. I would agree with his analysis, and decided only to train in Taiji.

By the way, the assertian that Chen isn't Taiji isn't mean't as an insult but rather to differentiate between the art of Yang Luchan as he defined it and what remained as the style within the Chen Village and those who practise it's various forms today. Yang Luchan was the only one known for his rag doll like soft boxing or Hao Chuan and it was his development mixed with the initial 13 Wudan forms and 12 Qi disruptives, fajin and dim mak striking that defines Yang Taijiquan...

(not to be confused with the watered down short forms of Cheng Fu's 3rd variation and Cheng Man Ching proponents which are diseminated as the relaxation and health dance of the late 20th and early 21st centuries.)

There comes a point when each person must decide for themselves whether they need more than one art. I would suggest that if you do, then either your art is not serving you well or you are not training in your art well enough to feel confident sticking with it. Some people collect styles like they might collect stamps and the question remains; why should they?

Best, Syd

[zun]

I've Muay Thai for ages and since the beginning of this year, have started Taiji.

Because of my external foundation, I find it difficult to keep my shoulders down (I've been warned that it may do myself injury during my fajin), loose phoenix punches, to sink into my tan-tien, becoming sung, etc. etc. etc. The list goes on and on.

However, having the MT training has also been highly helpful. I can pick up moves far quicker than any of the other students. My body is used to being hit - so I don't instinctive flinch when being hit. Cos of my pain threshold is higher - so I can hold static poses for longer, etc. etc.

The best thing - I can ask questions from a MT perspective that make the teachers think!

The two styles certainly are very different - in many ways MT has hindered my progression through TJQ - however, in many ways it has also helped.

Ultimately when you reach the pinnacle of MT, it also becomes very loose - similar in nature to TJQ.

The one major difference between TJQ and all the external styles I've researched/practised so far - centripetal force.

Almost all external styles, use centrifugal force (rotational body movement - eg. from the hips, shoulders, legs) to generate extra power into the strike.

TJQ also uses centripetal power - rotational power away from the strike to generate extra power from close ranges. This is one of the fundamental differences between TJQ (and internal MAs?) versuses external arts. This is totally unnatural however very effective.

I'm glad I do MT and will be returning to it any day now :)

[Syd]

As I said it is totally up to each individual to decide what they need and what they require but as stated before, I have spoken to my teachers at length about this and there are very good reasons not to mix styles; particularly with Taijiquan. Allot of this has to do with learning the unique patterns of body movement in Taiji which are totally different to other styles... bad habits creep in.

Having previously learned another style is no bad thing and ofcourse having done any MA will assist you when arriving in a new style but once having arrived within Taiji it is recommended to dedicate the body to learning it 's movement until it becomes subconcious to move *only* in a Taiji fashion. This again all depends how far you want to go long term with your Taiji.

Essentially you want your body to become Taiji automatically if a situation arises, it has to be totally instinctive. If there is muscle memory of another style and the body isn't totally used to moving the right way your Taiji won't be as instinctive or as effective.

With regards to MT and Taiji being similar when being loose? I don't think you'd find a single instructor within the WTBA or even Erle himself who would agree with that. The looseness of Taijiquan with regards to opening the joints, being sung, lowering the yang energies and using internal power is an entirely different kind of looseness to the concept of MT as an external MA being loose. You can say a straight boxer is loose but he's not loose in the Taijiquan sense of the word.

When you say that MT has helped you because you are used to getting hit and have a higher pain threshold, thats an interesting way of looking at things, though I think at the end of the day if you are learning what Erle teaches then you would know that you shouldn't be hit if your doing it right. What Erle teaches is to hit them before they ever get a chance to lay a finger on you... overkill. However there is nothing wrong with conditioning and infact we do this naturally when training in Taiji particularly when using Small and Large San Sau, Long Har Chuan and power push hands etc.

Each individual must decide what works for them. I've made an informed choice which has taken into account the wisdom of my teachers.

[zun]

Originally posted by Syd
With regards to MT and Taiji being similar when being loose? I don't think you'd find a single instructor within the WTBA or even Erle himself who would agree with that. The looseness of Taijiquan with regards to opening the joints, being sung, lowering the yang energies and using internal power is an entirely different kind of looseness to the concept of MT as an external MA being loose. You can say a straight boxer is loose but he's not loose in the Taijiquan sense of the word.



You're correct they are not exactly the same. The power generated by a boxer is external. However, because top-flight boxers' has low centre of weight, the relaxed almost nonchalant posture, movement of the hips - I find at a pinnacle level the movements are similar. This is probably the reason why I was able to pick the fajin movement quickly, and some of the senior students are still struggling with it.

Oh, btw, the observation that the styles are similar is originally an observation my instructor made. It's something I've researched and now agree with.



shouldn't be hit if your doing it right. What Erle teaches is to hit them before they ever get a chance to lay a finger on you... overkill.



We haven't done any full contact sparring. Occasionally my instructor has shown a particular move - he can follow his move through without fear of hurting me (much). He has to treat some of the other students with kid gloves, because they've been boxed on the ear or the accidently, and it's hurt/stunned them.



Each individual must decide what works for them. I've made an informed choice which has taken into account the wisdom of my teachers.

Yup. Everyone's taiji is different.

Both my instructors were taught by Paul Breecher, who learnt the style directly from Erle. Yet both instructors have completely different taiji styles - and this is highly evident in their form and their way of teaching.

[Syd]

G'day Zun,

It's an interesting discussion so I'll respond in like kind.

Originally posted by zun
You're correct they are not exactly the same.

I must insist again and this time emphasize that not only are they "not exactly the same", but they might as well be on different planets they are so not the same. With all due respect I know who Paul Brecher is though I don't know his students who have intructed you, but at the end of the day if they think that MT is like Taiji then thats down to a personal interprutation, but I maintain that Erle would disagree vehemently with this and so would my instructor Keith Brown.

Neither Erle or Keith see Wing Chun as an internal art that has similarities with Yang Taiji and nor do they see Chen Style as a Taiji but rather a kind of Long Fist. Both Chen and Wing Chun would be closer to Taiji than MT so this illustrates yet again just how not like Taiji MT is. I have seen MT and had a friend who was heavily into competition full contact and I couldn't think of anything further removed from Taiji than MT actually. :)

I find at a pinnacle level the movements are similar. This is probably the reason why I was able to pick the fajin movement quickly, and some of the senior students are still struggling with it.

Fajin is an internal event not an external event, if one is doing it based on external catalysts then it is not Taiji Fajin but still a physical external movement... the movement must come from the centre. Boxing, MT and any number of external styles including some styles which claim to be internal still move from muscle and not from the centre or from the dan tien. This takes years to internalize and perfect, though many people are very good at external Fajin, but still this is not Taiji. Taiji isn't something you do but rather something you constantly try to become. I am not meaning to preach to the converted here but I think the differences are chasm-like, and ought to be correctly laid out and discussed.

Oh, btw, the observation that the styles are similar is originally an observation my instructor made. It's something I've researched and now agree with.

I respect that people have different opinions and without perhaps knowing the full context of the discussion in which those comments were made I would reserve judgement. I would say again that if they took those thoughts to Erle though, they might reconsider this view. However if thats what they think and they see things from that angle then so be it. I'm just saying that
I know what Erle thinks and I personally agree with the assessment.

Yup. Everyone's taiji is different.

Well in the end everyones Taiji becomes their own, I can't disagree with that. But as to whether it is actually Taiji or not as Yang Lu Chan would define it is a whole other story. I am personally trying to shoot for as authentic a Taijiquan (Old Yang Style) as I can, and in that sense I see a very clear path which defines it.

[/QUOTE]Both my instructors were taught by Paul Breecher, who learnt the style directly from Erle. Yet both instructors have completely different taiji styles - and this is highly evident in their form and their way of teaching. [/QUOTE]

This happened within the Yang family also and you had different branches of the family sticking to Yang Lu Chans style of Taijiquan while others softened the style like Yang Cheng Fu. Interpretation is always going to be a key factor in anything and perceptions and perspectives will drive a persons style and contribute to making it individual. I stick with Erle's system very closely because I clearly see a line back to Yang Lu Chan there.

With regard to the teachings and the content It's very much like a system of thought and a Martial attitude and I guess I have a particular attitude because the path I travel shows me the clear way to my destination. At the end of the day I don't see anything similar to Yang Style Taiji, apart from Bagua.

Best, Syd

[zun]

Syd hi.

Originally posted by Syd

I must insist again and this time emphasize that not only are they "not exactly the same", but they might as well be on different planets they are so not the same. With all due respect I know who Paul Brecher is though I don't know his students who have intructed you, but at the end of the day if they think that MT is like Taiji then thats down to a personal interprutation, but I maintain that Erle would disagree vehemently with this and so would my instructor Keith Brown.



That's kewl syd. I'll look forward to speaking with Erle to get his oppinions on this.

Ultimately though I don't think it matters that much whether any other form resembles taiji (closely or otherwise). The reason I had initially chosen taiji was for everyday health (nothing deliberating I hasten to add). It's great to know that compared to all MA, taiji is supreme - imho.

Originally posted by Syd

I have seen MT and had a friend who was heavily into competition full contact and I couldn't think of anything further removed from Taiji than MT actually. :)



With all due respect to your friend, I'm referring to just a couple of fighters who are the best of the best. Also, though I admit it is unlikely, do kindly remember that it is possible for fighters from another system to incorporate taiji.

Originally posted by Syd

I stick with Erle's system very closely because I clearly see a line back to Yang Lu Chan there.



Whether it's only for teaching I'm not sure, I hear Erle's changed the form since the early days.

Thanks for a very insightful post.

[Syd]

G'day Zun,

The only elements of the form Erle changed was as a result of finding some old texts when he was back in China. When reading these texts it stated no less than 15 times (or something like that) that the back and spine must be vertical at all times. This meant that postures such as Needle at Sea Bottom and various other moves like Snake Creeps Down, which used to be performed leaning or bending the back were now changed to be performed with a 100% vertical back.

It's a correction rather than a change.

Best, Syd

[zun]

Thanks Syd.

Can't really imagine performing Needle at Sea Bottom any other way except with a straight back.

I wondered why some other styles (yang, wudang, wu shu etc) claimed Snake Creeps Down (Low Single Whip) was easy until I saw them perform it bent over. :D

[Syd]

Zun,

In the old days these movements were performed with a C back or bending forward. You can still see this being performed on Erles Yang Cheng Fu 108 forms on tape!

Most likely you have learn't your stuff from Paul's students a long time after this correction had been made and passed onto Paul. Actually I found bending in Sea Bottom and Snake Creeps about the same as keeping the back vertical but there you go.

The real tester is when you do the Broadsword form and twist into the Madarin Duck posture! ;)

Best, Syd

[Kinjiro Tsukasa]

Just curious, because I study Tai Chi, when you say "back vertical", do you just mean "back straight", or the back actually making a ninety-degree angle with the ground?

[Syd]

As much as possible you must try to keep your back 90* degrees to the ground. This goes back to the classics when it states that you must feel as though your head is being held upright like a puppet on a string. Your head must always face in the direction of your torso and not turn in any other direction. The eye's have their directions also but then we get into all kinds of other things.

[KungFuGrrrl]

I study Wing Chun Kung Fu and Tai Chi Chuan, they go hand in hand.

In fact the few guys at the school who managed to get far in their Tai Chi did noticibly well in sparring.

[zun]

Originally posted by Syd

The real tester is when you do the Broadsword form and twist into the Madarin Duck posture! ;)



The Mandarin Duck posture is enough of a kiler on my left leg as it is! :)

[Syd]

It's a tasty move, thats for sure. ;)

[zun]

I tell you one thing. After the move, I feel like I'm walking on air. Nike "Air" eat your heart out!

[nzric]

Hey, I'm a bit late to this thread but I've got a couple of points.

Wing Chun & tai chi similarity? lots of wing chun experts disagree, but that art is still pretty external. The similarities are mostly in economy of movement for attacks (WC is direct, TC is rounded), and using ground force, although it doesn't have the waist movement of tai chi. MT and tai chi: I think the differences are that muay thai still teaches 'light' stepping, whereas tai chi (and bagua) teach you to root to the ground from the waist down (mud stepping). Chen style is the clearest use of that. Also, MT is a striking art, whereas a large part of tai chi (apart from fajing) concentrates on sticking, silk reeling etc, to maintain contact and yield/mirror the opponent. But I see where you’d get the benefit from a MT background.

Mandarin duck is a great move ... until you try to stand up!

Difference in teachers: That's interesting you mention it. I have been taught by a few of Erles former students and there are huge differences...

Paul Brecher is a small guy, from an external background. He likes complicated moves and is very strict about technique and qigong during the form. Also, when he demonstrates advanced fajing, his feet leave the ground. He says it's just what happens at an advanced stage but I'll have to reserve my judgement (although who am I to argue?).
Ross Lardner loves his fajing and I haven't seen much better apart from Erle. I remember him demonstrating a shoulder fajing in response to a grab from behind – knocked the wind out of me! Ross is still learning from Paul so you’d expect them to have similar style.
Keith Brown is another small guy (and I think he and Paul share the highest level instructor grades in the WTBA). Keith’s style looks external, lots of body shakes and vocal fajing, but I think that’s just from having a very good internal style. Keith also brings a lot of bagua principles into his tai chi teaching (he concentrates more on hand/palm strikes and chin na in the form, rather than sticking (but I spose that’s an Erlechuan (!) trademark).
Erle – I’m not even going to go there, because his style is so subtle now. That’s where a lot of beginners get it wrong – they try to copy Erle straight from the videos, but don’t realize he’s doing small frame when they can’t even understand large frame.
After going to a camp in Murwillumbah last year, I found that not many of Erle’s teachers concentrate on pushing hands. I think that’s a shame because I’ve learned a lot from it (there’s really no other way to spar in this style, apart from fast san sao).

[Syd]

Some nice thoughts and observations there Rich.

[alienlovechild]

The internal and external distinction is of course a significant bone of contention, though for me it encapsulates the vastly different experiences I have had in practicing martial arts. Internal arts feel completely different to external arts - and no amount of training in an external art will make it feel internal - based on my experience. I could do Karate for a billion years and it would never feel like Taiji.

In my experience, boxers punch from the shoulder whilst Taiji practitioners punch from the sine [in fajing]. I do a boxing cardio class on Wed nights, and the instructor, who is a boxer, gets freaked out about the way I punch - lots of power from a very short distance. I refuse to puch like a boxer, i.e. lots of distance from the shoulder, but he is ok with that.

A friend of mine showed me some Wing Chun punches ... they were external.

To the Erle-chuan practitioners out there, as someone called it: has anyone come across any other Taiji/Bagua like Erles? I teach the Montaigue system, but would really like to find other people with similar ideas/practices ... I would welcome this, but it has never happened. I will keep looking.

[alienlovechild]

Also, tell me what your fav. monty videos are. I have just watched push-hands corrections 6 and 7, and they are really good. I have all the obvious ones: Lu-chan, Bagua circle and linear to Max [all to max], what are the silk reeling ones like, and the Bagua animals?

[cloudz]

I don't study in earles system, but I do practice Old yang style from another source. I've seen a video of earle doing the form and it is basically the same. In the form I practice however a few of the moves have been changed slightly or are performed a little differently.

The reason for some of the changes was that apparantly the person who brought this style/form with him from china to to the west was practicing in a restrictive space on the boat he travelled on, and he modified it accordingly.

I recently attended a WTBA workshop on the short staff form, applications and 2 man chi sau, it was a good learning day and I enjoyed it. But I did have 1 gripe and that is form was not performed full on at the end as is customary apparantly. The instructors reason was that he was going to China on the Monday ( this was Saturday ) to train and wanted to reserve his energy.
Personally I thought this was a bit off as there were about 16 people there who had all paid £50, this was my first exposure to this form and seeing it done properly I dont think is too much to expect. Surely someone of his level could replenish his energy with a bit of chi gung or something , or a hot bath, decent meal and a good nights sleep :confused:

[alienlovechild]

Hi Geo,
Wow, can you tell me more about your school? Where are you, do you have a web site etc?

[cloudz]

www.zenkyoshin.com

The school is a little unusual in it teaches both japanese arts and chinese.
there is taiji quan Yang style (old/new), aiki-jutsu, Kenjutsu/iaijutsu (japanese sword), boxing and kickboxing. The kickboxing is taken by ex full contact champion Alan Fox. The school has a history of chinese/japanese influence which continues today - the history link on the site has some info.

Taijiquan: there is chi gung taught, push hands, however the focus is more on the form in its martial context and applications. Also the Yang straight sword may also be learnt.

regards
geo

[cloudz]

Incidently, one of my classmates realised that he had gone to school with one of the top WTBA instructors in London. He got in touch and had a private lesson with him, the instructor was a little surprised and dubious at first, but after seeing my classmates form he confirmed it was old yang style.

Wherabouts are you alienlovechild, I'm in the North London area, if you aren't too far it would be good to get together and compare notes. There is quite a lot in the WTBA syllabus that we don't have which does interest me. I have often considered that in the future I may well attend classes
- or just by lots of dvd's :D
Theres just not the time to do all I'd like too - and do it well :bang:


geo

[moononthewater]

A bit late into this chat but here is my own thoughts. I spent about 20 years in karate the last 8 of those in Go Ju. I got in to Tai Chi in the middle of that to start with i could not get my head round Tai Chi and thought it a waste of time it was not till i started doing more pushing hands that i started to get in to it a lot more. I was then taught a fast form and i got more interested at which point i stopped doing the karate and just did the Tai Chi it was then that it started to fall into place much more. I found it difficult to do both and even now i would not call my Tai Chi pure (even though i have my own classes) as i have too many other influences but i will say the attention to detail has made me understand my karate alot better. I am now in a place where i feel i am getting the Tai Chi principles more natural but there is still that karate part of me dying to burst out and some times does. I think you probably can mix the two as long as you except each will have an effect on the other art and certainly the Tai Chi can be hard work to get right at times.

[alienlovechild]

Thanks for that geo, I will definitely look at the web-site. Sounds like an excellent school - all those arts would go together nicely. Unfortunately, I am in Australia, though if I ever go to the UK I will look your school up.

Cheers

[alienlovechild]

Hi again geo,
Can you tell me, where does your old yang form come from? Do you know the lineage it came through? As I understand it, the guy who taught Erle, Chang Yui Chun, taught several other people, though I don't know who, so I would be interested to know if it came from him. In any case it would have to come through Yang Shou Hou, who only ever took a few students. I believe there was another well known student of Yang Shao Hou's called Chen Pan Ling, or something like that. This art has such an obscure history, I would love to know more. Have you ever read any of Douglas Wile's history of Taiji books? They are perhaps the best [most scholarly].

Cheers

[Stone]

Hi,

I haven't been to this forum for a while, hence the late reply.
While reading this thread, an interesting fact came up.

Syd, you stated in one of his response that:
Erle does not recommend mixing Internal arts with External and infact suggests Bagua as the only other art that fits well with Taiji. Erle does not consider things like Wing Chun as internal and infact nor does he see Chen Style as Taiji either. This is controversial as usual but he see's Chen style as a Northern long fist. I would agree with his analysis, and decided only to train in Taiji.
This is very interest.
Could you provide more information about Erle's view of Chen style as a Northern long fist?
Any information is greatly appreciated

Thansk :)

[daftyman]

....
Syd, you stated in one of his response that:
...and infact nor does he see Chen Style as Taiji either. This is controversial as usual but he see's Chen style as a Northern long fist. I would agree with his analysis, and decided only to train in Taiji.

This is very interest.
Could you provide more information about Erle's view of Chen style as a Northern long fist?
Any information is greatly appreciated

Thansk :)

This is related to but not an answer to the above question.

There is another Taiji teacher, I'll call him a master but I feel that he wouldn't. This guy has been practicing and learning since the 50's in Taiwan.

His view was that Chen style is not taiji because it fails to separate weight properly.

Not that it was not an excellent martial art, but that it was not taiji.

His view may have changed since then, who knows.

Now I am not saying that this is my view, indeed the Chen family system is the root of the Yang style, although they have followed fairly divergent paths since then.

I am somewhat wary when people 'attack' other styles. It could be just politicking on their part. We all do it, doesn't make it true though.