Authentic Tai chi?

That about covers it for me, however.....Two things...

As much as I did not like it I did once see a yoga school that was also teacher Taijiquan for Health that also had push hands...but they called it a two person free flowing qi practice for centering and health or something like that... it was a dance

Also there are martial applications to Ba Duan Gin (8 pieces of Brocade) but to find anyone that knows any of it is incredibly rare.

 

Now you are just playing semantics. You didn't use the exact term "bunch of idiots." So?

I'm not twisting your words and I haven't taken offense to anything you've said. You simply do not understand what I've written and frankly I am getting tired of repeating myself.

How am I being to sensitive about this? Have I called you any names? No. Have I lost my temper? No.

I simply disagree with you and that it's, so don't try make this out to be some sort of temper tantrum flame war. People are going to disagree you sometimes and it's nothing personal, that's just apart of life.

If it makes you feel any better, I am not interested in discussing this anymore and derailing the thread further and cede the discussion to you as seem so intent on "winning" it.

 

That's fine, I have no interest arguing semantics with you either. At this point though I have no idea what disagreement you really actually have with any of this. I fancy it's just in your head anyway. the internet can give off perceptions that are not that accurate sometimes.

It's very simplistic, either a teacher or class is martially focused or not - or they may offer both. If you can articulate what your disagreement is in simple terms without attacking me or scolding me like a naughty child because you don't like my language then please go ahead.

What practical solutions do you have to the problem(s) you perceive. I'm more than happy to discuss the subject matter. That's not going to happen if all you do is focus and reply about the language I use, is it.

If a class or teacher only offer nothing martial, I wouldn't expect there to be many there that think they are learning to fight or can use it that way. Of the few that do or will be like that - I don't have much sympathy for beyond acting politely, explaining my basic disagreement and offering the opportunity to find out. All of this in a friendly manner.

Beyond this, what else do you think is expected from others practicing TCC ?

 

No, firstly it is not TCC. There is no chuan in it.

So let's start my naming our two "products". On one hand we have The real, original, authentic TCC. Notice the "C" on the end. It denotes that it is a boxing art.

On the other hand we simply have TC, or tai chi, or tai chi for health, tai ji gong - or whatever we choose really.

Absolutely correct, we agree 100% on this. In that it is not chuan. However to say it is not real tai chi is a little off. If you learn just forms from people like BKF and CXW - and many do - and that's it (taiji for health), you are learning real tai chi form.

If the form is passed on correctly the difference will not be significant, even negligible in terms of "health benefits". The consumer will be happy. No one expects going to boxercise will make them as fit as a boxer.

Again this is something of a strawman argument anyway. Why do you assume "lack of proper allignment". You talk about it like it is rocket science. Why can't someone learning for health learn proper alignment ?

Assumptions and little more.

The martial side as in the application would help with intent, mind-set. But in terms of movement that can be emphasised with instruction and imagery. Turn more here, stretch more here. As long as the program or teaching comes from a decent authentic source and is looked after quality control wise. the end product can still be very good.

In terms of health benefits, the practitioner can also play their part in making it more challenging if needed. Or there could be levels of difficulty built in to the syllabus/ program.

It may bot be 100% equal, but I think a good teacher can get someone quite close. It just would be lacking martial focus. I don't accept that you can't have a good tai chi teacher who only teaches for health. They have to be judged differently, because it's not the same thing they are aiming for.

Holding it to the same standard is absolutely not necessary.

There's nothing wrong with treating it like a moving qigong and neigong/weigong. that's what it really is. It is gong training at heart. You really learn fighting techniques with other people. It also works as a way to refine technique and movement, which originally would have been trained in single form by boxers. But the form was not ever put together as a means of teaching people fighting.

tai chi form can be as good if not better than yoga. In fact it's a very good comparison. I'm sure the quality of yoga varies too, so what. this is true of all products and services ultimately.

Our opinions may differ, but reality doesn't. the fact is whether you agree with it or not there is another product out there being consumed. As practitioners of martial tc (tcc) we should strive for a good standard in both as well as recognising that they are not one and the same anymore, though they can and should be practiced together; for a FULL range of benefits. Not everyone wants that from tai chi, and that's where we find ourselves.

Martial practitioners should be more focused on making their stuff work and meeting standards set in other TMA and combat sports. TCC has a way to go, because the truth is overall even the people who are supposed to be martial are mostly of poor standards.

Regards the health tai chi, I think in the end if people are getting what they want, and have access to good information and resources, can make a good choice etc. (like the BKF example) Then I don't see a problem, so why make one?

Why make this any different than the difference between boxing and boxercise ?

People have the responsibility to research and find the best product for their needs, whatever it may entail. Tai chi/ tai chi chuan is no different.

 

I've only quoted this bit of your post because this is the bit that directly relates to the point under discussion, as far as I can see.

The key point here is the first word: "if". The concept that we keep stressing is that if the teacher doesn't understand the applications of the form then they are unlikely to pass it on correctly. If all they know are movements, then all they can pass on are movements, and with the best will in the world, those movements will change.

It's a bit like 'Chinese whispers'. Everyone does the form slightly differently anyway, and even masters will do it slightly differently to how their master taught them. Provided that they understand the reasons behind the moves then the form will still be good, because it will adhere to the Taiji principles and every movement will have a proper purpose.

But without the proper understanding of the movements, they will gradually evolve into 'flowery hands'.

I hope that makes things a bit clearer. Explaining things isn't always my strongest suit, to be honest. It's easy to assume that what seems obvious to us should be obvious to everyone else!

 

So basically this is a discussion comparing tàijíquán and tàijí tiào wǔ..... no matter how you want to describe them.... they are not the same

One is a martial art and the other is a dance.... can both help you be healthy?
Yup.... but they are not the same and one is concerned about using the body in different ways than the other.

But then I don't much care what anyone does in Taiji just as long as they don't get upset when I tell them its a martial art, not making them train it that way and don't care if they do.... but the historical reality of it is that it is a martial art...not a dance

 

Think downward force and rooting. You would be hard pressed to find anyone who knows it with any applications these days outside of China and even there it would be difficult. There was some discussion a while back on another forum that part of what John Painter's Bagua is based on is the martial side of Ba Duan Jin. However I have no idea is that is the case or not

 

Just a note on something I read in this thread about using the terminology Taijiquan and Taiji to identify marital and non-martial Taijiquan.
太極拳 is what we call Taijiquan which means supreme ultimate fist (some say grand ultimate fist)

太極 is Taiji which by itself means source or beginning or this



Which really is not non-martial Taijiquan

And while I am on the subject there has been some speculation by historians in China that there was a qigong or daoyin or whatever they called it way back when that was Taiji Qigong that predates Taijiquan (which is much easier to predate than you might think). And it may have been that combines with whatever the Chen's were doing that gave us Taijiquan.

Now "Taijiquan" that term was brought into it by the Wu family, I don't remember if it was Wu Quanyou (1834–1902) or Wu Jianquan (1870–1942). Neither the Yang family or the Chen family called it Taijiquan until after the Wu family started calling it taijiquan. There is a story about Chen Fake(1887–1957) talking about an internal martial arts competition in Beijing and neither he nor his students were invited. One of his students was upset and asked him about it and his response was I care if it is internal or external I just know it is my families martial art. That is, by the way, pretty much where I am at with the entire internal vs. external debate

As for marital or health I really don't care but as for historically proven, at the moment all we got is Chen Wangting (1580–1660) and that is, so far, the historically excepted source and it was most definitely marital then.

 

Stillness and movement principles and stillness and movement quality both external and internal is what is the core of what is left to teach. Martial purpose or intent are not really needed to teach those aspects properly. If they are of a high standard what is gained can apply to more than just fighting. Mixed into this bodywork are the breath-work and meditational aspect.

We have to accept that forms appearance change whatever their purpose. If the purpose is changed to non martial the shapes and movement may change in appearance to be less martial looking and more abstract, but if the correct principles, qualities and instructions remain to adhere to certain internal and external requirements of movement and stillness it should be fit for purposes and retain decent quality in terms of being essentially a movement discipline.

There is an "if" involved, that's normal. It is possible to pick a lesser yoga instructor as I it is to pick a lesser tai chi teacher, dance teacher etc.

 

It can be called a dance, but really that term sells it a bit short in terms of accuracy, it should be thought of as a movement discipline with the emphasis on internal components.. I'm sure a dancer could find some benefit as could other movement related disciplines. Dance is more externally orientated, and we could do well to remember that dancers in general would put most CMA and IMA participants to shame regards health and fitness.

Dance has a performance connotation which for me is a non priority. I have no real problem with forms ultimately looking good, but that's not the real goal with this, where as for dance, performance would seem to be the main point. You could just as well call all CMA forms a dance if you like, they certainly are not fighting, even if the practitioner trains fighting.

Some great benefits that tai chi form gives is postural strength, body connection/ integrity and greater mindfullnes/ proprioception.

None of that need be lost if not training martial training components (drills, techniques, sparring).

Of course modern reality doesn't change the historical one, and there's nothing to say that historical one cannot be preserved or strengthened. It can better be strengthened in my opinion if more clarity were shown and more martial arts were emphasised; separately to taiji gong training. The reality is most martial schools still focus much more on forms than gearing things to combat performance.

 

I find this kind of an odd posting really.. The term "taiji" was originally a reference to a philosophical concept, yes. And yes that is the symbol that is a representation of that philosophical concept.

Neither of those things *is* non martial taiji. Neither of those things *is* martial taiji.

It is widely accepted that the martial art in question is rooted in the separating and balancing the use of complimentary forces; yin and yang. At whatever point it took that name, this emphasis on yin and yang is what most likely made the name a good or fair fit. You can say that the concepts are used to organize the component parts of the system.

All well and good so far.

When you then say regards the symbol "Which really is not non-martial Taijiquan".

I'm sorry, but I find it a really strange thing to say and simply wrong. Philosophically there is yin and yang in everything, and the symbol represents that. There is yin and yang classification and usage throughout the movement dynamics of the form.

If anything talking about fighting or martial as "yang" and forms practice as "yin" is quite a modern classification or thought process.

Of course you are practicing yin and yang in form practice, to say otherwise shows a lack of understanding of what is being discussed. You can practice yin and yang just standing still. They are after all concepts that conceptually are ever present in everybody and everything beyond the philosophical state of wuji.

Further if we look at the fighting drills, techniques etc. we also find breakdown of both yin and yang classifications. The wider lense modern articulation of yang and yin as martial and non martial practices respectively is understandable if not arbitrary and not overly meaningful. It's quite acceptable though as yin/yang classifications go, but not at the expense of what lies deeper within the art.

 

Couple of thoughts regarding this thread;

'Flowery" forms are not necessarily devoid of martial application.
Historically intent was often hidden to avoid persecution by authorities,keeping the true
techniques secret ,confined to the 'familly'. There is evidence for this in the tai chi classics if you look ,where the reader is instructed not to make the intent obvious(can't quote it from memory ! ).

Regarding the piece of brocade suggested ,this also involves stimulating the kidneys with the back of the hands whist raising(but not grounding) the heels.
To interpret this with martial application is ignoring the obvious when viewed in terms of chinese medicine and seems to me a case of dogma over-riding common sense.
To say hardly anyone knows said martial application points to evidence against rather than for (imho)

 

Not going to argue this you have your belief and I am not going to try and change it, even tough I do not agree with it. Yes all CMA has forms but all of those forms have applications. The only place you get CMA forms without applications is modern wushu. The big difference between Taijiquan and taijiquan for health only it Yi, and yes I have trained both. You wish to believe otherwise that is fine and I wish you all the best

 

I don't understand the confusion. You said Taijiquan was martial and taiji was non-martial and linguistically speaking that is just plain wrong. I was simply explain the Chinese language on the topic. I never said taiji was marital I said it was taiji. Taijiquan is the martial art and taiji is not. If you do not understand that then I suggest you do a bit more study on the topic. As far as Yin ad Yang it applies to multiple things Chinese including the martial arts..... but it is still taiji and not any of those things and yet it is part of all of those things

 

Surely Taijiquan is Taijiquan, whether it is practiced martially or not?

What I mean by this;
Taijiquan is great, in that it's body methods are quite well documented, as is the syllabus for learning the entire system.

'health taijiquan' and 'martial taijiquan' are still BOTH taijiquan (there's your Yin & Yang, right there.)

The issue seems to be; "can someone learning Taijiquan for health, gain proficiency in the martial skill" - well, the same question can be applied to any martial art, but I'll use Karate as an example;

You go to a local 'family' Karate dojo - you'll learn your kihon, your kata and your kumite - you'll be active for a couple of hours a week, and will reap the benefits of that activity.
Will this necessarily mean that you will be able to fight effectively? Certainly not!

Another example; You want to learn to swim, you go to the local swimming pool, there'll be a swimming instructor there, who will teach you the basic strokes, and you'll be able to do a few lengths of the pool easily enough.

You then decide you want to enter swimming competitions? You go to advanced swimming classes, where the training is geared towards competitive swimming.

You want to go to international competitions? You start going to an international-level instructor, who can take you to the next level.

Is uncle Bob doing a couple of lengths of the local pool "not swimming" because he is not at the level of an Olympic swimmer? No - he's just getting something different out of swimming.

Taijiquan is the same - you want to try taijiquan, you naturally go to a local class, where you'll likely do a bit of form, some qigong, and maybe some tuishou.

You decide you like taijiquan, but want to learn a bit more - you find a teacher (or go to an 'intermediate' or 'advanced' class with your first teacher) and start learning more about applications, you might learn some two-man form, and do some more free-style pushing hands.

You want to start competing in tuishou or sanshou competitions, you go to a class where the teacher has a record of producing competitors in those fields.

It's all Taijiquan - just different horses for different courses. Should we look down on those who are practicing for different reasons?

The only issue I can see, is if someone has only learned for health, but is trying to teach the martial applications without any experience - that's a matter of false advertising.

 

Aaaaannndddddd....thread won!

 

I hope this is not too off-topic, but how do you find partners for Pushing Hands? Many TaiChi-clubs do not teach Pushing Hands at all or only very restricted versions - and so are the members. I regard these clubs still as a valid resource for learning/improving hand and weapon forms. Anyway, any advice on how to find Pushing Hands partners in the UK?

 

Many PH informal and formal tourneys around the UK these days. There is a PH meet up more or less every sunday somewhere in London - I think organised by Barry McGinlay.

If Taichi class does not offer PH - leave and go elsewhere - you are wasting your time without PH.

Better still look, for clubs with PH and applications - my first class had both of these, nearly 7 years ago.

Some folk get a bit overly obsessed with PH, but it is a central skill to a lot of other TaiChi aspects.