Tai chi classes are limited and everywhere wastes time on developing chi, unbendable arm and the like. I don't want to tell the teacher how to do his job but I also don't want a full third of a short-as-it-is lesson ****ed away on bunkum. Is it massively disrespectful to bring this up with a teacher, or is there a way I can do so without being That Guy?
Do something else. Tai Chi is an 'internal' martial art, which means that there will be a lot of this stuff thrown at you.
If you want to do an "Internal" art you should look for Yiquan, which is a simplified internal art that is more concerned with developing fighting ability and competition(push hands) than spending hours repulsing the monkey etc... It's incredibly rare to find a place that really teaches Tai Chi as a martial art. Otherwise as Holyhead suggested, look elsewhere.
Sounds like you are in the wrong class for your needs. Find somewhere better suited to what you want out of martial arts training. From what you describe, no don't go up and tell the teacher to teach differently. You would indeed be "that guy" if you did so.
Qi is everywhere and it annoys me ALSO. Like the Shaolin Bandwagon, (which I fell into decades ago) I am growing weary of all the hype and superficial pseudoscience. A good coach in athleticism, or personal accredited trainer, including a boxing coach, have a good understanding of the body and how proper breathing, knowledge of muscles, diet, and exercise, maintain proper health. You don't need "internal" martial arts to accomplish this
I'll be frank. You're going to be hard pressed finding anyone whose going to teach Tai Chi for combat applications. I've looked. After several months I found one seminar in london earlier this year, and it helped make sense of some of the forms and movements that many of the hippy chi-knock-out preachers give no information on, or the applications of what they are doing. A lot of tai chi is aimed at the elderly. I tried interacting with a tai chi group who were doing a weaponry seminar on sword and fan, and the pseudo-science was a crock. 'you dont use your muscle movements to open the fan, you use your qi' then proceeds to flick fan open with the wrist and argues it different because they were sending chi signals and what have you. I know that the baji association in the UK has some taiji seminars and classes that work on the combat applications, and I found the time I spent at their seminar this summer was very helpful in opening my views up about taiji's combat applications. If you get a chance to train with them Id say go. Seminar was reasonbaly priced and came away with some new things to play around with.
The more martial you want your TaiJiQuan to be, the more disappointed you will be with the vast, vast majority of TaiJiQuan classes. There are very martial TaiJiQuan classes around, but they are far and few between, dwarfed by the Bio-pixie fairy tale plasma Qi toothpaste Cheese Puff folk - it is just the way it is unfortunately.
I know several tie chi practitioners who will happily knock your teeth out with their fists - not with their chi. As discussed on other threads - some do find the idea of chi helpful, as when used correctly it provides valuable insight into the practicalities of fighting. Some teachers do the triptic of sing-e, bagwa, and tie chie. These sort may be more likely to teach more down to earth tie chie as apposed to away with the faeries.
No kidding, I've got a rep for asking way too many questions about the who what and where on this forum and only turned up one seminar on the combat applications of taiji. I know some ex-tai chi guys who do other internal arts like xingyi and bagua as well on a combat application basis in addition but a lot of exposure I have to tai chi is from the cuckoo landers who what no touch knock outs and/or enlightenment
So they are not using Qi, but Quan :evil: Seems like they train in other methods without relying on Qi I haven't seen these. Please explain Please explain
Dan Docherty has quite a few of instructors round the UK, and he teaches in London. Where about in the UK are you, I might be able to help you find good people if you are still interested. I've know of that Baji / Tai chi teacher, looks decent. But there are some people around you just need to know where to look. Of course there is always the matter of how convenient it might be. But 100% good martial TCC is not common and most classes are something different.
Grow up. Anything worthwhile to say about it is lost on trolls and people with an attitude like yours. I just think some people aren't smart enough to separate or know the wheat from the chaff when it comes to this subject. Late Master Feng Zhi Qiang explains a little about qi; “Qi is a kind of driving force (Dong Li). For example blood circulation can be explained with the term “Qi”. Internal styles say: “exercise Intention (Yi), not Qi”, “when you use Intention, your channels will not be blocked”, “exercise Qi, not physical strength (Li); when you exercise physical strength, it will easily break”; “Intention should be focused on Spirit (Shen), not Qi; when it is focused on Qi, then Qi will become stagnant”.” Does the following research support that there is something happening that is called "qi" by CMA practitioners past and present? http://med.stanford.edu/news/all-news/2008/05/tai-chi-master-studied-for-power-to-control-body.html
It would help your cause if there were others in the class who felt as you do. I don't think it would be "massively disrespectful" to say you would like to focus on the other things he teaches you. Just say you find those really helpful and could we spend more class time on them please, but don't say anything that might not go down well, like you think those other things are a waste of time. Don't even bring up the things you don't like, just focus on saying you really like the other aspects and get a lot from them and can we do more please - he should get the hint.. If it doesn't change, then you have a decision to make. In your situation, is it a deal breaker or not?
The attitude is that of skepticism. A desire to not be ready to believe in something without scientific evidence. What really boggles the mnid, is that people following/support certain religions are like gullible-naïve people who follow/support Chi. It comes down to the ideals of faith. If relating Chi to blood circulation, I can somewhat* grasp that concept. Same as relating it to breathing, same as relating to exercise and health. I would like to keeping a open mind for conversation, as for Intention and Spirit, you may have to elaborate further "Pro-Chi-ers" always find links or information to "support" their ideas on Chi and tend to call others who do not support Chi, by calling them trolls, un-education, etc. Her are some links: http://skepdic.com/chi.html http://skepdic.com/chikung.html http://scienceblogs.com/neurotopia/2007/10/01/martial-idiocy/ https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/oriental-medicine-a-tall-tale-of-outdated-lore/ http://skepdic.com/placebo.html http://skepdic.com/yellowbamboo.html https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/nc/ https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/acupuncture-infiltrates-the-new-england-journal-of-medicine/ http://www.sciforums.com/threads/scientific-proof-that-chi-is-fake.105129/ http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=9871 http://www.csicop.org/si/show/china...ing_traditional_chinese_medicine_and_chi_theo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor http://people.howstuffworks.com/taoism-and-chi4.htm http://health.howstuffworks.com/human-body/parts/question552.htm http://www.martialartsplanet.com/forums/showthread.php?t=124693 http://www.martialartsplanet.com/forums/showthread.php?t=124235
I only read the first link you provided. It's as non-academic as anyone who claims "Qi" can make them fly or cure all diseases. The "citations" include one dead link and a paranormal investigator with no discernible credentials as a scientist, or what methodology was used during his investigations etc... It would be better if you could look at a wide body of academically sound work that has been peer reviewed, objectively look at the findings based on empirical evidence, then form an conclusions based on that evidence. Subjective, anecdotal evidence of dubious quality is what Qi proponents use. If someone was trying to debunk Qi but also employed subjective, anecdotal evidence of dubious quality... well they are as bad as each other. That first link doesn't prove anything except that George Dillman students can't do what they claim they could. That first link actually undermines your case IMO rather than forward it. I can't comment on the other links as I have not viewed them yet.
You only need be sceptical about one particular definition of it. Which is no different to me being sceptical about people claiming unknown energies in any way shape or form. This doesn't mean I am sceptical of all the other many descriptions of "energy". If you approach the wider subject, other than the minority claims, from a stance of scepticism you are just being ignorant of the wider subject matter as it pertains to CMA and all uses and implications of what are language and culture based. If we talked about "spirit", would you automatically think there is only the usage and meaning as it applies to the worlds largest religions? Well guess what. This is the real problem here and with you. People like you do not know how to separate one meaning and usage from another. You simply lump all meaning and usage of "qi" as some mystical unknown energy. Hence you need to start multiple threads looking for some definitive answers to what is essentially a metaphor with multiple applications. This is why your whole approach to the subject is based in scepticism. I don't need to approach it this way because the meaning and usage I and others recognise and find useful has nothing to do with unknowns. I save my scepticism for when it is really needed. In CMA the niche practices of "empty force" for example are known as Lin kong Jin. "Qi" as a descriptor is present in pretty much all CMA, but it is only a small minority that claim it is something they can shoot from their fingertips at you and make you hop around. This is another type of force which has it's own category and descriptive term (very specialist in fact) - "jin" is a common term describe applications or types of force. All of them can be said to involve "qi" - because it happens to be a major descriptor of processes in the Chinese paradigm/ model. So Yeah in the MA world I save my scepticism for those kind of people when I see those kind of clips. Whether that's TCC, Yiquan, Japanese MA or whatever else. Or sometimes if I hear people making claims that don't make sense to me who are basically invoking Jedi type "powers".. Trust me when I say I have had a few run ins with such people on another board. So I am definitely not the kind of person who is an apologist or believer in that kind of thing. There are plenty of uses and meanings of "qi" that make sense and are reasonable and understandable, so I focus on them instead. Can you maybe consider doing the same eh? You might even find yourself a little less confused. I'm not really the person to discuss things like TCM and acupuncture with you, but I will discuss the usage in CMA.
Bare in mind, the links I provided are not to support my opinions/ideas. Basically, I searched for as many oppposing as I could find. I am glad or welcome anyone who chooses to read, comment, or provide other links Richard
People like me? Hmmn, Because I question and do not readily accept things? Nope, I am not lumping things. In fact, I am trying to dissect it to get some understanding. So far there is a broad spectrum of understanding. The general consensus being that it isn't magical, but relates to common body functions. Sometimes it seems like another term to describe these functions So, please get off your offensive rebutal and please further elaborate on Spirit and Intention
