Discussion in 'General Martial Arts Discussion' started by Mr. Tickles, Dec 22, 2021.
Cobra Kai doesn't want you!
It's an old CMA saying.
上场如老虎，下场如绵羊 play like a tiger and end like a sheep.
To learn wrestling, you must first respect your parents and teachers, and love your children. You can’t rely on your ability to wrestle and bully the weak, provoke right and wrong, and have to "play like a tiger and end like a sheep." It embodies the spirit of justice and fraternity.
Here is an example that one fights like a tiger.
Feh! that is so 2021
I present I think the nexr evolution in Martial arts courtesy of the guru himself, Jordan Peterson:
Edit: And I just read perhaps the most perfect comment in the youtube section:
"What do you do when the Dragon of Chaos attacks you? Of course, you drop your body weight and use a shoryuken. That's what the received wisdom would tell you, anyway. But then when you look closer you have to ask yourself, what's a shoryuken? And of course, it's a dragon punch. I mean technically, it's, that's not the direct translation, but really it's a simple answer to a complex question. Because then you have to factor all kinds of things. Who has frame advantage? How close are you to the edge of the stage? Suddenly, it's not so simple. Then you have to wonder, is the shoryuken a punch designed to slay a dragon, or is it a punch performed by someone imitating a dragon - and can we meaningfully make a distinction between the two?"
Multi level clickbait pseudo intellectual grifting,
Although this word salad is probably the only salad he'll tolerate in his presence, I wonder how benzos interact with the symptoms of scurvy?
I'm not even going to pretend to understand why this video was even made but the fact that it's on "Ramsey Doo Da's" page just made me find the time to sit and watch about half a dozen other videos.
Favorite comment: "I think I just unlearned how to fight in less than a minute".
Well played, Doo Da.
Haha so I just actually listened to it properly, nice deep fake audio, good marketing skills too to maximise Income via clicks,
Both things I would count as a negative for a serious coach however.
If you train Taiji, your Taiji teacher may tell you that if your opponent doesn't move, you won't move. But if you train Chinese wrestling, your Chinese wrestling teacher will tell you to attack, attack, and still attack.
In Chinese wrestling, people give credit to those who play offense and lose (such as you hip throw your opponent, your opponent pushes you down). People won't give credit for those who play defense and win. This is just the Chinese wrestling tradition. How good that you can counter a hip throw is not important. What important is how good that you can apply a hip throw.
Many Chinese wrestling teachers won't even teach defense skill during the first year. All Chinese wrestling teachers like to teach students who has aggressive attitude.
There is nothing wrong with the aggressive attitude as long as you just use it in "sport".
I would like to know if anyone's Tai Chi instructor has actually really taught them this?
YouKnowWho, did your instructor(a) teach you this? If you teach TCC, do you teach this?
Does anyone specifically know, first handed, of a particular instructor who teaches this? If so, who?
This is not what I have been taught. We are taught "listening" skills, but that is not the same thing as not moving until and after your opponent moves.
That seems, at best, a gross oversimplification of a Tai Chi principle, that ends up misrepresenting Tai Chi Fighting principles. But I am willing to hear someone tell me more about it if they have been taught this directly.
I would imagine that a school with this rule must just never have push hands or any combatives. Imagine! If both students don't move until the other does, and so neither moves, they will never do more than stare at each other!
It may be better to define your term "listening". If you throw a groin kick, your opponent drops arm to block it. Will you call this strategy "listening"?
You try to listen to your opponent's intention. If your opponent has no intention, what will you do? "Listening" is to wait for something to happen. In a fight, that fight may never start. In sport, both persons are avoiding fighting.
1. Your opponent applies force, you respond.
2. You apply force, your opponent responds, you than respond to his respond.
IMO, 1 < 2.
That's the general Taiji principle, If you don't move, I won't move. If you move, I try to move faster than you do. Most Taiji instructors that I knew , they all share the same attitude. This is why the old joke always say when 2 Taiji masters fight, whoever has full stomach will win.
In a fight, you can try to
1. wait for an opportunity (defensive attitude).
2. create an opportunity (offense attitude).
IMO, 1 < 2.
In the following clip, you drag your opponent and move in circle. While your opponent respond to your dragging, you respond to his respond. This principle is different from a pure listen.
No, no that would not be listening.
Well, actually I could expand the definition in a way where it might be, if I observed to how he was going to fight ahead of time, but in general.....no.
There was one year in a tournament where I was in another ring. I could see my future opponents in push hands play each other while they waited for me to join. I watched the match and I absolutely saw my opponents style of play, strengths and weaknesses. I pretty much knew I had the upper hand and would probably be able to beat them both before ever even touching them. And I was right.
Listening is more directly taught primarily as a sensing by touch to me. But now that I think about it, I could see an expanded definition of listening with all your senses. an expanded awareness.
The first part is listening. We are in agreement there. My objection will be posted later.
I disagree with your examples. Listening can also be listening to other things besides just force. If your opponent in class is also a good TCC practitioner, you might be having to respond to something other than force that you "hear." It might, for example be an ever so slight imbalance in their stance, say being weighted too far back.
Here is my objection. Fighting or sparring, in the case of TCC push hands matches, is more complex than that. You originally said
But there IS what you post here, and that is your #2. Part of the skill one develops is to create an opportunity. Just like any other martial art. You can try to set up your opponent. If you are now saying both are a part of TCC, we are in agreement.
The head of my schools, our Tai Sigung had a seminar a few years ago. He had a drill. You went up and just touched hands with your opponent in the starting push hands position. then you did the three circles that we do before we start our matches.
The drill was, to listen to your opponent both in the circles, and even in just walking up and touching. It was amazing what one could sense about your opponent in just doing that! One could develop a strategy in your upcoming match just from that touch.
But if your opponent is skilled, again, you will just sit there and stare at each other. This has happened to me in tournaments actually. If your opponent isn't giving you an aggressive move right away, you might need to "listen" to figure out a strategy to try to set up your opponent. Otherwise, you will both just stare at each other.
Now in self defense, this might be ok. But even then, if you can't run away, at some point, you might sense an opening to get out of the situation that means you have to make the first move. It isn't ideal, but if someone is a threat to you, you don't have to wait for the actual attack always.
The idea that one ONLY ever responds is part of why TCC gets the bad reputation it does IMO. And that was my objection.
Listening skills are important in TCC, but they are not the one and only skill. One has to have different philosophies that might be put to use in a sparring or fighting situation to make it an effective fighting art.
For he life of me, I can't figure out how to delete your video clip. I don't need it , as I have no response to it. Ah
I'm not stepping in the TC semantics discussion here but I did want to make sure I am reading your posts right, only because sometimes people use math wrong when discussing non math things.
I should read that as "2 is better than 1", or "1 is less than 2", right?
Sometimes people mix these inequality symbols up.
"If opponent doesn't move I don't,if he moves I move 1st" is from one of the Li or Yang "Classic" writings.
It's a strategy,not an absolute. Cheng-fu or his uncle wrote if you're bigger and have more power just grab him and hit him. Which demonstrates that the above classic line is just A strategy/tactic,not the only way one has to proceed.
But many take it as gospel that it's the only approach. That's a rather limiting approach to combat as Mr. W. points out.
And yes,many instructors teach this as a written in stone approach. Just read a lot of TC books and you'll see this espoused quite often. Often by people who haven't been hit enough.
I have to admit that what little I learnt in TCC I was told "If the opponent doesn't move, I don't move. If they move I am already moving" as a doctrine of sorts. However I have read that this also relates to reading am opponents 'intent', rather than just sensitivity training, so allows the possibility of physically pre-empting an attack. Not sure how this is trained in TCC. Taijiquan was also frustrating for me anyways!
That's correct. 1 < 2 means 2 is better than 1.
The reason that I put up this clip is to show A drags B in circle. When B responds to A, A then takes advantage on B. I also use another example, A groin kicks B. B drops arm to block it. A then takes advantage on B.
Both examples require "give before take"" which is different from your definition of "listening - wait and take". The difference is "give" vs. "wait".
Yeah,there is NOTHING in the classic writing that says this only pertains to physical contact "listening". It's "reading" in general,a blatant non-contacted example is simply pre-empting the dude when he telegraphs-not exactly something TC has a patent on.
It's trained the way it is for anyone,boxer,Karateka,MT guy,etc.Experience and awareness.
I know, I just had nothing to respond to with it, so I was going to delete it from my response. I try to keep my responses as to the point as possible.
I don't know that much of TCC, and I haven't heard of this saying beore, but I wouldn't take it literally. It sounds to me more like a self defence rule, not one for turnaments. Like I won't beat my oponent first - meaning I won't be the aggressor in a confrontation. And also as Taiji uses the oponents force against them, you'd theoretically have an advantage if they do something first so you can move them off balance. Obviously, when sparring or in a tournament, it wouldn't be so.
As I said, I haven't heard this before, but to me it pretty much sounds like a similar saying I've been taught in karate: "There is no first strike in karate." Meaning, karate is a self-defence art, so you never start with an attack. So none of our kata starts with an attack. Always a block first. Obviously, this isn't meant for training or tournaments.
Tourney,challenge match,real fight/self defense.
All the same.Intercepting,counterpunching,etc are all skills.Like everything else in life some folks are better at them than others. So while these things are an ideal-in many systems- if you know you're gonna get hit upside the head it may be more pragmatic to hit the other guy's head first. Especially in a real situation where consequences of one's approach/tactics/strategy may be much worse than a tourney or challenge.
Even top 10 boxers get hit by people below their level.It's silly-and potentially painful-to apply such an ideal tactic/strategy to every situation.
"No first strike in Karate" doesn't rule out acting before an imminent attack is launched. At least according to Funakoshi's successors. See C.W.Nicol's book "Moving Zen". (An excellent read of a fellow's study at the Shotokan Hombu circa 1960. Esp good for those interested in "character development"
side of training).
Yep, that's true. Pre-emptive strikes are a skill to be trained, too, definitely.
As for the "No first strike in Karate", I do see it as a rule more about not being an aggressor. Or perhaps when a martial artist is attacked by someone who's not strong/skilled/motivated enough to be a thread to them, the solution isn't to immediately knock them to kingdom come just because they can, but perhaps try to resolve it peacefully. And definitely not go physical in verbal altercation. Situations where one is in real danger are another thing, of course. Strike first if you can, I agree.
Hmm, thanks for the tip!
Separate names with a comma.