# Tai Chi as a combat art?



## Bob Hubbard

Many think of Tai Chi as Chinese stretching, or that exercize old folks do to keep their arturitis (missspelled on purpose) at bay.

At its roots however, lies a tested and efficient means of self defence sharing many of the same ideas at Aikido.

"Tai chis history is a mixed bag. While the modern era sees tai chi as a mostly soft, smooth form of exercise, its birth was anything but peaceful. Yang style tai chi founder, Yang Lu-Chan, went through incredible hardship, not only in his studies with the Chen family, but also during the full contact trial-and-error process of synthesizing his own system. Yang and his heirs fought many matches to prove the worthiness of the system they boldly named the "Supreme Ultimate Fist," eventually winning the favor of the Qing Dynasty royal court.
Many modern-day students and "instructors" are shocked to hear and see that tai chi is a full-fledged combat art. The kicks, punches, throws, and locks of the system are versatile weapons, especially when the applications of the form are understood properly. However, most modern practitioners see the motions as an exotic dance and fail to comprehend the combat value of each and every movement in the form."

"Most people nowadays practise Tai Chi Chuan for health, which is understandable because Tai Chi Chuan is an excellent system for health promotion. But unfortunately many Tai Chi Chuan practitioners, despite many years of training, do not get the type of radiant health Tai Chi Chuan is traditionally reputed to give. This is because if you want its best benefits, including its health aspect, you have to practise it the way it has been developed to be practised. Hence, you have to practise Tai Chi Chuan as a martial art, even if you are not interested in combat! The reason is actually simple: the typical health benefits for which Tai Chi Chuan is well known, such as balance, agility, vitality, calmness and mental freshness, are attained only if you train as a Tai Chi martial artist with emphasis on its internal aspects of energy and mind, and not as a Tai Chi dancer emphasizing merely external form. Tai Chi martial artists have to be fit and healthy first before they can consider self-defence; some Tai Chi dancers on the other hand cannot even run after a bus. "

These quotes are taken from the following 2 sites.  I think they answer alot of the questions, as well as explain the current problems with our perception of taichi.  As for me, I plan on having a short chat soon with my local sifu on his art. 

References:
http://cfw2.com/article.asp?content_id=3192
http://www.taichiunion.com/magazine/kit.html

Peace.
:asian:


----------



## MountainSage

Kaith,
I read an article that made the arguement that a person is limited in the time they can participate in a hard art, where as, in a soft art the time of participation is not limited.  I can see this in my chosen art of TKD.  My body won't take the abuse forever, so I'd recommend any of the chinese arts, they seem to promote active practice for many years.  In most hard arts it seems after a given age or rank active practice turns to more talk than show.  I've not seen many high ranked, older TKD MA that can go one on one with a younger and stronger person.  Thoughts and opinions.

Mountain Sage


----------



## arnisador

Even in Karate, they often say something like Sanchin when you're young, Tensho when you're old--switch to a softer and more internal form as you get older.


----------



## Larry

My taiji teacher when he was first teaching me back in 1972 said that learning taiji is a progression of five steps, and that the average person rarely got to step three, let alone step five.

He said taiji started out as

1) a system of exercise,

2) a form of dance,

3) a martial art,

4) a meditation,

and then finally

5) it became taijiquam.

I've used that explanation ever since.


----------



## MountainSage

Larry,
Great statement aboout Taiji.  It kind of mirrors TKD except the statement would go first: exercise, second: sport, third: martial art, fourth:finally get over the high, fancy kicks, fifth: become a true MA in body and mind.  Many don't get to the third level and fewer to fifth.  That quote probably can be altered to fit just about any MA and be correct.  I am a firm believer that the Chinese MA got a lot of thing right that other art missed.

Mountain Sage


----------



## CrushingFist

> _Originally posted by Kaith Rustaz _
> *Many think of Tai Chi as Chinese stretching, or that exercize old folks do to keep their arturitis (missspelled on purpose) at bay.
> 
> At its roots however, lies a tested and efficient means of self defence sharing many of the same ideas at Aikido.
> 
> "Tai chis history is a mixed bag. While the modern era sees tai chi as a mostly soft, smooth form of exercise, its birth was anything but peaceful. Yang style tai chi founder, Yang Lu-Chan, went through incredible hardship, not only in his studies with the Chen family, but also during the full contact trial-and-error process of synthesizing his own system. Yang and his heirs fought many matches to prove the worthiness of the system they boldly named the "Supreme Ultimate Fist," eventually winning the favor of the Qing Dynasty royal court.
> Many modern-day students and "instructors" are shocked to hear and see that tai chi is a full-fledged combat art. The kicks, punches, throws, and locks of the system are versatile weapons, especially when the applications of the form are understood properly. However, most modern practitioners see the motions as an exotic dance and fail to comprehend the combat value of each and every movement in the form."
> 
> "Most people nowadays practise Tai Chi Chuan for health, which is understandable because Tai Chi Chuan is an excellent system for health promotion. But unfortunately many Tai Chi Chuan practitioners, despite many years of training, do not get the type of radiant health Tai Chi Chuan is traditionally reputed to give. This is because if you want its best benefits, including its health aspect, you have to practise it the way it has been developed to be practised. Hence, you have to practise Tai Chi Chuan as a martial art, even if you are not interested in combat! The reason is actually simple: the typical health benefits for which Tai Chi Chuan is well known, such as balance, agility, vitality, calmness and mental freshness, are attained only if you train as a Tai Chi martial artist with emphasis on its internal aspects of energy and mind, and not as a Tai Chi dancer emphasizing merely external form. Tai Chi martial artists have to be fit and healthy first before they can consider self-defence; some Tai Chi dancers on the other hand cannot even run after a bus. "
> 
> These quotes are taken from the following 2 sites.  I think they answer alot of the questions, as well as explain the current problems with our perception of taichi.  As for me, I plan on having a short chat soon with my local sifu on his art.
> 
> References:
> http://cfw2.com/article.asp?content_id=3192
> http://www.taichiunion.com/magazine/kit.html
> 
> Peace.
> :asian: *


 I love your explanation... I hope I can find a taichi school someday with the martial art principle not the just health. yea i see so many sick(no offense intended) practicing taichi just thinking they are doing a disease excercise, not knowing while you practice the martial art is so rewarding it helps cure disease at the sametime, is not meant for health only is meant as a martial art, well something to what you said is what i want


----------



## progressivetactics

I agree. Excellent point.

At a much younger day, I was quite confused about the art. Having limited exposure to it know, I am extremely impressed by its functunality.

We are severly lacking in quality Tai Chi Chuan in South East Michigan.  
Any instructors......Here is your opportunity.


----------



## lhommedieu

> I hope I can find a taichi school someday



In NYC:

William CC Chen
C.K. Chu

Both are very good.

Best,

Steve Lamade


----------



## Bob Hubbard

I've got a video clip somewhere, of someone demonstrating the combat aspects in tai chi.

It was rather interesting.  First he would show you the slow 'dance' move, and then demonstrate with a partner.  It made the lightbulb go on, i f ya know what I mean.

I took a look at some of the TaiChi sword forms I have on the pc, and damned if they started looking 'real' after than.  The funky leg movement is a sweep, the waving hand a parry, the weird sword movement actually the midpoint in a block, parry and strike.

Sadly, I have too much 'fire' in me to focus on it like I would prefer.  But still, it was very enlightening.


----------



## Jill666

> _Originally posted by Kaith Rustaz _
> *I've got a video clip somewhere, of someone demonstrating the combat aspects in tai chi.
> 
> Sadly, I have too much 'fire' in me to focus on it like I would prefer.  But still, it was very enlightening.
> 
> *



My Kenpo instructor is teaching our BB class a Yang style Tai Chi form. He is doing just that- showing the martial applications of the motions and they sure as hell work (who put that dent in the wall over there?). 

Meanwhile, my Taijutsu instructor has shown a few Yin style meditation exercises. And yes, I'm having a great deal of diffilculty focusing. One day he turned off the lights, had a string of white lights along the ceiling, and put on some blues. As an old stonie, that did work- cooled me out. 

You might try that- hey, why not employ any means to get the novice to begin letting go of all the caffeine and worries, and let understanding come in time. 

Thoughts?


----------



## progressivetactics

I learned a pattern many years ago, i still practice, called the 8 gates of bagua.  IS this  a standard pattern in Tai Chi?  I was told by someone else that seen the form they learned it in Tai Chi, same version. I was taught through Aka Shai Kai Kempo, Soke-Clement Reidner.  I figured it was borrowed from maybe  BaguaZhang, but do the chinese have forms that are resemblent of one another like the Jap/oki systems do?


----------



## Kodanjaclay

Master Barker,

I have never seen it in Taijiquan. I will qualify that as saying there are also 4 major schools and I am only familiar with two of them. Each school, as you are aware, has probably a hundred variants.

So, short of it... hard to say.


----------



## East Winds

Each of the postures in Taijiquan has a martial application (or several martial applications). Each application also uses a specific energy. If the posture is correct, the martial applicatoin is correct, the energy is correct, the body is properly aligned, the energy can move = good health. You will get as much benefit from Line Dancing as you will from New Age Dance or Taicheese. You cannot say you pratice Taijiquan unless you are aware of and practice its martial applications.

Regards


----------



## progressivetactics

well, I am aware of what I am practicing, to the point I was instructed, and can see into it.  I can not see what other styles do or teach, there for I asked.


----------



## CrushingFist

i think it is true that some tai chi schools lack the martial tradition but i think you generalize too much there are 100 million plus people that do tai chi every day! Also, some teachers only show the martial material after a student has demonstrated that they are stable and aren't going to freak out if they get hit or go out and use the stuff they learn to bully people. 


 I think the lack of martial Tai Chi is partly due to the fact that the tai chi scene in the states came out of the 60's counter-culture which saw martial arts as violence rather then the control of violence and had little interest in fighting ("the pathologically peaceful" as Frank calls them).  The stuff that has come out more recently (70's & 80's) seems to have more of a martial flavor. 
    One last thing, lots of people that learn Tai Chi's martial stuff still can't fight for a lick but that is because fighting skill takes years to develop and unless there is a love  of martial arts most people aren't willing to do the work to really gain a high level of skill


----------



## East Winds

CrushingFist,

You are of course correct in what you say, although I think the decline in Taiji started before that. I think it started in 1956 with the Chinese Government itself introducing 24 step "Simplified" Taijiquan. Formulated by a committee and based on Traditional Yang style (although there were no Yang family members on the committee), 24 step was a "sanitised" version of Yang developed specifically for health promotion. Afterwards it was grabbed by the Wushu people who further sanitised it for competition purposes. None of these modern forms contains the essences of Traditional Yang Family Tajiquan. 

Very best wishes


----------



## CrushingFist

Has anyone heard of Yangjia Michuan Taijiquan?


----------



## Ken JP Stuczynski

> _Originally posted by East Winds _
> *Each of the postures in Taijiquan has a martial application (or several martial applications). Each application also uses a specific energy. If the posture is correct, the martial applicatoin is correct, the energy is correct, the body is properly aligned, the energy can move = good health. You will get as much benefit from Line Dancing as you will from New Age Dance or Taicheese. You cannot say you pratice Taijiquan unless you are aware of and practice its martial applications.
> 
> *



Be careful about understanding "postures."

My experience is that we think of postures as static "fight from this stance" crap.  Stances in Tai Chi are transitory placements of the feet while wieght is constantly shifting.  Combined with chi focused intentionally or naturally, the "postures" are unstoppable movements on the way to the next connected "posture."  

I think it's the same as the "linking" concept common in Pakua (Bagua).


----------



## progressivetactics

having limited experience in Tai Chi, it sounds right, as Bagua is circular and non-stopping. Fluidity is the staple of the art.


----------



## Kodanjaclay

The use of static postures in taijiquan is more akin to zhang zhuan than fighting. It is an internal practice designed to assist in the discovery of the microcosmic orbit.


----------



## Taiji fan

> My experience is that we think of postures as static "fight from this stance" crap. Stances in Tai Chi are transitory placements of the feet while wieght is constantly shifting. Combined with chi focused intentionally or naturally, the "postures" are unstoppable movements on the way to the next connected "posture."


 I have to in part disagree although I suspect, it is more on differences in definition and language.  In fact there is a 'fighting stance' in taijiquan from which the movemnts grow...the linking of movements as in form practice are a training aid for understanding the body requirements. Each 'posture' is made up of a series of frames, including an end frame which is the point where the energy is finished before the change to beginning a new frame and new energy.  The weight is not 'constantly shifting'.  Sometimes in an effort to improve their fluidity of form people run the movements into each other without understanding the end frame while others become fixated on the end frame, pausing over long at each one, although as long as the principal of 'one part moves, all parts move' this is preferable to not completing the posture/frame/movement/application....which ever term you use.


----------



## Ken JP Stuczynski

> _Originally posted by Taiji fan _
> *I have to in part disagree although I suspect, it is more on differences in definition and language.  In fact there is a 'fighting stance' in taijiquan from which the movemnts grow...the linking of movements as in form practice are a training aid for understanding the body requirements. Each 'posture' is made up of a series of frames, including an end frame which is the point where the energy is finished before the change to beginning a new frame and new energy.  The weight is not 'constantly shifting'.  Sometimes in an effort to improve their fluidity of form people run the movements into each other without understanding the end frame while others become fixated on the end frame, pausing over long at each one, although as long as the principal of 'one part moves, all parts move' this is preferable to not completing the posture/frame/movement/application....which ever term you use.
> *



A reasonable understanding.  :asian:

The "frames" things is a good way to explain it, but if you are a beginner and don't already really practice, it will give you the false impression that it is a step-by-step process instead of a continuum of motion.  Then again, that's how beginners learn it.

And blending the movements in a set is EXACTLY like you would use them -- it's not a training aid.

"Constantly" shifting may seem like hyperbole, but I really don't think it's inaccuracte.  If the movements flow into one another, you are starting the next movement while endling the last.  This does not "cut off" the end of the movement, but prevents hyper-extention, over-extension, and loss of chi in the process.

Your body should be breathing in and out at the same time at that point.  Chi is not a pendulum.  Look at the "TaiChi" symbol and it should be obvious.  That's the way the movements should be.  

Does this make sense?


----------



## Taiji fan

> The "frames" things is a good way to explain it, but if you are a beginner and don't already really practice, it will give you the false impression that it is a step-by-step process instead of a continuum of motion. Then again, that's how beginners learn it.


 taijiquan is a step by step process, moeving through the  5 levels of training it is important to realise the specific requirments for each frame and that a single 'posture' has a valid use in application without the necessity to go from move to move. In any combat art the basic rule is to dispatch your opponent as quickly as possible.  In taijiquan it is no different, in the basis of yield-redirect there is a need to make a finish point, and that when your opponant is uprooted, lying in a heap or what ever.  The training in taijiquan form gives you the ability to train the body to remain connected while applying a technique or a series of techniques but is not the only method of usage.  When you think about it taijiquan is an art for minimalists, the idea is not to waste a ton of energy.  

Interesting discussing this with you...just out of interest what style do you practice, would be interesting to understand your background and see where you are coming from etc

:asian:


----------



## Larry

> We are severly lacking in quality Tai Chi Chuan in South East Michigan.



My student Sang Wu Kim teaches regularly in Ann Arbor, and very strongly works with the martial art and push hands elements of the form with any student willing to put in the time and the effort. My teacher Gabriel Chin is not really teaching anymore, as he's 83 and the incredible health he's enjoyed all these years has finally started to wane with age.

Sang's basic curriculum includes:

Gabriel Tai-ji Curriculum
1. First Level:
a)108 Form slow
b) Chi-Gung

2. Second Level:
a)108 Form Application (approx. 38 different moves)
b) 4 Type twei-shou
 Dan twei-shou
 Lien bu twei shou
 Phan Jang twei shou
 Riao Jang Tui twei shou
c) Basic twei shou
ting bu
lien bu
3 step lien bu(grasp palms)

3. Third Level:
a) 108 Form Fast
b) 8 Type twei shou
 Lu twei shou
 On-nyu-bu twei shou
 Lien-bu Lu twei shou
 Chuen Jang twei shou
 Pi-Shou twei shou
 China twei shou
 Left Side
 Liked
c) ba gwa step training (go bai jang: cover up palm)
d) Ba-Gwa Circle Stepping twei shou

4. Fourth Level:
a) Shan-Shou Form
b) Ba-Gwa
c) dang show

5. Fifth Level:
a) Shan-shou free hand
b) full out

(I haven't the foggiest idea how Sang came up with these spellings, but you get the idea).

PM or email me if you want Sang's contact information.


----------



## East Winds

Ken JP Stuczynski,

Not sure where you got the idea that I was talking about "Static" postures in Taijiquan.:idunno: I do use "static" postures when I practise Zhan Zhuang though. Taijifan has it absolutely right about the end frame concept. There has to be an end frame or else you have not completeed the posture, nor would you be able to issue Fa Jin. The flowing non stop movement blurring each posture into the next belongs only to Taicheese and New Age crap.:shrug: 

Best wishes


----------



## Ken JP Stuczynski

> _Originally posted by Taiji fan _
> *Interesting discussing this with you...just out of interest what style do you practice, would be interesting to understand your background and see where you are coming from etc
> 
> :asian: *



I currently represent the 8 Tigers Academy of Tai Chi & Cki Kung.
http://www.buffalotaichi.com/8tigers/ourstyle.htm
Yes, it's a little bit "Tai Cheese", but we do our best in a region where there are few (more)qualified teachers.


----------



## Taiji fan

thanks for the info.....I haven't trained in Wu style so am not really up on their methods of practice.  I come from a school of traditional Yang so all my comments/answers etc come from my understanding developed in this style..:asian:


----------



## Ken JP Stuczynski

> _Originally posted by East Winds _
> *The flowing non stop movement blurring each posture into the next belongs only to Taicheese and New Age crap.:shrug:
> 
> Best wishes *



Maybe this is just different teaching methodology, but part is a difference in approach between schools.  

Our approach:  I'm not talking about blurring, but blending into reversal.  If you "end-frame" your technique (which may not mean what you are saying, but what I think you are saying), you have to compensate for a counter or miss if it happens.  If you are already in motion (reversal) if/when it occurs, you are already doing that, and your opponent is most likely doomed on the comeback.

I don't think that's New-Ageish.  I am careful in my studies to be open minded for what is non-traditional and useful, but always return to the older teeachings for consistency.  Then again, I lack serious traditional training, so it may be an empty spot I filled in with an idea that makes sense.

:asian: 

As for this one point about being in motion, it's just my experience, including applications of push-hands.  And it's also personal preference, as I don't use Tai Chi as boxing.  I keep people in my space -- under my control -- which means ideally I don't want to push you away, but down, in a way I gain a locking position.


----------



## Ken JP Stuczynski

> _Originally posted by Taiji fan _
> *thanks for the info.....I haven't trained in Wu style so am not really up on their methods of practice.  I come from a school of traditional Yang so all my comments/answers etc come from my understanding developed in this style..:asian: *



Actually, knowing Wu would not help you understand what we do ... we are not a tradtional school, and so the training methods were lost from that styles to ours forever ago (sadly).

We preserve movements, applications, and theory, but we have no official, set training methodology.  Before you slap us in the face for this, please understand that none of us do this for a living out here, and our exposure to the public is limited almost exclusive to demonstrations and community education courses (4-8 weeks, once per week).  

We simply don't have the resources or "clientele" to do any better.  

In fact, I often direct people who take my courses to OHTER schools who have more regular (and often traditional) classes & training.


----------



## Ken JP Stuczynski

> _Originally posted by Larry _
> *... he's 83 and the incredible health he's enjoyed all these years has finally started to wane with age.
> *



That's not very old for a tai chi master.  That seems about the average (or below) for internal art masters in China.  Too much American food, maybe?  Did he start late in life?


{No offense intended by any of this ... just an observation} :asian:


----------



## Larry

> Too much American food, maybe? Did he start late in life?



No, actually he started learning taiji in 1936 at the age of 16. Back then as he put it, taiji was very much looked down on by your average Chinese youth, who gave taiji the derisive nickname of "old men fishing" (as in "grabbing at the water trying to catch fish") Gabriel and his brother Peter were the youngest students of his teacher Liu, who had learned his taiji directly under Yang Ben Hou. Virtually all of the other taiji students were in their upper 50's and above.

Gabriel's  physical problems started off when he was in the Kuomintang throughout WWII and later during the Long March. He caught TB on the Long March and carried it around with him until the KMT made it to Taiwan, where he ended up eventually having a lobectomy in the military hospital there. After that he'd be in vigorous health except for the fact that every 6-8 years or so he'd come down with pneumonia for a week or so.

As I said,  in between pneumonias his taiji kept him incredibly strong and healthy. I remember when he was in his mid-50's and a group of us students were helping him move out of his house and into a house across the street, he wanted to take a refrigerator from the basement. Two of us students took the top while Gabriel took the bottom. Carrying the refrigerator up the stairs, Gabriel was on the bottom and practically pushing us up the stairs, showing virtually no strain at all (and the bottom of the fridge was of course where the motor was and everything). Into his 60's he was still doing one-legged "pistol" squats all the way down and up.

He made his living as a gourmet Chinese chef, having learnt how to cook from his mother. He knew well over 300 Mandarin recipes by heart and would cook everything from scratch, going into peoples' houses and making up these 12 course Chinese meals for anywhere from 8 to over 100 people. For one Thanksgiving meal he'd made for us students, he served a variety of "beef", "chicken" and "fish" dishes, all made from the same 20 pound turkey-- but the spicing he did made the dishes actually taste like beef, chicken and fish with the appropriate textures.

But I guess in the long run the medical effects of the war finally caught up with  him regardless of everything else.

He ended up doing a lot better than his brother Peter, who Gabriel describes as actually having learned taiji to a far greater degree of mastery than he did (Peter, according to Gabriel, could for example jump off a diving board and while up in the air kick his lower forehead with both feet--totally straight legs-- before going for the dive). Peter ended up staying in the People's Republic after the war. During the Cultural Revolution in 1966, he was arrested and made to pull a one-man plow in the fields for the next three years. After that experience according to Gabriel, Peter was "broken" and had lost all his taiji. I saw Peter once in the mid-1980's when he was once allowed to come visit Gabriel in Ann Arbor. He was extremely nice, but frail by that time.


----------



## Randy Strausbaugh

The notion of continuous motion vs. stoppage tends to differ from instructor to instructor, not to mention style to style.  While the classics refer to T'ai Chi as flowing endlessly like a river, there is also reference to the notion that if one part moves, all parts move and if one part stops, all parts stop (implying that stopping is a valid action in the practice).  Some instructors (my own among them) take the position that both approaches are useful in overall training.  While continuous motion throuout the form tends to comply with the notion implied in the T'ai Chi symbol, the occasional practice of holding position in various places in the form can be useful for helping the student to develop frame and root.  Just as the practice of doing the form at a rapid rate can give insight into T'ai Chi (assuming the student is ready for it - obviously not for beginners), these different methods of form execution will not only give the student variety in practice, they can help to enhance the student's understanding of the "orthodox" methods as well.

As for combat applications, my Kenpo background sometimes allows me to see applications which my instructor didn't notice.  Unfortunately, when I show him them, he tends to look at me like I might be some kind of bloodthirsty psycho.  Come to think of it, so did my Kenpo instructor. Hmm.:shrug:


----------



## Larry

If you take a pen and write out a wave motion (kind of like penmenship practice where you're writing the small letter "u" over and over again), you'll find at the top of the wave there is a perfectly natural "stop" as the line reaches its apogee and then changes direction to drop down to make another bowl. 

As you make this wave motion continuously there is also a natural stop to it.

This is the motion inherent in the style of taiji that I learned. The natural stop moment is usually where the qi is discharged in the form, while the continuous motion is either transitioning away from the discharge or building up charge for the next discharge. Very much like the pushing off and then gliding that is natural when you ice skate, or the natural rhythm that occurs when a couple dances the waltz.

When I was more active in practicing shin shin toitsu aikido in years past, I noticed an accentuated form of this rhythm was used by Koichi Tohei and many of his higher black belts. In the seminars I attended put on by Tohei, he would actually skip through the various aikido moves in actual application. John Ely of the Chicago Kinokenukai would be literally skipping in actual application also.

But this rhythmic motion seems to be the opposite of the way some of the other styles of taiji tend to move. For example, from my opservation the Cheng Man-Ching school tends to move, not in a continuous "u" rhythm, but in a steady and continuous "m" motion in their stepping. This makes a different dynamic overall. Not better, not worse, just different.


----------



## progressivetactics

> If you take a pen and write out a wave motion (kind of like penmenship practice where you're writing the small letter "u" over and over again), you'll find at the top of the wave there is a perfectly natural "stop" as the line reaches its apogee and then changes direction to drop down to make another bowl.



I don't think I could ever be good at Combat Tai Chi....I am terrible at my penmenship


----------



## RobP

In the Yang lineage I trained in the emphasis was on large frame movements / forms initially eventually leading to small frame / fast movements. There was also an emphasis on "finishing" each posture as other posters have said.

However, while we did plenty of application work I still wouldn't feel comfortable calling it a "combat" system. Too many things were left unaddressed for that. General self defence maybe.


----------



## Taiji fan

> Too many things were left unaddressed for that. General self defence maybe.


 I agree that taijiquan has some benefit in general self defence but I would be interested to hear an expansion on this...what kind of things were left 'unadressed'.


----------



## RobP

Off the top of my head - no ground work, no work against knives or other weapons, no dealing with multiple attackers, lack of general "fight psychology" etc .

Like I said - plenty of application work, push hands and the like. Maybe that is down to what the art is designed for though, or what it became good at - one to one challenges against a fellow martial artist?


----------



## Larry

RobP and I are basically in the same camp--even though we've never physically met. For me the taiji I was taught had a lot of "holes" in it. As Rob said, no ground work, no work against multiple opponents (although that was implied), no work on rolls (although again that was implied). As far as my teacher was concerned, there was much that was touched upon and implied, but much that was also left out. Ny teacher admitted he had a hard time at first showing some of the "real stuff" to a round eye--even though I was his senior student. And some of the other stuff my teacher decided he didn't want to show anybody, because he'd decided it was too dangerous to show and he decided to go to his grave with much unrevealed.

Taiji is full of principles--called "jings" or energies--but these principles weren't emphasized as a point of origin for teaching. I was taught technique after technique and application after application. The basic idea was "if your oppenent does this, then you do that" with the assumption that your mind is going to operate almost like an encyclopedia with lightning speed to recover the proper technique for the quickly recognized strike or kick coming at you. Improvising techniques or chaining them one after the other were not explicitly taught. Application skill was assumed to come only after tremendous practice in tuishou and two man form.

Now don't get me wrong. I still consider taiji extremely valuable and practice the form almost daily or twice daily after 31 years of experience. And taiji is no different than aikido which in my experience has many of the same "holes" in its teaching components--particularly the lack of any ground work beyond rolling. Taiji's emphasis on staying soft has been extrememly valuable, and as a result of regular taiji practice my joints at my age are actually healthier than they were when I was in my 20's--mainly because my legs are stronger and I continue to rotate my joints (and drink a lot of water).

But it's not really a full "combat" art unless the person supplements it with some other discipline. A self-defense art? Oh yes, particularly against an attacker who doesn't know anything, or only knows something like karate.

Was it always this way? I don't think so. I believe taiji originally might have been a combat art, but lost its edge due to the way Chinese urban society works. Much of taiji now is based on the idea of meeting a solitary challenger and then symbolically "defeating" him in a round of push hands. That's my opinion why taiji has developed such an attraction towards a "pure" uproot. It puts both feet off the ground in a visible way so a third party can declare the uprooter the "victor" in a challenge without any injury to the uprooted. But uprooting an attacker on the street isn't likely to do much if the attacker is serious about wanting to hurt or kill you.

Can taiji be "modernized" or otherwise modified to turn it into a combat art? Most definately. And it wouldn't be that hard to do.

But the classical training in taiji leaves a lot to be desired, and suffers from the scholasticism of the Chinese academics who took to explaining it almost from the start.


----------



## Ken JP Stuczynski

When I teach my "passive self-defense" course ("Tai Chi for Self-Defense), I supplement the hell out of it with Chin-na.

Perfect Combo, IMO


----------



## Randy Strausbaugh

You'll find that most Chinese styles tend to be deficient in groundwork.  While the Monkey and Ditang styles both have extensive rolling techniques, what I've seen of them appears to emphasize rolling back up to your feet.  Even Shuai Chiao lacks groundwork.  The only Chinese style I've heard of which emphasizes groundwork is the Dog style.  In one of Robert Smith's books, an instructor tells him that the only way to fight a Dog stylist is to stand back and throw things at him.  This probably is changing (at least in the US) since groundfighting has come into fashion.

Trying to avoid life's potholes,
Randy Strausbaugh


----------



## Shadow Hunter

> _Originally posted by Larry _
> *Was it always this way? I don't think so. I believe taiji originally might have been a combat art, but lost its edge due to the way Chinese urban society works. Much of taiji now is based on the idea of meeting a solitary challenger and then symbolically "defeating" him in a round of push hands. *



That has been my opinion of Chinese arts in general. Through the ages, the most popular instructors/ styles have been ones who can defeat a challenger in a match. The arts that specialize in getting into a ring and beating somone else into road kill are the ones that have done the best. Surpise attacks, weapons, multiple attackers and the like just are not part of the program.

But at the same time, I have learned a lot from Chinese arts, and Taiji in particular. I think that if someone comes into a DECENT CLASS with some experience behind him in more combat oriented arts, he will benifit a lot. The problems are A) there are so many idiots who do not know what they are doing when they teach tiaji- let alone the comabt applications and B) many arts have principles that run counter to what you do in taiji. So you have to throw everything away to start learning the art properly. Sometimes you just can not do that. The habits are too well ingrained.


----------



## Ken JP Stuczynski

> _Originally posted by MountainSage _
> *Kaith,
> I read an article that made the arguement that a person is limited in the time they can participate in a hard art, where as, in a soft art the time of participation is not limited.  I can see this in my chosen art of TKD.  My body won't take the abuse forever, so I'd recommend any of the chinese arts, they seem to promote active practice for many years.  In most hard arts it seems after a given age or rank active practice turns to more talk than show.  I've not seen many high ranked, older TKD MA that can go one on one with a younger and stronger person.  Thoughts and opinions.
> 
> Mountain Sage *



Your name suits you.  I always find deformed, broken TKD people switching to Tai Chi.


----------



## Ken JP Stuczynski

> _Originally posted by progressivetactics _
> *I learned a pattern many years ago, i still practice, called the 8 gates of bagua.  IS this  a standard pattern in Tai Chi?  I was told by someone else that seen the form they learned it in Tai Chi, same version. I was taught through Aka Shai Kai Kempo, Soke-Clement Reidner.  I figured it was borrowed from maybe  BaguaZhang, but do the chinese have forms that are resemblent of one another like the Jap/oki systems do? *



I would estimate it's a crossover.  Did you study in the 8 Step Praying Mantis school?  They probably do this.


----------



## 7starmantis

The problem with the idea of switching to a softer style when your old is that Tai Chi takes so many years to learn that you don't have much time to master it if you wait until your old to start.



> _Originally posted by Randy Strausbaugh _
> *You'll find that most Chinese styles tend to be deficient in groundwork.  While the Monkey and Ditang styles both have extensive rolling techniques, what I've seen of them appears to emphasize rolling back up to your feet.  Even Shuai Chiao lacks groundwork.  The only Chinese style I've heard of which emphasizes groundwork is the Dog style.  In one of Robert Smith's books, an instructor tells him that the only way to fight a Dog stylist is to stand back and throw things at him.  This probably is changing (at least in the US) since groundfighting has come into fashion.
> 
> Trying to avoid life's potholes,
> Randy Strausbaugh *



This is a common misunderstanding of CMA in general. Many CMA are taught leaving out the groundwork, but that doesn't mean CMA are lacking in groundwork. The same principles of standing apply to ground fighting. I study 7 star preying mantis and we do extensive groundwork in our system.

7sm


----------



## Kodanjaclay

Could you tell me more about mantis? Feel free to email me at ktmskodanja@aol.com.

Thanks


----------



## 7starmantis

> _Originally posted by Kodanjaclay _
> *Could you tell me more about mantis? Feel free to email me at ktmskodanja@aol.com.
> 
> Thanks *


I sent you an email, feel free to email me back or come visit in the CMA section of Martialtalk, there are several of us mantis guys there.

7sm


----------



## Kodanjaclay

Thank you. Please feel free to have any other mantis people, particularly any near Thousand Oaks, CA, contact me.


----------



## Shadow Hunter

> _Originally posted by 7starmantis _
> *The problem with the idea of switching to a softer style when your old is that Tai Chi takes so many years to learn that you don't have much time to master it if you wait until your old to start.*



But there are certain arts that lend themselves well to being studied prior to Taiji. I was told when I first started that in China, you traditionally had to study a "hard" style while you were young before you eventually started training in Taiji. I had done some Chuan 'Fa before I started training and did pretty damn good. The same things my Chuan 'Fa teacher advised me about were the same as what my Taiji teacher pointed out.

Some arts lend themsleves well to training. Study jujutsu, silat, aikido or some other art like that and you will probably find that Taiji adds to the skills you already have and makes them more effective and subtle. Kyokushinkai, TKD, boxing, combatives and many arts that put great importance on competition are arts that have principles counter to that which you find in Taiji. Before you get good at Taiji you have to get rid of all the skills you have built up so far.

But if you study the right art, then you can make a smooth transition to Taiji and will probably be much better than the typical student who studies the watered down version you so so often now.


----------



## 7starmantis

> _Originally posted by Shadow Hunter _
> *But there are certain arts that lend themselves well to being studied prior to Taiji. I was told when I first started that in China, you traditionally had to study a "hard" style while you were young before you eventually started training in Taiji. I had done some Chuan 'Fa before I started training and did pretty damn good. The same things my Chuan 'Fa teacher advised me about were the same as what my Taiji teacher pointed out.
> *



I believe that it is really the inverse that is true. Taiji is in reality the basis of all Chinese MArtial Arts and in that most MA in general. That is why you see so much of the same principles, however, I think studying taiji will add to your other arts and not your other arts adding to your taiji. In Kung Fu our principles are very similar, but studying taiji as well I get a better understanding of them. Better then if I studied kung fu for several years then went to taiji.

Also, a "hard" system in CMA is not the same a what we think of a hard system today. Hung Gar was considered a hard system in China many years ago.

7sm


----------



## Ken JP Stuczynski

It's easy to transition from Chinese Arts, but Japanese ones have a very different body kenisiology.  A lot of habits to overcome.


----------



## Shadow Hunter

> _Originally posted by Ken JP Stuczynski _
> *It's easy to transition from Chinese Arts, but Japanese ones have a very different body kenisiology.  A lot of habits to overcome. *



I don't know about that. A lot of people classify Taiji along with Hsing-I and Bagua as internal arts and study them together. However, the fact that bagua turns the lead foot inwards really changes the kenisiology from taiji. Just that one little thing is like the tip of an iceburg with all the signifigent differences between the two arts.

Yet people have no problem studying both Bagua and Taiji at the same time since they are both internal arts and supposably compliment each other.

Of course, are we talking about Japanese arts such as karate, or Japanese arts such as jujutsu?


----------



## Ken JP Stuczynski

> _Originally posted by Shadow Hunter _
> *I don't know about that. A lot of people classify Taiji along with Hsing-I and Bagua as internal arts and study them together. However, the fact that bagua turns the lead foot inwards really changes the kenisiology from taiji. Just that one little thing is like the tip of an iceburg with all the signifigent differences between the two arts.
> 
> Yet people have no problem studying both Bagua and Taiji at the same time since they are both internal arts and supposably compliment each other.
> 
> Of course, are we talking about Japanese arts such as karate, or Japanese arts such as jujutsu? *



The main difference (a generality, I know) is that Japanese styles tend to center their gravity between their legs, even when there is a lead leg.  Chinese stances are more transitory, with weight shifting from one leg to the other more often, and with weight predominantly on one or the other.  Yes there are exception to both, but I think this is true in general.

Many movements found in Tai Chi & Bagua are also found in mainstream kung fu.  The most similar equivalents in Karate are more rigid and linear, especially the closer you get to mainland Japan.

As for jujitsu, I'm not sure ... don't they use kendo foorwork similar to karate?

There's lot of other points, too, such as pivoting, degree of limb extension, etc.. that can tell you if a style is more Chinese or Japanese.


----------



## Shadow Hunter

Yes there are diffeernces between Japanese styles and Chinese styles as well as between Idonsian arts and Chinese styles. But the differences between even some internal Chinese arts are pretty big and some arts from other countries may be actually closer.

I am not really qualified to talk much about Japanese styles, but look at the way a Ba gua practicioner moves compared to a Taiji player. To my eye, they are about as different as night and day. Springy steps with the knee turned in compared to very solid steps with the entire body energy going in the same direction as the bending of the knee.

Yet a person would not hesitate to study both of them. So why should an art like aikido that also uses the knee in the same way as taiji be a bad habit, while bagua is not considered a bad habit?


----------



## Taiji fan

> but look at the way a Ba gua practicioner moves compared to a Taiji player. To my eye, they are about as different as night and day.


 that is so true.... bagua also tends to separate upper and lower body, which is an essential part of creating power (keeping them united that is)  I studied Tang Soo Do for a while and to be honest I found huge similarlities to taiji, one or two postures may have been different but the basic principles were the same even if they wern't teaching it in the same way, the higher grades all moved very connected and this reflected in their power delivery, like taiji, very little muscular effort.


----------



## Ken JP Stuczynski

If there is a "right way" it is as in most Tai Chi I've seen -- your hips face the bent knee.  Otherwise you are twisting the knee and are losing efficiency in both muscular ability and chi flow.

Principles of arts can differ, but there IS a "wrong" way to move the body from a health perspective.  That's why some arts (and sports, and certain forms of dance) produce cripples if you do them long enough.


----------



## Taiji fan

> If there is a "right way" it is as in most Tai Chi I've seen -- your hips face the bent knee. Otherwise you are twisting the knee and are losing efficiency in both muscular ability and chi flow


 there are two postures in taiji...open body and closed body and these depend on which arm is leading. Eg in single whip, both arm and leg on the same side are leading so the postur is open....ie the hips are not squared forward, but actually open to te diagonal, hips and shoulders are still lined up with each other and in postures like this it is important that the front knee does not collapse inward, any weekeness in the kua will cause this.  In a closed body posture such as the end frame of brush and push...opposite arm and leg are leading so in this case the hips and shoulders are squared to the front.........this is from a traditional Yang persepective....


----------



## Ken JP Stuczynski

> _Originally posted by Taiji fan _
> *there are two postures in taiji...open body and closed body and these depend on which arm is leading. Eg in single whip, both arm and leg on the same side are leading so the postur is open....ie the hips are not squared forward, but actually open to te diagonal, hips and shoulders are still lined up with each other and in postures like this it is important that the front knee does not collapse inward, any weekeness in the kua will cause this.  In a closed body posture such as the end frame of brush and push...opposite arm and leg are leading so in this case the hips and shoulders are squared to the front.........this is from a traditional Yang persepective.... *



I was not aware closed and opened had anything to do with which side is leading.  Brush Knee and Ward Off are done on both sides, use either opposite or same side for hand/leg leading, and are both "open".

Single whip is closed, and the hips are not turned all the way, but only to the angle of the lead leg.

At least that's the way I've seen it in a few styles, and it makes the most sense to me.


----------



## Taiji fan

> I was not aware closed and opened had anything to do with which side is leading.


 fundamental biomechanics of Yang style.....



> Single whip is closed, and the hips are not turned all the way, but only to the angle of the lead leg.


 single whip is biomechnically correct when it is performed open.  Some style such as cheng man ching style close off, weakening the whole structure.

The end frame in brush knee is closed, the ward off is open...this way the body remains connected.  Remove the leading hand leg alignments and your scaffolding all goes to pot.  Its down to power through posture, if the structure is not correct, there is no taijiquan.  I have seen some pretty crappy taiji too  most of it come down to the person not understanding the body requirments, but then as I have also found out, not many people actually teach them..


----------



## East Winds

Ken,

Sorry. You have a basic mis-understanding of the mechanics and application of Single Whip. Single Whip is an open posture with energy being issued in two directions. If you close the hips, it is impossible to issue fa jing with the right hand. (Typical Taoist Tai Chi)

And yes, Tajifan is correct : open and closed postures depend on which hand is leading.  Same hand same leg leading - open posture. opposite hand opposite leg - closed posture. 

Regards

Alistair Sutherland


----------



## Ken JP Stuczynski

These are interesting and helpful observations ... it is entirely possible I was taught wrong, or never went into enough detail with my own (somewhat limited) training.


----------



## Taiji fan

> it is entirely possible I was taught wrong,


 well Ken, you certainly arn't alone there, my first taiji teacher was a total fraud...he looked good...smooth movements (now of course I see that he was just a dancer), everyone was impressed......could talk taiji till the cows came home, even managed to be not a bad martial artist, but as far as Yang taiji goes....he was way off the mark.....sadly his kind are all too common, trying to find a teacher who actually knew what they were doing has taken me a number of years.

:asian:


----------



## Ken JP Stuczynski

> _Originally posted by Taiji fan _
> *...trying to find a teacher who actually knew what they were doing has taken me a number of years.
> *



... that's why I never claim to be a master when I teach.  Yes, I actually teach, under the authority of a "modern" from of Tai Chi, whcih I try to make moretraditional through research and practice.  But I come right out and say "I've only been doing this about ten years, and my exprerience is mostly in kung fu -- I'm by no means a master".

That's why I only teach basic stuff to give people a taste, and then tell them to go to a real school.  In fact, if there were enough quality teachers around here, I would gladly step down and take a course myself!


----------



## East Winds

Ken,

Congratulations. That is a very altruistic attitude to take and a mind set that is sadly lacking in Taijiquan today. I have met teachers similar to Taijifan's experience (and I'm sorry to say the Taoist Tai Chi Society come into that category):erg: Your students will probably learn more from you, having come from a MA background than they ever will learn from "The Taoists". Keep looking for a teacher. One will eventually turn up. And believe me, you will KNOW when that happens.    It has taken me over 15 years to find "the real thing". The first time I met my current teacher (and yes, I teach as well), her very posture, attitude and bearing said it all!!  (Incidentally I also trained with Moy Lin Shin, but it took a few years to realise what a fraud he was).

Very best wishes

Alistair Sutherland


----------



## Ken JP Stuczynski

> _Originally posted by East Winds _
> *...(Incidentally I also trained with Moy Lin Shin, but it took a few years to realise what a fraud he was).... *



Is this Dr. Moy, founder of Taoist Tai Chi?????


BTW, thanks for not calling me a fraud, just because I teach the lower levels of something I have not mastered.  There are times people take offense to this and get nasty.  I beleive DISHONESTY is what makes a fraud, and I will never fall into that category if my life depends on it.


----------



## Taiji fan

> I beleive DISHONESTY is what makes a fraud, and I will never fall into that category if my life depends on it.


 you are absolutely right, and there is plenty of dishonesty in the taijiworld, tons of politics and totally unnecessary nastiness.  



> That's why I only teach basic stuff to give people a taste, and then tell them to go to a real school.


 your honesty is refreshing....:asian: 



> if there were enough quality teachers around here, I would gladly step down and take a course myself!


 :boing1: you and me both.......!


----------



## East Winds

Ken,

Its the first time I have heard him called Dr. Moy, but yes its the same guy. We were told that he had an impressive lineage, but no one from the Society would actually tell you what it was 

Don't worry about "mastering" Taiji. Very few people have!!!!! I find that that is the constant challenge of Taiji. There is always something else, just around the corner, if only we could get to the ****** corner:erg: 

Very best wishes

Alistair Sutherland


----------



## Taiji fan

taijiquan is basically an art for masochists...........:fart: :deadhorse


----------



## Ken JP Stuczynski

> _Originally posted by East Winds _
> *Ken,
> 
> Its the first time I have heard him called Dr. Moy, but yes its the same guy. We were told that he had an impressive lineage, but no one from the Society would actually tell you what it was ... *



I was told by one of his local school's teachers that he was a monk who fled the cultural revolution and took what notes and memories he could to "re-create" the Tai Chi he saw early in his life.  From what I understood, there was no lineage at all.


----------



## stickarts

I saw a gentleman do a beautiful demonstration of a tai chi form many years ago and i thought it pretty, but not very dangerous looking....UNTIL i then watched his demonstration of how to apply the applications! some pretty nasty stuff!!
i dabbled in the tai chi awhile and i particularly liked the push hands which was fun, and also seemed key in learning how to really use Tai chi to off balance the opponent.


----------



## East Winds

Ken,

There were so many myths and half truths about this guy that in the end it was difficult to separate fact from fiction. He came from Hong Kong and spoke Cantonese rather than Mandarine, so where that fitted into the fleeing the cultural revolution bit came in, I'm not sure. The form he "created" from memory of what he saw, is Traditional Yang 85 form move for move. He only changed the way that the postures are performed! You experienced some of the myths that Taoist Tai Chi Society Instructors and members continue to perpetuate without question.

Very Best wishes

Alistair Sutherland


----------



## brothershaw

In most martial arts you assume the teacher is proficient in the martial applications, and will teach you that as well. In tai chi so much other "stuff" has been attached to it, you cant make that assumption. So basically you have to ask up front if the teacher knows applications, and can he demonstrate his knowledge of them . If he doesn't know applications and thats what you are looking for then leave.If you ask politely and he gets upset, and he or one of his senior students  wont demonstrate knowledge of applications then leave.     
         Think about it, who has money and time to waste for years?
It takes years to get good at anything but look at the senior students, they are a good or bad reflection of the teacher.
          An honest teacher will let you know up front if they are just teaching it for relaxation or health benefits and there is nothing wrong with that, if thats what you are looking for.


----------



## East Winds

Brothershaw,

You are right on the money! I teach Taijiquan but I also teach Taiji classes for health. (i.e. 24 Step Simplified Form). However the only difference between the classes is that for health, we do not practice applications, push hands or Chin Na. Apart from that the postures must be the same in both classes. You can only understand end frame postures in terms of martial application. There is no magical, mystical, esoteric Chi phenomenon. Only good body mechanics and strong body structure! That way you can generate and use Jins both for martial and health purposes. It is not possible to talk Taiji unless you also talk martial.

Very best wishes

Alistair Sutherland


----------



## Taiji fan

There always seems to be a distinction that real taiji is about proficiency in martial applications and just teaching for health or relaxation means that you can get away with teaching at a low level of competence.  This is simply not true. Admittedly not everyone who trains in taijiquan is looking for fighting skills, but training for health is not a poor relation.  The applications must still be understood, at the very least in the end frames, and the body mechanics must be correct or.....no taiji...its a simple as that.  Too many people claim to be just teaching the health side, and many of them are still not actually teaching taiji at all, they are teaching dance or musical movement.  Equally I have seen a number of teachers in the UK who profess to be teaching martial taiji....and yes they are pretty good fighters...but they wouldn't know a taiji principle if they fell over it.  There is such a poor standard of taiji in general which is the real problem.  I would rather train with someone who was structurally correct and understood the essences than someone who could demonstrate an application as merely a technique without an understanding of the true mechanics.  Sadly when you are starting off you really don't know what you are getting......


----------



## Tomyum

In my investigation of Chinese martial arts, I've found that some forms cannot be directly applied and should be slightly modified with fighting/self-defense in mind.

As a muay thai practicioner for 2 years now, I have practiced contact sparring against boxers, thaiboxers, wing chun and karateka - I have noticed that the techniques practiced by these fighters were readily transferable in sparring as practiced in class.

I recently watched several video clips of a xing yi instructor show applications of pi quan. He and his partner assumed stances and his partner threw a lifeless kick into the air (not the instructor) followed by a punch that was locked at the elbow. His opposing arm was down and his chin was open. He could have easily disengaged to counter attack.

The partner then volunteered the locked punch position so that the instructor could perform the pi chuan forms 'cover' and strike. The partner then threw a kick followed by a punch. The kick was done briskly, but gave the instructor too much time to do a fancy block which dropped his hands and then set for the punch. If his partner threw the punch right after the kick as if sparring, he would have been clocked.

The instructor then showed ma (horse form?) applications against kicks. These were done allmost simultaneously as the attacker kicked and were done very effectively!

In another clip, the instructor demonstrated a pushing hands? technique where he hardly moved and sent the attacker flying 5 feet back. This was simply amazing! and it reminded me of Bruce Lee's 1 inch punch.

While I was impressed with the effective kick defense and demo of "body power", I could not help but notice the defenses against a punch were not realistic. The instructor had nice technique, but not much fight experience so it seemed, as no one will lock their punches in sparing or worse, an assault.


----------



## liangzhicheng

> The applications must still be understood, at the very least in the end frames, and the body mechanics must be correct or.....no taiji...its a simple as that.


Amen to that.  If you truly want Tai Chi, you need to understand and be able to produce the martial aspect.



> taijiquan is basically an art for masochists...........


Funny...I've often said the same thing.  In our class, we thank each other for being pushed off balance.  Plus, it's just fun to experience "flying" when someone correctly applies a technique 

Ken JP Stuczynski, I admire your attitude and honesty.

As far as good Tai Chi in Southeast Michigan...Wu Style has two academies in SE Michigan, one in Ann Arbor, and one in Royal Oak, and several classes offered in surrounding communities.

Judging Tai Chi's combat ability by forms is a tough thing to do (for a low level student like me, at least).  For one thing, the applications are often hidden.  From what I know, Chen shows more martial things, with explosive power.  However, in traditional Wu style, the form is performed at constant speed, which makes it harder to read.

My Sifu told me a story about her experience with judging skill.  When my Sifu was still a beginner, she was watching a tournament, and this one guy had an amazing, beautiful form.  She was very surprised when this guy did not get high marks.  Appearances can be deceiving.  I think that in order to see whether someone has skill through their forms, one must have good knowledge of Tai Chi or perhaps another internal art.  Therefore, to a novice/outsider, a Tai Cheee dancer and actual master might look similar.  

As far as Tai Chi lacking certain training methods, I think this depends on the teacher and the level of the students.  The teacher might not know how to train certain things, but it's also possible that the students aren't ready to train those things yet and would only hurt themselves if they did them.  What ground techniques does Wu style have?  I don't know, but then again, I'm still quite the beginner.  I have some experience with chin na, and Wu style has quite a bit of that.

While a Tai Chi practicitioner is supposed to be able to react to any type of situation, for most people, it is easier to react to a situation they have experienced in the past.  In practicing Tai Chi, one shouldn't be stiff and hard.  This brings a dilemna: how to gain experience against stiff and hard people when Tai Chi students shouldn't be stiff and hard?  I personally rely on the other person being hard and stiff, and am not going to be hard and stiff to provide my training partner with an example.  I think this is an area in which tournaments may help.  In tournaments, you are exposed to students of other Tai Chi schools who may or may not be practicing proper Tai Chi, giving one an opportunity to deal with stiff people.  Even this isn't a great solution, as push hands is not really combat.  Freestyle, I think, is the way to train combat.  Unfortunately, I'm not ready to train freestyle yet.  

IMHO it's important that people realize that Tai Chi is not composed of a set number of kicks/punches/throws/etc.  I've been told that Tai Chi was created as answer to all other styles, which is not possible if Tai Chi was a finite set.  Tai Chi is based on a set of principles.  As long as the movements are in accordance with those principles, one is performing Tai Chi.  From one comes two, from the two come the ten thousand.


----------



## arnisador

How many people here have used Tai Chi in self-defense?

Actually, I think I'll split this off as another thread--please answer there!


----------



## TonyL

I am a new to this web board and would like to share some information about a related style that got some of its roots from Tai Chi. 
Ki Chuan Do the John Perkins system of self-defense was greatly influenced by authentic temple trained Tai Chi Master Wayson Liao. John Perkins studied the teachings of Master Liao and applied the offensive and defensive aspects to his own system.


----------



## arnisador

Can you point us to a web page?


----------



## TonyL

> _Originally posted by arnisador _
> *Can you point us to a web page? *



www.attackproof.com


----------



## chinkoobake

> _Originally posted by arnisador _
> *How many people here have used Tai Chi in self-defense?
> 
> Actually, I think I'll split this off as another thread--please answer there! *



where?


----------



## arnisador

> _Originally posted by chinkoobake _
> *where? *



See:
http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=9720
http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=2275


----------



## KOROHO

Bob Hubbard said:
			
		

> Many think of Tai Chi as Chinese stretching, or that exercize old folks do to keep their arturitis (missspelled on purpose) at bay.
> 
> At its roots however, lies a tested and efficient means of self defence sharing many of the same ideas at Aikido.
> :asian:


 
Thank you.  I hope these guys (http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?p=564470&posted=1#post564470) see this.


----------



## oldyangtaijiquan

I also recommend Ki Chuan Do (Attack Proof) to learn how to use Taijiquan (principles) for fighting.
Anybody who practice Taijiquan (as a martial art / self-defense) must know how to use it.
Today only few systems/schools teach how to fight with TJQ and KCD is one of the best (simple and effective).


----------



## Xue Sheng

oldyangtaijiquan said:
			
		

> I also recommend Ki Chuan Do (Attack Proof) to learn how to use Taijiquan (principles) for fighting.
> Anybody who practice Taijiquan (as a martial art / self-defense) must know how to use it.
> Today only few systems/schools teach how to fight with TJQ and KCD is one of the best (simple and effective).


 
No offense, but Ki Chuan Do is not part of Tai Chi and not necessary if you want to know how to truly use Tai Chi, as it was meant to be used, as a martial art. However if you go the traditional route it will take awhile, but it will be true Tai Chi Martial Arts. 

Ki Chuan Do was something made up by an ex-police officer in the late 70s and it is not necessary to learn if you are learning complete tai chi. Martial arts is part of Tai Chi and Ki Chuan Do is not. And to be honest, there are no shortcuts.

I can also go learn Jujitsu and see Tai Chi applications too, as a matter of fact when I first started Tai Chi I came from Jujitsu and although I saw the applications I was using WAY to much force. I did not have an understanding of the internal at that time. And at times I still wonder if I truly understand it 15 years later.


----------



## oldyangtaijiquan

Xue Sheng - I agree only partially with you.
I agree that KCD is not necessary and also that it is no part of TJQ. There are very few that teach the TJQ in the traditional MARTIAL route!!! The greater part of people on this forum probably didn't (and will probably not) meet such master.
KCD uses (and teach to use) the same principles of TJQ for real self-defense situations. This is usualy not teached in TJQ schools. In KCD system are clearly shown how to use the principles of balance, coordination, looseness and sensitivity in fighting. KCD is mainly principles based system and is not limited with singular techniques.
Practice TJQ form (it the principles are not explained correctly) is like to have a weapon but not know how to use it (here I am not talking about martial applications of the singular postures). TJQ postures have a limited value if the principles behind them are not mastered.

If it was so simple as you said there will not be so many troubles to answer the question of this topic: "Tai Chi as a combat art?" The problem is that (the teaching of) TJQ lost its combative spirit (after the 1930). TJQ was created for combat and like that must be teached!


----------



## Xue Sheng

oldyangtaijiquan said:
			
		

> Xue Sheng - I agree only partially with you.
> I agree that KCD is not necessary and also that it is no part of TJQ. There are very few that teach the TJQ in the traditional MARTIAL route!!! The greater part of people on this forum probably didn't (and will probably not) meet such master.
> KCD uses (and teach to use) the same principles of TJQ for real self-defense situations. This is usualy not teached in TJQ schools. In KCD system are clearly shown how to use the principles of balance, coordination, looseness and sensitivity in fighting. KCD is mainly principles based system and is not limited with singular techniques.
> Practice TJQ form (it the principles are not explained correctly) is like to have a weapon but not know how to use it (here I am not talking about martial applications of the singular postures). TJQ postures have a limited value if the principles behind them are not mastered.
> 
> If it was so simple as you said there will not be so many troubles to answer the question of this topic: "Tai Chi as a combat art?" The problem is that (the teaching of) TJQ lost its combative spirit (after the 1930). TJQ was created for combat and like that must be teached!


 
First who said it was simple? 

I am saying it is much harder than what you are saying and that Ki Chuan Do is a shortcut that, although useful, is not teaching what Tai Chi as a Martial art is. I am saying that if you want to know Tai Chi as a Martial Art there are no shortcuts.

As too many teachers not teaching it as a martial art, no argument there. But I feel that since you used the date "1930" that you are limiting this to Yang Style. If you go to a Chen School you are more likely to still see the Martial Arts side being taught, although not as much as you use to , but much more than Yang. And if you are lucky enough to find a Zhaobao school it is very likely you will see the martial arts still taught.

However most do not want the MA in Taiji any longer and that is very upsetting to me. I tend to believe that Tai Chi as a martial art is dying and Yang style as a martial art is dead. 

There are many more people practicing Tai Chi for health than MA today and it is only getting worse. I have trained the MA side of Tai chi, it takes a long time but it is worth it. However I do not see many others doing that today. 

And I truly mean no offense here, but I feel things like Ki Chuan Do are only making it worse. It is in my opinion a shortcut that is under mining true Tai Chi. However it also may be the only thing that keeps some sort of MA in what Tai Chi is becoming. And so far I am not all to pleased with what Tai Chi is becoming. I also do not feel that Ki Chuan Do is part of Tai Chi, it is a Martial Art, just not Tai Chi. Anymore than JKD is Wing Chun or Hapkido is TDK.


----------



## pete

i am really getting tired of these excuses , saying that the martial art is no longer in tai chi, and nobody teaches it anymore, and so on and so forth.  

like anything else in life: (1) if it was easy, everyone would be a master, you may have to apply yourself to finding a quality teacher, (3) be patient and consistent in your practice, and (4) remember, you get what you pay for!

it may not be 'round the corner, it may be expensive, but they certainly exist in numbers where you should have a choice.  i know that has been my experience.

now get off your **** and do it~


----------



## oldyangtaijiquan

1) Xue Sheng - Again I can't agree with you ;-) Nothing wrong, just different opinions.
2) Ki Chuan Do is not a shortcut, but teach you more clearly how to fight (defend yoursef). KCD don't make it worse, contrary make it more clear how to fight with TJQ. KCD is based (also) on TJQ principles, and analogly can help understand how to fight with TJQ.
3) I didn't tell that the problem is with the Taijiquan, but I was talking about the teachers/people. In my opiniom the Yang style is even more martial than others TJQ styles (my opinion). Nothing dead here  Also TJQ is still alive, but people mindset is wrong.


----------



## pete

what exactly is ki chuan do? how is it more clearly to fight, yet not a shortcut? my experience with tai chi is there are no secrets, there are no shortcuts, there is only a method, a master, and a mindset.


----------



## Xue Sheng

oldyangtaijiquan said:
			
		

> 1) Xue Sheng - Again I can't agree with you ;-) Nothing wrong, just different opinions.
> 2) Ki Chuan Do is not a shortcut, but teach you more clearly how to fight (defend yoursef). KCD don't make it worse, contrary make it more clear how to fight with TJQ. KCD is based (also) on TJQ principles, and analogly can help understand how to fight with TJQ.
> 3) I didn't tell that the problem is with the Taijiquan, but I was talking about the teachers/people. In my opiniom the Yang style is even more martial than others TJQ styles (my opinion). Nothing dead here  Also TJQ is still alive, but people mindset is wrong.


 
I am sorry, but I had to go look this up to refresh my memory. I read about Ki Chuan Do many years ago, back when I was studying a bit of Chen style, before changing to Yang style (back when I was less annoyed about the state of Tai Chi. Should have stayed with Chen) All I could remember was that it was not tai chi and it was designed by an ex-cop in the late 70s. 

But this is how I feel about it now and how I felt about it then. 

Ki Chuan Do is a combination of; Tae Kwon Do, Hapkido, Kung Fu, Karate, Tai Chi with a dash of pit fighting. It is NOT tai Chi. I am not saying it is not effective, but it is not tai chi. It enhances Tai Chi in the same way the study of Hapkido, Wing Chun, MMA, or Jujitsu would and they are not tai chi either. Basically they use to much muscle, Tai chi uses little or no muscle by comparison. They can attack and train to attack. Tai Chi does not attack. 

Ki Chuan Do is as much Tai Chi as Judo, Jujitsu, Hapkido, Karate, Shaolin Kung fu, Wing Chun, Muay Thai, Brazilian Jujitsu or MMA are Tai Chi. Which is to say it is not tai Chi at all.

And we obviously have observed different Taiji schools and trained in different Taiji styles. 

I wish I were wrong and alone in my assessment but at least in my area I am not wrong and I am not alone in this thought in many areas of the planet. 

However I am willing to admit I do not know about all tai Chi schools everywhere.

Question did you learn or practice any Tai Chi martial arts such as forms applications, push hands and freestyle push hands or is all does all of that MA application come from Ki Chuan Do? If it comes from Ki Chuan Do it is most definitely not Tai Chi.

Ki Chuan Do is a viable and effective MA on its own, but it is not Tai Chi. 

Liu He Ba Fa is not tai Chi either, but yet it is supposedly a combination of Tai Chi, Xingyi and Bagua. But is not any of those it is Liu He Ba Fa.


----------



## Streetfigher2006

Hi I am John from the UK and I am 23 years old. I'm not trying to start a flame war but personally think Tai chi is a waste of time. Maybe good for meditation and health but that's it. If you want do soft martial arts try Jujutsu. It  is better alot than taichi and its soft. I went to a taichi class one time and there was no martial arts at all going on and lots of old people.


----------



## Bob Hubbard

That the problem, it's often taught in a watered down form as low impact stretching for seniors.

Find the right teacher though, and it's got some serious stuff.


----------



## Jade Tigress

Streetfigher2006 said:


> Hi I am John from the UK and I am 23 years old. I'm not trying to start a flame war but personally think Tai chi is a waste of time. Maybe good for meditation and health but that's it. If you want do soft martial arts try Jujutsu. It  is better alot than taichi and its soft. I went to a taichi class one time and there was no martial arts at all going on and lots of old people.



Tai Chi, when taught as a MARTIAL ART it is highly effective. And when the martial techniques are not taught it still provides excellent health benefits. Apparently the class you went to did not teach the martial aspects of the art. It may be practiced slowly, but it is used quickly. I think before you start making assumptions about arts you have little experience with, you should do some research first, or ask questions from more experienced practioners before assuming what it is and isn't. :asian:


----------



## Xue Sheng

Streetfigher2006 said:


> Hi I am John from the UK and I am 23 years old. I'm not trying to start a flame war but personally think Tai chi is a waste of time. Maybe good for meditation and health but that's it. If you want do soft martial arts try Jujutsu. It is better alot than taichi and its soft. I went to a taichi class one time and there was no martial arts at all going on and lots of old people.


 
I am not trying to start a flame war either but you either do not understand Tai Chi or you have never seen real Tai Chi trained or practiced.

Might I ask what you experience with Tai Chi is?
In fairness I will tell you I have about a year in Chen a Year in Wu and 12 years in Yang/Dong and I am returning to Chen

What styles have you seen?
Also in fairness I will tell you I have seen (live not on tape) Chen, Wu, Yang, Zhaobao, Cheng Manching and Dong. I have also seen Chen, Yang, Zhaobao and Cheng Manching in push hands and martial arts training.

And I will add that it is likely you have only seen Tai Chi light and it was Yang Style light as well. There are other styles, Chen, Zhaobao, Wu, Wu/Hao, Sun, Dong, Fu, and of course real Yang style, etc. 

And just to let you know the last International Sanshou match in Vietnam the bronze for men was taken by a Cheng Manching Tai Chi practitioner and the Silver for woman was taken by a Cheng Manching Tai Chi practitioner.

*EDIT:* And one more thing one of the most application and fighting centered teachers I have ever had the honor to meet and train with once was William CC Chen a Cheng Manching Style master, as far as I am concerned. And to finish I have also trained Japanese Jujitsu, TDK, and Xingyiquan and other styles but they were trained for such a short time I will not list them here.


----------



## charyuop

I think that what mislead people regarding Tai Chi is timing. If you go to a few classes of external martial arts you come out with the assumption of being a "God" LOL well some people do. Anyway, my point is that learning external martial art will give you almost an immediat fighting knowledge, while learning Tai Chi (either for health or for fighting) is rather a longer process.
I doubt you go to a Tai Chi class and the first day they show you something related to martial art, but I might be wrong.


----------



## Xue Sheng

charyuop said:


> I think that what mislead people regarding Tai Chi is timing. If you go to a few classes of external martial arts you come out with the assumption of being a "God" LOL well some people do. Anyway, my point is that learning external martial art will give you almost an immediat fighting knowledge, while learning Tai Chi (either for health or for fighting) is rather a longer process.
> I doubt you go to a Tai Chi class and the first day they show you something related to martial art, but I might be wrong.


 
Typically very true.

Also what many do not see nor do they have the patients or desire to get to is that there are Tai Chi fast sets. But you are never taught those in the beginning. And you usually do not get to push hands applications and form applications until you get the forms right which also takes awhile


----------



## charyuop

Oh I forgot, even tho you don't train Tai Chi as a Martial Art (unfortunately like me, for lacking of teacher that does it) the movements remain imprinted in you and come out naturally after a while. I have personally used Tai Chi twice without thinking about it, once jockingly and once save me from breaking few bones.
The first time a friend of mine who does Aikido was playing with me and did a combination of 2 punches with a final sweep (without hitting me), after that he went for a kick to my said and it came natural to me, instead of running like I would have done in the past, to step in and do what is called carry tiger to mountain sending my friend on his butt (after that I received a pay back tho ;P).
The second time I was at work. I was carrying with the help of a co-worker(which is the same of the story above)an empty pallet. I was walking backwards and him on the other side forward. The guy couldn't see his feet and tripped. Doing so pushed the pallet towards me. Out of nowhere came natural to me (and I was really surprised) to do a rollback havin the pallet falling on the side of me. I am sure if I didn't do that I would have fallen on my butt with the pallet on top of me and for sure some broken bone.


----------



## Xue Sheng

charyuop said:


> Oh I forgot, even tho you don't train Tai Chi as a Martial Art (unfortunately like me, for lacking of teacher that does it)


 
To whom are you referring to in reference to not training Tai Chi as a martial art?


----------



## Xue Sheng

Streetfigher2006 said:


> If you want do soft martial arts try Jujutsu.


 
Sorry, I just noticed this,

Jujitsu is soft!? It must have changed a lot from when I trained it 30 years ago then. I have my doubts about you having any real jujitsu experience as well.

And for someone claiming to not want to start a flame war you sure started with a few very inflammatory statements.


----------



## pete

Xue Sheng said:
			
		

> Jujitsu is soft!? It must have changed a lot from when I trained it 30 years ago then.


 
didn't they teach you the translation for the word _jujutsu_ 30 years ago, or maybe you just forgot and didn't bother to reaquaint before typing your like 10 gazillionth post.


----------



## East Winds

Streetfighter2006,

As you are based in London, visit one of Dan Docherty's classes and then come back and tell me that Taiji is for wimps!!!!!!!

Very best wishes


----------



## charyuop

I looked up the word Jujitsu on my huge Japanese dictionary and that's what it came out (of course I don't know the Kanji so I might have looked up the wrong  Hiragana):
jujitsu (saseru): enrich; complete, perfect; strenghten up; increase (shita): full, complete; enriched.


----------



## Nebuchadnezzar

Streetfigher2006 said:


> Hi I am John from the UK and I am 23 years old. I'm not trying to start a flame war but personally think Tai chi is a waste of time. Maybe good for meditation and health but that's it. If you want do soft martial arts try Jujutsu. It is better alot than taichi and its soft. I went to a taichi class one time and there was no martial arts at all going on and lots of old people.


 
Then you shouldn't be Trolling for one.  Do you follow me? :shock:


----------



## Xue Sheng

pete said:


> didn't they teach you the translation for the word jujutsu 30 years ago, or maybe you just forgot and didn't bother to reaquaint before typing your like 10 gazillionth post.


 
Sorry Pete I didn't realize I was offending you so. 

But are you talking about the definition or the spelling. 

And if it is the spelling 30 years ago it was spelled Jujitsu. And apparently it still is spelled that way, I had to check. As a matter of fact there are a few excepted spellings from the American point of view jujitsu, jujutsu, jiujitsu, jiujutsu. And technically it is all wrong because it is a Japanese word and I do not have the Kanji right now to post.

And the definition is as far as I know 

An art of weaponless self-defense developed in Japan that uses throws, holds, and blows and derives added power from the attacker's own weight and strength.

And if it is the word soft you are taking offense to as you did once before, I didn't even bring it into the conversation, nor was I referring to it as defined by internal and external styles of CMA. I was referring to the fact that it is getting kicked, punched ad thrown to the ground and I sure do not consider that soft.

As for the "10 gazillionth post" I first have no idea what a gazillion means maybe you can tell me what that means. And I have 2,322 posts including this one to be exact and suspect that is not close to a gazillion little alone 10 of them. 

Also I have noticed you tend to show up only when you have something negative or argumentative to say. So if it is an argument you are looking for I will not give you one. You want you want room 12A, just along the corridor.


----------



## pete

the only thang here that _grinds my gears_ (not offends mind you) is when those with nothing to say clutter the boards with senseless drivel, half truths, and ongoing banter that neophytes interested in the martial arts may read as fact.  colbert calls this _wiki-reality_.

me, i only show up when i got something to say and time to type it. mom taught me that god gave us 2 ears and only 1 mouth for a reason, but some seem to find the benefit of the electronic world being 2 eyes but 10 fingers.LOL.

finally, not looking for an argument.  as in the famous monty python skit, i came here for an argument but that was simply contradiction. no it wasn't. 

remember, rust never sleeps.


----------



## tshadowchaser

back to the subject of the forst post in thread please
I have enjoyed reading most of this thread because i always was told that Tai Chi was a combative martial art with softer more flowing movement that had health benifits rathere than being a hard brutal martial art. Having seen and felt th power behind some Tai chi moves I can say it may look soft but it sure can hurt when done fast and with intent


----------



## Xue Sheng

pete said:


> the only thang here that _grinds my gears_ (not offends mind you) is when those with nothing to say clutter the boards with senseless drivel, half truths, and ongoing banter that neophytes interested in the martial arts may read as fact. colbert calls this _wiki-reality_.
> 
> me, i only show up when i got something to say and time to type it. mom taught me that god gave us 2 ears and only 1 mouth for a reason, but some seem to find the benefit of the electronic world being 2 eyes but 10 fingers.LOL.
> 
> finally, not looking for an argument. as in the famous monty python skit, i came here for an argument but that was simply contradiction. no it wasn't.
> 
> remember, rust never sleeps.


 
Nice use of insults.

Have a nice day pete.

Sorry all, back to the post.


----------



## Jade Tigress

_Moderator Note._ 
Please keep the discussion at a mature, respectful level. Please review our sniping policy http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/sho...d.php?p=427486. Feel free to use the Ignore feature to ignore members whose posts you do not wish to read (it is at the bottom of each member's profile). Thank you.

Pamela Piszczek
-MT Moderator-


----------



## charyuop

LOL hey Jade this board needs some fixing...it is not fair that I can put on ignore list a Moderator


----------



## pete

charyuop said:
			
		

> LOL hey Jade this board needs some fixing...it is not fair that I can put on ignore list a Moderator


thats there by design LOL, so's ya can't nail 'em for hitting ya wif the anonymous neg-reps~ ttfn.


----------



## Rook

Xue Sheng said:


> Sorry, I just noticed this,
> 
> Jujitsu is soft!? It must have changed a lot from when I trained it 30 years ago then. I have my doubts about you having any real jujitsu experience as well.
> 
> And for someone claiming to not want to start a flame war you sure started with a few very inflammatory statements.


 
Actually, the very name for jujutsu means "soft art" or "gentle art" - this being from the definition of soft as "yielding."  Genuine JJ practitioners put a very high premium on yielding, evasion, and utilizing redirection of force.  By comparison with Tai Chi I would consider it harder.  By comparison with karate or the Japanese kenpo systems, its comparitively soft.


----------



## Rook

Streetfigher2006 said:


> Hi I am John from the UK and I am 23 years old. I'm not trying to start a flame war but personally think Tai chi is a waste of time. Maybe good for meditation and health but that's it. If you want do soft martial arts try Jujutsu. It is better alot than taichi and its soft. I went to a taichi class one time and there was no martial arts at all going on and lots of old people.


 
It should be pointed out that, as several of the posters have mentioned and discussed at length already, that genuine Tai Chi as a martial art is much rarer than the Tai Chi as a means to seperate old folks from their wallets.


----------



## SFC JeffJ

Rook said:


> Actually, the very name for jujutsu means "soft art" or "gentle art" - this being from the definition of soft as "yielding."  Genuine JJ practitioners put a very high premium on yielding, evasion, and utilizing redirection of force.  By comparison with Tai Chi I would consider it harder.  By comparison with karate or the Japanese kenpo systems, its comparitively soft.


A better translation of "ju" would be resilient.  Least that's what I've heard from native speakers.

Jeff


----------



## pete

as rook says, jujitsu is soft, as compared with hard karate styles.. yet, is external because of its use of segmented power and reliance on muscular force.  tai chi is a balance of soft and hard, and while utilizing some similar strategies rook mentioned (yielding, redirection,), it is internal because of (among other things) its use of whole body unity and relaxed 'non-muscular' power.


----------



## Drac

Now I wish I would have purchased that book called* "Combat Tai-Chi"* that I saw advertized in the pages of* BlackBelt Magazine* because this thread has peaked my interest....


----------



## Xue Sheng

This side discussion about Jujitsu is nice and all, and I am sorry I brought it into the discussion by way of comment, Also I am willing to admit it was a mistake to use the terminology &#8220;soft&#8221; (in the case of a Japanese art) in the context in which I used it or to be exact in the case I first read it and in the way I responded to it. 

I have explained my reason for the not soft comment in a previous post and I will not explain it no further, if you wish to see it, try reading the posts. 

But the topic is combat tai chi. 

And on the topic of combat Tai Chi. I know I have said Tai Chi is a martial art, and it is. But something does not sit right with me since seeing the words "Combat" and "Tai Chi" in the same sentence.

Tai Chi is very good at defense, it is very good at fighting if attacked but Tai Chi, by its nature, does not attack. Also throw in the Taoist root and Combat sounds even less correct as something attached to Tai Chi. To me the word Combat means to attack or is synonymous with war. So at least to me the terminology &#8220;Combat Tai Chi&#8221; does not appear to apply, also at least to me, it seems wrong. 

But I am also a proponent of Tai Chi as a martial art not just for health so why the problem with the term &#8220;Combat Tai Chi&#8221;. It seems to me that to train Tai Chi for Combat you are training it and the applications of it for something it was never meant for. To be efficient in combat you need to be equally good at attack and defense and at least from my experience Tai Chi is not trained to attack.


----------



## charyuop

Dear Xue, about the Tai Chi Chuan as defensive I read a story once. I am sorry because what I am about to tell, I read it a long time ago and I can't seem to find it anymore. Unfortunately I don't recall the names of story and that takes away alot of "flavour" hee hee.

This interview was made to one of Yang's students unfortunately I don't recall which Master Yang, but it was one of the first. The student said that once Master Yang would teach Tai Chi to family and very close friends. He himself was a long way cousing of Master Yang. All the students already came from a Martial Art background and they were very well fit phisically. Master Yang challanged every student to see if they were worth of being taught Tai Chi Chuan (that, he said in the interview, back then was not called Tai Chi, but he didn't mention the original name). The training was held at Master Yang's place and the student said that everytime someone passed in front and peeked inside they would stop till the person was gone. In the interview the student explain how back then it was not abnormal someone stepping inside of your school to challange you in a fight to demonstrate how the other person's style was superior. It happened that a man passed by one day and stopped to look inside Master Yang's place and of course they stopped the training till he was gone. The same man passed by for the following days trying to peek inside with the same result. One day the man finally steps inside Master Yang's place and introducing his style (sorry, I know it will be important for the outcome of the story, but I really don't recall the name of his style) challanges Master Yang. At this point Master Yang has one of his students fight for his school. Since the fight was getting too long Master Yang stopped it and stepped forward to face that man himself. The two faced each other for a very long time, in the end they both bowed and the man walked away not showing up anymore. The student of the interview puzzled asked Master Yang what just happened. Master Yang said that since Tai Chi Chuan and the style of the other man (that I don't recall) have both no attacking moves the challange ended before starting.

Of course I can tell you what I read, but wheather it really happened or how much enriched by the student it was that I can't tell you.


----------



## pete

tai chi is all about balance, offense and defense contained in one, separation within the connections... connections within the separations. terms like 'combat tai chi' don't sound right to you only because of your perceptions, not reality. time to change the paradigm.

think, if you were only reacting defensively to attacks your yin would exceed your yang.  now, expand the paradigm, and think in terms of RESPONSE rather than REACT.  now you have the potential for a more balanced approach, responding to a CATALYST be it threat or a signal, instead of waiting for an attack to react against. that is too late, too slow.

the trick here is to avoid ANTICIPATING, and that is where partner drills and pushing hands begin and sparring needs to be involved, so that you can use the present tense meditation practices from your Qigongs and form practice and apply in fighting, altercation, combat whatever you want to call it. 

develop the physical and psychic sensitivites to the point where you can dispatch your skill when needed, as a response, containing both offense and defense together, in balance.

pete


----------



## Streetfigher2006

Hi all,
i haven't had time to talk on the board because i have been so busy but I will answer some of the questions and tell everyone about my experiences with martial arts. I have no intention of flaming and NO I am not a troll. Whoever accused me of being a troll is just simply wrong.


----------



## Xue Sheng

pete said:


> tai chi is all about balance, offense and defense contained in one, separation within the connections... connections within the separations. terms like 'combat tai chi' don't sound right to you only because of your perceptions, not reality. time to change the paradigm.
> 
> think, if you were only reacting defensively to attacks your yin would exceed your yang. now, expand the paradigm, and think in terms of RESPONSE rather than REACT. now you have the potential for a more balanced approach, responding to a CATALYST be it threat or a signal, instead of waiting for an attack to react against. that is too late, too slow.
> 
> the trick here is to avoid ANTICIPATING, and that is where partner drills and pushing hands begin and sparring needs to be involved, so that you can use the present tense meditation practices from your Qigongs and form practice and apply in fighting, altercation, combat whatever you want to call it.
> 
> develop the physical and psychic sensitivites to the point where you can dispatch your skill when needed, as a response, containing both offense and defense together, in balance.
> 
> pete


 
I do not disagree with this, I have trained it and most unfortunately had to use it, this is not my problem with the terminology of "Combat Tai Chi" it is the fact that in combat I foresee a possibility of a pre-emptive strike and brutality (not that a fight isn't brutal, it most certainly is). I see the ability to use what you learn to take advantage of and or bully others with it if you will. And not that a person that practices Tai Chi cannot do those things, it just seems to me to be Philosophically wrong to call Tai Chi a Combat style that is all. 

Do I think it will work in a street fight? Yes I do. 

Do I think it will work in any confrontation? Yes I know it will. 

But I keep going back to the Taoist side of things in my mind and it still comes out to me as being wrong or at least very strange to refer to Tai Chi as Combat Tai Chi. I also keep hearing my Sifu saying Tai Chi is not meant to attack. Not meaning it can't meaning it shouldn't be used as such.

Combat Xingyi I find I have no problem with. Combat Bagua once aging sounds at least weird, Combat Sanda once again no problem (but it was originally designed for war anyway). Combat Liu He Ba Fa that just sounds incredibly silly. Combat Karate - once again no problem. I am willing to say this is just how I feel about it and I am not going to try and argue anyone out of calling Tai Chi "Combat Tai Chi" I just think it sounds strange. 

However as to the post that got me into this I will argue the point that Tai Chi is a very effective MA and to say it is not just says that the one saying it does not understand Tai Chi (and I am not referring to you pete with this last statement.)


----------



## Fu_Bag

Xue Sheng,

You've posted some great video links in other threads.  I can't believe that anyone would look at the movement in those clips and think that it wouldn't be combat effective.  You can easily see why the movements are done in certain ways if you imagine the ones doing them on an ancient battlefield.


Fu Bag


----------



## pete

ok, i think i see where your head is at, and the imagery of the word combat.  thinking military, battlefield killing. ok, let's go with that and back to the differences between external and internal arts. 

internal arts are trained by engaging constant and continuous conscious mind intent, using the brain to identify and respond to each catalyst during an altercation.  external arts are trained by repetive reflexive reactions using neuro-muscular memory to predetermined actions on the part of the attacker (ie, right step through punch - i do this, or left straight wrist - i do that)

in preparing for war, a soldier needs to be trained very quickly to get out and fight. there is also a need to desensitize the young soldier to the idea of killing, to be able to be detached from the act of the kill so that he is not psychologically delayed from the act of killing one enemy, that he is killed himself by the next enemy.  he must move as a machine. so, less brain, more neuro-muscular memory. more external, less internal.

in that way, yes, combat jujitusu, combat kenpo, combat krav maga, etc sounds more in line with that paradigm, but again, that is a paradigm built around the understanding of combat.

if your perception of combat is different, then combat tai chi or combat bagua, etc may not seem so out of place. there is nothing philosophically opposed in my understanding of taoism that precludes initiating, in fact isn't that the gua of heaven?


----------



## Kreth

pete said:


> thats there by design LOL, so's ya can't nail 'em for hitting ya wif the anonymous neg-reps~ ttfn.


Maybe if you learned to type in English, you wouldn't get dinged.


----------



## Xue Sheng

Fu_Bag said:


> Xue Sheng,
> 
> You've posted some great video links in other threads. I can't believe that anyone would look at the movement in those clips and think that it wouldn't be combat effective. You can easily see why the movements are done in certain ways if you imagine the ones doing them on an ancient battlefield.
> 
> 
> Fu Bag


 
I did not say it would not be effective in combat it is just the philisophical side of it I am having a problem with in the terminology.


----------



## Xue Sheng

pete said:


> ok, i think i see where your head is at, and the imagery of the word combat. thinking military, battlefield killing. ok, let's go with that and back to the differences between external and internal arts.
> 
> internal arts are trained by engaging constant and continuous conscious mind intent, using the brain to identify and respond to each catalyst during an altercation. external arts are trained by repetive reflexive reactions using neuro-muscular memory to predetermined actions on the part of the attacker (ie, right step through punch - i do this, or left straight wrist - i do that)
> 
> in preparing for war, a soldier needs to be trained very quickly to get out and fight. there is also a need to desensitize the young soldier to the idea of killing, to be able to be detached from the act of the kill so that he is not psychologically delayed from the act of killing one enemy, that he is killed himself by the next enemy. he must move as a machine. so, less brain, more neuro-muscular memory. more external, less internal.
> 
> in that way, yes, combat jujitusu, combat kenpo, combat krav maga, etc sounds more in line with that paradigm, but again, that is a paradigm built around the understanding of combat.
> 
> if your perception of combat is different, then combat tai chi or combat bagua, etc may not seem so out of place. there is nothing philosophically opposed in my understanding of taoism that precludes initiating, in fact isn't that the gua of heaven?


 
I simply do not see Tai Chi taught to soldiers in the military. Xingyi is an internal that I can see taught for Combat and history says it was, however that history is currently in question. 

If you are proficient at Tai Chi and you find yourself being attacked and in the middle of combat I can then see Tai Chi being used in Combat to protect yourself or others for example. But to train your military in something called combat Tai Chi and then send them in to war, I am sorry I just do not see it and this is where the terminology does not make sense to me. And to label something, at least in my mind, Combat Martial Art says that it is designed for military and combat.... that is all.

Taoism does not preclude war nor does it encourage it.


----------



## pete

my understanding is that the hsing-i used in training chinese soldiers was a stripped down version, externalized, and centered around the use of a bayonnet. anyone who can add to this or discuss how this history is being called into question would be very interesting.

xue sheng, in some places you post having a problem with the terminology of combat tai chi from a philosophical perspective, yet you seem to understand that taoism neither precludes nor encourages war. what philosophical points are you specifically having trouble reconciling?

btw, i agree and tried to convey in my last post that external arts arts are better suited to prepare soldiers for war than internal arts.  in modern terms, specifically in martial arts circles, the term combat has taken on a more generalized meaning, more related to any type of situation where physical altercations may occur. that is what i meant by the paradigm shift and where combat tai chi may be directed.  not sure, just keeping an open mind.


----------



## Fu_Bag

Xue Sheng said:


> I did not say it would not be effective in combat it is just the philisophical side of it I am having a problem with in the terminology.


 
That's cool.  I just wanted to compliment what looks like very effective movement.    So the philosophical side would say:

"Tree, I see you standing there and, although I have no desire to harm you, I do not necessarily trust your root system...."?   

I can see what you're talking about with regards to the differences between internal and external arts being used for combat training, though.


----------



## Xue Sheng

pete said:


> my understanding is that the hsing-i used in training chinese soldiers was a stripped down version, externalized, and centered around the use of a bayonnet. anyone who can add to this or discuss how this history is being called into question would be very interesting..


 
Yeuh Fei is likely not be its originator that is the only thing in question.



pete said:


> ]xue sheng, in some places you post having a problem with the terminology of combat tai chi from a philosophical perspective, yet you seem to understand that taoism neither precludes nor encourages war. what philosophical points are you specifically having trouble reconciling?


 
Good question, wish I could answer it. see my last secton to this post



pete said:


> btw, i agree and tried to convey in my last post that external arts arts are better suited to prepare soldiers for war than internal arts. in modern terms, specifically in martial arts circles, the term combat has taken on a more generalized meaning, more related to any type of situation where physical altercations may occur. that is what i meant by the paradigm shift and where combat tai chi may be directed. not sure, just keeping an open mind.


 
Yes I know and I am sorry if I gave you the wrong impression there. 


I have been thinking about this a lot since I last posted, which is of some concern to me to be honest. 

I am wondering why I really have a problem with the terminology of combat Tai Chi. And although I have to admit I simply do not see it as part of a boot camp&#8217;s curriculum to prepare soldiers for war and that is pretty much based on what pete has previously posted. And I have said in additions to that were it&#8217;s Taoist roots. But yet I have no problem with the terminology Combat Xingyi. So it really can&#8217;t be the Taoist root then can it? 

I have trained both Xingyi and Tai Chi, Xingyi to a considerably lesser degree than Tai Chi. I imagine it could be the way in which Xingyi is trained or the forms involved or the alleged link to Yueh Fei being its creator (currently this is very much in question by the way) or that, allegedly, Xingyi is based on the use of the spear in combat. Where Tai Chi is none of these but it sure if the Chen family version of its origin is true it was designed by an ex-military person (Chen Wangting) after long study of the Tao.

I have time and time again on MT gone to bat, if you will, to refute those that said Tai Chi was not a martial art and as fu bag pointed out I have put up links that would pretty much show it is a useful martial art. Also in the non-web world I have done the same time and time again and occasionally by demonstration. But I also believe that Tai Chi as an MA is in serious danger of going extinct and that does not make me happy. 

So could it be something more insidious that I was unaware of, could it be an elitist attitude, possibly but I truly hope not because I still do not think any martial art is better than any other martial art. I do believe or at least I hope I believe that I may excel at martial art A and be awful at martial art B because I simply do not fit Martial art B while someone else may be very good at B and bad at A and yet someone else excels at both or none.

But there is something my Yang style Sifu started to say just before I left his school. He started saying this right after I told him I had returned to Xingyi training and it was the straw that broke the camels back if you will. He began to say quite often that Tai Chi was superior to all other Martial arts and that all other martial artists were inferior to Tai Chi martial artist. Is it possible he had been saying this for years and I just never noticed? I don&#8217;t know but that brings me back to why do I have such a problem with the terminology of Combat Tai Chi beyond the boot camp scenario?&#8230; I do not know. So with that being said I think I will bow out of this discussion until I figure it out.


----------



## Fu_Bag

Xue Sheng,

I have another question regarding Tai Chi's usage in military training.  Is it possible that Tai Chi training could help to reduce overall fatigue for soldiers who are weighted down with a heap of gear?  Proper body movement at that point could seriously reduce fatigue and it wouldn't be using the art in a way that actually kills people.  Is this a bad way of thinking about Tai Chi?

Fu Bag


----------



## Shrewsbury

Using the term combat tai chi / bagua is equal to using taichi / bagua for health, one is telling you this is only for health, while the other says it could be used in combat.

training soldiers in tai chi or bagua would be way to time consuming, though they would be much better off.

one main difference of internal and external arts is that you can become more effeciant in a little time with external arts, where the internals take years to get good, they are made for the long haul.

The origins of tai chi, bagua, and xing yi have been up for debate for a long time and always will be, no big deal.


----------



## Xue Sheng

Fu_Bag said:


> Xue Sheng,
> 
> I have another question regarding Tai Chi's usage in military training. Is it possible that Tai Chi training could help to reduce overall fatigue for soldiers who are weighted down with a heap of gear? Proper body movement at that point could seriously reduce fatigue and it wouldn't be using the art in a way that actually kills people. Is this a bad way of thinking about Tai Chi?
> 
> Fu Bag


 
See following quote



Shrewsbury said:


> Using the term combat tai chi / bagua is equal to using taichi / bagua for health, one is telling you this is only for health, while the other says it could be used in combat.
> 
> training soldiers in tai chi or bagua would be way to time consuming, though they would be much better off.
> 
> one main difference of internal and external arts is that you can become more effeciant in a little time with external arts, where the internals take years to get good, they are made for the long haul.
> 
> The origins of tai chi, bagua, and xing yi have been up for debate for a long time and always will be, no big deal.


----------



## pete

wow, we would have never seen that without being reposted.  yet another way to get those post counts up, and see your name up there even when you have nothing to say.  

very surprising activity to take place on a tai chi forum, where a taoist philosophy places vlaue in things undone, and words unsaid. rather than building up clutter, reduce that which is essential.

hmmmm.


----------



## Elayna

Pete, 

All I have to say is...

Bad Form.
What does a taoist philosophy say about needless insults?
What does it say about one answering a question directed at one? Not to answer?  I think not. That would be rude.
Bad Form indeed.


----------



## Elayna

Xue has taught me many things about Tai Chi in the short amount of time I have been here.  He is a very knowledgeable person in this field.

I give you my props Xue.  Keep up the good work and fighting the good fight.


----------



## Kensai

Pete, I find your posts to be most insulting, you comment about others having nothing of use to say, yet then go and insult them in the same sentence. If your mother told you God gave us two ears and one mouth for a reason, then my mother said if you've got nothing decent to say about someone, then keep your mouth shut. An exchange of ideas is one thing, you're just looking to get to people. *Clicks ignore button for Pete*.


----------



## Kensai

Elayna said:


> Xue has taught me many things about Tai Chi in the short amount of time I have been here. He is a very knowledgeable person in this field.
> 
> I give you my props Xue. Keep up the good work and fighting the good fight.


 
He sure is. He's a good lad our Tim.


----------



## tshadowchaser

_Mod. Note._ 
Please, keep the conversation polite and respectful.

Sheldon Bedell
-MT Moderator-


----------



## Streetfigher2006

Right I have finally gt the time to post.

I currently practise a style of jujutsu that combines Kito Ryu Jujitsu and Kodokan Judo together. I am also going to start Muay thai Krav maga and boxing next month. Compared to Tai chi Jujutsu is harder. As a matter of fact my assistant teach says that the JJ trained at our club is hard since it contains hard blocks and hardly any soft but out head teacher still thinks its 50/50 but may be more hard.

Now the reason why I don't see Taichi as an effective martial art is that it is missing a few things. Of course all amrtial arts have holes in them but Tai chi has many.

Firstly Tai chi doesn't contain groundfighting and considering that most fights end up on the ground this is important. 

second i takes too long to learn the art. If I start learning the art now I will be 60 before I can even use it effectively

Those are the two factors that put me off Tai chi. In comparison to other arts I'd say tai chi wouldn't be too effective against a trained fighter of another art. It may work on a thug but not a trained fighter. It is good however for meditation but for fighting I just can't see it. Most bouncers and people of the govt i.e. police officers train in jujutsu, krav maga etc. which may or may not be hard arts depending on your opinion.

I went to a class somewhere in London to see a tai chi master of the yang style but they didn't practise the martial side so much. Just a few moves here and there.

this is just my opinion and I am not having a go at tai chi practioners because I could be wrong. Everyone has a different opinion.

I was suppose to go to china with one of my friends but I couldn't go so he went alone. Apparently he  is staying in this village somewhere learning tai chi  in the original form meant for fighting (I think its the Cheng style or Chen Style).

If I can meet someone that can show me the martial side I am willing to learn but till then I will stick with what I have.


----------



## charyuop

I might be wrong, but this is just my opinion, nothing based on read material.
In general in CMA it is lacking a ground fight or grapling. I guess in the past it was not given too much value to that part of fighting. They might have thought, since they were fights for your life, if I don't knock you out immediately there is no need to go ahead...if you send me to the ground I am done, no need to know how to fight there since I am out....but just my opinion.

On one thing you are right, to learn how to fight with Tai Chi does take a long time, but if you want to do it perfectly. Let's tell the truth, many Tai Chi practitioner never get even close to feel the Chi, imagine on how to use Fa Jing. But I have the convinction that even without the Chi if you practice on the applications and you get the quickness, balance and sensitivity in controlling the opponent fists/kicks, Tai Chi is still a good self defense Martial Art.

I am convinced that if you saw me practicing my long form and I do it like all other martial arts stressing the speed of the strike maybe putting a nice scream at the end of the move, people would think of Tai Chi more as a Martial Art.

I remember once playing with a friend of mine I greabbed him in a wrist lock and to show off he rolled on the floor to get out of it (as if I couldn't kick him while rolling). I point out that to him and he said show me how you would do it (of course I di it slowly because I am not trained for good reaction time), so I did. All I did was stepping close to him bending my elbow and to avoid being hit he made one step back so that all I had to do was covering his hand hoding my wrist and with a very natural movement just turn my held hand upside down and he was in a wrist lock. Now, if you see the ending part of the movement in the form it is a simple (for who does Tai Chi I refer to Roll Back) shifting of the body weight to the back leg with an arm "kinda" falling down to your side....and you would say well that is not Martial Art, but it is and it is effective.

I have seen many instructional videos of different Martial Arts where they show how to grab a hand, punch, make a harm lock and to me it came natural thinking...and? Where is the point in that when I can just make a step or bend my elbow and get out of it easily.
I haven't studied other Martial Arts, but I think Tai Chi is very good because it teaches you on how to use every part of the body to get out of difficult situations.
Before Tai Chi if I had gotten into an arm lock I would have started begging to let me go, coz I couldn't see way out of it. Now (and mind unfortunately I don't train it as a Martial Art, but the moves are the same and once you get used to them you see easily the applications in them) I realized that if you are quick enough (that's where training as a Martial Art has its importance) getting out of 90% of wrist, arm or shoulder locks is very easy....and just making movements which are very natural (no jumpin, twisting, triple summer sault LOL).


----------



## Jade Tigress

charyuop said:


> In general in CMA it is lacking a ground fight or grapling.



Chin-na addresses that aspect.


----------



## Shrewsbury

Iwth all do respects I have studied juijitsu to agreat extent, as well as Okinawa, Japanese, American, chinese external and internal gung fu. To claim any style lacks anything is to not have studied in depth in the style. CMA's has numerous grappling, wrestling, and juijitsu style arts, in fact mos arts are born of chinese influence.

sure you may have to train long to be good at the internal arts, and you can be good faster with external arts, such as juijitsu, but by age 60 (since that age was mentioned) your external will be long on their way out. speed, strength, endurance, and power will be a thing of your youth, but the internals work with out all these physical limitations and will continue to work.

to state tai chi is ineffective as a combat art is to never have seen people who can use it, and yes I will agree most people can not, or if they do it is used hard like karate or gung fu, but the internals are meant to be effortless. being fast big and strong only lasts so long, effortlessness can last forever.


----------



## charyuop

I don't know if it is true or not, but my teacher's Master told me that the above part of the Tai Chi body (as in movement) was taken by karate and the bottom part was taken by TKD (or was it the opposite?). In fact if you talk to her those 2 MA are incomplete and no match to Tai Chi...but I am sure every Master is convinced their Art is superior.


----------



## Shrewsbury

> but I am sure every Master is convinced their Art is superior.



this only limits our ability to continually grow and reach higher skills. Though some good arguments can be made about art versus art superiority, it is truly the individual. We can only train in what we are exposed to or have the oppurtunity to find a good teacher in, though we can become highly skilled in our art and reach a master level in that art, we all should be wise enough to know there is much we haven't been taught or discovered, we may like our style better because we have vested much time into it, but to think we or it are superior to ALL others, only limits our potentials.


----------



## pete

Shrewsbury, i like your style and wholeheartedly agree.  

i like to think of it in terms of yin and yang, fear (yin) and arrogance (yang) in terms of either the art or particular level of skill when compared to an adversary. too much either way is trouble...


----------



## Xue Sheng

Well it appears I am going to have to contradict myself here at least a bit.

Neither to start a problem nor to open old issues but I have been doing a lot of thinking about why I have a problem with the terminology "Combat Tai Chi" And although I previously stated that I had a problem with the Taoist side of things realized, after much thought and reading, it was not the Taoist bit at all, well maybe a little, but not that much really.

It is simply this; to call something Combat Tai Chi says, at least to me, that Tai chi is NOT for fighting, therefore it is necessary to come up with something else, something new, that is for fighting based on Tai Chi and that is not at all true. Tai Chi is a martial art and always has been and there is no need to separate Tai Chi and combat Tai chi. Tai Chi is Tai Chi.

Yes there are those out there doing Tai Chi without the martial arts and that is just fine with me as long as you do not try and force it on me, and they have before and I suspect they will try again soon, but that would be another post.

I understand that based on the tai chi for health some may feel the need to work on Tai chi based on other martial arts and separate themselves from what they have seen as Tai Chi and call what they do Combat Tai Chi. But if you find a real Tai Chi teacher you will learn martial arts are part of Tai chi so there is really no need for the label "Combat Tai Chi"

I also have seen those that do not want to take the time to study Tai Chi like they should in order to understand the martial arts of it and they to go off and apply other martial arts to what they have learned in Tai Chi and call it Combat Tai Chi and in this sense I do see a difference between combat Tai Chi and Tai Chi because if this is what has been done it is not Tai Chi at all anymore that JKD is Wing Chun, nothing wrong with it in my opinion, it just is not Tai Chi

If you are applying the ideas and applications form another martial art that is not an internal in order to use Tai Chi as a martial art, you are not using Tai chi at all. When I started Tai Chi my most recent style prior to it was TKD and before that Jujitsu and in the beginning although I thought I was doing Tai Chi based on my previous experience when I finally began training with my Yang style Sifu I discovered I was not. 

Nothing against anyone that practices combat Tai Chi I just do not see the need for the separation if you are training Tai Chi as it was originally designed by the Chen, Yang, Wu, Hao, Sun, Zhaobao, and etc families including Cheng Manching. It is already a martial art and fully capable of combat.

And you know, now that I have typed this and reread it I no longer have a problem with the terminology, I just do not think it is Tai Chi as I know it and have been trained in it. 

What the heck call it what you want, enjoy the training.


----------



## Steel Tiger

Xue,
I agree wholeheartedly.  Taijiquan was conceived as an effective and vicious fighting art and it still is, if you take the time to learn it.

Taijiquan has fallen victim to the 'quick fix' nature of modern culture, like many other arts.


----------

