# Tai Chi and Self Defense



## TheBattousai

How many people here study the interpratations of the movements in Tai Chi to turn them into techniques for self-defense (i.e. throws, jointlocks, hand strikes, kicks, etc.)? Just curious if whether people veiw Tai Chi as an exercise for ones health or a MA (mainly self defense, but others too)


----------



## tshadowchaser

I have had a little experence in Tai Chi and found that I was able to see the self defence movements in it and transfer them to what I do


----------



## TheBattousai

tshadowchaser said:
			
		

> I have had a little experence in Tai Chi and found that I was able to see the self defence movements in it and transfer them to what I do


 
What is it that you do, out of curiousity?


----------



## Bob Hubbard

I saw a clip a while back on an instructor showing various parts of Tai Chi, then showing the combat application of the movements. It was very interesting. I'll try and dig up my notes.  I've done some work with a few people and been tossed, taken down, etc. It's got good practicality, if you have a teacher who understands it.  Too many TaiChi classes are simply 'yoga'.  I'm looking into taking classes again locally as one of my clients is now sanctioned by the Yang family, and Yang style is I believe the most 'martial'.


----------



## arnisador

I don't think Yang is necessarily the most martial, even if we restrict ourselves to the five major families. But, it can certainly be done in a martial way!


----------



## 7starmantis

Yes, students of Chen would disagree 
It is however heavy in martial applications.

I hope everything goes well with your classes.

7sm


----------



## TheBattousai

Speaking of things, the 13 traditional postures(names may vary):
Ward Off
Roll Back
Press
Push
Split
Pull
Shoulder Strike
Elbow Strike
Center
Adavnce
Retreat
Turn Left 
Turn Right

What are some thoughts about them in general? Like are they enough for self defense only or should some Pa Ku and Hsing I be incorparated into it or have some very something simular to those added too.


----------



## Bob Hubbard

One person I spoke to suggested that adding the others would be ok, but only after a few years of training. I think it depends on you, your ability to absorb and understand, as well as the time you can devote to it.


----------



## East Winds

TheBattousai,
If you are training a traditional from of Taijiquan (i.e. one of the mainstream family forms and not a hybrid) you should not need to add anything to it. In fact adding to it (Bagua or Xing-Yi) will conflict quite markedly with the essences of the form. By all means practise Taijiquan and Bagua or Xing-Yi (or for that matter Liu Ho Pa Fa which is a synthesis of all these forms anyway) but do not try and mix them. Quite simply you cannot pick and mix!! At least not if you wish to get the full benefits that are available from Taijiquan.

Very best wishes
Alistair Sutherland


----------



## dmax999

Tai Chi can easily be used for self defense.  I recently read about a gang member in the 70s or 80s in California somewhere that was the big tough on the street because of his Tai Chi.  Gotta look up more information on that though.  Was in the latest issue of KungFu Tai Chi magazine.  I'll see if I can find it again with specifics and see if I can find any other references to him.


----------



## TheBattousai

I really wasn't speaking about changing or adding anything but more about the expansion of the movements to show the full range of motion. Like taking the ward off and showing the full range of an outer circular movement. Mainly, this would be shown in a kata though. But thinking of  Pa Kua and Hsing I, they are really interconnected anyway, so adding full forms of those in Tai chi isn't needed. (Please ignore the above statement regarding those arts in a previous post).


----------



## arnisador

I'm no expert on internal CMAs, but my understanding is that for self-defense one should consider Xingyi (Hsing-I) or Ba Gua as the main system and Tai Chi as an adjunct. Yes, Tai Chi can be good for self-defense, but it takes a long time to develop it as such, and its repertoire is in many cases limited (a basic punch, one or two kicks, and lots of pushing people off balance). You may need more options for the self-defense scenarios you envision--at least, until you get very good at Tai Chi, at which point one is supple and balanced enough that attacks are often avoided and there is little need for a response anyway. (Landing a blow on a good Tai Chi practitioner can be as hard as doing so on a good Aikidoka.) So, I would say that unless the instructor has a strong self-defense focus, adding another internal art has definite self-defense value.


----------



## chi-ca

TheBattousai said:
			
		

> How many people here study the interpratations of the movements in Tai Chi to turn them into techniques for self-defense (i.e. throws, jointlocks, hand strikes, kicks, etc.)? Just curious if whether people veiw Tai Chi as an exercise for ones health or a MA (mainly self defense, but others too)


Taiji absolutely has martial applications.  In my school we practice the form and then use the postures from the form in drills.  We often discuss how moves are used in self defense -- right down to the angle of the toe and the turn of a hand.


----------



## 7starmantis

arnisador said:
			
		

> Yes, Tai Chi can be good for self-defense, but it takes a long time to develop it as such, and its repertoire is in many cases limited (a basic punch, one or two kicks, and lots of pushing people off balance).


Dont underestimate the adventageousness of "pushing people off balance". If the attacker is "off balance" he/she can no longer attack. Also, without their balance, its pretty easy to attack them yourself. 

I wouldn't agree that the "repertoire" is limited. While the focus is on balance, the chin na, punches and kicks are quite extensive. It just takes an instructor with good knowledge and experience to teach it.

7sm


----------



## pete

7starmantis said:
			
		

> It just takes an instructor with good knowledge and experience to teach it.


 
so true, for all arts and styles including, but not limited to, tai chi.


----------



## arnisador

7starmantis said:
			
		

> Dont underestimate the adventageousness of "pushing people off balance". If the attacker is "off balance" he/she can no longer attack. Also, without their balance, its pretty easy to attack them yourself.


 
Oh, I absolutely agree! In fact, it's a big part of how I fight, and I would also mention that a strong push can cause considerable injury from the resulting fall. If memory serves, Paul Crompton's _Self Defense for Today (Escape Is the Best Form of Self Defence)_ (or another book from him) advocates building a system around it.

But I still believe it is limited compared to some other systems. This approach won't help as much against a jab or long-range kick, for example. It is indeed easier to attack them after they're off-balanced, but look at, say, Yang Tai Chi--you see, basically, and uppercut to the stomach area and a straight punch to the face for punches. It seems a bit limited in breadth!


----------



## East Winds

Arnisador,

Sorry, got to take you to task about the "limitations" of Yang style Taijiquan.
What about "Fist under elbow" for a devastating rib fracture. What about "Separations and the Kick sequence" for downing your opponent by dislocating knees. What about "Needle to sea bottom"  for an effective downing of your opponent. What about "Snake creeps down" to upend and down your opponent. "Parting the horse mane" for downing an oppponent. I could of course go on and descibe every posture in the long form, as each has at least one effective application. Like I said earlier,if you study Traditional Yang Family Taijiquan you have a formidable array of fighting techniques. If you study some of the hybrids or Wushu forms, then I agree, you are severly limited. If you cannot retreat from a conflict situation, then the only alternative is to take the innitiative away from the agressor and down him. No maybees or buts. How you do it of course is up to you. A swift kick in the nuts is surprisingly effective. 

Very best wishes


----------



## arnisador

I think Tai Chi is good for self-defense; no argument. But I also think supplementing it with Kung Fu usually makes sense. Only your first example is a punch, right? Most of your examples are, essentially, locks and take-downs at grappling range. That's fine...but doesn't Baguazhang, say, offer a wider range of responses? Isn't there some value in that?

Please don't think I don't see the combative value of Tai Chi...but I do think that it's not as well-rounded as some arts, and the emphasis on Chin Na style techniques means that adding some striking can help.


----------



## mantis

i believe the way my school teaches is they tentatively consider tai chi the soft and kung fu the hard (although it's soft and hard)
however they map each of the forms, moves, and postures to SD situations and that's done in KF, tai chi classes as well as SD seminars they host!
believe it or not they teach us how breathing exercises are used in self-defense!!
my point is what matters is the person who's teaching and how they are teaching regardless of your style of Tai Chi


----------



## pete

i gotta step in here and say, whoa....



			
				arnisador said:
			
		

> I also think supplementing it with Kung Fu usually makes sense...I do think that it's not as well-rounded as some arts


 
first off, arnisador: on what experience or who's word are you basing your advice? 

when you say 'kung fu', should i assume you to mean a shaolin or 'external' style?  please, i only wish to use the word external for clarity and not to get into the internal vs external debate.   if i assume correctly, i'd have to say its a bad idea, and its proliference to 'toughen up' tai chi is the 'yang' excess to the proverbial new-ager non-violent 'yin' deficiency.  not a good idea in my opinion.  good tai chi, as taught by a knowledgeable and skilled teacher is a complete martial art.  complete meaning, it contains punching, kicking, wrestling and chin na, as well as defenses against each.

have you considered that perhaps YOU just haven't developed the proper understanding of the martial components of tai chi, either by YOUR investment into training, or YOUR INSTRUCTOR'S level of proficiency?




			
				east winds said:
			
		

> if you study Traditional Yang Family Taijiquan you have a formidable array of fighting techniques. If you study some of the hybrids or Wushu forms, then I agree, you are severly limited.


 
East Winds, i respect your perspectives on this and other related discussions here on Martial Talk, but must ask you to clarify this statement.  The style of tai chi that i practice is not one of the five major family forms, technically it is a 3rd generation derivative of Chen. There is significant Bagua influence and subtle hints of Hsing-I, with much of the hard-stepping and explicit "fa li" removed in place of a more fluid continuity stressing coiling "chan-si".  This practice is far from being _'severely limited' _as you may be suggesting a_ hybrid_ style may be, or anything aside from the _Traditional Yang Family_ form.  

pete.


----------



## arnisador

pete said:
			
		

> ifirst off, arnisador: on what experience or who's word are you basing your advice?


 
Mine.



> when you say 'kung fu', should i assume you to mean a shaolin or 'external' style?


 
No. See Post #12 in this thread.



> have you considered that perhaps YOU just haven't developed the proper understanding of the martial components of tai chi, either by YOUR investment into training, or YOUR INSTRUCTOR'S level of proficiency?


 
Well, this is always the argument, isn't it? First, I no longer study Tai Chi. Second, I find this argument--which I have seen applied to every art under the sun--vacuous. It can't be refuted; if you see a situation to which your art doesn't seem to apply, keep studying, for surely the answer is in there! This prevents one from truly looking at the art in a fair light. I don't see great responses to a boxer, for example--things like staying light on one's feet, or covering the head with the forearm for protection. I don't see great responses to a long-range low kicker, like a Thai round-kick. Obviously, while there are defenses against takedowns, there's no actual groundwork. I don't see much variety in the strikes--lots of locks, but fewer distinct types of strikes than is usual.

Tai Chi styles vary. Some are nearly Kung Fu, others are nearly Qi Gong. It's hard to generalize. But, this is my experience.

I have _always_ stood up for the martial value of Tai Chi here. That hasn't changed. But supplement it? Sure. I'd give that advice for any art, and I think it's even more applicable here, given the length of time it takes to develop proficiency in Tai Chi and the other reasons I have mentioned.



> The style of tai chi that i practice is not one of the five major family forms, technically it is a 3rd generation derivative of Chen. There is significant Bagua influence and subtle hints of Hsing-I


 
In other words, someone in your lineage agreed with my advice and did that work for you. Good deal. As I have indicated, I think they made the right decision to augment their Tai Chi with some (internal) Kung Fu.


----------



## mantis

pete said:
			
		

> i gotta step in here and say, whoa....
> 
> 
> 
> first off, arnisador: on what experience or who's word are you basing your advice?
> 
> when you say 'kung fu', should i assume you to mean a shaolin or 'external' style?  please, i only wish to use the word external for clarity and not to get into the internal vs external debate.   if i assume correctly, i'd have to say its a bad idea, and its proliference to 'toughen up' tai chi is the 'yang' excess to the proverbial new-ager non-violent 'yin' deficiency.  not a good idea in my opinion.  good tai chi, as taught by a knowledgeable and skilled teacher is a complete martial art.  complete meaning, it contains punching, kicking, wrestling and chin na, as well as defenses against each.
> 
> have you considered that perhaps YOU just haven't developed the proper understanding of the martial components of tai chi, either by YOUR investment into training, or YOUR INSTRUCTOR'S level of proficiency?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> East Winds, i respect your perspectives on this and other related discussions here on Martial Talk, but must ask you to clarify this statement.  The style of tai chi that i practice is not one of the five major family forms, technically it is a 3rd generation derivative of Chen. There is significant Bagua influence and subtle hints of Hsing-I, with much of the hard-stepping and explicit "fa li" removed in place of a more fluid continuity stressing coiling "chan-si".  This practice is far from being _'severely limited' _as you may be suggesting a_ hybrid_ style may be, or anything aside from the _Traditional Yang Family_ form.
> 
> pete.


so angry man!
haha
i really do not want to be in a debate with you right now, u look too angry
but if you have time read Adam Hsu's book (Sword Polisher's Record)
it is very interesting how it talks about the balance of the HARD and the SOFT (int vs. ext)
it kinda validates anisador's point..


----------



## pete

mantis, please do not misunderstand my intent... there is no anger here.

arnisador, thanks for pointing me towards post #12.  bagua and hsing-i are good arts to _cross-reference _with tai chi, as they are based on somewhat similar principles.  my teacher encourages learning bagua to improve one's tai chi.  but the point is not that one art or the other is _lacking_, but that through another perspecitve one may develop that particular skill to a higher level in their primary art.  This is how the influences of Bagua and Hsing-I are evident in our style, and to the extent those skills are understood, they will become more or less significant.

my opposition is to the allusion that tai chi (generically or not) as an art is lacking in any way, and needs training in another 'harder' style to 'toughen it up'.   you don't have to look far to find a _master _who has infused shaolin technique to make it appear more martial, when all that is actually being done is replacing the tai chi with slow shaolin.

that one's changes things they do not fully understand, or have the patience, dedication or fortitude to seek the answers is not just a 'standard reply' from the 'traditionalist'... its a fact and a growing trend in all martial arts today as it is_ 'easier' _to change things to make one's self look good, than to accept one's own short comings and work (erally work) toward improving them.

the beauty of tai chi as a martial art is that its applications are not so obvious and its qualities are so subtle.  unlike a karate kata (i speak from experience as a kenpo black belt), the applications are not exposed in the forms, but exist within the opportunity.  it is the potential for universal self defense which is practiced, not the explicit if-then-else logic (ie, if he punches here, i block and kick him there).  there is just as much, if not more, that is NOT seen in the form, than is.

it does take a long time to develop proficiency in tai chi, but it takes a long time to develop proficiency (real proficiency) in any martial style.  but length of time is a fool's measurement,  for example, i've been playing the guitar for 30 years and still suck!  

its practice, dedication, and a good teacher than matter more than time.

blessed holidays to you and yours...

pete


----------



## East Winds

Pete,

Good post. I agree with almost all that you say. If you want to learn a martial art quickly, don't take up Taiji. However if you really want to learn the full potential of a martial art and don't want it tomorrow, learn Taiji, but as you rightly say, with a knowledgeable teacher. (And they are not easy to find). Too many people think that when they have by learned the form, they are doing taiji. That is only the end of the beginning! Too many teachers only teach form and claim to be teaching taiji. I have expereince in both Chen style and Bagua but do not teach them.  If I am doing Chen style then that is what I am doing. If I do Bagua then that is what I'm doing. If I do Yang, then that is what I am doing. I do not allow them to mix. I also practise Liu Ho Ba Fa which as you know is a synthesis of all the internal arts and a very beautiful form, however I am not proficient enough to use it in a conflict situation. Incidetally, do you practice Yiliquan??

Arnisador.
In the long form there are actually 14 punches, 7 kicks and 18 open palm strikes!! If you need more than that to cope with an agressor, boy, are you in real trouble!!!! However I agree with some of what you say, except for the suggestion that you want to involve some Kung Fu in your Taiji. Two completely opposite concepts I'm afraid. Won't work. 

Good posts guys, keep them comiing.

Very best wishes for Christmas and New Year.


----------



## arnisador

Are those 14 _distinct _types of punches?

I think we're more in agreement than disagreement. Tai Chi makes for excellent self-defense--just try to get your hands on a Tai Chi expert--but it takes a while to develop it. I've always said that Tai Chi (like Aikido) makes excellent self-defense in the long run, some of the very best, but is not nearly as good in the short run.


----------



## arnisador

mantis said:
			
		

> but if you have time read Adam Hsu's book (Sword Polisher's Record)



I was at the bookstore tonight buying Christmas presents. I needed another $20 worth of stuff for a certain discount to kick in. Based on your recommendation, I bought this (and a pack of trading cards for my son) to get that extra $20. But it'll be a while before I get a chance to read it!


----------



## 7starmantis

East Winds said:
			
		

> However I agree with some of what you say, except for the suggestion that you want to involve some Kung Fu in your Taiji. Two completely opposite concepts I'm afraid. Won't work.


Thats the first time I've heard that. I actually use alot of Tai Chi principles in my kung fu....the serious fighting principles are so inline with each other there is really no difference at all. In fact, Tai Chi is Kung Fu. I would be interested in hearing your reasoning for this statement.



			
				arnisador said:
			
		

> I was at the bookstore tonight buying Christmas presents. I needed another $20 worth of stuff for a certain discount to kick in. Based on your recommendation, I bought this (and a pack of trading cards for my son) to get that extra $20. But it'll be a while before I get a chance to read it!


 I have recommended it many time, its one of my favorites. Great book breaking down what is and is not kung fu and explaining why we do certain things in kung fu....great book!

7sm


----------



## mantis

7starmantis said:
			
		

> Thats the first time I've heard that. I actually use alot of Tai Chi principles in my kung fu....the serious fighting principles are so inline with each other there is really no difference at all. In fact, Tai Chi is Kung Fu. I would be interested in hearing your reasoning for this statement.
> 
> I have recommended it many time, its one of my favorites. Great book breaking down what is and is not kung fu and explaining why we do certain things in kung fu....great book!
> 
> 7sm


yes
u have recommended that many times
but i guess you dont have the magic that i have 
jk
what i liked in that book, other than elaborating on kung fu, is the talk about balancing things, the soft and the hard, yin and yang.. and that's what i wanted Pete to read coz he wasnt happy by someone recommending tai chi should go with kung fu


----------



## arnisador

7starmantis said:
			
		

> In fact, Tai Chi is Kung Fu.



I go back and forth on this...it certainly started as that, but seems to have developed its own identity. I could probably be convinced either way on this point!


----------



## mantis

arnisador said:
			
		

> I go back and forth on this...it certainly started as that, but seems to have developed its own identity. I could probably be convinced either way on this point!


it is obvious that you guys look at kung fu as a different art than tai chi
something like judo and karate in the japanese case (example)
well, it is and it's not.
kung fu without the tai chi part is missing half of it
it becomes rigid rigid fighting art with no real use of energy
and becomes less healthy too
when you talk about kung fu you should assume there's some kind of "chi" in it.
even if tai chi develops on its own it still should be a part of kung fu or a part of your kung fu training. 
you will understand more what i am saying when you read the first one or two chapters of that book


----------



## East Winds

7starmantis,

Sorry. I was very loose with my grammar and should have known better. Of course the literal transalation of Kung fu is "good at", "skillful in execution" and in this resepct of course Taiji is loaded with Kung fu. However, my fault was in using Kung Fu in its general martial arts aspect where many of the hard arts (Shaolin, Lau Gar etc. etc.) are often referred to as Chinese Kung Fu. What I meant to imply, was that there is no place in Taiji for hard or external aspects. Thanks for pulling me up on that point.

Very best wishes


----------



## 7starmantis

East Winds said:
			
		

> 7starmantis,
> 
> Sorry. I was very loose with my grammar and should have known better. Of course the literal transalation of Kung fu is "good at", "skillful in execution" and in this resepct of course Taiji is loaded with Kung fu. However, my fault was in using Kung Fu in its general martial arts aspect where many of the hard arts (Shaolin, Lau Gar etc. etc.) are often referred to as Chinese Kung Fu. What I meant to imply, was that there is no place in Taiji for hard or external aspects. Thanks for pulling me up on that point.
> 
> Very best wishes


Actually I wasn't using "kung fu" in its literal sense, but in the sense of CMA hard or not. Any true kung fu system should contain both hard and soft. I disagree that there is no place in TC for those "hard" or "external" aspects. I think that notion is from a misunderstanding of "hard" or "External" concepts. So called "internal" styles do not lack "external" or "hard" aspects at all. In fact, in tai chi alone one can see both hard and soft concepts in one technique. Many of the throws for example require you to "fill up" your arms with yi, pong, or "chi" whichever term you want to use. This is required to move the center of the other person (even if it is only 4oz) while the rest of your body stays soft. This disconnect is the important part. The idea of "soft" and "hard"; "internal" or "external" is misunderstood. Since we're on the subject of Adam Hsu's book we can use his own words to explain it:

_"I believe that all these internal/external theories are in fact quite incorrect. The distinction is really very simple to understand. Internal and external do not represent different styles or kinds of kung fu, but rather different levels."
"Therefore in real kung fu training, regardless of style, one must begin from the external and patiently and systematically progress inward to the internal."

_Tai Chi requires the exertion of energy and force (external) to learn and progresses towards internal where you learn to use much less force or energy....same as kung fu. As far as hard vs soft, that is another mis-understood distinction. Kung Fu styles (including Tai Chi) are not either hard or soft, but both at the same time. Its the disconnect I spoke of earlier, allowing part of your body to be "hard" while the rest of your body "soft". Being able to switch immediately from hard to soft back to back. Think of a tai chi throw....if your entire body is completely void of energy or "hardness" you will simply collapse into the person you are attempting to throw. You must use both soft and hard concepts in order to actually throw the person.

Ok, off my soap box, all that to say, hard and soft must exist together at some point to have complete techniques. So, I honestly believe that kung fu and tai chi are completely compatable and should exist together. The problem comes from what Adam Hsu calls _"incomplete styles that never go beyond the external"._ These styles have lost the internal aspects and thus I could see where they would not appear to be in line with tai chi. However with an honest and skilled instructor one should learn these external skills and move _"step by step from the outside, through the door, climb upstairs to the top level, and then reach the internal-the highest level of kung fu".

_7sm


----------



## arnisador

Pretty good entry here on the meaning of the term 'Kung Fu':
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kung_fu_(term)


----------



## vincehardy3

This is another good topic.  Taijiquans literal translation means Grand Terminus Boxing.  Whenever you see quan at the end it indicates that it is a boxing system.  Taiji is a very deadly system and every move has martial applicationit is a fighting system first and health exercise last.  Also, Baguaquan, Taijiquan, and Xingyiquan incorporate the same postures, but it is the principles that make them different and similar at the same time.  If there are any of you that study all three systems I would suggest looking for the postures that exist in all three (some are indigenous to the individual systems) and explore their application in order to understand their similarities and differences.  These are just some late thoughts and ramblings.

Another two cents,


Vincent
(Yiliquan Association)


----------



## East Winds

7starmantis

Where to start??? (Your quote) "Tai Chi requires the exertion of energy and force...." Sorry, no it dosen't. I think you confuse energy and force. They are not the same. "Throwing" or more properly uprooting, requires no force whatever. If you think it does, you have misunderstood the application or the use of the appropriate energy. I agree that most people when they start Taiji have no concept of internal and yes they use force. If they continue to use force then the fault lies with the Instructor. Unfortunately we have too many people "teaching Tai Cheese"  and some even claiming lineage in 16 different disciplines, any one of which would take a lifetime to master!!!! I have not read Adam Hsu's book, nor do I think I will. 
We will clearly not agree on our interpretations of energy/force/strength, however I respect your views.

Very best wishes


----------



## 7starmantis

East Winds said:
			
		

> 7starmantis
> 
> Where to start??? (Your quote) "Tai Chi requires the exertion of energy and force...." Sorry, no it dosen't. I think you confuse energy and force. They are not the same. "Throwing" or more properly uprooting, requires no force whatever. If you think it does, you have misunderstood the application or the use of the appropriate energy. I agree that most people when they start Taiji have no concept of internal and yes they use force. If they continue to use force then the fault lies with the Instructor. Unfortunately we have too many people "teaching Tai Cheese" and some even claiming lineage in 16 different disciplines, any one of which would take a lifetime to master!!!! I have not read Adam Hsu's book, nor do I think I will.
> We will clearly not agree on our interpretations of energy/force/strength, however I respect your views.
> 
> Very best wishes


Ok, think on a very elementary and physical level here. Must you exert energy in order to lift you knee or "part the horses main"? Do your muscles require energy to move your limbs? The answer is yes. this is the energy I'm talking about. As your skill grows, the amount of energy you need to use will diminish. 

The difference between energy and force are understood. What I'm saying is the need for both exists. Its simply not true that uprooting doesn't involve either. I understnad the use of "energy" here but energy must be used, thus the exertion of it, thus not void of energy or force. See, internal doesn't mean devoid of energy as your implying, quite the opposite actually. I'm not talking about pure muscular force, but it must exist. Take an uprooting technique...imagin that technique if every part of your body is devoid of any force or energy....basically you lying on the floor....would that technique still work? No. The idea is the correct amount of force and energy in the right places at the right time, not the abandonment of it all. I would advise reading books you think contradict your own belief, its really a great exercise in openmindedness. 

OK, lets get back to the original issue, Kung Fu in Tai Chi. What is so different in kung fu that you see shouldn't be involved in tai chi? It may be a misunderstanding of kung fu principles that causes this thinking. I would love to get specific on what you think is so different between the two, you can choose any style of kung fu even mantis if you like...wont offend me at all 

7sm


----------



## 7starmantis

arnisador said:
			
		

> I go back and forth on this...it certainly started as that, but seems to have developed its own identity. I could probably be convinced either way on this point!



What identity is this? What makes Tai Chi different from Kung Fu in its identity now?

7sm


----------



## arnisador

That, unlike most styles of Kung Fu, it's widely practiced by those seeking health benefits principally and martial applications secondarily (both here and in China); that it's so commonly a second art for Kung Fu students; that it's so much softer than so many other styles.


----------



## pete

east winds, as someone with an active tai chi practice under the guidance of a knowlegeable master, i whole-heartedly agree.  you asked a few posts up if i practice yiliquan... no, i am not even familiar with that term. 

i practice wuji tai chi, which i described a few posts up.  since my teacher is about 120 miles from me, i see him only once or twice per month for group practice and private lesson.  in between, i teach my students and practice push hands and applications with training partners who practice other forms, and of course practice my solo forms and qigong each morning.  over the past year, i've also been taking bagua classes a little closer to home, which as i've said before, shares similar principles and adds a different perspective that can be used as a cross reference with tai chi.   

i think what we have here is a few fellas who may have seen some tai chi demos or taken some classes, but have not immersed themselves into the art to the degree necessary to appreciate the fundamental differences.  from what i can tell, there is a confusion of what may be soft and internal components with commonalities with the 'internal arts'.  yes, shaolin styles have hard and soft... and yes, they have internal and external components.  but they are based on different principles and fighting strategies from tai chi and, for that matter, bagua. for an extreme, take iron wire or the okinawan sanchin.  both are tools to develop 'internals', but they are not tai chi.  

from the quote of mr hsu's book, i can see where he is alluding to this as internal and external components, and not suggesting blending the principles of two or more non-complimentary styles. no, i have not read it in full, and frankly have a long list of reading materials to get through before seriously thinking about this one. but, hey... thanks for the tip.

being christmas, may i suggest a short article in the current issue of _tai chi magazine_.  it is based on giving and receiving.  the author does a good job of describing the process by which one cannot give without another receiving and vice versa, thereby being complimentary opposites.  taken physically, it goes to show how internally, one must have both giving and receiving throughout one's posture at all times... and that _harmony _provides the strength in structure without the use of muscular force.  

back to the figgy pudding, peace to all and to all a good night...

pete


----------



## 7starmantis

arnisador said:
			
		

> That, unlike most styles of Kung Fu, it's widely practiced by those seeking health benefits principally and martial applications secondarily (both here and in China); that it's so commonly a second art for Kung Fu students; that it's so much softer than so many other styles.


The reason it is studied doesn't really have much to do with it but that reason can also be said of kung fu in the past. It does seem to attract those not interested in martial applications, but there are still those who practice it for its core fighting. It is commonly a second art but usually not practiced or developed to the level it should be to even understand the principles behind it. I completely disagree with your last statement, er...well...I think you are using the word "softer" inappropriately in this instance. Its "soft" aspects are very intertwined with true kung fu in its upper levels or higher skills....if not I would be concerned with the quality of kung fu being taught. 



			
				pete said:
			
		

> i think what we have here is a few fellas who may have seen some tai chi demos or taken some classes, but have not immersed themselves into the art to the degree necessary to appreciate the fundamental differences. from what i can tell, there is a confusion of what may be soft and internal components with commonalities with the 'internal arts'. yes, shaolin styles have hard and soft... and yes, they have internal and external components. but they are based on different principles and fighting strategies from tai chi and, for that matter, bagua. for an extreme, take iron wire or the okinawan sanchin. both are tools to develop 'internals', but they are not tai chi.


 Pete, be very carefull about accepting your knee jerk assumptions of poeple as truth. I appreciated the fundamental differences _until_ I learned enough of both to see the line or seperation (differences) begin to disapear. I have emersed myself in CMA since I was a kid (I'm not a kid anymore ) I am in no way a master or understand it all, I dont really believe anyone has, but from my own experience, my sifu's teachings, and his sifu's teachings, I see the "differences" are fewer and farther between than most think. 

I would love to see you outline what different principles 7 Star Mantis is based on in contrast to Tai Chi (Any style). Lest make that broader, any style of kung fu in contrast with tai chi. The problem is people taking these "styles" as confinements and boxing in a system that is principle driven and trying to make it technique driven. Please share the different fighting strategies that exist between the two as well. Those not "emersed" enough in any CMA style often see these fighting strategies and core principels as firmly absolute, but upon further skill we can see them begin to loosen and mix together. 

I'm very interested to see the different principles and fighting strategies you are speaking of. This is a great discussion, lets keep it going :asian:

7sm


----------



## 7starmantis

pete said:
			
		

> from the quote of mr hsu's book, i can see where he is alluding to this as internal and external components, and not suggesting blending the principles of two or more non-complimentary styles. no, i have not read it in full, and frankly have a long list of reading materials to get through before seriously thinking about this one. but, hey... thanks for the tip.



Again, be carefull of making up your mind on one piece of a quote. Kung Fu, Chinese Martial Arts, Wushu, whatever you might like to call it, all share common principles and goals. To seperate them is to take styles as complete which are truly only partially complete.

7sm


----------



## arnisador

7starmantis said:
			
		

> The reason it is studied doesn't really have much to do with it but that reason can also be said of kung fu in the past. It does seem to attract those not interested in martial applications, but there are still those who practice it for its core fighting. It is commonly a second art but usually not practiced or developed to the level it should be to even understand the principles behind it. I completely disagree with your last statement, er...well...I think you are using the word "softer" inappropriately in this instance. Its "soft" aspects are very intertwined with true kung fu in its upper levels or higher skills....if not I would be concerned with the quality of kung fu being taught.



As I said, I go back and forth on this matter in my own mind. It seems somewhat different to me, yet obviouly comes from the same roots and has many similarities.

What other Kung Fu system places such an emphasis on slow practice in it sforms? I know there are some fast Tai Chi forms and slow Kung Fu forms (e.g., Sam Chien), but those seem the exceptions.


----------



## East Winds

7starmantis,

Thanks for the input. I didn't want this to degenerate into the "I know better than you" and "my system is better than yours" and I'm sure you have the same intention. I could not comment on mantis form or any of the other "external" or "hard" forms. And yes, I do consider there to be a difference. Mainly it is in the way they are trained with emphasis on different principles. My knowledge of the "external" only comes from my experiences with students who come to my classes from these other arts. (Karate, TKD, Lau Gar, Hung gar, Shaolin etc.).What they do have is condsiderable martial ability, but little concept of using internal energies. However it is much easier for these students to "transfer" to the internal than it is for someone who has never had martial training. And of course I accept that you need to use muscle strength to move arms and legs and other body parts. However what you do not need in Taijiquan is muscular strength to make the applicatiopn effective. An example of what I mean is the beautiful "White Crane" posture. It is quite simply correct body positioning to gain your opponents centre and by body turning and using "Split" energy you uproot your opponent. I have a slim 5' 5" lady who can regularly put a large guy on his backside. And no, he dosn't co-operate! I think therefore we will continue to disagree, but then that is no bad thing. So long as we can discuss these things in a civilised manner. 
I have a very large collection of Taiji books (well over 100) of which 98% will never be opened again. The one book that has it all (and yet is one of the most difficult to comprehend) is "The Tai Chi Boxing Chronicles" by Kuo Lien-Ying, translated by Guttman. A wonderful explanation of why "internal" and "external" are different. 

As always very best wishes and respect.


----------



## East Winds

Pete,

I think there is more than a grain of truth in what you post. I also think that some of the "Masters" who advertise teaching 15 or 16 different arts need to be looked at. The first question I would ask is "To what depth?"

There are several Yiliquan practitioner who subscribe to this board and therefore it is better if one of them came on and described their very effetive art.

For my own part I practice and teach only Traditional Yang Family Taijiquan, Yi-Chuan and Qigong. Although I have experience in Bagua, a very little Xing-Yi and Liu Ho Pa Fa. I have been practising Yang for 16 years now and have still only scratched the surface.

Very best wishes


----------



## vincehardy3

Pete,

I dont understand what you are asking as it pertains to Yiliquan.  We dont study 15 to 16 different styles.  Yiliquan is its own stand-alone system, but we also learn the three internal arts in order to strengthen our foundation.  In order for a Liu Ho Pa Fa practitioner to truly understand their art they must study the three internal systems (Xingyi, Bagua, and Taichi), and it is the same for us.  Traditionally, Bagua and Xingyi practitioners of long ago would exchange informationin other words they would learn each others systems.  A lot of martial practitioners of the internal systems learn all three, but they will have one that they actually focus on.  I train the three internals and they all affect my Yiliquan forms/techniques.  A prime example of this is one of the most famous martial artistsSun Lu Tanghe studied all three arts and developed his own systems of Bagua and Taichi.  Like I stated, I really dont understand your question.  So, if I didnt answer properly, please elaborate.


Vincent
(Yiliquan Association)


----------



## pete

vincent... i was asked by east winds if i practiced yiliquan, and answered that i had never heard the term _yiliquan_ before, much less practiced it.  thank you for the description of your art.  

i find myself in agreement with much of what you say a few posts back regarding the 'internal arts' sharing fundamental principles, and what you've just described relating to exchanging ideas within complimentary arts while focusing on one is what i've been calling _'cross-referencing'.  _my point has been that one should avoid the seduction of blending in aspects of shaolin systems or 'external arts' to toughen-up tai chi, for example, overt muscular force and tension, direct 'blocking' rather than yielding and redirection, bob-and-weave tactics, isolated power, disconnection of upper from lower body, etc.  

pete


----------



## pete

oh... and to the 'anonymous' negative rep-tosser, whoever you are: bad form.  don't cast away a differing opinion as a personal attack or _"rude" _gesture. and most of all, let's try and keep it all public and above board... this way everybody wins.  we are all _adults_ here, right?

pete


----------



## mantis

okay
so it looks like Tai Chi people (pete? right) think that we do not think of tai chi as a complete system. or we think of it as a "soft" system (soft as in 'you're a sissy you need to toughen up)
well pete, tai chi is an awesome complete system that, like most of the proper CMA styles and arts, balances the soft/hard, internal/external!
but us, kung fu practitioners, love tai chi because it helps us balance our internal/external and soft/hard skills. 
maybe it's not a good idea to mix tai chi with kung fu if you are a TC practitioner, but it's a good idea to do so if you're a KF practitioner!
hows that sound now mah meng?!


----------



## vincehardy3

I see that a distinction is being made between kung-fu and Taijiquan.  The first word is literally translated as:  Kung = Energy and Fu = Time.  It just means a skill that is acquired over a period of time, and in the Asian mind every skill/trade/education/etc is considered kung-fu.  The word Taijiquan is literally translated as Grand Terminus Boxing, and this is a skill that is developed over a long period of time.  So, Taiji is kung-fu.  

As far as the internal/external and hard/soft there really is no such thing, and I might get reamed for making this statement.  As a practitioner progresses in their training they come to understand that all systems are hard and soft.  What is the distinguishing factor between hard and soft as we have been taught?  The distinguishing factor is Qigong training, and the level to how it is trained.  The concepts of empty/full arent indigenous to Taiji only, but it can be applied to all systems of fighting.  Taiji can be trained at various speeds with proper breathing as well as Hung Gar, Choy Lay Fut, Fut Ga, etc.  Sifu Arthur Lee (Grandmaster of Fut Ga) resides in Hawaii and he teaches a Shaolin system called Fut Ga, and he utilizes a lot of what we title as internal concepts.  

I agree that there are a lot of disadvantages to hard blocking vs. redirection.  The act of redirecting a persons flow of energy opens them up to some serious vulnerability.  When a persons punch is hard blocked they are able to counter immediatelyit is about physicsIm a theologian not a physicist.  When a persons punch is redirected they are off-balance and must re-adjust or wait to establish their footing before being able to counter.  I would suggest trying this in a practice session in order to fully understand the concept.  Plus, as a practitioner progresses they dont block or deflect (redirect).  The practitioners footwork gets them out of the path of the on-coming attack and positions them strategically in order to take full advantage of their opponents vulnerabilities.  

Ok, let the reaming begin.


Vince


----------



## East Winds

Vincent/Pete,

Sorry, it was me who apparently muddied the waters a bit. Something Pete said in an earlier post made me think he practised Yiliquan. When he said he didn't and didn't really know what it was, I suggested it would be better if a Yiliquan practitioner explained what it was. The reference to "Masters" who claim to teach 15 or 16 forms had no reference to Yiliquan whatsoever. I am well aware of Yiliquans founder and have the highest regard for him.

Sorry for the confusion and hope that clears it up

Very best wishes


----------



## 7starmantis

East Winds said:
			
		

> 7starmantis,
> 
> Thanks for the input. I didn't want this to degenerate into the "I know better than you" and "my system is better than yours" and I'm sure you have the same intention. I could not comment on mantis form or any of the other "external" or "hard" forms. And yes, I do consider there to be a difference. Mainly it is in the way they are trained with emphasis on different principles. My knowledge of the "external" only comes from my experiences with students who come to my classes from these other arts. (Karate, TKD, Lau Gar, Hung gar, Shaolin etc.).What they do have is condsiderable martial ability, but little concept of using internal energies. However it is much easier for these students to "transfer" to the internal than it is for someone who has never had martial training.


 I'm more interested in specifics as far as the differences in "the way they are trained and the emphasis on different principles". What differences are there in the way they are trained, what affect does that have and what are the differing principles?
It seems your belief is simply from your own opinion and observations of students who have chagned systems for some reason. That may be a flawed way to understand these so called external systems. I propose that these students you see have simply not attained the needed skill to understand the principles of their systems. I would agree that Karate and TKD would be very different in their principles but we are talking about kung fu - Chinese Martial Arts.



			
				East Winds said:
			
		

> And of course I accept that you need to use muscle strength to move arms and legs and other body parts. However what you do not need in Taijiquan is muscular strength to make the applicatiopn effective. An example of what I mean is the beautiful "White Crane" posture. It is quite simply correct body positioning to gain your opponents centre and by body turning and using "Split" energy you uproot your opponent. I have a slim 5' 5" lady who can regularly put a large guy on his backside. And no, he dosn't co-operate! I think therefore we will continue to disagree, but then that is no bad thing. So long as we can discuss these things in a civilised manner.


 Well, I agree and disagree. Muscular strength is often looked at as bad and detrimental. I agree that for beginners it is very much so. But as one begins to truly understand the principels they will see that muscles aren't a detriment if used correctly. For example, what turns your waist and allows for the "split" energy? I think we agree more than you think, I have several young small women in mantis who can regularly put guys like myself (6' 2" 210lbs) on our backs, heads, ears, etc. This is the skills I'm talking about, but they are not completely devoid of muscle. I'm simply taking what your saying a bit further and saying you must understand the connection and benefit of both force and no force. In order to punch someone even if allowing them to "run into" your fist (as we do alot in mantis) you must have filled your fist with some type of force. You can call it chi, pong, yi, whatever, but it must be there and it must be able to be manipulated to be used correctly. Hitting someone with a hand completely devoid of force or energy is goign to hurt yourself. Its just different levels of "force". 
I completely agree that muscular force has no place in the technique as far as making it work, but I think you incorrectly assume that "external" or "hard" systems operate with opposing principles. They shouldn't if they are truly CMA, at least not at higher levels of skill.



			
				East Winds said:
			
		

> I have a very large collection of Taiji books (well over 100) of which 98% will never be opened again. The one book that has it all (and yet is one of the most difficult to comprehend) is "The Tai Chi Boxing Chronicles" by Kuo Lien-Ying, translated by Guttman. A wonderful explanation of why "internal" and "external" are different.
> 
> As always very best wishes and respect.


You misunderstand my point, I'm not saying "internal" and "external" are not different, but simply that they must exist and work together in order to be complete or highly skilled. 

What I'm still looking forward to is a layout of principles that are so different or opposing from "external" kung fu to "internal" kung fu. What fighting strategies are so different? It seems everyone claims the difference is there but are unable to define them.



			
				pete said:
			
		

> my point has been that one should avoid the seduction of blending in aspects of shaolin systems or 'external arts' to toughen-up tai chi, for example, overt muscular force and tension, direct 'blocking' rather than yielding and redirection, bob-and-weave tactics, isolated power, disconnection of upper from lower body, etc.
> 
> pete


What defines these "shaolin systems"? I mean what are the systems we are talking about here? I think that if a student is using "overt muscular force and tension" or "direct blocking rather than yielding" they are performing their CMA incorrectly or inexperienced-ly. The incorrect notion that "shaolin" systems (which is really a farce in my opinion) or "external systmes" (which also is mis-titled) rely on overt muscular force or tension and direct blocking rather than yielding is what causes these misunderstandings. The biggest problem in CMA is the teaching of incomplete or partial knowledge as whole and complete systems. 

 My own opinions,
  7sm


----------



## vincehardy3

East Winds,

There is no offense.  I appreciate your questions, comments, and insights.

Vincent


----------



## vincehardy3

Oh yeah, I made an earlier comment concerning redirection of energy.  I would like to follow-up by stating that redirection of energy can also be accomplished through hard blocks as well.  The hard blocks can be utilized as strikes in order to position a person for secondary techniques.  An example, a downward block against an on-coming punch will cause the opponent to lean forward and expose their face and chest area, which opens them up to a strike to those areasthis is especially nice when coupled with angular footwork to create an even more advantages openingXingyis Paoquan (fire/canon fist) is utilized in this manner.


Vince


----------



## East Winds

7starmantis.

Thanks for your continued input to this discusssion. I'll try and address some fo the points you have raised as best as I can. I cannot make comparisons with your system as I know very little about it, but if I tell you how we train and the methods and objectives of our training, then perhaps you can come back and make the comparison. 

Yang Cheng-fu left us Yang stylists, 10 essences by which we should train our taijiquan. Basically if you violate any of these essences in your form, then your form is flawed. In essence 9 he stated "Use mind not force". Notice what  he said!!!! not "Use mind and SOME force" or even "Use mind and a LITTLE bit of force". He was quite unequivocable on the point. "Use mind NOT force". Now I am willing for the sake of this discusssion to consider that perhaps you are right and Yang Cheng-fu got it wrong. However, my teacher is a 5th generation Yang lineage holder granted by Yang Zhen Ji and Yang Zhen Duo (2nd and 3rd sons of Yang Cheng-fu). and he also in quite unequivocable.  "The applications are executed in your mind. No punch or push is executed with tightness in the muscles. Tightness causes your movements to be more staggered, slower and to use more muscle power". But then again, perhaps he too got it wrong???

In Traditional Yang Family Taijiquan we train to develop and use Chi energy and its many Jing manifestations. We spend a lot of time developing the 4 basic Jings, Pung, Lu Ji and An and how to make them work in martial applications. Only then do we introduce the remaining 4 basic Jings. Unfortunatley some Taiji teachers never get past teaching the sequence of movements. 

There are 5 levels of Taiji training. The first is the most basic and the one many teachers never get past. This deals with the physical movements of taijiquan. The path the body takes as it moves through the form. The sequence of movements in the form. The second level starts to deal with the generation of Chi energy. The body needs to be positioned correctly and the mind needs to be focused. Energy needs to travel to your hands and feet and therefore the energy gates need to be opened. (Incidentally a very good book on the subject is Bruce Kumar Frantzis "Opening the energy gates of your body"). This level also trains breathing. The third level trains the eight energies or Jings and teaches how they are used to effect an action. You also need to understand each energy and its path through the body. How to generate these energies and use them in the form. The fourth level concetrates on how you change from one energy to the other and  in between changes how you maintain and feel the energy. The fifth and final level is the spiritual. At this level there is no form or shape, the energies just flow. These levels like the 10 essences are cumulative. You cannot move to the next level until you have mastered the previous. 

It is these objectives which distinguish the "Interal" arts from the "External" arts. No one is asaying the "external" arts are bad and that you need to train the "Internal" arts to be a good martial artist. The goals are the same, it is the method of reaching these goals that is different.

Sorry for the long post, but again the above is a highly condensed  version of the training programme of Traiditional Yang Family Taijiquan.

It will be interesting to discover how you train Chi energy and the 4 basic Jings in your form.

Very best wishes


----------



## 7starmantis

East Winds said:
			
		

> 7starmantis.
> 
> Thanks for your continued input to this discusssion. I'll try and address some fo the points you have raised as best as I can. I cannot make comparisons with your system as I know very little about it, but if I tell you how we train and the methods and objectives of our training, then perhaps you can come back and make the comparison.


 That would be fine. I do have a question though. You are more than willing to say you do not know or understand enough about other systems to make comparisions or post about their principles or methods, yet you seem fine with posting strongly about the differences they have with your style of taiji. My first reaction is to wonder why you feel so strongly about there being differences if you do not know enough about other styles to even list the differences?



			
				East Winds said:
			
		

> Yang Cheng-fu left us Yang stylists, 10 essences by which we should train our taijiquan. Basically if you violate any of these essences in your form, then your form is flawed. In essence 9 he stated "Use mind not force". Notice what he said!!!! not "Use mind and SOME force" or even "Use mind and a LITTLE bit of force". He was quite unequivocable on the point. "Use mind NOT force". Now I am willing for the sake of this discusssion to consider that perhaps you are right and Yang Cheng-fu got it wrong. However, my teacher is a 5th generation Yang lineage holder granted by Yang Zhen Ji and Yang Zhen Duo (2nd and 3rd sons of Yang Cheng-fu). and he also in quite unequivocable. "The applications are executed in your mind. No punch or push is executed with tightness in the muscles. Tightness causes your movements to be more staggered, slower and to use more muscle power". But then again, perhaps he too got it wrong???


No you seem to be missing my point. We are in agreement about not using force. In fact, I agree with his statements of "Use mind not force" however I think those statements are greatly misunderstood or at least misrepresented. Your applying that one statement to 100% of everything in TC. That quote is specific to the application of techniques. You agree with me that it takes muscular force to make your body and limbs move, yet also hold that 100% of your TC should contain absolutely no force....thats a contradiction. The force is simply at the right amount, right place, and right time. I completely believe tense muscular force is the greatest killer of good kung fu (this includes tai chi), besides ego, but force is used. To be completely devoid of force is to be unconscious. My point is simply that we cannot ignore the training of sensitivity because we trick our minds into thinking we are using no force whatsoever. I assume you train sensitivity in your TC, but what is sensitivity if there is no force?
However, this is not the real issue we are discussing. We are talking about the major differences between Tai Chi and Kung Fu. The statement we were discussing, "use mind not force" applies completely to kung fu as well. I still have yet to see you post anything about your tai chi trainin that contradicts true kung fu. 



			
				East Winds said:
			
		

> There are 5 levels of Taiji training. The first is the most basic and the one many teachers never get past. This deals with the physical movements of taijiquan. The path the body takes as it moves through the form. The sequence of movements in the form.


 This is exactly what my first statement said. We agree then that all kung fu (including tai chi) must start at a physical or "external" level and move towards the "internal". That is exactly what I said, I think you just misunderstood my point. I understand your desire to make known the fact that many do not pass these levels, but dont assume that no one passes them or that those that you dont agree with do not pass those levels. Kung fu also begins quite "external" and teaches basic movements which lead to an internal approach where "force" is replaced by feel and sensitivity. I still see no differences between Tai Chi and Kung fu.



			
				East Winds said:
			
		

> It is these objectives which distinguish the "Interal" arts from the "External" arts. No one is asaying the "external" arts are bad and that you need to train the "Internal" arts to be a good martial artist. The goals are the same, it is the method of reaching these goals that is different.


 I dont see it. You still seem bent on making a distinction between "internal" and "external" arts. I think it may be more a dislike of the term "external" than really a contradiction between these systems. In my training I have come to see the boundaries of internal and external are really non-existant. You still have not shown any methods that contradict. In fact you have not really outlined any of your own methods, just the goals of your training. I agree that there are systmes out there that contradict these principles, Tia chi and Kung Fu are basically the same thing, only one chooses to place more focus on one principles while another chooses a different principles to focus on....both contain the same principles. The "soft" and "hard" is more easily described by those phrases such as:
_"become like the branches and leaves in the trees and yet be strong and rooted like the roots on the tree"_. This gives a little better view into "soft" and "hard" rather than the ambiguous terms "Soft" and "Hard". In mantis we actually seperate the "hard" principles from the "soft". However these terms as well as the actual seperation lends itself to misunderstanding of the principles and thier usage. They exist together and work in harmony and while labeled and seperated for teaching purposes, one who gains the understanding of the system can begin to see that they are not so seperate or easily labeled.

Tai Chi without its "hard" principles of rooting and the like would be innefective. One without the other is incomplete, and while many teach this way and understand it only to this degree, it is still incomplete. Its like the old addage, "I only say what directs you to the truth". The statement "use mind not force" is meant to direct you to the understanding of no force, not to make you remove all force from your body. We live in a physical world governed by physics. We can't break these laws with spiritual or mental power. Gravity will treat you the same, thats why force has its place. I guess a deffinition of force would make things easier to understand, but thats a tough job for anyone to do.

Just my own opinions,
 7sm


----------



## pete

7starmantis said:
			
		

> ... all kung fu (including tai chi) must start at a physical or "external" level and move towards the "internal".


 
disagree here... internals should be introduced from day-one of tai chi training to give the student the feeling for how to move and develop this skill.  i do not believe that the form should be taught in its entirety, only to go back and say, 'thats nice, but you're doing it all wrong.  now let's really do it'...  i believe in providing the tools with less physical movements or postures, and simultaneously developing the internal qualities (or at least getting one to feel and understand.) this fosters 'self discovery' where a student learns to feel the internal qualities within one posture and can try to apply it to others as they learn and practice.  this is how i was taught, and continue to learn.  it is also how i teach.

philosphically, i see this more in keeping with taoist concepts of continuously and consistently simplifying by removing the non-essential.

pete


----------



## East Winds

7starmanstis,

I bow to your superior knowledge of taijiquan. Unfortunately your posts clearly show that you have no concept of the difference between the use of energy and the use of force. If there is no recognition of this difference then I'm afraid further discussion is sterile.  I note you studiously avoid discussing the use of Chi and Jing in your art or how you train and use them. Developing and using energies is the fundamental difference between the "Internal" and "External" arts. 

Thank you for your input

Very best wishes


----------



## 7starmantis

pete said:
			
		

> disagree here... internals should be introduced from day-one of tai chi training to give the student the feeling for how to move and develop this skill. i do not believe that the form should be taught in its entirety, only to go back and say, 'thats nice, but you're doing it all wrong. now let's really do it'...


No no, your misunderstanding my point. I'm not saying dont introduce internal principles or techniques at the beginning, but as a student, one starts at a physical level and as they gain skill and get in better shape, they then start understanding and being able to perform the internal much better and effectively. However, there is a learning curve even in tai chi. A first time student wouldn't benefit much form a 45 minute in depth discussion of the difference between pong (pung) and Lu Ji. We must start at basics, the advanced and internal comes later as we progress. Thats the way it is, you dont learn the intricacies of internal conepts and principels as quick or the same way that you learn how to raise your hand and punch. The physical or "external" training of exactly how to move the hand comes first, with the understanding of internal concepts coming later.

I would still be interested to hear how you feel the fighting strategies are different between kung fu and tai chi.



			
				East Winds said:
			
		

> 7starmanstis,
> 
> I bow to your superior knowledge of taijiquan. Unfortunately your posts clearly show that you have no concept of the difference between the use of energy and the use of force. If there is no recognition of this difference then I'm afraid further discussion is sterile.


 Whoa now, lets calm down a bit. If you can't have a discussion with someone who disagrees with you without getting upset or personal, maybe you should sit this one out. I mean no offense, I'm just discussing our differing understandings and beliefs of CMA training.

How exactly do my posts show I have no understanding of the difference between energy and force? Instead of simply writing me off, why not define those differences and help me understand better? I completely see "a" difference between them, whether its the same difference you see is unknown as you didn't describe the differences for me. We both recognize the difference, why not offer something to the discussion instead of claiming it "sterile"? I'm enjoying the discussion, I dont understand why your getting upset, I apologize if I'm offending you.



			
				East Winds said:
			
		

> I note you studiously avoid discussing the use of Chi and Jing in your art or how you train and use them. Developing and using energies is the fundamental difference between the "Internal" and "External" arts.


Wait a second, you have avoided offering anything about how you train and simply post goals of your training, then turn and accuse me of "studiously avoiding" questions? C'mon, lets at least be honest in our debate. I have asked you twice why you feel there are so distinct differences between kung fu and tai chi and you have yet to even address those questions. This is the number one problem with CMA forums around the world, everyone is so blindly focused on their own system or way of training that they immediately make assumptions about others and then refuse to discuss based on some point of respect or other ambiguous claims. Everyone is convinced of their systems superiority or its being the only true system that they ignore other legitimate practitioners before giving them a chance. Please, lets have a serious and honest discussion, I would really enjoy reading about your training. 

Developing and using energies is the main difference, yet you claim to not know enough about other systems to know their principles or fighting strategies. I would agree that the method of developing these "energies" is goin to be much different from style to style, but the end result is the same. How would you classify mantis kung fu, hard or soft? Internal or External? If you truly would not make the classification, why do you so adamantly claim what I do is so different from you? In fact, I study Yang tai chi, so many of my methods of training will be very close to yours. 

We take sensitivity very serious and spend much time learning to feel and yield. We practice push hands (both stationary and stepping) as well as a version of chi sau which allows for free movement and techniques. We work on following drills from contact from all parts of the body, hands, arms, shoulders, back, legs, shins, etc. We even work it blindfolded. We allow throws, takedowns, chin na, etc. We start very slow and progress in skill and speed. We work breathing drills and sensitivity drills to loosen the body, cultivate "chi" and learn to move energy to where its needed in the body. 

I'm not sure what else you are looking for about how I train, until you can offer some more specifics, I think thats about all I can list. My main point and question is: "Why do you think kung fu and tai chi are so different"? You are more than willing to offer that they are different, that their methods are different, their principels and fighting strategies are different, even their usage of "external" and "internal" concepts are different....yet you seem to avoid defining exactly how they are different. I think if you did that you would be surprised by how alike they actually are.

Looking forward to your postings.
7sm


----------



## pete

7starmantis said:
			
		

> No no, your misunderstanding my point.


 
sorry, but i understand quite well.



			
				7starmantis said:
			
		

> I'm not saying dont introduce internal principles or techniques at the beginning, but as a student, one starts at a physical level and as they gain skill and get in better shape, they then start understanding and being able to perform the internal much better and effectively.


 
what does 'get in better shape' mean? and what does it have to do with developing internals?

see, this is where i understand your point precisely.  sure there is a physical construct to learn, but again i disagree with your sequencing of starting on a physical level... that seems 'external' to me.  

from day one, the student must begin to understand the internal qualities and how to use them in simple postures, in motion and stationary.  learning a bunch of forms on the physical level is not tai chi, not even for a beginner.  



			
				7starmantis said:
			
		

> However, there is a learning curve even in tai chi. A first time student wouldn't benefit much form a 45 minute in depth discussion of the difference between pong (pung) and Lu Ji. .


 
no, nobody would benefit from that discussion.  its not about lectures and chinese words, its about sharing an experience, developing a feeling.

personally i refrain from chinese terminology as much as possible, since i do not speak the language and neither do my students.  in fact, my teacher who is from shanghai has an excellent command of the english language and uses it rather than the chinese terms. 




			
				7starmantis said:
			
		

> We must start at basics, the advanced and internal comes later as we progress


 
so how is it that i misunderstood your point?  what are the 'basics' and how does the 'internals' come later?  how can the internals be separated from the basics and still be tai chi? how much later, in your experience, do they come?



			
				7starmantis said:
			
		

> Thats the way it is, you dont learn the intricacies of internal conepts and principels as quick or the same way that you learn how to raise your hand and punch. The physical or "external" training of exactly how to move the hand comes first, with the understanding of internal concepts coming later.


 
again, i do not question your kung fu, nor do i question the internal components within your art.  but, they are obviously different from tai chi.  the methodology you describe is characteristic of training in 'external' or shaolin arts.  

i believe the quote _'there are no secrets'_ is attributed to cheng man ching.  i've heard the rest of the statement to be _'but, if there was one, it would be that the hands don't move'.  _

pete


----------



## Bob Hubbard

The way alot of this was explained to me, was that first you learn to move, then you learn to understand the movements, then you learn to move beyond. I'm summarizing it a bit here.  I've also seen 2 schools of thought, 1 that you learn the external (ie movements) then as you progress you learn the internal (Qigong). The person I've spoken to in depth about this with seemed to hold the multi-step concept in low regard, and tries to teach both right from the start.


----------



## East Winds

7starmantis,

You have neither upset nor offended me. Exasperated might be closer!!

I took issue with one of your earlier comments and I quoter "I disagree that there is no place in TC for those "hard" or "extrnal" aspects". I tried to point out to you that Yang Cheng-fu himself took issue with that. Unforunately you read my posts but you do not hear what I say. I explained my training programme which you thought were goals. Let me try and make it crystal clear for you. Of the 5 levels of Taiji attainment, on the 1st level my students learn the long form, they learn posures as applications, they learn push hands, they learn weapons. Underpinning all this training is Zhan Zhuang and Yi Chuan. Overarching the whole process is strict adherence to Yang Chen-fu's principles. When students have assimiliated all of this in their training they will have reached the start of level 2. Now go back and read what I said about level 2, 3, and 4 training. Don't bother about level 5, few people ever attain that level. Unfortunatley few teachers even reach the end of level 1!!!! 

You accuse me of not expalining why I think there are differences between "external" and "internal" . Please read again the last sentence of my last post. A clear example of reading but not hearing what I say.

And now if it helps (or hinders) I think Mantis is "external" in aspect. Now does calling your art "external" make it any less effective? Would calling it "internal" make it any better. I think not. In any case who cares what its called. Certainly not me. We are in an unfortunate circular argument here where the outcome will not be resolved. 

I am always happy to to offer this board, discussion on the principles of training Traditional Yang Family Taijiquan. You are of course at liberty to accept or reject them.  If you wish to discuss the development and utilisation of Jing energies in relation to Taijiquan training then I am more than happy to oblige.

Very best wishes


----------



## East Winds

I'm sorry I  made a typing error in one of my sentences. What I meant to say at the end of paragraph 2 was  "Unfortunatey, many teachers never even reach the end of level 1" That has quite a different connotation.
Sorry
And very best wishes


----------



## 7starmantis

pete said:
			
		

> what does 'get in better shape' mean? and what does it have to do with developing internals?


Ok, I'll try to be clearer if I can. When a person starts an exercise routine whatever it may be there is a time of adjustment. In Tai Chi the movements you learn are not neccessarily naturally occuring movements, and you must train your body to move in that way. You must make the movements become part of your muscle memory. That is the physical part, the "getting in shape" if you will. Without these movements being part of your muscle memory you cannot perform effectively. Thats the external part of tai chi, however small it may be, a person can only start where their body is at. Thats why we do stretching and balance work in Tai Chi, you must get your body to where it can actually perform the physical movements before your body will really start to perform the "internal" aspects. You asked about developing internals, your body must be in good physical shape to effectively develop these internals. Look at any writing on the subject of chi cultivation and you will see the common prerequesit to good chi flow is good health. If you can't physically move your body in the "split the horses main" posture, how can you expect to perform the internal aspects of the posture?



			
				pete said:
			
		

> see, this is where i understand your point precisely. sure there is a physical construct to learn, but again i disagree with your sequencing of starting on a physical level... that seems 'external' to me.
> 
> from day one, the student must begin to understand the internal qualities and how to use them in simple postures, in motion and stationary. learning a bunch of forms on the physical level is not tai chi, not even for a beginner.


Ok, here I can see the problem. You misunderstand my point and I dont mean to insult you its simply that I haven't made it clear enough what I'm talking about. Let me try again. Your looking at my point from a teaching perspectve, while I'm writing from a student perspective. See, I'm saying that as a student practicing Tai Chi your body can only do things in a certain order. First and foremost in that sequence is the physical "conditioning" if you will. I'm not saying the teaching should ignore insternal aspects until later, but that the student will only be able to perform these internal aspects after their body has properly learned the actual movements and become "conditioned" enough to perform the internal aspects. They should be taught, but I think we can agree that true understanding of them and thus true application of them comes much later with increased skill and body conditioning. This conditioning may be simply becoming in tune with your energy enough to perform the internal aspects, but the body must be taught as well as the mind or "spirit". Ignoring the body is but an incomplete learning of tai chi or any martial arts for that matter. As far as teaching goes, I'll use an example from kung fu. We use lots of circles and circular movements. One of our techniques is called Ou Lou Choi which is basically...grab grab punch. Its a circular movement where the first hand grabs the opponents arm around the wrist, the second hand garbs their arm further up and then the first hand releases and punches straight. There is much more to it, many intricacies and internals if you will, but thats the general movement. Its a circular movement of the hands. When we teach it first, the circle is big and wide so students can see what they are actually doing. We initially begin teaching that the circles will tighten and teach the internal aspects, but the movements are big. As the movement becomes natural to the student and they begin to understand the internals aspects associated with the technique they can begin to "tighten" the circle or make it smaller. A greatly skilled player could possibly make the circle as small as the diameter of a toothpick, but teaching it at that level to a beginner would only hinder their understanding of the technique. Thats where I'm coming from with the teaching model. The truth is our methods shouldn't matter so much as long as we reach the same end result. I agree that the methods of training differ from tai chi to many other CMA systems, but the principles and fighting strategies do not. Also, many of the methods of training exist in other systems.



			
				pete said:
			
		

> no, nobody would benefit from that discussion. its not about lectures and chinese words, its about sharing an experience, developing a feeling.
> 
> personally i refrain from chinese terminology as much as possible, since i do not speak the language and neither do my students. in fact, my teacher who is from shanghai has an excellent command of the english language and uses it rather than the chinese terms.


Heh, I agree with you, I use very little chinese termonology, but my point wasn't the semantics of the discussion but that the discussion would be over the head of the new student and wouldn't yield much learning for them. People learn from a state of "not knowing" or lack of knowledge or skill towards a state of "knowing" or great knowledge and skill. Thats all I'm saying. Its amazing to look back and remember what I "knew" about kung fu 5, 10, 20 years ago and what I "know" now.  



			
				pete said:
			
		

> so how is it that i misunderstood your point? what are the 'basics' and how does the 'internals' come later? how can the internals be separated from the basics and still be tai chi? how much later, in your experience, do they come?


Certainly we agree that with gained knoweldge and skill you begin to understand and be able to perform the internals better, yes? A new person could learn a posture and go home, practice it, and come back in a week and do the posture perfect, but would they truly understand and be able to apply the intricacies and internal aspects of the posture? Certainly not, that takes time and practice, as well as experience applying the posture. Thats what I mean about the internals coming later, it takes longer to build them. 



			
				pete said:
			
		

> again, i do not question your kung fu, nor do i question the internal components within your art. but, they are obviously different from tai chi. the methodology you describe is characteristic of training in 'external' or shaolin arts.



I didn't think you questioned my kung fu or my art. I just would like someone to stop making the claim they are "obviously different from tai chi" without explaining how they are different. From everything I read here, I see no differences. I think its frustrating that everyone holds these hard seperations of "internal" and "external" systems while true kung fu contains both. Having all the internal power in the world is worth nothing if your body can't handle applying it. Internal and external are simply descriptions people have made to try and label kung fu but years past these seperations did not exist. 



			
				pete said:
			
		

> i believe the quote _'there are no secrets'_ is attributed to cheng man ching.  i've heard the rest of the statement to be _'but, if there was one, it would be that the hands don't move'.  _


Yes, but there is no secret, so thats irrelevent 
That is actually a great book about tai chi (There Are No Secrets), and quite fitting for kung fu as well. Its recommended reading for all of our advanced Tai Chi and Kung Fu students.

7sm


----------



## 7starmantis

East Winds said:
			
		

> 7starmantis,
> 
> You have neither upset nor offended me. Exasperated might be closer!!


 Good, I'm glad I have not offended, I am sorry I have exasperated though. I think if you would see that we actually agree quite a bit you wouldn't get so exasperated. :asian:



			
				East Winds said:
			
		

> I took issue with one of your earlier comments and I quoter "I disagree that there is no place in TC for those "hard" or "extrnal" aspects". I tried to point out to you that Yang Cheng-fu himself took issue with that. Unforunately you read my posts but you do not hear what I say.


 No I heard you, I just dont agree. Read my above post about the training of the body in Tai Chi. I just simply take that principle and his statements to mean something a bit different. To be completely devoid of "hard" or "external" is to be unconscious. How can you "close the door" on your opponent without having the physical conditioning to do damage? I think we disagree on the term "hard" as well. In my opinion the term hard could be used to describe pung as well. I think "hard" outside of CMA is muscle tension, but inside CMA the term would describe something much different. I agree that muscle tension and force is not to be used in Tai Chi, but I also believe it is not to be used in Kung Fu. 



			
				East Winds said:
			
		

> I explained my training programme which you thought were goals. Let me try and make it crystal clear for you. Of the 5 levels of Taiji attainment, on the 1st level my students learn the long form, they learn posures as applications, they learn push hands, they learn weapons. Underpinning all this training is Zhan Zhuang and Yi Chuan. Overarching the whole process is strict adherence to Yang Chen-fu's principles. When students have assimiliated all of this in their training they will have reached the start of level 2. Now go back and read what I said about level 2, 3, and 4 training. Don't bother about level 5, few people ever attain that level. Unfortunatley few teachers even reach the end of level 1!!!!


This is precisely my point. You must start at "levels" and go "upward". I got torn into because I proposed this type of training, when in reality we agree here. Your level 1 would be what I consider "external" training. I agree that few teachers reach past beginner levels, but dont let that overshadow your willingness to "hear out" others, you may just miss something beneficial by doing so.



			
				East Winds said:
			
		

> You accuse me of not expalining why I think there are differences between "external" and "internal" . Please read again the last sentence of my last post. A clear example of reading but not hearing what I say.


 No, I "accused" you of not explaining why you think there are differences between tai chi and other kung fu "styles". You simply offer that tai chi is internal while these "others" are external. Why do you believe that? Why is tai chi internal while mantis is external?



			
				East Winds said:
			
		

> And now if it helps (or hinders) I think Mantis is "external" in aspect. Now does calling your art "external" make it any less effective? Would calling it "internal" make it any better. I think not. In any case who cares what its called. Certainly not me. We are in an unfortunate circular argument here where the outcome will not be resolved.


 Ok, we are getting somewhere, why exactly do you feel mantis is "external"? I dont think labels affect at all anythings effectiveness, but it does affect our understanding of things. I dont think we are in an unresolvable argument, I think we are actually getting somewhere. I would just like to see you layout why you feel tai chi and kung fu are different. You have said because of "internal" vs" external" but I dont see support of those labels. I would disagree that mantis is "external" so we need to define our termonology in order to progress. What makes something internal vs external to you? We work heavily on developing internal skills and aspects. Specifically what principles or fighting strategies are different from tai chi to other kung fu systems? 


7sm


----------



## pete

7sm, you just continue to confuse disagreement with misunderstanding.  i have nothing more to contribute to this discussion.  my final advise to you is to reread the posts in this thread, note all the specifics that have been provided by myself and other posters, and try not to rationalize it all as nobody understands you.  our views differ, accept it.

your description of the grab, grab, pull is further evidence of your style's 'external' perspective.  again, i do not deny the internal components within your art, just as i would not deny the internal components of iron wire within hung gar or san-chin within okinowan karate... but simply presenting your technique from what your hands are doing, even if moving in circular manner, it remains different from how a tai chi student would learn a self defense application.  you mention nothing of listening, following, adhering, nor leading into emptiness, control of center, and disrupting balance.  grab-grab-punch... even if there are a multitude of things of the internal nature going on and developed as one improves technique, the emphasis is on the 'external' ... the hands, the grabs, the punch.

please accept this a difference, not an indictment.   you just may want to reexamine your _"frustrating that everyone holds these hard seperations of "internal" and "external" systems"._  find out why 4 out of 5 dentists agree.

best wishes on your oddessey...

pete


----------



## arnisador

What's 'iron wire'?


----------



## East Winds

7starmantis,

I agree with Pete and I withdraw from this discussion. How can we talk about "external" and "internal" , "hard" and "soft"  when you consider (your quote) "In my opinion the term hard could be used to describe pung as well". I am sorry, if this is what you believe about the most basic of the Taiji energies then there is nothing more to be said. 

I also note that the book "There are no secrets" is recommended reading for your Taiji students. I assume from that then, that you practice Cheng Man-ching style. Nothing wrong with that, except it is not Yang style!!!

Very best wishes with your further researches


----------



## 7starmantis

pete said:
			
		

> 7sm, you just continue to confuse disagreement with misunderstanding. i have nothing more to contribute to this discussion. my final advise to you is to reread the posts in this thread, note all the specifics that have been provided by myself and other posters, and try not to rationalize it all as nobody understands you. our views differ, accept it.


I accept it, your mind has allready been made up about me so you refuse to listen at all. I didn't say no one understood me, but that you misunderstood the point I was making. I even claimed responsibility for that misunderstanding by saying I didn't make myself clear. You have listed no specifics answering the question I asked directly from your own post:

Specifically what principles or fighting strategies are different from tai chi to other kung fu systems?

If you are unable to answer that question your very smart to withdraw from the discussion. As of yet no one has offered anything towards that question, especially not specifics. You can spin this discussion anyway you want to, but the sad thing is your unwilling to discuss your training with someone else (one who even studies your own system). In my opinion that is a sad thing, we should be more than willing to put our biases aside, remove our assumptions and have serious discussion.


			
				pete said:
			
		

> your description of the grab, grab, pull is further evidence of your style's 'external' perspective. again, i do not deny the internal components within your art, just as i would not deny the internal components of iron wire within hung gar or san-chin within okinowan karate... but simply presenting your technique from what your hands are doing, even if moving in circular manner, it remains different from how a tai chi student would learn a self defense application. you mention nothing of listening, following, adhering, nor leading into emptiness, control of center, and disrupting balance. grab-grab-punch... even if there are a multitude of things of the internal nature going on and developed as one improves technique, the emphasis is on the 'external' ... the hands, the grabs, the punch.


If semantical arguements are all the evidence you can provide, your decision to remove yourself from the discussion is again, a smart one. First, lets not misquote each other, I described a "grab grab punch" not "grab grab pull" and I only offered it in those terms because of your own addmission of not understanding the chinese terms. I mentioned nothing of listening or these other concepts because of space constraints. I did say there were a multitude of internal and intricacies to that one technique. The fact that you are trying to fault me for simply not explaining something to its fullest is only proof of your unwillingness to coperate in a serious discussion. You dont have enough data to determine what my "emphasis" is on, this again is simply showing your willingness to accept your own biased assumptions of someone over actually discussing or asking questions. You should seriously consider your narrow point of view, and be willing to discuss things with those you disagree with. You claim skill and understanding of tai chi and yet are unable to even discuss or enlighten me about your knoweldge. Stop with the ambiguous semantical arguements and lay down some specifics, like the differing principles or fighting strategies you claimed. The emphasis is of 'listening" finding their center, disrupting their center, controling their center, emtying their attack, yielding, "sticking" softening, etc. You are just too blinded by your assumptions to wait and see if that emphasis exists.

You say things like" thats different from the way a tai chi student would learn" yet offer no specifics of exactly how a tai chi student would learn. Your argument hinges on everyone accepting your own "say so" as truth, you offer no evidence or proof. Frustrating how people especially in CMA choose to either withhold their knowledge or understanding because they dont feel others are "worth" sharing it...or they hide behind that guise, one or the other.



			
				pete said:
			
		

> please accept this a difference, not an indictment.   you just may want to reexamine your _"frustrating that everyone holds these hard seperations of "internal" and "external" systems"._  find out why 4 out of 5 dentists agree.


I've accepted and stated it as a difference from the beginning, I simply wanted to discuss the difference. Maybe you should "pass the sour grapes" and check and see exactly what those 4 out of 5 dentists are agreeing to. 4 out of 5 improperly trained dentist can all agree but that doesn't make them correct or even dentist really. 

I dont mean to sound harsh, but I'm disapointed in your willingness to turn your back on an opportunity to discuss your training and teach someone else about what you do. Thats the reason for this whole section, I wish we could see more honest debate going on here instead of these types of interactions. These are perfect examples of one makig an assumption about a person from the beginning and refusing to listen to anything past that. I have no need to change your mind about kung fu, but its a shame your going to miss the knowledge about those internal aspects of the mantis system. 

Good luck in your training,
 7sm


----------



## 7starmantis

East Winds said:
			
		

> 7starmantis,
> 
> I agree with Pete and I withdraw from this discussion. How can we talk about "external" and "internal" , "hard" and "soft" when you consider (your quote) "In my opinion the term hard could be used to describe pung as well". I am sorry, if this is what you believe about the most basic of the Taiji energies then there is nothing more to be said.


My above post also applies here. This is an example of you not likign the term "hard" and so your just applying your own biases to what I said. We could discuss by defining what we mean by the term "hard" and then following through on claims of differing principles and fighting strategies. Your willingness to abandond discussion because of semantical biases is sad. You should be ashamed of yourself, you have a great opportunity to share your understanding and knowledge with someone while gaining from their own knowledge and understanding. Again, you just made up your mind about before discussion began and have been unwilling to listen past that. 
Your unwillingness to continue discussion becasue of one word I used to describe a type of energy...is...well...disappointing.



			
				East Winds said:
			
		

> I also note that the book "There are no secrets" is recommended reading for your Taiji students. I assume from that then, that you practice Cheng Man-ching style. Nothing wrong with that, except it is not Yang style!!!



Haha, wow....just wow. Another huge assumption made and accepted as fact by you. We do not practice Cheng Man-ching style. However we are not so narrow minded as to refuse good material based on it not being the same "style" we practice. That book has great information about understanding tai chi and chi energy...its sad that you write thigns like that off simply because of your personal bias against a character in the book. Your so blindly trying to prove me to be some unknowledgeable person you have showed your own bias. We do practice Yang style, but are you only referig to Yang style Tai Chi when you use the term "Tai Chi"?

Again, I'm very disapointed in those here in the MartialTalk CMA community who claim such great knowledge and understanding but are too caught up in blinding personal biases or ego that they refuse to have serious and honest discussions. We should really take these opportunities to share.

7sm


----------



## 7starmantis

I guess tthread has run its course. Thanks to all who participated. I think we have shown that many people study Tai Chi for its martial applications. I think its one of the best for that. I think we have also shown that its principles and fighting strategies are so intertwined in CMA that its almost indistinguishable from other kung fu systems, while there are some that place emphasis on less "internal" principles. 

Good thread.

7sm


----------



## vincehardy3

Arnisador,

"Iron Wire" is an iron body technique that is utilized by the Hung Gar practitioners.   The training that a practitioner endures allows them to take the "hard blows" from an opponent.  Other systems utilize "iron body" techniques as well--for example there is the "golden bell", "shield", "iron skin", etc.  There is nothing mystical about it.  With some systems the training is strictly brutal, and with others they utilize Qigong/ki within their regiment.


Vincent
(Yiliquan Association)


----------



## arnisador

Ah, OK! Thanks.


----------



## lhommedieu

For what it's worth:  I saw a fight in Flushing's Chinatown area last year wherein after some words one guy (the angry screaming one) rushed the other (the quiet one) and received a _perfect_ shoulder stroke for his trouble and got sent back flying and slammed into a stone wall (actually a railroad bridge wall) with his back and head.  He kept screaming at the Tai Qi fighter _but didn't move an inch closer.  _After a while the Tai Qi fighter just shrugged his shoulders and walked away. 

Nice.

Best,

Steve Lamade


----------



## Makalakumu

I'm chiming in late, however, I've been lurking for quite a while on this thread.  I think that Tai Chi is a great art for self defense...if one actually practices the applications against another person.  Tai Chi is like any other art.  There are ways of safely practicing certain applications with some intent to actually put someone down...and unless one does this, its going to be hard to get a real feel on how to use tai chi to defend oneself.

I've practiced Yang Style as taught by TT Liang for six years on and off.  One of the ways that this style teaches the self defense applications of Tai Chi is through two person dance.  See this thread on the subject.  Many arts of lost this practice or they confuse it with push hands and have become ineffective for self defense...according to TT Liang.


----------



## 7starmantis

Good post, I agree. Without the training of applications and working the techniques and principles against an uncooperative opponent, one will not truly gain the skill to apply what they are learning. I also believe that the complete abandonment of any physical conditioning or training is going to lead to the inability to perform the techniques and principles effectively. You could call this "external" but I believe very strongly it is needed even in tai chi. Thats why they stretch, perform the form so much and spend so much time practicing. Without that "external" or physical component its only a small portion of actual tai chi. The ability to use internal aspects is not negated by the ability to perform physical aspects.

Just my own experiences and understandings,
 7sm


----------



## Xue Sheng

I know I am very late to this discussion, but Tai Chi is a martial art. There are direct applications to the forms and in all styles, some more than others, there is Qin Na. 

As for the 13 postures, per my teacher, if you understand the 13 postures, you understand tai chi martial arts. However unlike Xingyi, tai chi is mainly for self defense, Xingyi can be used for attack. 

However it is very hard to find a Tai Chi teacher today that knows anything about the martial side of Tai Chi.

I recently read an article from a Chen practitioner in China that said he believes of all of the people in the world, including China, that approximately 5% know anything about tai chi martial arts


----------



## TheBattousai

Xue Sheng said:
			
		

> I know I am very late to this discussion, but Tai Chi is a martial art. There are direct applications to the forms and in all styles, some more than others, there is Qin Na.
> 
> As for the 13 postures, per my teacher, if you understand the 13 postures, you understand tai chi martial arts. However unlike Xingyi, tai chi is mainly for self defense, Xingyi can be used for attack.
> 
> However it is very hard to find a Tai Chi teacher today that knows anything about the martial side of Tai Chi.
> 
> I recently read an article from a Chen practitioner in China that said he believes of all of the people in the world, including China, that approximately 5% know anything about tai chi martial arts


 
I don't totally agree with the Hsing I part, but I have heard simular things about the whole 5% know about Tai Chi forms being used for self defense or martial arts. I've heard that its the worst problem in china. It almost seems that you need someone that trains in other martial arts to make the connection.


----------



## Xue Sheng

It is difficult if you want to study Tai Chi with the martial arts still intact. And if you start applying other martial arts to it, particularly those that are not internal, you change it to something other than Tai Chi. I use to train Jujitsu and Teakwondo and I have trained tai chi with friends that do Aikido and the principals are not all that similar to Tai Chi.

I have had 3 different Tai Chi Teachers, all Chinese. The first knew only knew form, the second I was only able to train with briefly but he did know the applications, the third I am currently with, although his lineage and is very good (his teacher learned from Yang Cheng-fu), and his skill is very high, he is now only teaching basic stuff. He now focuses on beginner and intermediate students and has left his advance students to help train the beginner and intermediate, we don't mind, but it has been this way now for 2 years. 

Let's face it in America it is more popular to teach Tai Chi as moving meditation without the martial arts. And apparently that thinking is now global. 

I briefly taught Tai Chi and I lost students when I said it was originally was, and still is a martial art. I will never forget one of my students looking at me and saying "WELL!!..I didn't want karate" leaving never returning. 

I am currently looking for another teacher, and I think I have found one, but it will be a four-hour drive.

As for Xingyi, It is also a defensive art, but from my understanding it is one of the few (Chinese) martial arts that were originally trained with attack in mind. I was once able to talk briefly with Yang Jwing Ming about it and his statement was, it was made for war.

Now that I have typed way to much


----------



## Tony

One of the guys in my class was showing us what he had learnt from his 4 months in China, some very coll weapons forms and he was showing me some Tai Chi self defence applications and i was so impressed. People often see Tai Chi as a slow moving form of meditation dismiss it. I ahve a friend who studies Taekwondo and cannot grasp that Tai Chi is infact a Martial Art but people in the west know it better as a form of exercise!
I woudl love to syudy Tai Chi, not only to improve my health, but as well as aiding my kung fu training!


----------



## Xue Sheng

With luck, I will be training in China this summer.

I use to train with Aikido people, Kung Fu people, Karate people and once a Tae kwondo guy. The only ones that seemed to be able to get the idea that it was a martial art were the Aikido people and the Chinese Kung Fu people. By the way, that type of training helps improve martial tai chi immensely. Either do it right or get thrown to the ground or punched/kicked in the head. 

And you are right most people only see the slow moving forms of Yang Style, But there are fast forms in Yang style that very few Tai Chi people ever see or even know exist, both empty hand and weapon. 

This view of Tai Chi being only exercise can be found in China too. I know a Tai Chi teacher in Beijing that only teaches in the park and he has said none of his students want to know martial arts; they just want to know the exercise. 

However if you ever get a chance to watch a Tai Chi person from the Chen family do Tai Chi (Cheng Zhengli for example) the martial arts and power become more obvious.


----------



## chi-ca

Xue Sheng said:
			
		

> I am currently looking for another teacher, and I think I have found one, but it will be a four-hour drive.


 
Xue Sheng-
I don't know where you live but if you're near Washington, DC there is an excellent taiji teacher at the US Wushu Academy. Christopher Pei teaches both Yang and Chen styles.  He has studied with Yang Zhen Ji and Yang Zhen Duo (2nd & 3rd sons of Yang Chen Fu) as well as Chen Zheng Li and has a very strong interest in teaching taiji as a martial art. Students practice applications and drills. He is definately part of your 5%.

Battousai - Christopher Pei also teaches in the UK once or twice a year (I believe East Winds has trained with him). If you're interested, you can contact Coach Pei through www.uswushuacademy.com 

Chi-ca


----------



## Xue Sheng

chi-ca

Most unfortunatly I live about 400 miles from DC.

thank you

The search continues.


----------



## TheBattousai

Thanks chi-ca, but I live in Kentucky and not the UK (but if he visits here or I take a trip to DC, I may look him up). Fortunetly, I have a master instructor in Tai Chi, specificly Tsung Shi Tai Chi, that teaches it as a martial art. Although I would like to see some other styles of Tai Chi, just to broaden my overall understanding of it. Thanks again for the contact chi-ca.


----------



## chi-ca

TheBattousai said:
			
		

> Thanks chi-ca, but I live in Kentucky and not the UK (but if he visits here or I take a trip to DC, I may look him up). Fortunetly, I have a master instructor in Tai Chi, specificly Tsung Shi Tai Chi, that teaches it as a martial art. Although I would like to see some other styles of Tai Chi, just to broaden my overall understanding of it. Thanks again for the contact chi-ca.


 
Doh! Sorry about that. I guess I got the "UK" from Tony's post and it stuck in my pitiful memory. 

Chi-ca


----------



## East Winds

Chi-ca,

Yes you are correct. I train with Coach Pei on his visits to the UK. He is definitely one of the 5%!!!!!!

Regards


----------



## Oily Dragon

arnisador said:


> What's 'iron wire'?



Start here.






						The Twelve (Sometimes Ten) Sounds of the Southern Shaolin Iron Wire
					

I've been putting this off too long, but rather than write a whole bunch, I decided to seek out a decent intro, written by someone else.  Here's an icebreaker question: Is it 10 or 12 sounds?  I have made some pretty spooky sounds performing this fist set, sometimes I forget which sound goes...



					www.martialtalk.com


----------



## mograph

Holy crap. Sixteen years -- talk about a necrothread.


----------



## zzj

so, is there a discussion going on?


----------



## Xue Sheng

well there was...back in 2006


----------

