# Training Question



## Xue Sheng (Jul 5, 2006)

First assume there are no true teachers of the style in question anywhere near where you live. 

If there was a person that taught Tai Chi, for example Chen Style, but this person did not know any depth or internal of Chen. But his forms were dead on exact to the actual family style, would it be worth it to go to the teacher to study Chen?

Additionally, would it be worth it to go to this teacher if you also had the chance to meet with a true Chen teacher once or twice a year? 

Would knowing the forms and only the forms be an advantage or disadvantage when meeting the real deal? 

I can honestly say I do not know how to answer this, which could explain why I posted it.


----------



## JBrainard (Jul 5, 2006)

It is my belief that teaching forms without teaching the aplication or deeper meaning is worthless. Plus meeting with a master once or twice a year would be frustrating in the fact that you would learn the true "depth" of the art VERY slowly.
Just my two cents.


----------



## pstarr (Jul 5, 2006)

No, I don't think so.  You'll just learn the outer shell and finding the real "meat" could take decades...


----------



## Nebuchadnezzar (Jul 6, 2006)

Xue Sheng said:
			
		

> First assume there are no true teachers of the style in question anywhere near where you live.
> 
> If there was a person that taught Tai Chi, for example Chen Style, but this person did not know any depth or internal of Chen. But his forms were dead on exact to the actual family style, would it be worth it to go to the teacher to study Chen?
> 
> ...


 
Then they would be no more useful than these people who teach seniors and new age folks.  Excercise for the seniors, but nothing more.


----------



## 7starmantis (Jul 6, 2006)

I think you would benefit from learning the form correctly even if not being taught the application and such. The form (if it truly is the same as the Chen teacher) doesn't change, so you will be learning and mastering the form which is part of the basics. There is nothing beter to drill than basics. Meeting with the Chen teacher once a year can give you quite a bit of stuff to work on and train until next time. I think the whole setup is much better than not training...

7sm


----------



## Jade Tigress (Jul 6, 2006)

> It is my belief that teaching forms without teaching the aplication or deeper meaning is worthless. Plus meeting with a master once or twice a year would be frustrating in the fact that you would learn the true "depth" of the art VERY slowly.
> Just my two cents.


I agree with this statement overall. The only thing I would say is learning the forms without the application may not be _totally_ worthless. Mostly worthless, yes. But if you can get movements into muscle memory, then when you learn the application, the hard part, the muscle memory, is already there. Now you can apply it. For the most part I think it would be a very slow and frustrating way to train.



> No, I don't think so.  You'll just learn the outer shell and finding the real "meat" could take decades...


Exactly...slow and frustrating. Is it worth it? You have to decide for yourself what is worth your time and effort. I guess it depends on exactly what you hope to get out of it.


----------



## KOROHO (Jul 6, 2006)

Nebuchadnezzar said:
			
		

> Then they would be no more useful than these people who teach seniors and new age folks. Excercise for the seniors, but nothing more.


 
I wanted to first address this:
I teach seniors, stroke victims and other disabled people.
I have one senior reporting lower blood pressure, one gaining better balance and one whose sciatica has cleared up.  I think this is quite useful.  I have one stroke patient who has regained some use of his one arm mainly thanks to my forcing him to use it in taichi class.  So this also is quite useful.

But my answer to the original would be that a teacher who does not have a deep knowledge of the art is of no real value.  You can learn the movements of the from from a video.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jul 6, 2006)

My quandary in regards to this question comes from this; many years ago I trained with a Sifu from China that was trained in Wushu at one of the physical education Universities in China (masters degree). His forms were always close to perfect, but he does not know depth of Tai Chi. I trained Yang, Wu, and Chen with him, amongst other CMA styles. And I have always felt that knowing Yang 24 and 48 was a great advantage when I started training Traditional Yang with a different teacher. I seemed to have fewer problems than the rest of the class at the time with proper form, balance and application (I needed less correction). But as I advanced with my Yang style Sifu and began training beginners (at his school) I started to notice that previous knowledge appeared to be a bit of a problem and the students who had previously learned 24 form needed much more form correction than those that had no prior knowledge at all.

I have begun to wonder why, since I had fewer problems due to the prior training where many of the beginners at the time I was helping my Yang style Sifu had no prior MA training before learning Yang style 24 from someone else. 

My first Sifu was a stickler for forms being correct when I first started with him and I also came form a hard MA background (Jujitsu, TDK).

Is it the prior training in MA, is it my first Sifu's attention to form or is it something else?


----------



## 7starmantis (Jul 6, 2006)

Ultimately its up to you as you know how much or how little this teacher understands. I think what peopel posting here are forgetting is that form training (as you have said its good forms training) is much much better than nothing. People are saying it will take decades and will be frustrating, but is it not frustrating to sit at home and think about training. I say go for it, if the form is truly correct, you are drilling basics and you can learn a whole lot by yourself just doing the form. Getting together with the master he can "fix" your forms training and give you things to work on until next time. In fact, I think this would be a pretty traditional way to elarn myself. It may take a while, but think how good you will be at the stuff he has left you with the next time you see him.

Adam


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jul 6, 2006)

KOROHO said:
			
		

> But my answer to the original would be that a teacher who does not have a deep knowledge of the art is of no real value. You can learn the movements of the from from a video.


 
I don't agree with this. 

If a person knows the form and knows it well he or she could teach you the form much better than you may be able to teach yourself from a video. The depth would not be there but the form would be correct. If you teach yourself from a video, the depth will not be there and the form may or may not be correct.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jul 6, 2006)

pstarr said:
			
		

> No, I don't think so. You'll just learn the outer shell and finding the real "meat" could take decades...


 
This is what I am thinking

You could have good form but it will take forever to actually learn the style beyond the surface stuff


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jul 6, 2006)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> I think you would benefit from learning the form correctly even if not being taught the application and such. The form (if it truly is the same as the Chen teacher) doesn't change, so you will be learning and mastering the form which is part of the basics. There is nothing beter to drill than basics. Meeting with the Chen teacher once a year can give you quite a bit of stuff to work on and train until next time. I think the whole setup is much better than not training...
> 
> 7sm


 
And yet I find I am agreeing with this too. 

You see I am a bit confused here. 

Old style CMA training was on many occasions meet a Sifu once and have him show you a couple of things and then go off and train them for a while and then see him again and if you got those things right he would show you more. 

I trained Police style Sanda recently (briefly) in this manner, the teacher was very traditional in his teaching style. As I have said before on MT, trees feared me, I never got past the kicking and punching trees before I had to stop. But this is not the same he knew the style and he had the depth and experience behind him to back him up. He also did not care on bit if I had any prior training at all; it was not Sanda so I started from the beginning. 

And I also do agree with training is better than not training.



			
				Jade Tigress said:
			
		

> I agree with this statement overall. The only thing I would say is learning the forms without the application may not be totally worthless. Mostly worthless, yes. But if you can get movements into muscle memory, then when you learn the application, the hard part, the muscle memory, is already there. Now you can apply it. For the most part I think it would be a very slow and frustrating way to train.
> 
> Exactly...slow and frustrating. Is it worth it? You have to decide for yourself what is worth your time and effort. I guess it depends on exactly what you hope to get out of it.



This is also a very good point.


----------



## Flying Crane (Jul 6, 2006)

I am in agreement with 7Star.  Go for it, it's better than sitting there with nothing to do, wishing you could do it.

If the forms training is good, that is definitely valuable.  Often, in Chinese martial arts, little is taught by way of application anyway.  the student is expected to figure that out for himself.  Given your background, I suspect you could do this, if the teacher is not teaching application.

But with Tai Chi, it is more than application.  There is the whole Chi Movement and cultivation part of it, that is beyond simply figuring out fighting applications for movement.  This part is very subtle and can take decades to figure out anyway, even with a good teacher.  I firmly believe that very few people really ever figure this out.  Most people are just doing forms anyway, with little true understanding of the Chi side of things.  Many people think they understand this, but they are just fooling themselves.

Given your prior background, you may have as good a potential as anyone might, to develop your chi by practicing the form.  Your prior tai chi training would probably be adaptable and give you a head-start, so you could actually make some progress.

When you get a chance to train with a visiting master, do so.  But I suspect you will still find things to be different.  I really don't believe there is any such thing as the "standard" way a form is done, even in tai chi.  Everyone has their own way and their own interpretation, and this can be different as they age.  An old guy doesn't do it the same as a young guy, but they can both be correct.  The only time you see a high level of precision with regard to doing the form in a standardized way, identical from person to person, is when it becomes part of a Modern Wushu competition.  But this is not true tai chi.  This is tai chi with little or no understanding of the deeper levels.  This is purely competition and is only the shell of tai chi.


----------



## Nebuchadnezzar (Jul 6, 2006)

KOROHO said:
			
		

> I wanted to first address this:
> I teach seniors, stroke victims and other disabled people.
> I have one senior reporting lower blood pressure, one gaining better balance and one whose sciatica has cleared up. I think this is quite useful. I have one stroke patient who has regained some use of his one arm mainly thanks to my forcing him to use it in taichi class. So this also is quite useful.


 
Never said it wasn't useful to seniors nor for those who needed rehabilitation work.



			
				KOROHO said:
			
		

> But my answer to the original would be that a teacher who does not have a deep knowledge of the art is of no real value. You can learn the movements of the from from a video.



Different wording, actually more detailed than what I said.  Still amounts to the same thing that I said though.  Your profile doesn't include Tai Chi, so I have to believe that you don't practice or teach the marital applications.  I believe that the gist of the original posting was would it be worth it just to have the forms without having knowlege of the purpose of Tai Chi, martial applications.  The health aspects are a welcome plus.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jul 6, 2006)

Flying Crane said:
			
		

> I am in agreement with 7Star. Go for it, it's better than sitting there with nothing to do, wishing you could do it.
> 
> If the forms training is good, that is definitely valuable. Often, in Chinese martial arts, little is taught by way of application anyway. the student is expected to figure that out for himself. Given your background, I suspect you could do this, if the teacher is not teaching application.
> 
> ...


 
Thanks

I may be going back to my first Sifu for a bit to learn Chen or Zhaobao, but at this point I am not completely sure. His forms are generally dead on when it comes to the less popular and harder stuff, but it is just form. And it may be Zhaobao instead of Chen. 

Chen tends to be more popular than Zhaobao. And although he use to be a stickler for form he has changed some to gain students, and he has had a LOT of students.

Since he only teacher Zhaobao rarely and in private lessons it may be a good form. I also have it from a Zhaobao practitioner in China that has seen his DVD on Zhaobao that his form is actually pretty good.


----------



## Nebuchadnezzar (Jul 6, 2006)

Xue Sheng said:
			
		

> ...But as I advanced with my Yang style Sifu and began training beginners (at his school) I started to notice that previous knowledge appeared to be a bit of a problem and the students who had previously learned 24 form needed much more form correction than those that had no prior knowledge at all.
> 
> I have begun to wonder why, since I had fewer problems due to the prior training where many of the beginners at the time I was helping my Yang style Sifu had no prior MA training before learning Yang style 24 from someone else.
> 
> ...


 
In the Army, my drill instructor made a note that those who went hunting and learned how to use a rifle for that purpose would have more trouble learning proper techniques with the M-16.  Those who didn't (me included) would be easier to teach and would excel at basic marksmanship.  He was one hundred percent accurate.  The guys and girls who had hunting experience were showing the lowest skills as opposed to us "City Kids" (that was over twenty years ago).


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jul 6, 2006)

Nebuchadnezzar said:
			
		

> In the Army, my drill instructor made a note that those who went hunting and learned how to use a rifle for that purpose would have more trouble learning proper techniques with the M-16. Those who didn't (me included) would be easier to teach and would excel at basic marksmanship. He was one hundred percent accurate. The guys and girls who had hunting experience were showing the lowest skills as opposed to us "City Kids" (that was over twenty years ago).


 
I am not questioning this since I have never been in the Army, but it does not explain why I had less trouble coming from Jujitsu/TDK/Various CMA, Yang 24 and 48 then going to traditional, than those that had no training in it at all and those that only had Yang 24 and then went to Traditional. 

I am certainly not extraordinarily talented so I think we can rule that out immediately. The only things I can come up with are that I had prior training therefore I knew how to train and my Forms only teacher was a stickler for form.

And as to your Army example, I am not sure this applies, but my cousin was a marksman in the Army. As a matter of fact his DI gave him his own marksmen metal because he made the statement that if anyone here could out shoot him he would give them his metal. 

My cousin did out shoot him (target practice stuff) and the DI was good for his word. My cousin learned to shoot from hunting and then went on to be the champion skeet or trap shooter (I do not remember which) in his age group in Pennsylvania prior to joining the Army.


----------

