# a question from an ignorant brother



## Brother John

I am a Kenpoist. Our style emphasizes the ability to apply our art's skills in a life or death situation.
I appreciate the internal styles as well, but confess a profound ignorance of them. I know that they are excellent for maintaining health, cultivating Chi/Ki, and assist in developing a serene mind: BUT...
Does Tai Chi help one in a self-defense situation??
I do not claim that a martial art must address real combat training, or be applicable in a fight, to be a good and valid martial art. We don't all study/train for the same reasons right? But I was wondering about a Tai Chi practitioners self defense skills. If it does help one in this area, how?
With all respect...
Your Brother
John


----------



## theneuhauser

Actually, taiji is a practical martial art just like kenpo is.

unfortunately, it takes a little longer to develop the martial proficiency that you could achieve more quickly in modern combat arts. Taji quan is translated as ultimate boxing. unfortunately, i would say that the simple majority, maybe more have no exposure to the internal as a martial art. so you dont always get to see it. Taiji, Pakua, XingYi, they all are pure martial arts that have their own systems all the way down to hardcore excercise and sparring. the only real difference is that these martial arts focus on power from within, that is the most important thing, while most others treat internal power as a sort of secondary thing that is developed in addition to everything else, in IMAs, it all starts with the qi.


----------



## Brother John

Thanks for that insight!
Guess my presumption came from the fact that other than push-hands I'd never seen two Taiji Quan practitioners spar or do a 'fighting sequence' together.

What is the main tactic in the combat application of Taiji? From the look of the motions I would guess it has to do with a very low center of gravity and broad/flowing arm/hand strikes.
Just a guess.

Thanks for the lesson sir.


Your Brother
John


----------



## theneuhauser

no, thank you, your avatar is very funny. makes me want to dance.

but you are correct. most taiji instructors here dont go much further than push hands. in reality push hands is just a form of practice that is designed to help you "understand" your opponent and work on your own balance and techniques, although push hands can, at times, get pretty animated, it is not the end all. usually, it is seen as a precursor to two man sets (like a form between two people) and then on to free sparring. fortunately, i was exposed to all this early on, and when i moved away from my first instructor i was surprised to find that many instructors taught forms as if that was the only thing there was, or they were an addition to other hard style training for another system. thats all well and good, but its not the whole story.

and to answer your question about tactics, i would say that there are many tactics, comparable to what you might expect out of any traditional chinese martial art. there is quite a variety, strikes, pushes, throws, off-balancing techniques, and joint locks, defensively, yielding and softness allow you to sense your opponent's weaknesses and exploit them.
 And in taiji your center of gravity doesnt necessarily have to be low (ie. low stances) but the "root" is emphasized, its sort of like how well you are anchored to the ground. a very skilled fighter maintains a strong root even at a high center of gravity.(mine is lost above medium height)

i know alot less about pakua and xingyi just being introduced to them, really. but theres some links:

xingyi 

pakua(bagua) and others


----------



## hubris

Hi Brother! Just to add my two cents, IME whether or not a student is exposed to martial applications depends on the teacher. My teacher usually shows even beginning students the martial applications of the form. He has brought tai chi weapons to class to demonstrate them to us. (Swords and sticks, etc.) Until I hooked up with this teacher, I never knew that weapons could be used in tai chi. I am very lucky to have found a teacher who focuses on both the internal arts and the martial arts. It took me a while to find this guy, but he is GREAT!


----------



## Lunumbra

My experiences are similiar.
I found a great teacher who emphasized the martial applications in the forms, but we never got around to sparring. There were a few two person full speed excercises that incorporated movement, but they were aimed more at agility and sensitivity to your opponent then combat.
Lots of push hands, but almost all of it stationary with emphasis on the root.


----------



## hubris

I'm learning the Yang short form, and every time I learn a new move, my teacher tells me ( and shows me) what the martial application is. I don't do the martial stuff yet, but understanding the martial aspect of the form (or having an idea of it) is a big plus. You just have to find the right teacher, and the right class mates. The "chemistry" in my class allows for talking about the marital aspect of tai chi. Not all tai chi students are interested in tai chi as a martial art. Some students don't even KNOW that tai chi is a martial art!


----------



## Matt Stone

In Yiliquan, we practice (in addition to Yiliquan, of course) Xingyi, Bagua and Taiji.  From the moment a person starts learning the postures of any of these arts, they are also exposed to not only a description or demonstration of the applications, but they _practice_ them as well.  

In the so-called "internal" arts, there is a saying: "_Yi, Qi, Quan_."  Loosely translated, this means "Intention, Energy, Fist."  The key part of this equation is the Intention.  In our training, it is all well and good that you repeat a motion over and over, but without an understanding of _what you are doing_, the repetition really amounts to nothing at all...  You would be better off doing Tae Bo.

It is common for Taiji teachers to either _never_ teach the martial applications, or to use the excuse that the student needs to spend "years" training in the postures before such things can be attempted, using supporting excuses about the need for extensive qigong training or some other esoteric experience as a precursor  to learning how to actually *use* what they have been working so hard at learning how to mimic...

This is crap.

Taiji, like any other martial art, can be learned, trained and practiced from day one by anyone in sufficiently adequate physical condition to allow them to perform the movements.  You don't have to do qigong for years, or hold static postures for hours, before you can learn to deflect a strike, apply a joint lock, or execute a throw.  If anyone disputes this, feel free to come join our training group for a day, and if you are unable to do any of the above _without_ the aforementioned bogus years of pre-training requirements, then I will retract my previous statements.  However, I know for a fact that I can teach you to actually _use_ Part the Wild Horse's Mane, Brush Knee Twist Step, Needle at Sea Bottom or any of the others immediately, so I won't have to say a thing to the contrary...  

Train hard with whoever you have available to train with, but don't buy the excuses that are provided by some folks out there...  If a teacher withholds information and instruction, trying to pretend to be some Kung Fu Theater reject super duper Grandmaster wannabe, then you should find something else to invest your money and time into...

Gambarimasu.


----------



## Lunumbra

I agree, the martial applications are there in the form. It's just that most teachers don't have the experience, or the inclination, to translate the form into real time applications through combat speed excercises or sparring. That, and the emphasis on root, to the exclusion of footwork, can make it really difficult to learn combative Tai Chi.


----------



## Brother John

I really appreciate all of the information on the internal martial arts, especially in context to their martial capacity.

Very interesting information, and enlightening.
Now another question:
What is Yiliquan? Is there an alternate spelling that I might also recognize?
thanks again everyone...
Your Brother
John


----------



## hubris

Brother John - thanks for starting a great thread! And Yiliquan, as usual, you are 100% on the money. Your remarks about "intention" are especially important. My teacher talks about "mindful intent" all the time. What is the difference between tai chi and modern dance? Do you just want to move around and look pretty, or do you want to learn the real deal. "Fist" is part of the whole package, and IMHO, should be taught from day one. Thanks for telling it like it is. There are too many teachers out there that make tai chi into some kind of new age mish mash of empty movments. (Or non-movements.) Bottom line - seek out a teacher who shows you tai chi as a martial art from the get go. It also helps if your classmates are interested in tai chi as a martial application, but that is a matter of good luck if you find it. 

Regards,

Mrs. Hubris Nimby

:asian:


----------



## theneuhauser

> If a teacher withholds information and instruction, trying to pretend to be some Kung Fu Theater reject super duper Grandmaster wannabe, then you should find something else to invest your money and time into...


yili1

that statement deserves a quote. both funny and sadly correct at the same time.


----------



## chufeng

YiLiQuan (Yi Li Ch'uan) literally means One Principle Fist.
The primary principle in YiLiQuan is to find and maintain "center."
All moves come from and return to center...All power is derived from center...and, at a more esoteric level, when one is centered, one cannot be atrtacked (that last one would take some time to explain...something beyond this forum's intent)

YiLi is a synthesis of BaiXingQuan (an "underground" system that has its roots in Shaolin boxing), XingYiQuan, BaGuaChang, and TaiJiQuan...in addition to the "classical" forms, YiLiQuan teaches eight shape forms that lay the foundation for strategic foot/stance work...as with most Chinese martial arts systems, YiLi also teaches the four traditional weapons: Staff, Broadsword, Spear, and Straight-sword...

After twenty years of training in this system, I am starting to grasp some of the intricacies of the system...and although any art requires years of dedicated practice to really learn...YiLi is effective as a fighting system very early in one's training (of course, fighting skill is the lowest level of understanding) I hope this helps...for more information, go to the Schools postings below and click on our link.

Good training to you
:asian:
chufeng


----------



## Arithon

As well as solo forms there are two person forms, called san sou, which are a series or attacks and counter attacks.  At an advanced level the order of the attacks is changed at random by either/both of the participants.  Its not quite free sparring but when its done at full speed its pretty close.
Also there are a lot of applications and training methods based on both the form and push hands which can be praticed.


----------



## East Winds

If the taiji posture is correct, the martial application will be  correct (or vice cersa). You cannot do one without the other. To igonre the martial in taiji is to ignore 50% of the benefits that can be attained by practising Taiji. This is where groups like the Taoist Tai Chi Society (who prohibit any practise of the martial aspect) fail their students.

Yiliquan1 has given an excellent summary of how it should be.

Best wishes

"When asked about breathing in Taiji, my Master replied "Keep Doing it"


----------



## SRyuFighter

What a curteous thread! I tip my hat to each of you.


----------



## Dronak

It sounds like you've received some pretty good replies already, but since I'm poking around the board again I thought I'd offer some comments.  The classes I'm taking are primarily kung fu, but we're also learning a long form of Yang style tai chi as well.  That's pretty much the extent of my experience with either external or internal arts.  As I understand it, both types have the same end goal (and result, I imagine, if you do it right), they just take different routes.  External styles work on the outer aspect, developing the inner ones later while the internal ones do it the other way around.  So in the end, both should get you to the same place, it's just a matter of what part do you train first.

Tai chi at least does certainly have martial applications.  We've been taught some in class, often as a way for our teacher to help us picture the right way to do a move, and I have a number of tai chi books that include demonstrations of applications.  Push hands is part of that training, but one book I have also includes a fighting set.  And there are various types of push hands designed to train different aspects of combat training.  As I recall, some of the main things push hands is supposed to help develop is listening to your oppenent, sticking to him and leading his energy to where you want him to go, learning to follow it without resisting thus neutralizing the attack.  I'm sure I can dig up some more information from some of the books I have if you're interested -- I know I have one that talks all about jing and the various forms of it and one analyzes the basic moves in the Yang form for martial applications, attack/counter-attack, felling the opponent, and chin na.

Personally I don't have any real practice with tai chi for self defense or combat.  I would imagine that if you learn things well and properly, from a good teacher, it should help you.  I think that it can be hard to find a teacher who will talk about the martial arts aspect of it, so I'm very glad our teacher does.  That's one reason I wanted to learn it from him and not some other source -- knowing his martial arts background I figured he'd almost certainly include the martial aspect of tai chi in his teaching of it.  We haven't had a ton of that, but we have gotten some.  I hope this is of some help to you.


----------



## East Winds

Dronak,

Nice reply. Too many people think that pushing hands is only a sensitivity exercise. Nothing could be further from the truth. It is the very heart of taiji. It is fundamental in training the jings (Jins) without which, Taiji is just so much dance or external exercise. Unfortunately the modern forms (24, 48, 88) tend not to train the martial as they were specifically designed for health promotion. And of course the fighting set (two man set) is used to practice the practicalities of pushing hands and Jin training. 

It is good that you are learning appliations and push hands. Your teacher certainly sounds as if he knows what it is really all about.
Good luck with your training.

Very best wishes

When asked about breathing in Tai Chi, my Master replied "Yes, keep doing it"


----------



## yilisifu

All of the so-called "internal" systems have, over the generations, fallen into disuse as effective martial arts and have become forms of physical exercise or subjects of intellectual fencing between "armchair" warriors.  It's very unfortunate.

Yilichuan, however, has breathed new life into these arts and made them real again - highly effective martial arts.


----------



## East Winds

Yilisifu,

I do not have the slightest doubt that Yiliquan is an extremely effective martial art and that its exponents are extremely good at what they do.  I do however have to question the concept that someone should think they were good enough to "breath new life" into  Taijiquan, Bagua,  and Xing-yi or indeed that they thought these disciplines even needed it. (Incidentally, why did your founder ignore the most potent of the internal arts, Liu Ho Pa Fa which in itself is a synthesis of Taiji, Bagua and Xing-Yi)? 

I would be particularly interested in how you make 24 step and 48 step Taijiquan into effective martial arts? However if your only exposure to taijiquan is 24 step or 48 step, then I can understand why you would consider them ineffectual martial arts. They were never developed as such! They were developed by committees to resolve two specific problems. 1. Provide a Taiji set that could be learned quickly, be performed in a small space and improve the health of the Chinese population (24 step). And 2. provide a form which could be used as a standard for judging competition Taiji. (48 step). Nothing more!!

I also asked the question previously which was studiously ignored. How do you train Jings (Jins) in Yiliquan. Because if don't train jings, then you cannot possibly be practising Taiji for anything other than health. 

What makes you think that anyone who does not practise Yiliquan is an "armchair warrior"

Best wishes

When asked about breathing in Tai Chi, my master replied "yes keep doing it"


----------



## chufeng

> I would be particularly interested in how you make 24 step and 48 step Taijiquan into effective martial arts?



Kind of hard to do over the internet...



> Incidentally, why did your founder ignore the most potent of the internal arts, Liu Ho Pa Fa which in itself is a synthesis of Taiji, Bagua and Xing-Yi



Sifu Starr is the founder of YiLiQuan...
Why did he "ignore" LiuHoPaFa? He didn't, but why study that when he inherited a system called PaiXingQuan from Master Chen Wing Chou?...Paixing was comprised of Northern Shaolin, XingYiQuan, and BaGuaChang...it was well over 400 years old when Master Chen trained in it. PaiXing has had a tremendous influence on the development of YiLiQuan.



> I also asked the question previously which was studiously ignored. How do you train Jings (Jins) in Yiliquan



They are developed through training in the system as a whole...
Don't think that TaiJi is the only art capable of generating "the jings," as you put it.



> What makes you think that anyone who does not practise Yiliquan is an "armchair warrior"



He doesn't...if that is your interpretation of his comments, you clearly missed the point. Sifu Starr was the chairman of the AAU Chinese Martial Arts division for the entire United States, at one time. He met MANY of the leaders of Chinese martial arts from coast to coast...he was able to talk with, train with, and observe many of the big names and their students...I think he is more than qualified to sum up what he saw, on the average...
He also travelled to China as part of a "martial arts delegation" back in 1981...many of the old masters there told him that what was being practiced in China (that is the wushu stuff, anyways) was ineffective for combat...They did acknowledge that there were teachers who still taught the REAL thing, but they were mostly underground...If I were to say that 95% of the people who practice TaiJi today didn't have a clue as to the REAL combat applications of the postures, would you argue with me? Truth is, there are only a handful of people who really know what they are doing. You may be among them...I don't know.
But, the forms we train in, even though they were not originally intended for the purpose of combat, have been modified to make them useful...

If you have further questions, I'm sure Sifu Starr will be more than happy to address them, or YiLiQuan1, or myself...

Good training sir,
:asian:
chufeng


----------



## Matt Stone

> _Originally posted by East Winds _
> *Yilisifu,
> 
> (Incidentally, why did your founder ignore the most potent of the internal arts, Liu Ho Pa Fa which in itself is a synthesis of Taiji, Bagua and Xing-Yi)?*



Not really a question of ignoring Liu Ho Ba Fa so much so as developing Baixingquan similarly but with different influences...  Baixing evolved into Yili over time.  Baixing was taught with Xingyi, Taiji and Bagua taught "on the side."  Sifu Starr decided that this wasn't a very efficient method of instruction, and over the years redundant exercises and similar obstacles to training were removed or remodeled to make the overall instruction more streamlined and efficient.  This absorbtion of material into one homogenous method is what gave birth to Yili...  kind of...  



> *I would be particularly interested in how you make 24 step and 48 step Taijiquan into effective martial arts? However if your only exposure to taijiquan is 24 step or 48 step, then I can understand why you would consider them ineffectual martial arts. They were never developed as such! They were developed by committees to resolve two specific problems. 1. Provide a Taiji set that could be learned quickly, be performed in a small space and improve the health of the Chinese population (24 step). And 2. provide a form which could be used as a standard for judging competition Taiji. (48 step). Nothing more!!*



The postures are as they are.  The patterns in which the postures are assembled, though still of significant note, are less important to a certain degree than the method by which the postures and their martial applications are understood.  The martial applications of the postures remain, though the pattern in which they are practiced has been modified or adjusted by the creators of the 24 and 48 set.  Whatever.  After significant forms practice, people don't apply techniques or postures from the forms exactly as they are assembled in the form's pattern anyway...  The pattern gives an indication of the method of application, but is not a final "end all" guide for their application.  And so it is with the 24 set (which is the only "# set" I know).  The form is still useful for the basic application of Taiji postures.

And Yiliquan is not a Taiji school, nor a Xingyi or Bagua school for that matter.  We use their methods to develop certain attributes that are expressed through Yili methods.



> *I also asked the question previously which was studiously ignored. How do you train Jings (Jins) in Yiliquan. Because if don't train jings, then you cannot possibly be practising Taiji for anything other than health.*



You have your opinions, and they may well be valid.  However, I would submit that it is incorrect to state that the "jings" are unable to be developed outside of Taiji's methods of instruction.  One of our Yili seniors who is currently also a yondan in Isshin-ryu Karate (and the successor to Sensei Sherm Harrill) is capable of some extraordinary feats...  



> *What makes you think that anyone who does not practise Yiliquan is an "armchair warrior"*



You mean they're not?  

Yiliquan is one way of doing things.  After studying a number of arts, I feel it is one of the most complete that is available.  We develop the ability to lay some serious smack down on the baddie, to suck up impressive hits from the baddie and be none the worse for wear, we are able to tie him up with his own limbs and toss him on his ear with little effort.  Other arts are able to develop the same in their students.  But since I (and others) study Yiliquan, we provide our information within that context.  I think it is very safe to say that, without information to the contrary, most of the alleged Xingyi, Taiji and Bagua schools out there (and we have this on first hand account - both from watching as well as studying with some of the folks professing to teach these arts) are extremely watered down, to the point that there is no longer any alcohol in the drink, just warm ice...

Gambarimasu.
:asian:


----------



## yilisifu

I never intended for my comments to be taken to mean that people who don't train in Yili are "armchair warriors."  I don't think I really even implied that.

   However, I think if I randomly selected, say, a dozen Taiji seniors from different schools, a dozen from Xingyi, and a dozen from Bagua, I might end up with one that could actually apply his art in a true combative situation.  Sadly, the internals arts as taught in many (and perhaps most) schools nowadays is a very sterilized version of what they once were.  This may not be the case in the school from which you come...if it is not, then you are most fortunate, but in the minority.


----------



## East Winds

Thanks for the responses Yili guys,

I was not knocking Yiliquan nor its practitioners. I was merely highlighting what to me, at any rate, seemed a paradox in your arguments. You complain than Taijiquan has become "extremely watered down" or that the forms taught are "sterilized versions" of the originals. But isn't that exactly what 24 step and 48 step Taiji is? Isn't that exactly why they were developed? To be a "Simplified Peking Form" (24 step). or a "48 Step Competition Form?"

I have trained now for over 15 years in Traditional Yang Family Taijiquan. Much of that time with a lineaged holder of the style. For a large part of my working life, I was a ranking officer in one of the U'K's hardest prisons. I have had plenty of experience of facing "angry men" and of using Taijiquan in a practical situation. But of course, the internal part of the training means that conflict is not inevitable every time!

Very best wishes

When asked about breathing in Tai Chi, my master replied "Yes, keep doing it"


----------



## yilisifu

You're most fortunate in having a good teacher who knows what he's doing, cares about what he teaches, and teaches the real thing.

Most modern Taiji teachers don't.  For instance, we have the "fluffy" 24 step form and so forth.  That's what we rail against.  So many people are being taught this "new agey" version of Taiji and their instructors insist that it's the real thing but as you and I know, that's not even close to being true.

 The same kind of problems exists in Bagua and Xingyi where many teachers and practicioners prefer to intellectualize about their respective arts rather than get on the floor and sweat into their socks.  My friend, Master Oyata, used to call these people the "mushi bushi" ("mouth warriors").

Many there are, too, who puff out their chests because they train in an INTERNAL art...they belittle what they consider to be HARD stylists (karate and so forth)...but they never practice fighting with them.  I have never seen one of these people climb into the competition ring and last for more than a few seconds.

Unfortunately, this has led many people to conclude that internal stylists are wimps or that their arts are something less than effective.  Such a conclusion is, of course, very wrong...but how can we defend ourselves when they point to a group of new-age crispies in the park doing their "fluffy" forms and never breaking a sweat?  

   It is this kind of thing that I refer to when I speak of "breathing new life" into these marvelous arts.  It's more than that; it's "breathing SOME life" into them!    I remember many eons ago when I sat with my friend Roger Dung (who was, in those days, a well-known practicioner from Shanghai) at a national tournament and watched a Taiji demonstration.  He shook his head and said, "That's what we call 'dead man' Taiji.  It has no life in it."  And that was close to 30 years ago.  Things have only worsened since then.

     It's important for internal stylists who know the real art to show it to the public and keep these arts alive.  Otherwise, we're doomed.

   As a dear friend of mine (Chris Smaby, 6th dan JKA) once remarked as he watched a pitiful martial arts demonstration, "You know, there are some people who really don't have a clue...and then there are those who don't even suspect."  
:shrug:


----------



## Taiji fan

> The martial applications of the postures remain, though the pattern in which they are practiced has been modified or adjusted by the creators of the 24 and 48 set. Whatever. After significant forms practice, people don't apply techniques or postures from the forms exactly as they are assembled in the form's pattern anyway... The pattern gives an indication of the method of application, but is not a final "end all" guide for their application. And so it is with the 24 set (which is the only "# set" I know). The form is still useful for the basic application of Taiji postures.


 The postures were certainly adjusted by the creators of the 24 and 48 step forms.  Mostly in the over emphasis in over large movemnts that vapourise the usefulness of teh application. Unfortunately the 'competition' aspect has caused the 'performance' aspect and aesthetic value to be regarded higher than the smaller, more compact and effective movemnts.  The actual sequence of the moves is pretty much irelevent as far as fighting is concernered, but as with most aspects of taijiquan it is a training aid, it teaches the control and balance and rooting required (amongst other things).  We do pad work in the taijiclass, we do fitness in the taiji class and emphasis that the 'health benefits' are the by product of correct practice, we still have more older students than younger ones but at least they know the score.....





> The same kind of problems exists in Bagua and Xingyi where many teachers and practicioners prefer to intellectualize about their respective arts rather than get on the floor and sweat into their socks.


 sounds like my first teacher  


> Many there are, too, who puff out their chests because they train in an INTERNAL art...they belittle what they consider to be HARD stylists (karate and so forth)...but they never practice fighting with them.


 I have trained in both and have the utmost respect for 'hard stylists'....especially at high levels.


> Unfortunately, this has led many people to conclude that internal stylists are wimps or that their arts are something less than effective. Such a conclusion is, of course, very wrong...but how can we defend ourselves when they point to a group of new-age crispies in the park doing their "fluffy" forms and never breaking a sweat?


 it is so hard to get it accross to people, we are constantly fighting against this kind of publicity...every health magazine features this kind of stuff.





> It is this kind of thing that I refer to when I speak of "breathing new life" into these marvelous arts.


 thats interesting because we call it spirit and a simple misaligment in the body or a glazed expression and the spirit is gone (if it was even there in the first place)  My teacher can tell instantly at a glance if the movemnt has spirit, infact I was having a private session with her and even in the first move I was made to repeat it many times until I was able to maintain spirit throughout the first move.......
The tide is turing...taiji has been crap for many years......the Cheng Man Ching revolution is over as more and more people seek the 'truth' as long as we keep chipping away we cannot help but get the message across.

East Winds.....what prison did you work in?


----------



## East Winds

Taijifan,

For the last 5 years of my career I worked in Shotts Prison Lanarkshire and saw through 3 full scale riots. Calming or what?

Best wishes

When asked about breathing in Tai Chi my Master replied, "Yes keep doing it"


----------



## Taiji fan

Shotts eh...thats one of the ones with the toughest rep!   No wonder you took up taiji


----------



## Doc

> _Originally posted by Brother John _
> *I am a Kenpoist. Our style emphasizes the ability to apply our art's skills in a life or death situation.
> I appreciate the internal styles as well, but confess a profound ignorance of them. I know that they are excellent for maintaining health, cultivating Chi/Ki, and assist in developing a serene mind: BUT...
> Does Tai Chi help one in a self-defense situation??
> I do not claim that a martial art must address real combat training, or be applicable in a fight, to be a good and valid martial art. We don't all study/train for the same reasons right? But I was wondering about a Tai Chi practitioners self defense skills. If it does help one in this area, how?
> With all respect...
> Your Brother
> John *



Well first you should understand "kenpo"  essentially is Tai Chi (taiji) which by most accounts is the essential mother of all Chinese Fightiing Arts. The applications aspect is not as well known outside of China and is contained in the second part of the actual name. "Tai Chi" is the health, exercise, and internal energy component . When you add the self defense applications, it becomes "Tai Chi Chaun" (Taiji Quon). Tai Chi is not meant to be self defense, but Tai Chi Chaun is all about fighting applications. A loose translation would be Tai Chi or "Grand Ultimate." Chaun or Quon is  "Fist." So to get the good stuff you have to study "Grand Ultimate Fist," or Tai Chi Quon. I am of the opinion (and so was Parker) that ultimately you would have to approach your Kenpo generally the same if you wanted the same long term benefits.  Not necessarily slow or anything like that, but you must learn to move correctly in harmony with the body.  The bad news is expediate motion does not always do that.


----------



## Matt Stone

Never having studied kenpo (though I have seen it performed, and watched a class at a school once), can you tell me how kenpo is "essentially" Taiji?  They look nothing alike, and from what I could tell, have little in common in exterior teaching...

Caveat that with the statement that I do believe that All are One in the end, but I just don't see how kenpo could ever be confused with or mistaken for Taiji...

Gambarimasu.
:asian:


----------



## Johnathan Napalm

> _Originally posted by Doc _
> *Well first you should understand "kenpo"  essentially is Tai Chi (taiji) which by most accounts is the essential mother of all Chinese Fightiing Arts. The applications aspect is not as well known outside of China and is contained in the second part of the actual name. "Tai Chi" is the health, exercise, and internal energy component . When you add the self defense applications, it becomes "Tai Chi Chaun" (Taiji Quon). Tai Chi is not meant to be self defense, but Tai Chi Chaun is all about fighting applications. A loose translation would be Tai Chi or "Grand Ultimate." Chaun or Quon is  "Fist." So to get the good stuff you have to study "Grand Ultimate Fist," or Tai Chi Quon. I am of the opinion (and so was Parker) that ultimately you would have to approach your Kenpo generally the same if you wanted the same long term benefits.  Not necessarily slow or anything like that, but you must learn to move correctly in harmony with the body.  The bad news is expediate motion does not always do that. *



Sounds like Tai Ji is the Chinese's attempt at coming up with the Unifying theory that explains everything and ties everything together.


----------



## Doc

> _Originally posted by Yiliquan1 _
> Never having studied kenpo (though I have seen it performed, and watched a class at a school once), can you tell me how kenpo is "essentially" Taiji?  They look nothing alike, and from what I could tell, have little in common in exterior teaching...



Fair question but I said Kenpo is essentially Taiji Quon, NOT Taiji. Have you ever seen Taji Quon applied? You may have but didn't realize it. Having only seen kenpo once, you probably were at a commercial school somewhere looking at a commercial interpretation.

I also have a sense you have an idea of Tai Chi firmly planted in your mind of a bunch of us old folks moving sloooowly through a movement. Tai Chi Chun/Taiji Quon is fast and explosive, but is  rarely seen in this country and when it is, most don't recognize it for what it is.

Kenpo is very much Taiji Quon  when taught from that perspective of proper body mechanics enroute to  applications , instead of the quick self defense skills, in the popular version.  

Want to see Tai Ji Quon/Chinese Kenpo? Dig up any of the later footage of Ed Parker performing a technque before he passed. That's why nobody moved like Parker. What HE did was different from what HE taught most after he created a commercial version of his art. Remember the "master' is always ahead of what he teaches.

It's easy to be confused, especially if you've never really seen either.


----------



## Matt Stone

Actually, my understanding of Taijiquan comes from having praciticed it, Xingyiquan and Baguazhang for the last 16 + years...

I do not have a preset idea in my head of old men in parks practicing in slow motion.  I do, however, have an understanding of what I have seen of many arts.  I stated previously that I know that All are One at a certain level.  That having been said, the perception of All being One doesn't necessarily hinge on them all looking the same, and kenpo looks nothing like Taiji...

Please point me in the direction of some links to video of Mr. Parker doing whatever it was he did that you thought resembled Taiji.  I would enjoy seeing it.

Gambarimasu.
:asian:


----------



## Doc

> _Originally posted by Yiliquan1 _
> *Actually, my understanding of Taijiquan comes from having praciticed it, Xingyiquan and Baguazhang for the last 16 + years...
> 
> I do not have a preset idea in my head of old men in parks practicing in slow motion.  I do, however, have an understanding of what I have seen of many arts.  I stated previously that I know that All are One at a certain level.  That having been said, the perception of All being One doesn't necessarily hinge on them all looking the same, and kenpo looks nothing like Taiji...
> 
> Please point me in the direction of some links to video of Mr. Parker doing whatever it was he did that you thought resembled Taiji.  I would enjoy seeing it.
> 
> Gambarimasu.
> :asian: *



To my knowledge there are no video links of Ed Parker on the net. Perhaps someone could share some video with you.

However I am surprised you didn't seem to know the difference between Taiji and its Quon  application.


----------



## chufeng

Hey Doc,



> However I am surprised you didn't seem to know the difference between Taiji and its Quon application.



I hate to break it to you, but what you are typing makes NO sense...
Someone obviously fed you a line of feces somewhere along your path...
When people refer to TaiJi, they are just abbreviating the full term TaiJiQuan...

in the philosophical sense, the term TaiJi can be discussed from a metaphysical perspective, a Taoist perspective, or several other ways...but don't confuse philosophy with the art of TaiJi...

The fact is, there are many who practice TaiJiQuan in a "new age crispy" way...they THINK they are doing TaiJiQuan but they are only doing a poor imitation of it...Yes, real TaiJiQuan uses full speed attacks and defenses in its training, they also use push hands, static postures, qigong, and forms work...problem is, very few TaiJiQuan schools teach it that way...

No, I don't think Yiliquan1 is confused, I think you are...
Ed Parker's Kempo is not TaiJiQuan...sorry.

:asian:
chufeng


----------



## Doc

> _Originally posted by chufeng _
> *Hey Doc,
> 
> 
> 
> I hate to break it to you, but what you are typing makes NO sense...
> Someone obviously fed you a line of feces somewhere along your path...
> When people refer to TaiJi, they are just abbreviating the full term TaiJiQuan...
> 
> in the philosophical sense, the term TaiJi can be discussed from a metaphysical perspective, a Taoist perspective, or several other ways...but don't confuse philosophy with the art of TaiJi...
> 
> The fact is, there are many who practice TaiJiQuan in a "new age crispy" way...they THINK they are doing TaiJiQuan but they are only doing a poor imitation of it...Yes, real TaiJiQuan uses full speed attacks and defenses in its training, they also use push hands, static postures, qigong, and forms work...problem is, very few TaiJiQuan schools teach it that way...
> 
> No, I don't think Yiliquan1 is confused, I think you are...
> Ed Parker's Kempo is not TaiJiQuan...sorry.
> 
> :asian:
> chufeng *



You're entitled to your opinion although I respectfuly suggest that I just might be more of an authority on Ed Parkers works than you. My information on the Chinese Arts goes back to Grandmaster Ark Wong who was my original teacher. He had a passing knowledge of the Chinese Arts, along with Lefiti, Jame Wing Woo of TaijiQuon, and my old school mate Grandmaster Dounglas Wong.  All of them made and make a distinction between the exercise and the applications.

I will concede your opinion is obviously based on what you have seen and learned, and there is a strong probability that I am speaking of something you have never seen or know anything about in Kenpo or Taiji. Now i'm Sorry.


----------



## Matt Stone

> _Originally posted by Doc _
> *You're entitled to your opinion*



As are you.



> *... although I respectfuly suggest that I just might be more of an authority on Ed Parkers works than you.*



I don't think your knowledge of kenpo was ever questioned.



> *My information on the Chinese Arts goes back to Grandmaster Ark Wong who was my original teacher. He had a passing knowledge of the Chinese Arts, along with Lefiti, Jame Wing Woo of TaijiQuon, and my old school mate Grandmaster Dounglas Wong.  All of them made and make a distinction between the exercise and the applications.*



Your teacher didn't teach taijiquan, but five animals style.  We make a distinction between exercise taiji and "real" taiji as well.



> *I will concede your opinion is obviously based on what you have seen and learned,*



Like having seen and studied taijiquan perhaps?



> *...and there is a strong probability that I am speaking of something you have never seen or know anything about in Kenpo or Taiji. Now i'm Sorry. *



The day that taijiquan looks like kenpo is the day TKD and BJJ start looking similar...  I admitted earlier that the ultimate goals of all MAs are identical, and at a very advanced level many arts mimic the effects of other arts (I usually use the phrase "All are One"), but they rarely look the same unless they were closely related in some fashion to begin with.

Taijiquan and kenpo look nothing alike beyond perhaps a very superficial and fleeting appearance due to the finite number of ways in which the human body can move.  Eventually, movements may be repeated in one style that are commonly seen in another style.  But kenpo "ain't" taiji no matter how you do it...

Gambarimasu.
:asian:


----------



## chufeng

Doc,

I understand the idea of all arts being the same...at some level...
I also acknowledge that TaiJiQuan MAY be a refinement of some older art...then again, it is possible that it developed in its own little island of people (sort of like the birds on the Galapagos Isles.)...the only ones that really know are those who have a direct line to the originator...(and there are many who make that claim).

Is it possible that Kempo has moves that are similar (or even identical) to TaiJiQuan? Of course, the body can only move so many ways...

I differentiate between the "exercise" of TaiJiQuan and the combat applications of TaiJiQuan, as well...but leaving the Quan off of the end is not how one differentiates the two...perhaps YOUR teachers made the decision to call one one thing and the other thing something else...we'll never know, will we? since they have both left us...

My teacher may be able to shed some light on the subject, he is 
familiar with many of the older Chinese masters in Southern California...he was also taught by a Chinese man who left China during the Communist Revolution (before the Communists actually took power)...

Certainly, you know more about Ed Parker's Kempo than I do...but you are the first to come forward with the claim that Ed Parker's Kempo is the same as TaiJiQuan...

:asian:
chufeng


----------



## Matt Stone

> _Originally posted by chufeng _
> *...but you are the first to come forward with the claim that Ed Parker's Kempo is the same as TaiJiQuan...*



Somehow I think he will be the only one...  At least I hope so.  I would hate to think that such misunderstanding went deeper than this.


----------



## Matt Stone

Y'know, I got to thinking...

I replied merely to the supposition that somehow EPAK, AK or kenpo in general was the same as Taijiquan...

Doc, would you care to explain how, in specifics, they are the same?


----------



## yilisifu

I THINK I understand what Doc is trying to say insofar as Taijichuan and Kenpo being the same - very quick and powerful and so on.

But

Their methods of application are entirely different.  I have studied Taiji for many, many years now and I am also very familiar with Kenpo and have seen Mr. Parker in action in days of yore.  Mr. Parker was an incredible man; a genius.  But what he did was not Taiji at all.  The end result might have been the same (the opponent is defeated very quickly and struck with enormous force), but the method(s) are entirely different.

To compare one to the other is like comparing baseball to hockey.

Also, Doc is incorrect about Taiji being the "mother" of all Chinese martial arts.  The earliest records regarding Taijichuan only go back about 300 years or so.  Many, many Chinese systems were in existance long before that.  By Chinese standards, Taijichuan is a relative newcomer.


----------



## Doc

Well now that I'm told Grandmaster Ark Wong, Douglas Wong, James Woo, and  "Tiny Lefiti, didn't know what t they were talking about, and I don't  understand the kenpo I was taught and teach. I give up. I'm tired. You win.


----------



## yilisifu

I didn't say they didn't know what they were talking about.  Perhaps you misunderstood what they were saying.


----------



## Matt Stone

> _Originally posted by Doc _
> *Well now that I'm told Grandmaster Ark Wong, Douglas Wong, James Woo, and  "Tiny Lefiti, didn't know what t they were talking about, and I don't  understand the kenpo I was taught and teach. I give up. I'm tired. You win. *



You state on your website that neither Ark Wong nor Douglas Wong were Taiji teachers...  I have no idea who Tiny Lefiti is/was.  You can name all the names you want, and attempt to link yourself to all sorts of so-called authorities, but the simple fact is that people can be wrong.

Maybe you have a very unique insight into kenpo.  Then again, maybe not.  Maybe your non-Taiji-practicing/teaching teachers were correct when they somehow equated your training as the equivalent of Taiji training.  Then again, maybe they didn't have a clue.  Maybe Yilisifu, Chufeng and I are correct.  Perhaps we don't have a functioning grey matter cell among the three of us.

You give up quickly.  All I asked for was an explanation of how you think kenpo and Taiji are somehow related.  If you were/are able to provide some insight to that, perhaps it could be shown that other kenpo practitioners and Taiji practitioners were incorrect and that you possess a unique understanding of both arts.

Gambarimasu.
:asian:


----------



## yilisifu

If I'm not mistaken, Ark Wong practiced Mok-Ga, Jimmy Woo practiced another form of Shao-lin, and Doug Wong (who I've met) developed his own system known as White Dragon which seems to be a form of Shao-lin as well.


----------



## Doc

> _Originally posted by yilisifu _
> *If I'm not mistaken, Ark Wong practiced Mok-Ga, Jimmy Woo practiced another form of Shao-lin, and Doug Wong (who I've met) developed his own system known as White Dragon which seems to be a form of Shao-lin as well. *



nope!


----------



## chufeng

FYI...



> Ark Yuey Wong
> 1987
> Kung Fu Artist of the Year
> Ark Yuey Wong was introduced to kung fu as a child in China, when his grandfather's will stipulated that only family members who studied the martial arts would receive any money. Wong practiced alone until age seven, when he began classes under Lam Ark Fun, a respected instructor who trained him in the choy li fut style. Wong later studied mok gar under Ho Ark Yeng, and gave private kung fu lessons while enrolled in college.
> Excerpt from a Black Belt article 1987
> 
> WHITE LOTUS KUNG FU SYSTEM Teacher, trainer and author, Master Douglas Lim Wong is the founder of the modern-day White Lotus system of kung-fu. Born and raised in Los Angeles, California, Sifu Wong has traveled throughout the world to spread his art through seminars, training camps, lectures, movies, television, radio talk shows, magazines, newspapers and books...He has been involved in the martial arts for the past forty (40) years. He has trained under many top instructors from a variety of kung-fu systems. Among them is Grandmaster Ark Yuey Wong of the Five Animals (Ng Ying Ga) and the Five Families (Ng Ga Kin) styles; Grandmaster Share K. Lew of the Tao Tan Pai system; Grandmaster Doo Wai of the White Tiger system (Bak Fu Pai); Master Hsu Hong Chi of the God-Dragon Hsing Yi system; Master Haumea "Tiny" Lefiti of the Mok Gar system; Sifu Walter Wong of the Wing Chun system; and acupressure massage, philosophy and acupuncture under Dr. Andrew Ming.
> Excerpt from the WebSite MartialInfo.com



If you have other sources for what you claim, please help us by posting them. Thanks

:asian:
chufeng


----------



## Matt Stone

Seems pretty definitive to me...

And no Taijiquan nor Kenpo noted at all...

Gambarimasu.
:asian:


----------



## Doc

> _Originally posted by chufeng _
> *FYI...
> 
> 
> 
> If you have other sources for what you claim, please help us by posting them. Thanks
> 
> :asian:
> chufeng *



Ark Wong - Five Animal & Taiji
(not Muk Gar)

Tiny Lefiti - Splashing Hands, Five Animal
(not Muk Gar)

Doug Wong Five Animal, White Lotus
(not Shaolin)

James Woo - Taiji & Hung Gar

Ed Parker - Taiji, Hung Gar, Splashing Hands, Chaun fa, Choi Li fut, Jiu-jitsu, Karate-do, Kenpo, submission wrestling, Small Circle Jiu-jitsu, San Soo, etc.

Add Terry Dunn - TaijiQuon, QiQong

I'm afraid my sources are dubious which is why I do not wish to have a discussion with those that have made a declaration after observing a "kenpo class." 

I also have no doubt that some know of what they do, however they are not necessarily privledged to what I do or what I was taught or told by those that precede us both (unless some of you are in your sixties). My source is a simple one: I was there. Most of the name posted I know or knew personally. The article posted was essentially wrong. Should you bump into any of those people who are still alive, mention my name and they will verify my association and knowledge. 
Already too much.
End.


----------



## yilisifu

Gosh - and I thought Mok Ga WAS one of the original five "family" styles of Shao-lin which was taught by Ark Wong.....

And for all these years, I had been told that Mr. Parker had trained under William Chow.......

Huh.  Even Ed said so.

Well, maybe he was Wong


----------



## chufeng

> I'm afraid my sources are dubious



If they are dubious, why post them?
I didn't see a rebuttle on ArK Wong's history by him or his students...Why?

At any rate, I don't want you revealing too much about yourself...
As it's so hush, hush...I hope I haven't said too much...

:asian:
chufeng


----------



## Matt Stone

> _Originally posted by Doc _
> *Ark Wong - Five Animal & Taiji
> (not Muk Gar)
> 
> Tiny Lefiti - Splashing Hands, Five Animal
> (not Muk Gar)
> 
> Doug Wong Five Animal, White Lotus
> (not Shaolin)
> 
> James Woo - Taiji & Hung Gar
> 
> Ed Parker - Taiji, Hung Gar, Splashing Hands, Chaun fa, Choi Li fut, Jiu-jitsu, Karate-do, Kenpo, submission wrestling, Small Circle Jiu-jitsu, San Soo, etc.
> 
> Add Terry Dunn - TaijiQuon, QiQong
> 
> I'm afraid my sources are dubious which is why I do not wish to have a discussion with those that have made a declaration after observing a "kenpo class."
> 
> I also have no doubt that some know of what they do, however they are not necessarily privledged to what I do or what I was taught or told by those that precede us both (unless some of you are in your sixties). My source is a simple one: I was there. Most of the name posted I know or knew personally. The article posted was essentially wrong. Should you bump into any of those people who are still alive, mention my name and they will verify my association and knowledge.
> Already too much.
> End. *



What kinds of Taijiquan (note the 'a' in the word _quan_ - an 'o' is incorrect spelling) did these folks train in?  I'm curious...  Also, I thought splashing hands was something that James McNeil was propagating...  While I have only been in this biz since '85, I can't remember ever hearing of anyone other than him doing it...

Please enlighten me, if it doesn't expose your secret side overly much...

Gambarimasu.
:asian:


----------



## yilisifu

The term "chuan fa" is the Chinese pronunciation of the Japanese "kenpo".......

Actually, "chuan-fa" is a generic term which refers to virtually all Chinese systems.....so to say that someone learned chuan-fa and then also include several Chinese systems is a bit redundant...

Splashing Hands just recently made it into the martial arts magazines via James McNeil....?

Submission wrestling...?  That was just a kind of up-and-coming thing when Ed passed away.

San Soo wasn't around when Mr. Parker started teaching, either.  Neither was Small Circle Jujutsu which was developed by Wally Jay (who, as I recall, trained under Henry Okazaki in Hawaii) many years after Ed had established his Kenpo system and organization.

I have no doubt that Mr. Parker was exposed to many martial arts during his too-short time with us here, and I've no doubt that he and his art were influenced over the decades by some of them.  But I don't believe that he made in-depth studies of them (as a student).  His primary teacher was Prof. William K.S. Chow.
     For the record, I will state that in my opinion, Ed Parker was a martial arts genius and a wonderfully gifted teacher and a fine human being.


----------



## chufeng

Another excerpt...this one by the Woo Foundation:



> The following history on the art of San Soo was written in May 1993 by the Jimmy H. Woo Association based on information provided by Grand Master Woo. Although there have been some speculations in connecting this art to another lineage, there is no documentation to support these claims. The Masters who studied with Lo Si Fu for many years will continue to support the family lineage provided by Grand Master Woo...
> ...Young Chin Siu Dek (Jimmys real name) was taught by his Great Uncle Chin Siu Hung who was nicknamed Chin Neow Gee, which means Crazy Devil. Hung was an extremely large man, 65 tall and weighing well over 320 pounds. Following in his grandfathers footsteps, Hung became a well-known fighter, teaching in his own SAN SOO school. He was overlord for the entire province, which at that time, late 1800s and until 1941 was about the size of Orange County, CA. He had complete control over nearly every aspect of the lives of the people in the area. No one started a business, moved or made any other major decisions without consulting Hung.
> From the age of five on Dek was to be his Great Uncles prize student. He learned extremely fast and loved the contact and grueling workouts on hard floors. In his teens, Dek became a traveling teacher of Tsoi Li Ho Fut Hung; the official name of the martial art perfected hundreds of years before in the monastery very near his small village...
> ...Destiny brought Chin Siu Dek to America as Jimmy H. Woo to preserve the ancient art of Choi (Ga Kuhn How) Lee (Ga Ma) Ho (Ga) Fut hung (Ga), SAN SOO.



Hung was only one of the family systems he taught...
...and he apparently didn't call it Hung Gar, but San Soo..

regards
:asian:
chufeng


----------



## chufeng

A little more research reveals the following:



> Splashing Hands, developed at the Shaolin Temple in the late 1700's, is a close in fighting system of kung-fu. It was taught to those monks who were in charge of guarding the temple gates. Splashing Hands, named for the way the hands move as if one is shaking water from them, is valued for its explosive, high-speed hand and footwork and its simultaneous offensive and defensive techniques. Historically, only a relatively small number of students learned this system. Even after Splashing Hands was introduced to fighters not associated with the Shaolin Temple, it never became a widely-practiced art. Those who knew the effectiveness of the system were reluctant to share their knowledge with others. Because of this secrecy, it is unknown whether or not Splashing Hands is still practiced today on the Chinese mainland. We do know the style was brought to Taiwan in the late 1940's and early 1950's, where a former nationalist army general taught a selected few students.



So the Splashing Hands taught by McNeil is a revival of an older art, not his own invention (Mr. McNeil never claimed to invent it either)

...and...





> Tiny lived most of his young life in Hawaii where he learned karate. While he was serving in the marines he was stationed in Korea where he learned kung-fu. Later in Taiwan he learned 'Splashing Hands' from a famous general. Before he left Taiwan he asked his teacher where he could finish his training in Splashing Hands. His teacher gave him a letter to give to Master Ark Yuey Wong asking him to accept Tiny as his student. At first Master Wong refused claiming he knew nothing of the style. However, with Tiny's persistence he was finally accepted



Haumea Lefiti did learn Splashing Hands and continued his study under Master Ark Wong (who, by inferrence, must have known it also)...
In my research, however, I cannot find where these gentlemen trained in or taught TaiJiQuan.
...and unfortunately, Haumea Lefiti, Ark Wong, and Ed Parker are all dead, so we can't ask them...

:asian:
chufeng


----------



## Doc

> Splashing Hands just recently made it into the martial arts magazines via James McNeil....?



No Splashing Hands has been around as long as I can remember (I'm older than you). Tiny also studied Kenpo as well)



> Submission wrestling...?  That was just a kind of up-and-coming thing when Ed passed away.



Way off. Tell that to Parker's good friend Gene LeBell who was a world champion in the fifties. Submission wrestling existed even in Hawaii when Parker was a kid.



> San Soo wasn't around when Mr. Parker started teaching, either.



Yes San Soo was around. When I was a kid there was a San Soo school we use to visit not far from Ark Wong. Ed Parker began teaching in the early fifties before he made black in 1953.



> Neither was Small Circle Jujutsu which was developed by Wally Jay (who, as I recall, trained under Henry Okazaki in Hawaii) many years after Ed had established his Kenpo system and organization.



That is correct but that doesn't mean Parker didn't learn. Okazaki worked with Chow as well and actually emphasized a lot of grond fighting from his influence.



> I have no doubt that Mr. Parker was exposed to many martial arts during his too-short time with us here, and I've no doubt that he and his art were influenced over the decades by some of them.  But I don't believe that he made in-depth studies of them (as a student).  His primary teacher was Prof. William K.S. Chow.



Actually, his primary teacher was all of the above and more. The art that ultimately evolved that most know or even as I teach it (which is different), has almost no relationship to Chow who was Ed Parker's  2nd teacher. Chow was Parker's "formal" teacher of the time to which he applied his "formal lineage," but he learned infinitely more from others he worked with over the years that included all of the people I mentioned and more in the Chinese community. I must also give special mention to Lao boon from Hung Gar who I didn't list before. What survived is Chow's philosophy of practicality and function and pretty much that's all. Chow gave him his black belt. Although he didn't enter into a formal "student teacher" relationship with all of them, some he actually did, but always acknowledged Chow as his formal teacher. But what Chow taught him was a drop in the bucket compared to what Parker learned in his own evolution and study with others. So to suggest that Chow was his teacher and he was only "exposed and influenced" by others would be false and misleading. He indeed make indepth studies and in that process and genius, influenced others in their art as well.



> For the record, I will state that in my opinion, Ed Parker was a martial arts genius and a wonderfully gifted teacher and a fine human being. [/B]



And my best friend.


----------



## Matt Stone

We've discussed Mr. Parker's lineage front and back, and your info seems on the surface to be contradictory to the facts published about his and other people's histories.  Why, then, would you think that the published accounts seem to contradict yours?

To restate an earlier question, could you please provide specifics regarding the ways in which you think Kenpo and Taijiquan are the same art?  Please provide examples beyond "they step with one foot and strike with the same side just like we do," or "we have this throw, and so do they."  Please provide examples that are beyond mere physical mimickry, since that alone would proceed into a discussion of how, based on that tenuous comparison, all arts are then one art.

Gambarimasu.
:asian:


----------



## chufeng

Well DOC,

Now you've gone and spilt the beans...but, I believe your most recent post...so why all of the secrecy up front?

You have a wealth of personal knowledge that you could share...

I'm still interested in the TaiJiQuan connection to Ed Parker's Kempo...beyond the all arts are one idea we've already addressed...

Thanks, in advance, for your response.

:asian:
chufeng


----------



## yilisifu

Doc - you're probably older than me, but not by much..   However, I still don't see any connections between Taijichuan and Kenpo...


----------



## chufeng

DOC=Ron Chapel. (would have gotten to this sooner but my profile buttons weren't working)

From his home page (heck-of-a lot of pop-up ads, Ron):



> "Ron" Chapél is the foremost authority on SubLevel Four Kenpo Concepts. Since the passing of Senior Grandmaster Ed Parker, Ron Chapél has become a sought after, internationally known instructor. He began working on Advanced American Kenpo Concepts with his teacher as part of a book and video series. Ron Chapél through Mr. Parkers teachings over the years, and his volume of personal notes, continues to develop the Legacy of Grandmanster Parker. SubLevel Four Concepts explores the side of Kenpo that few have seen. SubLevel Four curriculum includes, Control Manipulation Theory, and Cavity Presses (Nerve Strikes) with Destructive Sequencing. These are the elements of American Kenpo that were explored with him by Professor Parker throughout their almost thirty year relationship. Additionally newer developed concepts of Misalignment Technology, use of Spatial Distortion, etc.
> 
> In addition to continuing Grandmaster Parkers teachings and developing SubLevel Four Kenpo Concepts, Ron Chapél is the Senior Master Professor of the University of Martial Science. The University reflects his commitment to furthering Ed Parker's American Kenpo, over and above belt mills. The University emphasizes the educational aspect of Kenpo, endeavoring to make the "school" function as a college university by emphasizing knowledge through course work over unearned belts, and questionable skills.
> 
> Functioning as the parent of an educational institution, the Ed Parker's Institute, requires teacher certifications over and above belt rankings of its University instructors. No one has teaching or promotion authority without specific certifications, and no one person may promote anyone. Only the University Board of Credentials grants rank and degrees, as any other academic institution. All Black Belt ranks are considered Honorary or Emeritus. The University also requires completion of specific Course work curriculum, and awards degrees accordingly. The Institute is the "Kenpo School" of the millennium. Their growth is slow because the standards are high, uncompromising, and are not driven by a need for numbers or money.
> 
> Ron Chapél has lived in Southern California since childhood. He has been in the martial arts since he was a young boy. He began his training along side Douglas Wong and with his uncle Ark Wong, Grandmaster of the Five Animal System of Kung-Fu Style. He holds Black Belt rankings or equivalent in various arts. In 1963, Ron Chapél met Ed Parker at a local tournament, and shortly afterwards became a friend and subsequent student. Quickly, their close friendship over shadowed the student teacher relationship. This relationship lasted with Ron Chapél as a best friend and private student without interruption, until Professor Parker's death. Ron Chapél also continues his 40 year relationship with the Ed Parker Legacy by promoting Ed Parker Jr. to Black Belt.
> 
> Several years before Ed Parker's death, Ron Chapél was awarded his 7th degree Black Belt Diploma after completing an assigned thesis project examining the rank structure of the IKKA. Since the passing of Grandmaster Parker, He has been awarded his 8th, and 9th ranking by the prestigious American Teachers Association of the Martial Arts, (ATAMA) founded by Shaolin Kenpo Grandmaster Ralph Castro, with Grandmaster Castro present for his 8th. Additionally, He has been awarded a 9th degree from Dan-Zan Ryu Jiu-Jitsu, a 9th degree from the World Federation of Karate-Do, and a 9th degree from the Universal Martial Arts Society. He was awarded the position of 10th degree from the University and ATAMA . He also has an Instructor ranking in W.A.R. (within arms reach) and a Black Belt in Shoto-Kan. He has studied Goju-Ryu, Shorin Ryu, Hap-Ki-Do and more. Ron Chapél has been recognized and awarded a proclamation by the City of Los Angeles City Council as a Martial Arts Pioneer and as the founder of a Martial Arts Institution in Southern California. Further, the University is the only American Kenpo school in the world certified by the World Federation of Karate-Do.
> 
> In addition to Ron Chap'el 's extensive martial arts training, he has thirty years of law enforcement experience. He has worked in law enforcement as a uniformed street cop, and as a State Police Officer. He has been assigned to Protective Services protecting the Governor and Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of California, and most recently in Witness Protection and Judicial Security as a Special Deputy U.S. Marshal,
> 
> Ron Chapél became keenly aware of the need to be able to control the level of destruction in arrest and control situations. With Grandmaster Parker, He developed the principles of Sub-Level Four Concepts, to assist law enforcement, and for a proposed book and video series project.
> 
> Sub-level Four Kenpo is a component of Kenpo that gives a student an effective alternative in subduing an opponent not found in motion kenpo. Ron Chapél specifically implemented these principles in his Law Enforcement training seminars and created the "Universal Arrest and Control System" and has taught it in several police academies. He continues to teach his system to police officers everywhere.
> 
> Ron Chapél has not only earned his Ph.D. in Anatomical Physics, but has lectured and taught credit courses on college campuses, as well. Ron Chap'el was featured (along with Grandmaster Ed Parker ) in some of the very first issues of Inside Kung-Fu Magazine, and has also been featured many times in Black Belt Magazine. Most recently he has been in Black Belt Magazine discussing "Nerve Strikes."
> 
> Ron Chapél is considered by many, to be one of the foremost teachers of Ed Parker's Kenpo because of the depth of his knowledge and his continued examination and innovation of the Ed Parker System. With a strong desire to maintain a base system as a point of reference for the Kenpo world, Ron Chapél has continuously shown his teachings and interpretations to be a superior curriculum. Sub-Level Four, for some, represents the pinnacle of American Kenpo. Ron Chapél proves that American Kenpo is a dynamic, highly functional art, even with the passing of its Creator and only Grandmaster Ed Parker.
> 
> Bio written by Andrew King,
> 
> SubLevel Four Kenpo Concepts, Ohio State University



Still don't see any TaiJi in there...
Still curious...where is the connection, beyond what we've already identified as "all arts are one?"

:asian:
chufeng


----------



## Doc

> _Originally posted by yilisifu _
> *Doc - you're probably older than me, but not by much..   However, I still don't see any connections between Taijichuan and Kenpo... *



You know I owe a couple of apologies here. Part of that is for taking so long to get back because Ive been very busy on my job. But, in several of the previous exchanges, one thing kept bugging me. Why, I asked myself, do these people think Im being secretive?  With the exception of personal information, Im very open about the arts.

I mentioned this to our Dean of Instruction who reads some of the forums from time to time, and he came to read from another perspective. Hes great because hes been my student for over a quarter of a century and is much a friend as student therefore hes very honest with me about what he reads and manages to criticize me from time to time. He came back and said he couldnt find the string at first, but after a search he found it. No wonder they think youre being secretive, you werent on the Kenpo Forum where everybody knows you. He said. 

Oops! I have no idea how I got here but it explains why some previous posters felt that way. Therefore I sincerely apologize.

Now for the questions at hand, I began studying with Ark Wong in the late fifties, and was exposed to a variety of Arts and instructors through my association with Ark Wong. Tiny Lefiti, Lau Bun (Lao Boon), James W. Woo, Jimmy H. Woo, to name a few. I began with (now) Grandmaster Douglas Wong (Ark Wongs nephew), because we were schoolmates and old friends. Ed Parker studied with all of them and more in Southern and Northern California. Even Dan Inosanto studied with Ark Wong, along with Sal Esquivel, etc.  Really a lot of well-known people.

In those days everyone who was smart (among Chinese practitioners) absorbed everything they could from everybody and each other. The question of different styles was never an issue and was answered by Grandmaster Wong, and was punctuated by Jimmy (W.) Woo and Lau Bun. There are no real differences in styles in the Chinese Arts, there are only different methods of teaching. This I heard over and over from all of them, including Ed Parker.

Thus Grandmaster Wong known for Five Animal also was well versed in Hung Gar, Choy Li Fut, Splashing Hands, and Taiji. Jimmy H. Woo was known for San Soo but actively taught Taiji, Hun Gar, etc, at one time even teaching in Ed Parkers school. Doc-Fai Wong is known for Choi Li Fut, but teaches TaijiQuan (Tai Chi Chuan) as well. Lau Bun was known for Choy Li Fut and Hung Gar and Parker studied with him but was known for his own brand of Kenpo. Parker further blurred the lines by adopting elements from all in his own personal methodology. He too repeatedly said, Its all the same,  its how you decide to get there. This also influenced his creation of his conceptual commercial system which is very similar to Commercial San Soo, only more tailored for the individual success over structure. All of them always used Taiji as a "base art" even though their specialty methodologies were from various sources. i was taught, right or wrong, "It's all Taiji."

What most are known for is whatever methodology they start with, and then as they grow they draw from everything in their life experiences they find valid. What Ed Parker ultimately did bore almost no relationship to his original teachings from Kwai Sun, but he always called whatever he did Kenpo even when he was doing Choy Li Fut.

What I do is closer to Ed Parkers personal method utilizing mechanisms from his Chinese roots to make Modern Kenpo as effective sans the cultural baggage with the emphasis on long-term skills and effectiveness learning at a somewhat accelerated rate. A decent description of SubLevel Four Kenpo can be found in the latest issue (May) of Martial Art Magazine from CFW Publications, the Parent of Inside Kung Fu Magazine, whom I write for occasionally.

The short version is it is a multi-level Chinese Kenpo that concentrates on proper body mechanics creating internal energy, while teaching functional self techniques, that also on their own can stand as mini-Taiji forms and provides all of the benefits of Singular Execution Training. Its method is unlike any Kenpo seen in any commercial interpretations of Ed Parker s art and also includes Destructive Sequencing utilizing meridians from TCM, as well as control mechanisms from Chin-na, interpreted for modern integrated applications much as traditional methods.

Back to work and once again, my apologies.


----------



## Matt Stone

If you don't mind, I think I will attempt to contact Doug Wong and see if he calls what he does Taiji, and whether he teaches Taiji as a "base art" or holds any of the same theories you do...  If you shared so much of the same training, I would expect much of what he says to be the same as you.

And just an off the cuff question - If you call it "SubLevel Four," why not just call it "Level Three?"  Three is below four, right?

Gambarimasu.
:asian:


----------



## Doc

> _Originally posted by Yiliquan1 _
> *If you don't mind, I think I will attempt to contact Doug Wong and see if he calls what he does Taiji, and whether he teaches Taiji as a "base art" or holds any of the same theories you do...  If you shared so much of the same training, I would expect much of what he says to be the same as you.
> 
> And just an off the cuff question - If you call it "SubLevel Four," why not just call it "Level Three?"  Three is below four, right?
> 
> Gambarimasu.
> :asian: *



Doug and I are contemporaries and he has his own art and took his own path. I simply told you what I was taught by a variety of instructors and those who influenced me who taught us both. He and I did not share training for the majority of our lives. I met Parker in 1963. What Doug calls what he does has no bearing on me or anyone else. He too has created his own style of "White Lotus" while still teaching Sil Lum as well. 

You know you can have your own interpretation of your art and not have it related to anything else, if that is what you want. We simply disagree. You don't know what I have been doing for the last 47 years and I don't know you at all, so this "Kenpo/Taiji question will probably never be answered to your satisfaction.

Sublevel Four derives it's name from a defintion Ed Parker used to describe the 4 distances of combat. He believed at the closest distance (4) in his commercial art you should be able to manipulate your opponent by "Contact." The subcategory of that distance requires that you "Control" your opponent, thus it is a subcategory of distance four. Philosophically that is what I teach. You touch you control much like San Soo or even Taiji (as I know it).

Tell Doug and Carrie I said "Hi!"


----------



## chufeng

DOC,



> Its all the same,  its how you decide to get there.



We said this very thing right up front...
You seem to want to differentiate what you do from the rest...
On the one hand you say it's the same, on the other, it's different.

I still don't see the TaiJiQuan connection ... other than all arts are one, after a time...

So enlighten us...
I believe you trained with the peoplke you claim to have trained with...I am not contending that point, just the connection to TaiJiQuan...


BTW to YiLiQuan1...Douglas Wong's phone number is (818) 993-9664.

:asian:
chufeng


----------



## Matt Stone

Never once did I say that things are not related.  In fact, were you to review the conversation, I have said several times here and in other threads that ultimately All arts are One art...

Your incorret premise, however, was that kenpo and taijiquan were essentially one and the same.  You implied thereby that kenpo includes all the same methods of instruction, postures, forms, etc., that taijiquan includes.  This is patently incorrect.

Does kenpo routinely practice push hands?  Static posture holding?  Standing meditation?  What about silk reeling power and fa jing?  How about the theoretical basis of taiji?  Does it form a fundamental core portion of kenpo theory?  It was my understanding that Ed Parker refuted the existence of qi entirely...  How then can what he created be essentially identical to an art whose basic concepts revolve around the concept?

You can name all the big names you want (fortunately most of them are deceased, thereby making contact with them to verify your version of events rather difficult), and cite all the years of training you want.  100 years of training incorrectly does not a master make, just a person well trained in incorrect theory and technique.  I am not implying your technique is questionable, just your assertion that kenpo and taiji are the same.

And once again, I state for the record, ultimately All are One.

Gambarimasu.
:asian:


----------



## Doc

> _Originally posted by Yiliquan1 _
> *Never once did I say that things are not related.  In fact, were you to review the conversation, I have said several times here and in other threads that ultimately All arts are One art...
> 
> Your incorret premise, however, was that kenpo and taijiquan were essentially one and the same.  You implied thereby that kenpo includes all the same methods of instruction, postures, forms, etc., that taijiquan includes.  This is patently incorrect.
> 
> Does kenpo routinely practice push hands?  Static posture holding?  Standing meditation?  What about silk reeling power and fa jing?  How about the theoretical basis of taiji?  Does it form a fundamental core portion of kenpo theory?  It was my understanding that Ed Parker refuted the existence of qi entirely...  How then can what he created be essentially identical to an art whose basic concepts revolve around the concept?
> 
> You can name all the big names you want (fortunately most of them are deceased, thereby making contact with them to verify your version of events rather difficult), and cite all the years of training you want.  100 years of training incorrectly does not a master make, just a person well trained in incorrect theory and technique.  I am not implying your technique is questionable, just your assertion that kenpo and taiji are the same.
> 
> And once again, I state for the record, ultimately All are One.
> 
> Gambarimasu.
> :asian: *


Yeah, I figured my years of experience wouldn't mean anything to you since I've been doing the art longer than you've been alive. Tell you what. I won't be an expert in Taiji if you stop thinking you're an expert in my Kenpo which you know nothing about. By the way for the record you are incorrect, Ed Parker believed in Chi/Qi and my Kenpo does have much of what you speak. But how would you know. You keep saying what it doesn't have I keep saying what I was taught. And I did learn a bit in all those years, and still going.


----------



## Matt Stone

Well, for so venerable and skilled as you claim you are, I have yet to hear/see/read any explanation on why you think your kenpo is the same as taijiquan.  You have dropped names and tried to wow me with your years and years of training and the celebrities with whom you have hobnobbed...  But when we bring it down to brass tacks, all you have accomplished is a lot of effort exerted and wasted toward convincing me of your impressiveness.

At the start of this discussion, we asked for explanations on what you thought made kenpo and taiji the same.  

I'm still waiting...

But then, you only have little old me to concern yourself with, right?  Nobody else has read this thread, or another one regarding this particular topic (and all the kenpo folks on that thread said there was no similarity between kenpo and taiji - go figure), so there is only somebody that hasn't been alive as long as you have been training, and who needs to explain to someone like that, right?

Have a nice week.  I'm done with this.  Maybe if you manage to come down from Olympus and explain to a mere mortal like myself what the basis for your claim is, then I'll revisit this thread.  Until then,  I remain unconvinced that your kenpo is somehow the same as taiji (beyond that cosmic, universality that I have all along admitted exists among all arts at a certain level of development).  It was never my issue to prove your kenpo isn't the same, but it was all the while _your_ issue to prove it was.  You didn't, so my arguements rest.

Gambarimasu.
:asian:


----------



## Doc

your problem is you want your answer your way. I answered but you ignored. No Problem. You twist my words, no problem. As usual another master under 40 years old who has his own style. Have a nice day.


----------



## yilisifu

No, the actual question was HOW kenpo and Taiji are the same.  Your words haven't been twisted at all.  You have provided information on your background, but the question remains unanswered except for your insistance that you trained under people who taught Taiji (amongst other things).

While it's nice that you were able to train under these people, it still fails to answer the question; HOW are kenpo and Taiji the same?

And no, Yilichuan 1 isn't someone who's started up his own system.  He's my student.  

And it's been a long time since I saw 40.


----------



## Doc

> _Originally posted by yilisifu _
> *No, the actual question was HOW kenpo and Taiji are the same.  Your words haven't been twisted at all.  You have provided information on your background, but the question remains unanswered except for your insistance that you trained under people who taught Taiji (amongst other things).
> 
> While it's nice that you were able to train under these people, it still fails to answer the question; HOW are kenpo and Taiji the same?
> 
> And no, Yilichuan 1 isn't someone who's started up his own system.  He's my student.
> 
> And it's been a long time since I saw 40. *



Perhaps you then should tell me why it isn't. I told you what I do generally and where to find more info. I can only tell you and others you have not seen SL-4 therefore you cannot be experts in it, anymore than I claim to be an expert in your taiji.


----------



## mikkel2

Having actually read through the thread, I must agree that Doc hasn't pointed how kenpo and taiji are identical, but only excelled in namedropping and refered to his many years of training - which doesn't prove anything ...

A car and a boat are both means of transportation, but that doesn't mean that they're not two very different things.


----------



## Matt Stone

*Situation #1*

Prosecutor:  "Your honor, the People will prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that our client, Mr. Doe, is in fact innocent of the crime charged - murder."

Judge: "Go ahead, counselor."

Prosecutor: "Your honor, my client has known many people in his lifetime, has lived a good many years, is well known in his community for maintaining an immaculate lawn, has contributed to many activities in his lifetime, and can show that he has done many things more in his life than the Defense counsel cares to admit."

Judge: "Counselor, would you care to get on to exactly why your client is innocent, or do you plan on impressing the jury to death?"

*Situation #2*

Person A: "I state as a public fact my belief that I can fly."

Person B: "Prove it."

Person A: "I have known many people in my lifetime, have lived longer than you, am well known in my community for maintaining an immaculate lawn, have contributed to many activities in my lifetime, and can show with many names all the famous people I have met."

Person B: "So, you gonna show me you can fly, or what?"

*Situation #3*

Doc: "Kenpo and Taiji are the same."

Yiliquan1: "How?"

Doc: "I have known many people in my lifetime, have lived longer than you, am well known for so many things and can drop names of all the stars of MA that I have hobnobbed with."

Yiliquan1: "So, you gonna show me how kenpo and taiji are the same, or what?"

Sorry.  I said I was through with this thread, but in a discussion at work about different court cases, this example of my lack of requirement to disprove Doc's contention, and the burden of proof being that of the person making the allegation, came to mine.  I felt it needed to be driven home.  Hope my position is clearer now to anyone reading this.

Gambarimasu.
:asian:


----------



## Doc

> _Originally posted by Yiliquan1 _
> *Situation #1
> 
> Prosecutor:  "Your honor, the People will prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that our client, Mr. Doe, is in fact innocent of the crime charged - murder."
> 
> Judge: "Go ahead, counselor."
> 
> Prosecutor: "Your honor, my client has known many people in his lifetime, has lived a good many years, is well known in his community for maintaining an immaculate lawn, has contributed to many activities in his lifetime, and can show that he has done many things more in his life than the Defense counsel cares to admit."
> 
> Judge: "Counselor, would you care to get on to exactly why your client is innocent, or do you plan on impressing the jury to death?"
> 
> Situation #2
> 
> Person A: "I state as a public fact my belief that I can fly."
> 
> Person B: "Prove it."
> 
> Person A: "I have known many people in my lifetime, have lived longer than you, am well known in my community for maintaining an immaculate lawn, have contributed to many activities in my lifetime, and can show with many names all the famous people I have met."
> 
> Person B: "So, you gonna show me you can fly, or what?"
> 
> Situation #3
> 
> Doc: "Kenpo and Taiji are the same."
> 
> Yiliquan1: "How?"
> 
> Doc: "I have known many people in my lifetime, have lived longer than you, am well known for so many things and can drop names of all the stars of MA that I have hobnobbed with."
> 
> Yiliquan1: "So, you gonna show me how kenpo and taiji are the same, or what?"
> 
> Sorry.  I said I was through with this thread, but in a discussion at work about different court cases, this example of my lack of requirement to disprove Doc's contention, and the burden of proof being that of the person making the allegation, came to mine.  I felt it needed to be driven home.  Hope my position is clearer now to anyone reading this.
> 
> Gambarimasu.
> :asian: *



Last time. 

I told you what My Kenpo does of which I am an expert. I've told you where you can get more information if you desire. I've told you what I was taught. 

Now if you want to investigate further and compare what I do to what you do (for which I am not an expert) than you can, and draw a conclusion for yourself and agree or not. 

I do not pretend to be an expert of what YOU call taiji therefore making a point by point comparison of what I do not know would be pointless.  

I will not do what you have chosen to do with a limited view of someones "Kenpo" and draw a conclussion there is no correlation. That is your position not mine, however you are entitled to it.

I been around long enough to know "style names" mean nothing compared to what is actually taught. Only YOU are qualified to make a comparison of what you do. I've only asked that you not judge my Kenpo by what you've seen of someone else. 

I too am allowed to give and stand by presumptions and opinions of what I was taught, told and what I now teach. Of that I am an expert. No more, no less.

Clearly no matter what I would say in a point to point comparison could be wrong from your perspective. Your position is clear. As opposing professional experts with differences of opinion I suggest you either investigate further or agree to disagree.

I rest.


----------



## Matt Stone

I guess we have our answer then...

Y'know, usually in court, when the person making an allegation is either unable or unwilling to attempt to define and explain their allegations to the satisfaction of the court, the court usually finds that their allegations were false at the outset.

Lucky we're not in court, I suppose...

Gambarimasu.
:asian:


----------



## Doc

> _Originally posted by Yiliquan1 _
> *I guess we have our answer then...
> 
> Y'know, usually in court, when the person making an allegation is either unable or unwilling to attempt to define and explain their allegations to the satisfaction of the court, the court usually finds that their allegations were false at the outset.
> 
> Lucky we're not in court, I suppose...
> 
> Gambarimasu.
> :asian: *


Funny counselor how you forget your own assertion for which you too failed to carry the burden of proof. 

How about you list a point by point comparison of why you think Kenpo and Taiji are NOT alike.

Same thing. I take judicial notice that you are an expert in your field, and suggest you do the same for me. That being the case we simply disagree. However you may still make your comparison list should you choose to.


----------



## yilisifu

It is noteworthy to add that other kenpo practicioners have not agreed with Doc's assertion that kenpo and taiji are the same.

When confronted with strong evidence to the contrary, he has pointed to "names" with whom he has trained and explained that a special and rarely seen version of EPAK, SL-4, is allegedly the same as taiji.

No one else has had anything to say about this.  I have known several kenpo stylists in my 45 yrs in martial arts and none of them, not a single one, ever made the assertion that kenpo and taiji are anything alike.

That's like saying that judo and wing chun are the same.

They're both martial arts and they do use some of the same fundamental principles (such as maintaining balance and so forth), but that's where the similarity ends.  They are entirely different arts.

Ed Parker was a martial arts genius and a wonderful man.  I don't know if he ever took up the study of taiji or not, but if he did, he may very well have added some of the basic principles of taiji to some areas of his kenpo system.  That does not, however, indicate that the two arts are the same.

Aikido takes much of it's bokken technique from the Shinkage school which Uyeshiba studied.  However, no one has ever claimed that aikido and Shinkage-ryu are the same.  

Bagua utilizes many of the same principles as taiji but you will never hear a bagua stylist say that bagua and taiji are the same.

As a final comment, you state that you are not necessarily an expert of what Yiliquan 1 claims to be taiji; you are an expert of your kenpo (and I don't doubt that) and whatever YOU call taiji.

C'mon........I suppose one could turn around and call taekwondo "taiji" but that wouldn't make it true.  What Yiliquan refers to as "taiji" is Yang's style, which is the most common form of taiji practiced worldwide.  Others include Chen (the original version), Wu, Woo, Sun, and Hao.  

If kenpo and taiji are the same, then it would follow that they should look very much alike, no?  It wouldn't really matter whether or not I was an expert in kenpo; if I had studied taiji for any substantial length of time (which I have), then I should be able to do kenpo without much additional effort...shouldn't I?  This would be a true statement if these two arts were the same.

However, anyone who watches taiji or studies it for even a short length of time and then observes kenpo will tell you that the two arts are not at all alike.  
   You state clearly that you have a great deal of experience in kenpo but I don't recall your saying that you have ever studied taiji at a taiji school.  Yet, you come down on any taiji stylist who disagrees with your statement because they have never studied kenpo.
 

Your arguement just doesn't hold water.


----------



## Doc

> If kenpo and taiji are the same, then it would follow that they should look very much alike, no?


I guess that would depend on whose Kenpo and whose taiji you're talkin about


> However, anyone who watches taiji or studies it for even a short length of time and then observes kenpo will tell you that the two arts are not at all alike.


I wasn't aware you had observed a Sublevel Four kenpo class. If you haven't that is an assertion you may not make


> Yet, you come down on any taiji stylist who disagrees with your statement because they have never studied kenpo.


That is absolutely incorrect. I didn't come down on anyone. I made a statement and indicated why I made the statement, and informed that SL-4 Kenpo is different from what some have seen called kenpo. When asked to draw a point by point comparison against what I don't know, I declined although I suggested where more information was available about what I teach. 

Instead I suggested they draw a comparison based on what they know, the same as they asked of me. 

Two experts with different opinions, neither knowing what the others does. I haven't seen their Taiji and they definitely haven't seen my Kenpo.


----------



## Taiji fan

this thread is getting really yawnsome and seems to have degenerated into the school yard stuff...but I am going to give it my tuppence worth anyway

Doc said in a very early post 





> Kenpo is very much Taiji Quon when taught from that perspective of proper body mechanics enroute to applications


 whats the argument?....what other proof do you need?.....it seems totally clear....the line that does it is...when taught from that perspective of proper body mechanics....so there is the comparison. what more do you want? :idunno:


----------



## Matt Stone

Here's a fun exercise.  Please tell me what arts X and Y are.

Arts X and Y are very similar.  They both stress stable stances, coordinated body mechanics that generate power, deflecting blocks and penetrating strikes and kicks.  Joint locks, throws and weapons defenses are included in the curriculum, and though both arts come from separate locations, they enjoy some common cultural development.

Go ahead, figure out which arts X and Y are...  Answers will be posted later.

Enjoy.

Gambarimasu.
:asian:


----------



## RyuShiKan

> _Originally posted by Yiliquan1 _
> *Here's a fun exercise.  Please tell me what arts X and Y are.
> 
> Arts X and Y are very similar.  They both stress stable stances, coordinated body mechanics that generate power, deflecting blocks and penetrating strikes and kicks.  Joint locks, throws and weapons defenses are included in the curriculum, and though both arts come from separate locations, they enjoy some common cultural development.
> 
> Go ahead, figure out which arts X and Y are...  Answers will be posted later.
> 
> Enjoy.
> 
> Gambarimasu.
> :asian: *




X = Chinese & Y= Okinawan arts?


----------



## chufeng

> whats the argument?....what other proof do you need?.....it seems totally clear....the line that does it is...when taught from that perspective of proper body mechanics....so there is the comparison. what more do you want?



I'm hoping that is tongue in cheek...
Is this the same TaiJiFan that jumped all over the YiLi method of TaiJi...somehow, we didn't get it?:wink:


I'm a bit surprised that you have stayed out of this for as long as you have...trying to preserve the pure TaiJiQuan and all.:wink:

chufeng


----------



## yilisifu

Indeed.  The (internal) mechanics used in Taiji (and other "internal" martial arts) are NOT the same as used in Kenpo.

Some of the outer mechanics are very similar and even identical.  But as I said earlier, certain principles used in ALL martial arts are very similar or identical.  However, that does not make these arts the "same" at all.

An F-16 and a Volkswagen do have some things in common, but they aren't the same animal.


----------



## Taiji fan

> I'm hoping that is tongue in cheek...


 nope......in respect of the guys opinion....he thinks taiji and kenpo are similar in the body mechanics leading to the applications.....fine.  If he is finding similarities in his studies then thats fine....



> Is this the same TaiJiFan that jumped all over the YiLi method of TaiJi...somehow, we didn't get it?


 actually what I said was if your knowledge of taijiquan was limited to simplified and competition styles you were not getting as true a representation of taijiquan as you might think. and why did I stay out of it so long........? because Yilisifu seems to  be the only person replying who can give a balanced argument without degenerating into the playground stuff........

if Doc is unable to present you with the 'facts' you so greatly desire, why not present the reasons that you think taiji and kenpo are not the same then we could have something more interesting and constructive to read.


----------



## Doc

> if Doc is unable to present you with the 'facts' you so greatly desire, why not present the reasons that you think taiji and kenpo are not the same then we could have something more interesting and constructive to read.


Heeyyyyyyy! That's what I said.. Something better happen soon. I'm moving on.


----------



## chufeng

> because Yilisifu seems to be the only person replying who can give a balanced argument without degenerating into the playground stuff



Posting actual biographical information is "unbalanced?"
 
chufeng


----------



## Taiji fan

let me clarify...it aint what you say its the way that you say it...


----------



## Doc

> _Originally posted by Taiji fan _
> *let me clarify...it aint what you say its the way that you say it... *


It was really simple. 

A statement was made, reasons why the statement was made, as well as from whom the information was drawn and why.  I thought I answered the question.

However the answer did not give anyone an opportunity to defend their position in the manner they wanted. There was an obvious disagreement and I had no problem with that, but  I sensed what was wanted was an answer where antagonists could go down a list and simply say "no you're wrong" to everything. 

I admit to not considering myself an expert in Taiji in general or what they teach in particular, and don't claim to know what they do. How could I? But I also wouldn't make flat statements about a Kenpo I don't know anything about as well. 

My statement was at least conceptual and followed by some qualifications. The other side presented a flat "this is not the same as this" without  knowing at least one side, and took it upon themselves to speak for all taiji.
I do not speak for all Kenpo, only my own expertise.

It was not my intent to start such a confrontation and if someone had simply said, "My Taiji is not anything like the Kenpo I've seen." we could have had a great discussion where we both learned something. 

I apologize again for any misunderstanding. Thanks.


----------



## Taiji fan

so tell me more about Kenpo.........I do vaugly remember an article in a British MA magazine actually refering to Taiji Kenpo...but to be honest I don't really recal what it was about.  What is Kenpo?  How is it similar to Taiji?


my previous comment..in the last post was directed to Chufeng and companions....


----------



## Doc

> _Originally posted by yilisifu _
> *It is noteworthy to add that other kenpo practicioners have not agreed with Doc's assertion that kenpo and taiji are the same.*


*
I'm sure all Taiji people agree with you , (except the ones that agree with me). Apparently you are unaware there are different generations and interpretations of kenpo and there is considerable disagreement among it's practitioners about many things. I doubt you have talked to anyone who has ever seen what I'm talking about, no matter what style they claim.*


----------



## yilisifu

Well, you're right about my not ever meeting anyone who has heard of what you've mentioned.

However, the original questions still begs an answer.  HOW are Taiji and Kenpo the same?


----------



## Matt Stone

> _Originally posted by Doc _
> *It was really simple. *



Glad you think so.  I thought my question was as simple as it could be.



> *However the answer did not give anyone an opportunity to defend their position in the manner they wanted. There was an obvious disagreement and I had no problem with that, but  I sensed what was wanted was an answer where antagonists could go down a list and simply say "no you're wrong" to everything. *



Not at all, but thanks for misinterpreting.  What I was looking for was an explanation for why you thought two very distinct arts were so similar.  You didn't answer.



> *I admit to not considering myself an expert in Taiji in general or what they teach in particular, and don't claim to know what they do. How could I? But I also wouldn't make flat statements about a Kenpo I don't know anything about as well. *



So, you point out my lack of information regarding kenpo, point out my limited knowledge of taiji, and state that I have no basis for my assumption that they are _not_ alike, then turn around and state your own lack of knowledge in taiji but somehow are still able to profess they are the same???  

Given - you know about EPAK kenpo, having studied at the foot of EP himself.  Given - you know nothing about taiji and how it is studied (your own statement).  But you can state as a matter of fact that they are the same?  How do you justify that?

Given - I know nothing about EPAK kenpo, only having seen it in a school once a long time ago.  Given - I study Xingyi, Bagua and Taiji, so I am familiar with those arts.  Fact - I have never stated any knowledge about kenpo, only that from what little I have seen of it, kenpo and taiji are not the same.  I asked for clarification from someone in a position of authority in kenpo (you), but rather than having been provided some form of comparison, I was simply told I don't know enough to question your statement...  Whatever.



> *My statement was at least conceptual and followed by some qualifications. The other side presented a flat "this is not the same as this" without  knowing at least one side, and took it upon themselves to speak for all taiji.  I do not speak for all Kenpo, only my own expertise.*



Your qualifications don't mean squat to me.  I don't care who you trained with nor for how long.  Really.   A person could train for years with the best masters available, but if that person's learning, understanding and knowledge suck, then he is still only a half-*** student (regardless of lineage).

I am no master (even though you alleged that I thought myself to be one), hell I'm not even a qualified advanced student.  However, being that I *am* a student with a student's concerns and a student's ego, I ask questions, and I don't care what rank or level of status or presige the person claims to enjoy.  I ask anyway.  If the questions are too hard for you to answer or too uncomfortable to entertain, that really isn't my problem is it?  If you aren't ready for the questions, you shouldn't make statements in public that may incur enquiry...

You tried to wow me with your resume.  Your resume doesn't impress me, and your arguments that I should somehow simply acquiesce because of a list of famous people that you have met fall far short of their goal.  Impress me with your personal knowledge, not by the allegation that because of who you trained with your knowledge by association must be beyond reproach.  Respect is earned, period.  You can show me all the trophies, certificates, belts and pictures you want, and I'll still not be impressed with you as a person.



> *It was not my intent to start such a confrontation and if someone had simply said, "My Taiji is not anything like the Kenpo I've seen." we could have had a great discussion where we both learned something.*



Sorry I didn't pose my answer in the form of a question...  My taiji is not anything like the kenpo I've seen.  Would you care to explain to me how you think kenpo and taiji are the same art?  That still sounds a lot like the question I have been asking for several days, but maybe it comes across more to your liking this way...

Y'know, nevermind.  After fighting through the morass of your evasions and half-answers, I don't care to hear the explanation anymore. 

Have a nice evening.  Sorry if I pissed anyone off with this, but I'm tired of asking nicely over and over again and somehow being made to be the bad guy in this...

Gambarimasu.
:asian: :tank: :asian:


----------



## Doc

> _Originally posted by yilisifu _
> *Well, you're right about my not ever meeting anyone who has heard of what you've mentioned.
> 
> However, the original questions still begs an answer.  HOW are Taiji and Kenpo the same? *



  
As Bugs would say, "What a ..............."


----------



## Matt Stone

> _Originally posted by Doc _
> *
> As Bugs would say, "What a ..............." *



What a maroon...

Nice to see someone of your elevated rank and esteemed expertise can reply to a simple question with such a mature and well-thought out rebuttal.

Gambarimasu.
:asian: :tank: :asian:


----------



## Doc

> _Originally posted by Yiliquan1 _
> *What a maroon...
> 
> Nice to see someone of your elevated rank and esteemed expertise can reply to a simple question with such a mature and well-thought out rebuttal.
> 
> Gambarimasu.
> :asian: :tank: :asian: *


I did quite that sometime ago, but it requires sufficient intellect to detect, especially if it isn't what you want to hear. Funny how no one answered my question, and simply ignored all that was presented in favor of the droning loop of a simpleton response.  All things considered, I guess that was to be expected. considering the initial responses.

ThThThThThThThThThat's all folks!

I have a job. I can't play anymore. Next time you bring the ball.


----------



## chufeng

Excuse me DOC,

YOU made the original claim...
When asked to explain...you said we couldn't understand.
Then you asked us to prove what you said was wrong...I can claim ANYTHING and then ask someone to prove it wrong...I'm sorry, too much work...YOU explain your claim and then I'll have something to respond to.

Since I (and just about everyone who practices kempo) don't have access to the secret sub level 4 material, how could I possibly respond...on the other hand, there are tons of TaiJiQuan references.

Even the esteemed TaiJiFan (who doesn't like the way I post) has asked you to explain your position.

I never questioned your ability as a martial artist...never questioned your claims about who you trained with...
I posted biographical material about your teachers and none of it said anything about TaiJiQuan...

I guess in my own unbalanced way, I still would like an answer.
BUT, I doubt that I'll ever get one...

:asian:
chufeng


----------



## Matt Stone

Gather adult explanations, descriptions and answers to our questions from Doc in one hand, and feces in the other.

Which one fills up first?

Gambarimasu.
:asian: :tank: :asian:


----------



## RyuShiKan

> _Originally posted by Yiliquan1 _
> *Gather adult explanations, descriptions and answers to our questions from Doc in one hand, and feces in the other.
> 
> Which one fills up first?
> 
> Gambarimasu.
> :asian: :tank: :asian: *




Is this like that question is the glass half empty of half full?:rofl:


----------



## yilisifu

Yep, but you wouldn't want to drink out of either one afterwards. 

Well, I thought my question was about as simple as they come; HOW are kenpo and taiji the same, and after 7 pages of arguements, it hasn't been answered.

Facts that HAVE been established are that:

(A) The statement about them being the same was made by someone who doesn't know taiji by his own admission.

(B) The statement was made by someone who practices a form of kenpo (sub-level 4) which other kenpo practicioners know nothing about.....

We haven't been told anything about sub-level 4, or how it is similar to taiji...we've been treated to a colorful bio, but that's about it.

And after looking at the whole of it, it's clear that we're not going to get any answers except something along the lines of "My kenpo is different from everyone else's kenpo and my taiji and your taiji aren't the same....." sans explanations.

Time to move on.


----------



## RyuShiKan

I have read through this post and it mirrors several others on this board where claims were made and questioned were asked for the claimer to elucidate but was never done or pages of double speak were supplied as an answer.


----------



## RyuShiKan

OK, Ill ask and maybe I will get an answer.

1.What is Sub Level 4 Kenpo?
2.How are Kenpo and Chinese Taiji Chuan the same?
(Which kind of kenpo are you referring to BTW?)


----------



## Michael Billings

The 4 ranges of Kenpo:

1. Out of Range
2. Contact Range (most tournament sparrers)
3. Contact Penetration Range (Think Boxers)
4.  Contact Manipulation Range (Analogous to a Japanese or Wally Jay Small Circle range)

Doc's SL-4 is the range inside the Contact Manipulation Range.  Ed Parker Jr. has some interesting insights or stories regarding how the name was derived; but regardless of what it is called, Doc can thump.  

At some level the Kenpo Practitioner learns to relax, center, breath/body unite, and in the more Chinese derived Kenpo offshoots, QiJong or breath, energy, body integration is taught.  

I personally feel the silk reeling or reeling silk energy and a whipping power in my art, but also studied Pa-Qua when it was still spelled that way and had a passing interest in Tai Chi and Hsing-I.  Note: I do know the more modern or "accurate" spelling, but do not want to misrepresent when or in what I was training.

Now, as to Kenpo and Tai Chi, I respectfully disagree with Doc.  I can't fault his credentials or what he does.  It works, and takes advantage of a different genre of material than most Kenpo practitioners utilize, or that it uses a different paradigm to teach.  But I do not feel or see the similarities to Taiji Chuan (or as I was doing Tai Chi Chuan Fa ... same thing I think.)  

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but until I, or you experience what Doc does, I cannot judge the similarities or differences.  Maybe one of you on the West Coast could "audit" a class, since it is a university based model?  By the same token, Doc, you can't just say they are the same and let it go leaving it to your word, especially when addressing a bunch of "subject matter experts" in the other field.  Come on - give a little.

Respectfully,
-Michael
*Kenpo-Texas.com*


----------



## Blindside

For the various non-kenpo posters reading this.

Doc often states that his kenpo is distinctly different than most of the "commercial" kenpo that is derived from Mr. Parker.  Assuming this is correct (and I have no idea about his curriculum), then the various arguments that other kenpoists don't think their kenpo is like tai chi is voided.  As is any argument that a tai chi or style X practitioner visited, watched, or studied kenpo previously, as it is unlikely to have been Dr. Chapel's class.

As an outsider reading this argument I don't think Doc has proved his point.  Assuming you have the experience to state they are the same, you should also be able to point out the similarities between the arts, even if you had to restrict to Chen or Yang or so-and-so's tai chi.  Maybe describe a similarity in stance, teaching method, application, ANYTHING!

Lamont


----------



## Matt Stone

> _Originally posted by Blindside _
> *As an outsider reading this argument I don't think Doc has proved his point.  Assuming you have the experience to state they are the same, you should also be able to point out the similarities between the arts...*



Well said.  I thought I had made that point clear, but perhaps my method of stating it was as insufficient as my intellect must be, according to Mr. Chapel.

However, it seems that such an explanation either - 

a) has already been made (by Mr. Chapel's way of thinking)



> *I thought I answered the question.*



or b) will not be forthcoming (since we have 73 posts since Mr. Chapel's initial "kenpo and taiji are the same" comment, which to my thinking was sufficient time and opportunity within which to reply, and he has as of yet failed to adequately support his claim).

It seems to me that, in a some instances, martial artists of allegedly high rank and vast experience sometimes make comments here on Martial Talk without thinking the repurcussions of those comments through fully.  They seem to rely on the weight of their resume to carry their comments through without question.  I guess I rock the boat on that.  I don't accept anything as gospel without asking questions, not even from my own teacher(s).  Ask Yilisifu, Chufeng, RyuShiKan and nbcdecon - they have all been and continue to be my teachers, and I question damn near everything that comes out of their mouths.  Maybe I'm just slow or something, but without asking questions, examining things to their minutiae, I don't believe I understand what they are telling me.

I think Mr. Chapel's statement was not intended to be questioned at large (as evidenced by comments he has made in defense of his subsequent replies, as well as his reticence to provide what he terms a point by point comparison in order to better explain his position).  I think that perhaps, just perhaps, he expected his reputation to carry his comment into the public with much nodding of heads, knowing looks and "ahhh, I see" comments by others here.  Maybe that would have happened had this thread been located in the Kenpo forum.  Then again, based on replies to a thread/poll I started over there regarding this particular topic, maybe not.

I have something of a cooler head this evening, and am not quite as irritable as I have been the past few nights.  I apologize to the Mod Gods at large if I appear to have been out of line in my last few posts.  At least I have refrained from name calling and such.

At any rate, I doubt such a comparison would be forthcoming.  Mr. Chapel has, without asking my background or experience, assumed that I have far too small an intellect and too limited an experience to make any comments rebutting his initial claim.  Whatever.

I will watch and wait, but I hardly believe I will be surprised by the receipt of an explanation to support his position.

Gambarimasu.
:asian: :tank: :asian:


----------

