# Tai Chi VS. QiGong



## Shaolin (Sep 26, 2006)

I have been trying to find out what the differences are between Tai-Chi and Qigong? Are they the same?

Thanks,

Kris


----------



## Shrewsbury (Sep 26, 2006)

Though Taichi is used by many as a method of qigong, they are actually quite different.

Tai chi is an internal martial art, its complexity usually causes few to ever study it long enough to become martial, so often it is used as a health art, which by the way is equal to slowing down any martial form.

qigong is a health, healing, longevity art, based on external movements that cause the internal ( energy, blood, oxygen, what ever your beleifs) to flow, store, move, and unclogg.

neigong which is often is confused as qigong, is the same as qigong, but the external movement is cut out, all is done internally.


----------



## grydth (Jan 13, 2007)

Though many groups, ours included, practice both Tai Chi and Qi Gong, the origins, forms and uses of both were quite distinct and different.

I say "were" because there has been some minimal convergence in recent years with regards to certain postures. The 18 Form Qi Gong set illustrated in Tai Chi For Seniors by Philip Bonifonte originated in China in the 1950's. A variant of that widely taught here since the 1990's was actually labelled "Tai Chi Qi Gong", and had some Tai Chi postures such as Repulse Monkey and Cloud Hands in place of certain of Bonifonte's postures. Whether this was a 'sifu specific' innovation I cannot say.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jan 13, 2007)

Old post but I'll bite

No they are not the same....

Yes they are the same much like a square is a rectangle but a rectangle is not a square - mathematically speaking.

Quickest easiest explanation

There is Qi training in Taijiquan

There is not Taijiquan training in Qigong

Tai Chi Chuan 
http://www.answers.com/topic/tai-chi-chuan-2

Qigong
http://www.answers.com/topic/qigong

There was also a very old form of Qigong that allegedly predates Taijiquan called Taijigong. Not to be confused with Tai Chi Qi Gong, that is something different. 

Taijiquan = Tai Chi Chuan


----------



## grydth (Jan 13, 2007)

I think an associated question would be whether the two arts will be able to maintain their individuality in America.

While I am well aware that many of our great martial arts systems were founded by masters who had studied multiple styles and selected the best aspects, I am worried about the 'Fusion Frankensteins' now being created by the not-so-great. 

It seems the recent trend in these parts is for instructors to fuse sections of several different arts, usually for some type of work out class. To put it gently, these individuals do not seem to be of master stature, do not appear qualified to do this. A friend approached such a class in a park which was advertised with the label "Tai Chi" and inquired about it's nature. When he received vague replies, he offered that he was an assistant instructor and had never seen such moves before. Only then did the leader confess that it was a mix of Tai Chi, yoga, pilates, etc that she had thrown together.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jan 13, 2007)

I agree that there is a lot of not so good change going on in CMA today. 

People that do not understand a CMA system changing it to something they understand or, as you said, fusing it with something else in order to claim mastery when in fact they likely are master of neither system. Don't get me wrong there are qualified people out there that can do this but they have years of training not weeks, months or even years if you are talking less then 10 to 20. 

I am mainly a Tai chi practitioner, mostly Yang with a bit of Chen and I have seen some incredible bastardization in the last 15 years. Mostly what I see is what I call Tai Chi light, no substance just form. But then I see people claiming they do Tai Chi martial arts or, one of my least favorite terms, Combat Tai Chi and I find they are NOT doing Tai Chi they have combined Tai Chi forms with applications form other hard styles which is decidedly not Tai Chi. If you are doing a Tai Chi form and combining it with Karate in order to make it self defense you are not doing tai chi at all. 

As for Qigong it is down right scary what some people are doing. Most are just studying superficial Qigong and collecting forms but some are getting deeply into it without a teacher qualified teacher or without any teacher at all and don't let Qigong fool you, the higher levels without guidance are dangerous and many of the so called Qigong master in this country are not even close. I have seen, in 15 years, 1 that I am certain is in 15 years and another that I am fairly certain is very competent and I have heard of only a couple others that are but there are certainly no where near as many that claim to be out there.

As to maintaining individuality, just look for some of my post on Yang Tai Chi. I am concerned that it will not exist at all as a martial art in the not to distance future, and I am talking globally with that. As to in the US and CMA maintaining individuality it is hard to say, but I do know a few diehards that are trying and many of those are on MT.


----------



## grydth (Jan 13, 2007)

It could be a swift Mongolian exile for me, as I managed to use your least favorite term, "combat Tai Chi" in my profile...... but I would like to explain this and see what you and the folks here think.

Some years ago, I was fortunate to have an excellent instructor who traced his lineage back to Chen Man Ching. After some months learning the so called Yang Short Form, I told him that the peculiarities of a job I held could require that I defend self and coworkers against bad people..... yet image required I not display the overt and loud type of violence I had learned in Kenpo - that could bring termination. (Don't ask).

This teacher then took me back through the form twice - once to polish all the moves (polish being a charitable term in my favor), and then again to demonstrate the martial applications of each posture in the form. He also taught me a fair variety of Chin Na applications, identifying these as such and definitely not passing them off as Tai Chi. Every class started wih the form, then progressed to applications and Chin Na.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jan 14, 2007)

No need to retreat but I need to say my apologies.

I did not look at your profile before responding and I really need to stop making blanket statements about things.

I am very much a traditionalist when it comes to CMA. I have trained Traditional Yang for 12 years and I trained Chen a bit as well and a bit less than that I have trained Wu. I also train Xingyiquan and a bit of untraditional CMA Non-sport Sanda. 

I also did a brief bit of training with a student of a student of Cheng Manching and I did attend 1 seminar with a student of Cheng Manching and I will say it was very based on fighting and I was very impressed. I have on multiple occasions highly recommended both to people looking for Tai Chi martial arts. However I do nto think he called it combat Tai Chi.

I would welcome a discussion with someone that practices Combat Tai Chi. It is very possible that what I have seen so far called Combat Tai Chi is likely the same as I have seen in many so called Yang style schools. I walk in and they teach 24 form, which is not from the Yang family, and they teach 48 form, which is not Yang style at all really, and a few other competition forms. It is likely that what I have seen of alleged combat Tai Chi was what I previously described and what you are doing could be the real thing. I would like to understand what it is suppose to be. 

If I may ask who was the student of Cheng Manching you trained with?

Once again my apologies I am an old CMA guy that has become quite cynical over the years.


----------



## grydth (Jan 14, 2007)

I think you stated an honest and forthright opinion after I (unintentionally) raised a red flag..... no apologies are needed when one disagrees through conviction and concern for the arts.

The teacher I had was Ken Nichols, a fantasic instructor. He never claimed to have personally worked with Chen Man Ching, but he was most emphatic to all students about the lineage. From the library I have accumulated over the years, I can say that his form differed very little from Chen's. He recommended all read Chen's primary book, which illustrated the form. He would only teach applications when the student knew the entire form.... and after many requests. 

Just as any individual has the choice between doing right and wrong, so do the CMA......but I am not as cynical......I think mostly right choices will be made. Yes, I am concerned about these oafish tournaments, fake teachers, temporary superficial students who may come if we are cursed with becoming a trend (such as befell yoga and pilates), and with the false fusions making Martial Arts Meatloaf. 

But I also see Tai Chi in America awakening from that generation long faux New Age phase and rediscovering its martial roots. The Internet has opened sources of knowledge and exploration not available in Chen's day. A steady flow of teachers from the East to the USA continues. We are not yet a fad, and the people I see around here are serious about their practice. Though there is some friction, I still see far more sharing than sliming going on between groups and styles.

We may see a disaster - or we may see a Golden Age.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jan 14, 2007)

Very possible

And I don't think we are far off in our opinion here. I have been thinking about this and I think at least in part, my problem with "Combat Tai Chi" is that it makes it sound as if Tai Chi prior to that was not for fighting and it most certainly was. I train with a very traditional teacher that does train the martial side as it was taught to him by his sifu in China so I just call it Tai Chi.

But based on what has been going on in the last few years with the faux Tai Chi schools (which has been driving me nuts) I suppose I can see the reason why someone would want to make damn sure they were not associated with it and make sure that it was known that they did train the martial side. If nothing else in keeps out those looking for just Tai Chi for health, and I best stop here since I have ranted enough here on MT about that topic. 

What I have seen in the alleged combat Tai Chi schools is WAY to much use of muscular force way to much power and not enough internal. But if you are sticking close to CMC style it is likely you are not doing any of that. 

The person from the Cheng Manching line whose seminar I attended was William CC Chen and he is most certainly training Tai Chi for fighting and I was incredibly impressed. If you have not already checked it out you may want to check out his website, he has some pretty good articles he has written you may find interesting.


----------



## grydth (Jan 14, 2007)

Our teacher taught finesse, positioning and using the attacker's force.... that crude muscling was very much disfavored. Usually he would ask what we thought a particular posture was used for; then he would illustrate what it was intended for and we'd practice. Finally, he would take the 'incorrect' answers - usually mine - and analyze whether the posture could be of use in that situation. By this time, I'd have taken many trips to the mat.

The instructor also would only teach the combat applications after a student reached form proficiency.

If somebody wants Tai Chi just for health, to me that's their business --- and loss. It was the twisting of the art itself by some to suit only that goal which I find dangerous. Get me on a subject of heresy such as the so called "Tai Chi Chih" and I shall match you rant for rant!

Meanwhile I am checking out the threads and links of this site, and finding much to learn.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jan 14, 2007)

grydth said:


> Our teacher taught finesse, positioning and using the attacker's force.... that crude muscling was very much disfavored. Usually he would ask what we thought a particular posture was used for; then he would illustrate what it was intended for and we'd practice. Finally, he would take the 'incorrect' answers - usually mine - and analyze whether the posture could be of use in that situation. By this time, I'd have taken many trips to the mat.
> 
> The instructor also would only teach the combat applications after a student reached form proficiency.
> 
> ...


 
subject.

And I did look at Tai Chi Chih (there is a school in my area) and although the people I talked to were very nice and making no claims to martial arts the claims of its founder are in my opinion bogus and the way they set up training and teacher certification has much similarity to a pyramid scheme.

There are tons of these types of schools out there and they have a whole lot of students.

My most recent rant on MT was about someone in my area teaching Tai Chi claiming in 3 minutes a day your could gain all the benefits of the (his statement not mine) "ancient masters"


----------



## grydth (Jan 14, 2007)

Only 3 minutes? There I thought it could happen in 6 weeks....

I've always looked at Tai Chi Chih as more of a New Age cult, which kept the 'tai chi' name only to sucker in newbies. Wonder if it will all unravel when Justin Stone ("The Founder") dies and heads for the Infernal Regions.... but while the Ubergrifter still breathes, it grows like a poisonous weed.

I'm not sure there is an effective way to eliminate the 3 Minute Masters or The Founders...... government regulation is like giving Hemlock for the flu. I believe all we can do is tend the flames and have the true arts available when they are wanted.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jan 15, 2007)

grydth said:


> I believe all we can do is tend the flames and have the true arts available when they are wanted.


 
I agree.


----------

