# What are the main differences between Xingyiquan, T'ai chi ch'uan, Baguazhang, Bak Mei and Bājíquán



## cpthindsight

What are they each characterized by?

Also how many sub sets of each are there? (For example you can get Chen style T'ai Chi and so on.)


----------



## Xue Sheng

That is a REAL big question

Xingyiquan
Taijiquan
Baguazhang
Bak Mei 
Bājíquán

And as for Taijiquan, Baguzhang and Xingyiquan those headers if you will and under those you get the various styles

Historically speaking Chen Taijiquan is the first, Shanxi Xingyiquan is the first and as for Bagua you get a whole lot really close together and I am not sure which one was first but the creator of Baguazhang was Dong Haichuan and his first students were Yin Fu, Ma Gui, Cheng Tinghua, and Liang Zhenpu

This is from a very old post of mine The Five Taijiquan Families Plus One MartialTalk.Com - Friendly Martial Arts Forum Community

I also have a lot of old posts out there about Xingyiquan as well you might be interested in


----------



## mograph

A teacher of mine related this old heuristic about taijiquan, xingyiquan and baguazhang: respectively, each lets you fight as a rubber ball, an iron bar (or a wrecking ball) or a spinning top.


----------



## Xue Sheng

I've categorized them in these two ways

Taiji has a plethora of patience
Bagua has an average amount of patience
Xingyi has no patience

Also

Taiji > Defense is defense and defense is attack
Bagua > Defense is defense and attack is attack
XIngyi > Attack is defense and attack is attack


----------



## mograph

Like the first triad there, Xue. Succinct.
The second is like a koan! Gotta reflect on it! 

... okay, I think I have it. If A is B and C is D, you apply A to achieve B and apply C to achieve D?


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Xue Sheng said:


> Taiji > Defense is defense and defense is attack ...


To counter a "hip throw" or to counter a "single leg" is always easier than to apply a "hip throw" or to apply a "single leg". To borrow your opponent's force B, add your own force A will achieve A + B > A. That's common sense and there is no argument there.

But what if your opponent is

- not attacking,
- committing on anything, and
- waiting for you to make the 1st move?

Of course you can say that if your opponent doesn't attack you, there will be no fight, the world will be so peaceful and lovely.

What if some Taiji master kills your love one while you and your love one are in Amazon jungle where you can't depend on any law to help you? Assume you are also a Taiji master and want to kill your opponent to revenge for your dead love one? How are you going to start a fight and kill him if both you and your opponent are playing defense and waiting for the other person to make the first move?

IMO, the idea of "defense is attack" has a hole in it. With this kind of attitude, you may develop some good counters to against "hip throw" or "single leg", but the attacking techniques such as "hip throw", or "single leg" will never be developed in your toolbox in the first place.


----------



## Xue Sheng

Kung Fu Wang said:


> To counter a "hip throw" or to counter a "single leg" is always easier than to apply a "hip throw" or to apply a "single leg". To borrow your opponent's force B, add your own force A will achieve A + B > A. That's common sense and there is no argument there.
> 
> But what if your opponent is
> 
> - not attacking,
> - committing on anything, and
> - waiting for you to make the 1st move?
> 
> Of course you can say that if your opponent doesn't attack you, there will be no fight, the world will be so peaceful and lovely.
> 
> What if some Taiji master kills your love one while you and your love one are in Amazon jungle where you can't depend on any law to help you? Assume you are also a Taiji master and want to kill your opponent to revenge for your dead love one? How are you going to start a fight and kill him if both you and your opponent are playing defense and waiting for the other person to make the first move?
> 
> IMO, the idea of "defense is attack" has a hole in it. With this kind of attitude, you may develop some good counters to against "hip throw" or "single leg", but the attacking techniques such as "hip throw", or "single leg" will never be developed in your toolbox in the first place.



You don't understand taijiquan at all.


----------



## cpthindsight

Xue Sheng said:


> You don't understand taijiquan at all.



cmon now that is uncalled for, why cant we be nice to each other and help each other learn? why does it need to be ego wars harsh put downs and trolling, didnt your instructor teach you respect honor and decency?


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Xue Sheng said:


> You don't understand taijiquan at all.


Not too long ago, Hendrik made similar comment to you as you have just made to me. Please don't redirect his "negative energy" toward me.



Hendrik said:


> So,  take back your comment on me in term of internal Art and qigong.  You obviously is not in the level of involvement and has the experience. What is the point to mislead western world on the field you are not expert in?


----------



## mograph

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Of course you can say that if your opponent doesn't attack you, there will be no fight, the world will be so peaceful and lovely.


Using that framing, there's always the possibility of feinting, then defending against the response.

Or, of course, the taijiquan practitioner could just attack.


----------



## Xue Sheng

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Not too long ago, Hendrik made similar comment to you as you have just made to me. Please don't redirect his "negative energy" toward me.





cpthindsight said:


> cmon now that is uncalled for, why cant we be nice to each other and help each other learn? why does it need to be ego wars harsh put downs and trolling, didnt your instructor teach you respect honor and decency?



Folks, there is no ego involved here, and I have had about enough of the lets all play nice no matter how much someone may be wrong attitude that is starting to pop up here and if truth is making one a troll then things are really way to far gone don't you think. And I will say the same thing here I said to Hendrik, I am not an expert nor have I ever professed to be one.

Also I was not being negative I was being truthful and it is nothing I have not said to Kung Fu Wang before if you take it as negative I apologize but it was simply a statement of fact based on my Taiji background and the questions presented. If the truth is a harsh put down and trolling so be it. I do think Kung Fu Wang is a good martial artist but based on previous posts, youtube videos and interactions and the questions presented here I simply do not think he understands taijiquan, sorry.

But if it makes you happy I will give you a different answer, you took issue with this



> Taiji > Defense is defense and defense is attack



Taiji does not attack, per say, it defends and by that defense it finds ways to attack, or to be more to the point the opponent shows you where to attack.



Kung Fu Wang said:


> To counter a "hip throw" or to counter a "single leg" is always easier than to apply a "hip throw" or to apply a "single leg". To borrow your opponent's force B, add your own force A will achieve A + B > A. That's common sense and there is no argument there.



Yes there is argument there if you are talking taijiquan, there is no if they do A I do B scenario, it all depends on what amount and direction the force is coming form. There is no force fights force in Taijiquan, that is why it takes so darn long to learn to apply properly.



Kung Fu Wang said:


> But what if your opponent is
> 
> - not attacking,
> - committing on anything, and
> - waiting for you to make the 1st move?



Same answer as above, there is no If he does A I do B in taijiquan, all depends on what amount and direction the force is coming form. Thre is no force vs force in taijiquan. If you feel force form a Taiji person it is generally one of 2 things. 1) they have no clue abot taijiquan (2) they are very good at taijiquan and it is a fake to get you to do something stupid and commit.



Kung Fu Wang said:


> Of course you can say that if your opponent doesn't attack you, there will be no fight, the world will be so peaceful and lovely.



I could also say if the person does not attack you he/she is not an opponent so why am I attacking them?



Kung Fu Wang said:


> What if some Taiji master kills your love one while you and your love one are in Amazon jungle where you can't depend on any law to help you? Assume you are also a Taiji master and want to kill your opponent to revenge for your dead love one? How are you going to start a fight and kill him if both you and your opponent are playing defense and waiting for the other person to make the first move?



Sorry but that is just plain silly. You are setting up highly emotional senerios that go to more of a moral uissue than a Taiji issue and absolutely none of that has anything to do with "Defense is defense and defense is attack"



Kung Fu Wang said:


> IMO, the idea of "defense is attack" has a hole in it. With this kind of attitude, you may develop some good counters to against "hip throw" or "single leg", but the attacking techniques such as "hip throw", or "single leg" will never be developed in your toolbox in the first place.



You missed the point entirely and seem to be obsessed with a hip throw and I am sorry if that comes off as negative but it is how I feel from where I am sitting. You are coming up with things that have nothing to do with what I typed. I am also use to the occasional negative comment form my sifu when I mess up, however I don't whine about it, I accept it try to look at it differently and move on.

It is simply the difference between taijiquan and external arts like Shuaijiao. You learn how to deal with a hip throw but you never look at any hip throw as being the same thing. You defend and through that defense you attack. Now if that is negative, I'm sorry, but it is the truth based on my training in Taijiquan.

If you want further explanations simply ask for them, unlike Hendrik I will explain, but if you go on the attack form the get go, what do you expect in return?


----------



## cpthindsight

Xue Sheng said:


> Folks, there is no ego involved here, and I have had about enough of the lets all play nice no matter how much someone may be wrong attitude that is starting to pop up here and if truth is making one a troll then things are really way to far gone don't you think. And I will say the same thing here I said to Hendrik, I am not an expert nor have I ever professed to be one.
> 
> Also I was not being negative I was being truthful and it is nothing I have not said to Kung Fu Wang before if you take it as negative I apologize but it was simply a statement of fact based on my Taiji background and the questions presented. If the truth is a harsh put down and trolling so be it. I do think Kung Fu Wang is a good martial artist but based on previous posts, youtube videos and interactions and the questions presented here I simply do not think he understands taijiquan, sorry.
> 
> But if it makes you happy I will give you a different answer, you took issue with this
> 
> 
> 
> Taiji does not attack, per say, it defends and by that defense it finds ways to attack, or to be more to the point the opponent shows you where to attack.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes there is argument there if you are talking taijiquan, there is no if they do A I do B scenario, it all depends on what amount and direction the force is coming form. There is no force fights force in Taijiquan, that is why it takes so darn long to learn to apply properly.
> 
> 
> 
> Same answer as above, there is no If he does A I do B in taijiquan, all depends on what amount and direction the force is coming form. Thre is no force vs force in taijiquan. If you feel force form a Taiji person it is generally one of 2 things. 1) they have no clue abot taijiquan (2) they are very good at taijiquan and it is a fake to get you to do something stupid and commit.
> 
> 
> 
> I could also say if the person does not attack you he/she is not an opponent so why am I attacking them?
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry but that is just plain silly. You are setting up highly emotional senerios that go to more of a moral uissue than a Taiji issue and absolutely none of that has anything to do with "Defense is defense and defense is attack"
> 
> 
> 
> You missed the point entirely and seem to be obsessed with a hip throw and I am sorry if that comes off as negative but it is how I feel from where I am sitting. You are coming up with things that have nothing to do with what I typed. I am also use to the occasional negative comment form my sifu when I mess up, however I don't whine about it, I accept it try to look at it differently and move on.
> 
> It is simply the difference between taijiquan and external arts like Shuaijiao. You learn how to deal with a hip throw but you never look at any hip throw as being the same thing. You defend and through that defense you attack. Now if that is negative, I'm sorry, but it is the truth based on my training in Taijiquan.
> 
> If you want further explanations simply ask for them, unlike Hendrik I will explain, but if you go on the attack form the get go, what do you expect in return?





Instead of saying, you know nothing about tai chi, you could have said I dont wish to correct you but I sincerely believe you are incorrect, here is why, what do you think about that? 

See one comes off as offensive and immature, the other comes off as polite and mature.

What do you think about that pal?


----------



## Xue Sheng

and "What do you think of that pal?" is not offensive or immature.... and the original post by Kung Fu Wang that started this was not confrontational.... okie dokie

Please do not lecture me, I am not in the mood to be lectured by one half my age.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Xue Sheng said:


> Taiji does not attack,


I'm simply point out that I don't agree with you on the above statement. There is no need to get personal. In your style of Taiji, you may not attack. In my style of Taiji, the "Chang style Taiji - founder by GM Chang Tung Sheng", we do attack.

For example, when you apply "diagonal fly", you can

- redirect your opponent's leading arm,
- step in, and
- take him down.

You don't have to wait for your opponent to attack you first.


----------



## Xue Sheng

Seen that video before, and this is my Shigong






And I trained a bit with this guy too....but I do not call myself his student, my lineage is to the above video






Now that that's out of the way... I said it does not attack per say, but It finds a way to attack based on the opponent's force so.....Define attack... And the biggest issue is force against force this would make it not Taiji by 2 different styles I have trained.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Xue Sheng said:


> I said it does not attack per say, but It finds a way to attack based on the opponent's force so.....Define attack... And the biggest issue is force against force this would make it not Taiji by 2 different styles I have trained.


The definition of "attack" to me mean you move in and do whatever that you want to do. You don't have to wait for your opponent to do anything. I have trained Taiji for 60 years by now (I started my Taiji training when I was 7). I do know that my "aggressive Taiji nature - act like a tiger and eat my opponent alive" may upset other Taiji people.

In the

- striking art, you want to create a "head on collision" that your fist meets your opponent's face, that's 100% force against force.
- throwing art, you want to create a "rear end collision" that you move the same direction as your opponent is moving, that's borrow force.

Unless in your opinion that Taiji is a "pure throwing art". As long as Taiji includes the striking art, the force against force (such a your fist meet your opponent's face) has to be part of the Taiji principle.

Here is an example that you use Taiji "diagonal fly" to attack. Since your opponent is not moving and you move in, it's not force against force but you just use your own force because you have no force to borrow from your opponent.


----------



## Xue Sheng

Yup, again nothing new to me, and there are more applications to diagonal flying than just that. Been doing Taiji for over 20 years, know apps, trained a lot of the 13 postures too (Kao and Zhou are striking) and it is more than a throwing art; striking, qinna and shuaijiao are all part of taijiquan and you will find that in Yang and Chen. You will also find it in Wu (Northern and Southern) Wu/Hao, Sun too, it is just I have very little to no experience with Wu, Wu/Hao and Sun so I do not use them as my examples.

We are not understanding each other here and I will blame myself for not being clear, and that is how I am going to leave it.


----------



## K-man

Xue Sheng said:


> and "What do you think of that pal?" is not offensive or immature.... and the original post by Kung Fu Wang that started this was not confrontational.... okie dokie
> 
> Please do not lecture me, I am not in the mood to be lectured by one half my age.


Xue, this guy is more like a quarter of your age!


----------



## Xue Sheng

K-man said:


> Xue, this guy is more like a quarter of your age!



I figured that out a few hours later, I was going by his claimed age in his profile. He, if it is a he, must lead a rather sad and pathetic life if he/she does this for entertainment...


----------



## mograph

Xue Sheng said:


> He, if it is a he, must lead a rather sad and pathetic life if he/she does this for entertainment...


Every now and then, the internet creeps into the forum.


----------



## 23rdwave

Kung Fu Wang said:


> The definition of "attack" to me mean you move in and do whatever that you want to do. You don't have to wait for your opponent to do anything. I have trained Taiji for 60 years by now (I started my Taiji training when I was 7). I do know that my "aggressive Taiji nature - act like a tiger and eat my opponent alive" may upset other Taiji people.
> 
> In the
> 
> - striking art, you want to create a "head on collision" that your fist meets your opponent's face, that's 100% force against force.
> - throwing art, you want to create a "rear end collision" that you move the same direction as your opponent is moving, that's borrow force.



In taiji one should borrow force when striking as well. It is not 100% force against force when one fighter is off balance when being struck and the one delivering the strike has a taiji body. It's the mind and body's state or condition that is most important.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

23rdwave said:


> In taiji one should borrow force when striking as well. It is not 100% force against force when one fighter is off balance when being struck and the one delivering the strike has a taiji body. It's the mind and body's state or condition that is most important.


We all know that the "head on collision" will cause the most damage. That's just simple physics A + B > A. This is why, you want to

- punch your opponent while he is moving toward you (this is borrow force that you "wait" for it to happen), or
- pull your opponent's body into your punch (this is also borrow force that you "make" it to happen).

IMO, it's better to "make" it to happen than to "wait for" it to happen. This will require "aggressive" attitude.

Do you want to punch your opponent when he is

- off balance, or
- well balanced?

If your opponent is off balance, when you punch him, most of your power will be cancelled out by his unbalanced body.

When you

- throw a matchbox in the air and punch at it, that matchbox will fly away without broken.
- put a matchbox on the ground and step on it, that matchbox will be crashed.

This is why it's better to take your opponent down first. When you punch him while he is on the ground, his body is "well balanced" because the ground will support all his balance behind his back. Since he is not going anywhere, every single bit of your power will go into his body without any wasting.


----------



## 23rdwave

Kung Fu Wang said:


> We all know that the "head on collision" will cause the most damage. That's just simple physics A + B > A. This is why, you want to
> 
> - punch your opponent while he is moving toward you (this is borrow force that you "wait" for it to happen), or
> - pull your opponent's body into your punch (this is also borrow force that you "make" it to happen).
> 
> IMO, it's better to "make" it to happen than to "wait for" it to happen. This will require "aggressive" attitude.
> 
> Do you want to punch your opponent when he is
> 
> - off balance, or
> - well balanced?
> 
> If your opponent is off balance, when you punch him, most of your power will be cancelled out by his unbalanced body.
> 
> When you
> 
> - throw a matchbox in the air and punch at it, that matchbox will fly away without broken.
> - put a matchbox on the ground and step on it, that matchbox will be crashed.
> 
> This is why it's better to take your opponent down first. When you punch him while he is on the ground, his body is "well balanced" because the ground will support all his balance behind his back. Since he is not going anywhere, every single bit of your power will go into his body without any wasting.



It's better to "make" it to happen. I agree. 

A man has far greater mass than a matchbox. And I hit him twice. The first time is when I strike him with my fist, the second time is when he hits the ground.


----------



## blindsage

Kung Fu Wang said:


> We all know that the "head on collision" will cause the most damage. That's just simple physics A + B > A. This is why, you want to
> 
> - punch your opponent while he is moving toward you (this is borrow force that you "wait" for it to happen), or
> - pull your opponent's body into your punch (this is also borrow force that you "make" it to happen).
> 
> IMO, it's better to "make" it to happen than to "wait for" it to happen. This will require "aggressive" attitude.
> 
> Do you want to punch your opponent when he is
> 
> - off balance, or
> - well balanced?
> 
> If your opponent is off balance, when you punch him, most of your power will be cancelled out by his unbalanced body.
> 
> When you
> 
> - throw a matchbox in the air and punch at it, that matchbox will fly away without broken.
> - put a matchbox on the ground and step on it, that matchbox will be crashed.
> 
> This is why it's better to take your opponent down first. When you punch him while he is on the ground, his body is "well balanced" because the ground will support all his balance behind his back. Since he is not going anywhere, every single bit of your power will go into his body without any wasting.



Since an upright, unbalanced person is neither a matchbox in the air, nor a matchbox on the ground, your point really has little meaning.


----------



## mograph

I'm not sure if "making it happen" would work against a taijiquan artist. That's exactly what they're waiting for.

(depending on the context, of course)


----------



## MyrddinEmrys

First, to combine two things I like, physics and martial arts:

The matchbox analogy reminds me of high school physics.  You can only exert as much force on an object as the object can exert back.

You can also think about it like this:  F=ma, where F is force, m is mass, and a is acceleration.  Acceleration is the change in velocity, and velocity is how fast and in what direction an object is moving.  If you hit a matchbox in midair, the box will just move with your hand, so there will be little to no change in velocity, so little to no force is applied to the matchbox.  If you hit the matchbox on the ground, there is a very big change in the velocity of your hand since it goes from moving quickly to being still in a very short amount of time.  Same mass, much bigger acceleration, so much more force. 

Second, to get back to the original question that started this thread:

I don't know much about bak mei or bajiquan, but my first bagua teacher once told me how one of his teacher's characterized the difference between xingyi, taichi, and bagua.  He said xingyi was brave (demonstrated an aggressive forward movement), taichi was a gentleman (demonstrated yielding and letting someone fall past him), and bagua was clever (demonstrated moving evasively to the side of the opponent).


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

mograph said:


> I'm not sure if "making it happen" would work against a taijiquan artist. That's exactly what they're waiting for.
> 
> (depending on the context, of course)


You use "door opening moves" to "make it happen". When you do that, you only apply 30% of your force. You will then expect all kind of respond and that include your opponent tries to borrow your force as well. A simple example can be a "low roundhouse kick at your opponent's leading inside upper leg". when you do that, you don't expect to cause seriously injury on your opponent's leg. You just want your opponent to respond, any kind of respond. Your opponent may:

- raise his leg to block it.
- drop his arm to block it.
- step back to escape it.
- step in and attack your rooting leg.
- ...

As long as your opponent has committed on something, anything, that's all you care about. That's the definition of "door opening move" and "make it happen". No matter what your opponent's respond maybe, you have moved in your leading leg and land your leading foot at the right position that you want. When your opponent responds to your "low roundhouse kick", he may not realize that what you truly want is just to "close the distance" so your fist can meet on his face.


----------



## mograph

KFW, in the case of a block from your opponent, you're assuming that your opponent would only be expecting you to make one move: make the roundhouse then retreat. A good taijiquan player would expect you to break rhythm and strike in combinations, so he would either move in or move back, which in the latter case is not something on which you can act, unless the player is expecting one move from you, as I wrote. 

Instead of blocking, a good player would take advantage of your commitment right away (I say commitment, because you expect to make contact with your kick, right?), grab your leg and take you off-balance or move in _before_ you make contact, because roundhouse kicks are well-telegraphed. You would be opening your _own_ door with that kind of move, and only using 30% of your force would be a waste. Feint or make it count, because a good taijiquan player would take advantage of your move..


----------



## Colin Barker

cpthindsight said:


> What are they each characterized by?
> 
> Also how many sub sets of each are there? (For example you can get Chen style T'ai Chi and so on.)



Loaded lengthy question/explanation.  That's a google question really as far as how many subsets/styles there are of bagua, tai chi, baji, etc.  As far as the differences in all them where to start.  Consider where the art came from or how it was started to find it's intent of attack or defend.  I can't speak much on Baji but, Baji was a bodyguard art primarily with lots of body beatings done in the training and much of it intent similar to hsingi.  

Tai chi, hsing i, and bagua all have different modes of issuing power, most simply put i'll try and elaborate.  Tai chi primarily uses the forward and back method, as in i shift my weight forward and then i shift it backwards.  The hips play a part in issuing power but primarily it's you push at me i shift weight back making you unbalanced, now i shift forward and attack/throw or whatever.  Tai chi will use this shifting forward and back after they adhere to you as a big part of tai chi is to stick to the opponent.  

Hsingi is like a honey badger in that it doesn't care what you do it's all about power and crushing their opponent.  Hsingi's motto "herd the moon pursue the wind and stop at nothing!" Yeah it's like that, using i uses the chicken/plow step to issue power.  Hsingi primarily uses half body power when striking, smooth body and twist body.  Smooth body being if the left hand is out so is the left foot, Twist body would be left hand out with right foot out.  Hsingi doesn't worry about circling, adhering, or any other technique.  It's all ahead like a charging bull.  My friend studied hsingi for 8-10 years, before the was taught to "block", which is awesome.  

Bagua has a combination of the two above listed methods but tweaks it further by stretching with the movement.  Translated sometimes as supple body connecting palm the forms and methods are bagua do just that.  Unify the body so it can issue with whole body power.  So the mud step of bagua stretches out with the front foot being pushed by the back foot, and then the back foot follows to close up your stance. Ideally the whole body moves as one, hence the whole body power aspect.  Moving forward or issuing power in bagua (specifically Gao style bagua) one stretches out from finger tips to wrist, elbow, shoulder, back, waist, knee, ankle, and all that is between.  This stretch is focused on stretching the tendon fascia, the stretch helps to connect the body unifying the power.  Bagua will grab/abduct with it's hands and circle around attack from angles, hook and trap with foot work, and so on.


----------

