# How will Tai Chi help me become a better martial artist?



## Ironbear24

By better martial artist I mean better fighter, I want to be a better fighter. I am mostly a kenpo practitioner and I also do a lot of weight lifting, I have heard many things about tai chi and I am wondering if I should take the tai chi classes hosted at the gym I often go to.


----------



## Touch Of Death

Ironbear24 said:


> By better martial artist I mean better fighter, I want to be a better fighter. I am mostly a kenpo practitioner and I also do a lot of weight lifting, I have heard many things about tai chi and I am wondering if I should take the tai chi classes hosted at the gym I often go to.


Most kenpoists don't understand center line. I do Kenpo, so I say this with every confidence. It is a mess. You Sir, are poised to help.


----------



## Ironbear24

Touch Of Death said:


> Most kenpoists don't understand center line. I do Kenpo, so I say this with every confidence. It is a mess. You Sir, are poised to help.



I know of it, I know that much of of the center of the body is where the vitals are and about center line gaurd. Of course that's what I think when I hear the term center line, is this what you mean?

If not then I don't know what you mean, I would like to learn what you are talking about.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Since you are doing Taiji in slow speed, the "6 harmonies" principle can be learned through the Taiji movement quite easily. When you are doing Taiji "brush knee". you can concentrate on the coordination of your

- shoulder with your hip,
- elbow with your knee,
- hand with your foot,
- ...

After you have developed that "full body unification", if you go back to your original style, you will find out that you can do your original style much better than before. When you make a move, you will start to pay attention on which hand should coordinate with which leg that you may not have paid enough attention in the past. You will find out that your ability to learn a new move, your learning is much faster because you can always think about arm and leg as one item instead of 2 different items.


----------



## Buka

Ironbear24 said:


> and I am wondering if I should take the tai chi classes hosted at the gym I often go to.



If it's there, and you go there, I mean, why not? Give it a year and let me know what you think.


----------



## Zeny

To be a better kenpo fighter it is best that you practise more kenpo.

Taichi will only provide you with limited gains and will not be worth the time spent.


----------



## Touch Of Death

Zeny said:


> To be a better kenpo fighter it is best that you practise more kenpo.
> 
> Taichi will only provide you with limited gains and will not be worth the time spent.


Lies!


----------



## Touch Of Death

Ironbear24 said:


> I know of it, I know that much of of the center of the body is where the vitals are and about center line gaurd. Of course that's what I think when I hear the term center line, is this what you mean?
> 
> If not then I don't know what you mean, I would like to learn what you are talking about.


It is a great source of power.


----------



## Goku2

Taiji will definitely help you to become a better fighter. Having said that, I would start with the gym class, but, most gym classes are not designed for application. As a beginner, this class hopefully will have the corrections and basic principles. My experience in such a class has been one of following the instructor only - you'll enjoy the movement and the serenity, (and to be a better fighter you do have to be calm) but really not much else.


----------



## Hanzou

Honestly, if your goal is to be a better fighter you should probably seek out styles that fighters tend to gravitate towards; Boxing, Muay Thai, Bjj, Wrestling, etc.

If you're looking to center yourself, or find some form of relaxation, Yoga would be a better option than Tai Chi.


----------



## Goku2

Hanzou said:


> Honestly, if your goal is to be a better fighter you should probably seek out styles that fighters tend to gravitate towards; Boxing, Muay Thai, Bjj, Wrestling, etc.
> 
> If you're looking to center yourself, or find some form of relaxation, Yoga would be a better option than Tai Chi.


Taiji can only help ALL styles of fighting. Yoga is not a better option. In taiji one learns what 'centered' really means, and must maintain that feeling throughout all movement, not it static poses.


----------



## Goku2

Goku2 said:


> Taiji can only help ALL styles of fighting. Yoga is not a better option. In taiji one learns what 'centered' really means, and must maintain that feeling throughout all movement, not it static poses.


In the west, taiji has been promoted for health, and that is only what most people think of it. Studying with a master who knows the applications and the philosophy will open one's eyes tremendously. Simply put, what one views in the forms are only the tip of the iceberg!


----------



## Hanzou

Goku2 said:


> Taiji can only help ALL styles of fighting. Yoga is not a better option. In taiji one learns what 'centered' really means, and must maintain that feeling throughout all movement, not it static poses.



Flexibility and balance doesn't help ALL fighting styles? I would also argue that you'll get the benefits of Yoga quite a bit faster than you will in Tai Chi.

And keep in mind, I only suggested Yoga if he's trying to meditate or center himself. If he's really trying to become a better fighter, he should seriously consider more fight-centric systems.


----------



## Goku2

Hanzou said:


> Flexibility and balance doesn't help ALL fighting styles? I would also argue that you'll get the benefits of Yoga quite a bit faster than you will in Tai Chi.
> 
> And keep in mind, I only suggested Yoga if he's trying to meditate or center himself. If he's really trying to become a better fighter, he should seriously consider more fight-centric systems.


I'm not implying that flexibility and balance are not found in yoga. A full taiji curriculum includes all that and more. The centering done in taiji  also includes rooting as well as finding and maintaining your own center of gravity - and finding the opponent's center.


----------



## Zeny

A full taichi curriculum takes a long time to learn, not to mention its methods often contradict what is taught in kenpo. Thus a kenpo practitioner ought to just improve his kenpo rather than mix it with taichi.


----------



## Xue Sheng

As Kung Fu Wang stated, it will help you with the 6 harmonies, depending on the style it will also help you qinna and with relaxation and patience in confrontation but if you are looking for a quick fix I suggest you look elsewhere

And for the record, I do taiji and I do Yoga and although they have some similarities, they will not teach you the same thing, and anyone who tells you otherwise has little or no experience in either one or the other or both....seems to be a lot of that going around on MT these days


----------



## mograph

It really depends on the class: the teachings in tai chi classes vary widely because there's no official governing body. In my opinion, all they (all) have in common is that the students (mostly) move slowly and look sort of martial. 

Now, in a _good_ class, under a good master, you'd learn balance, sensitivity, power without unnecessary tension, moving and expressing force from your core ... all sorts of good things that could help you anticipate, move with flow and develop a root. Good taijiquan works well when you are in contact with the opponent: touch is important. You'd also learn applications in a good class.

However ... in an _average_ class, you'd probably just learn some calming choreography.
In a really _bad_ class, you might injure your knees!

I think you'd improve your _flexibility_ in a yoga class, starting with gentle Hatha, moving up to Vinyasa. In the latter, you might also get some strength benefits, since you have to hold stuff like leg-up-in-the-air poses for a while. Meditation & centering? It depends on the class.

Would a good taijiquan class make you a better fighter? It depends on where you feel your fighting skills are deficient now, and how you define the idea of a better fighter. But from what I've seen and heard, a good tiajiquan teacher can help you sense an opponent's intentions better (when touching), improvise more (because you're watching/sensing what the opponent is doing rather than sticking to a script), be more sneaky (part of taijiquan is about fooling the opponent) and maybe help you appreciate your own art from a different point of view.

The taijiquan class would probably act as a _complement_ to your kenpo. You're not _likely_ to get more sparring in a taijiquan class, so to be a better fighter, I'd imagine you'd need to keep up your sparring in kenpo: "pressure-testing," as it's called.

Xue Sheng could chime in here: while teachings vary widely, there's a general consensus that Chen classes tend to be more martial than Yang classes. But that's a broad generalization. If you have martial needs, ask what style they teach in the class you're investigating. If they can't address that question with confidence, you're in a feel-good-comfy class, probably not for you.

My 2 cents.


----------



## Goku2

Nicely put mograph! I practice Chen taijiquan.


----------



## Xue Sheng

mograph said:


> Xue Sheng could chime in here: while teachings vary widely, there's a general consensus that Chen classes tend to be more martial than Yang classes. But that's a broad generalization. If you have martial needs, ask what style they teach in the class you're investigating. If they can't address that question with confidence, you're in a feel-good-comfy class, probably not for you.
> 
> My 2 cents.



You will likely find more "Chen style" classes that are geared towards the martial arts of it than "Yang style" classes, but there are some Yang style teachers that teach the martial arts of it, they are just hard to find. But I have seen a few "Chen" schools, of late, that are also not doing any of the martial side at all, which I was rather sad to see. The only style, I believe, that would guarantee you the martial arts of it at this time is Zhaobao, but finding a real Zhaobao sifu is incredibly difficult outside of China. Last I knew in the US, and this is going back a few years, there was one in the country that was teaching, and he taught on the west coast and, at that time, had another group of students in NYC.


----------



## Goku2

Xue Sheng said:


> You will likely find more "Chen style" classes that are geared towards the martial arts of it than "Yang style" classes, but there are some Yang style teachers that teach the martial arts of it, they are just hard to find. But I have seen a few "Chen" schools, of late, that are also not doing any of the martial side at all, which I was rather sad to see. The only style, I believe, that would guarantee you the martial arts of it at this time is Zhaobao, but finding a real Zhaobao sifu is incredibly difficult outside of China. Last I knew in the US, and this is going back a few years, there was one in the country that was teaching, and he taught on the west coast and, at that time, had another group of students in NYC.


You are correct about Chen. Took me sometime to find a teacher knowing (and willing) to teach applications.


----------



## mograph

Xue Sheng said:


> You will likely find more "Chen style" classes that are geared towards the martial arts of it than "Yang style" classes, but there are some Yang style teachers that teach the martial arts of it, they are just hard to find. But I have seen a few "Chen" schools, of late, that are also not doing any of the martial side at all, which I was rather sad to see.


Yeah ... I was thinking of it as a general _trend_, but by no means a _rule_. Always, check out the class, ask around.


----------



## Xue Sheng

mograph said:


> Yeah ... I was thinking of it as a general _trend_, but by no means a _rule_. Always, check out the class, ask around.



Also, and  you would likely know more about this than I, The Wu family in Toronto was teaching the martial arts of it as well. They were even having their students learn break falls last I knew. There was also a Northern Wu style teacher west of me (Northeast USA) who also knew the martial side, but I do not know how much of it he actually taught/teaches.

But with Wu and Northern Wu styles it is just as hard to find a teacher who will (or can) teach the martial side


----------



## mograph

Eddie Wu has a good reputation. I haven't checked him out, though.

Wu's Tai Chi Chuan Academy, Toronto, Canada » History


----------



## mograph

Here's a video of Ian Sinclair, Tai Chi guy, demoing with a kind MMA fella. It might give you an idea of how Tai Chi (or Ian, at least) approaches physical interactions.

Note: the video is not meant to show that one art is better than another. These are just two guys from different disciplines. Instead, the video attempts to show how two artists can interact with mutual respect. I hope that we can all look at the video with that in mind. (Please watch with the audio on for Ian's commentary.)

(... and try not to be distracted by what's going on in the background after :25.)


----------



## Goku2

Thanks for posting this - I had this video in mind. So often people want to believe that one style is superior than another. It always boils down to the practitioner!


----------



## Flying Crane

Zeny said:


> To be a better kenpo fighter it is best that you practise more kenpo.
> 
> Taichi will only provide you with limited gains and will not be worth the time spent.


Could be true.  It depends a lot on the teacher.  And the student.


----------



## Flying Crane

Goku2 said:


> Taiji can only help ALL styles of fighting. Yoga is not a better option. In taiji one learns what 'centered' really means, and must maintain that feeling throughout all movement, not it static poses.


Don't waste your time arguing with a brick.


----------



## Touch Of Death

Zeny said:


> A full taichi curriculum takes a long time to learn, not to mention its methods often contradict what is taught in kenpo. Thus a kenpo practitioner ought to just improve his kenpo rather than mix it with taichi.


So you have fully mastered, strongest and weakest base of support, and only need learn the next tech?


----------



## Flying Crane

Zeny said:


> A full taichi curriculum takes a long time to learn, not to mention its methods often contradict what is taught in kenpo. Thus a kenpo practitioner ought to just improve his kenpo rather than mix it with taichi.


Well, you don't need a "full" taiji curriculum, if that can even be defined.  

As an ex-Kenpo shodan, it is my opinion, from what I've seen, that Kenpo and most Kenpo practitioners could learn a lot and benefit from a study of Chinese methods, under a good sifu.


----------



## Goku2

Full curriculum can be defined: Form, Tui Shou, and qigong (taiji martial qigong)


----------



## Flying Crane

Goku2 said:


> Full curriculum can be defined: Form, Tui Shou, and qigong (taiji martial qigong)


Which forms?
Which tui shou?
Which qigong?

There are many.  How much is needs for a "complete" curriculum?  The definition can vary widely.


----------



## ChenAn

In this commercialized world nearly any school/studio/club can sell you anything. Yoga for stretching, tai chi for stress relieve you name it.

It worth to mention that traditionally taiji was byproduct of several preexisting martial methods. So by definition at it birth it was designed as self sufficient system on its own. Not supplemental exercise as many try to sell it today. Unfortunately, contemporary taiji only can offer "form" training and go as far as "push hands". There are a lot of things have been left off, washed out, lost..So since there are no sparring it will be pretty much useless because there is no exposure to develop actual usage and understanding of its principles. 

So the bottom line the valye of tai chi  today is similar for adding to your training yoga, swimming, running, playing tennis and etc . Yes it can help, and no in it's original purpose it's useless


----------



## Ironbear24

I'm getting a mix bagged here. Lots of people saying it can help or it won't help, or it will help but not exactly in the way you wish it will. 

I am going to take some of it for a month or so, see where it is going. There is nothing I can possibly lose here, it is free at my gym and its like if I do this I can't continue kenpo training and weight training.


----------



## mograph

Ironbear24 said:


> I'm getting a mix bagged here. Lots of people saying it can help or it won't help, or it will help but not exactly in the way you wish it will.


It depends on the class and instructor. Tai Chi is not monolithic, with all classes and instructors teaching the same thing the same way.





Ironbear24 said:


> I am going to take some of it for a month or so, see where it is going.


That's the best course of action. Since we don't know the class at your gym, we can't advise you to take it or not.


----------



## Ironbear24

mograph said:


> It depends on the class and instructor. Tai Chi is not monolithic, with all classes and instructors teaching the same thing the same way.That's the best course of action. Since we don't know the class at your gym, we can't advise you to take it or not.



I know the instructor. But I don't know her tai chi experience, she is a woman with a history of weight lifting championships and an athletics coach. She helped me reach over my platue when I was stuck at 250-260 being my max lift and I was gaining no mucle anymore.

She helped me before with that so I am thinking that is can help with my martial arts and expand my knowledge of another form of it.

I will keep the thread updated based on what I experience in her class, that way I can gain feedback from experienced practitioners.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Besides the 6 harmonies, Taiji can also help you in the following areas:

- All your body parts are like a rubber ball (Peng Jin) and can bounce back any incoming force if needed.
- You will learn how to redirect an incoming force away from your body.
- One move is equal to either 1 inhale, or 1 exhale.
- The end of your previous move will be the beginning of your next move.
- Your car now has round wheels instead of square wheels that rotate as 1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4 and still 1,2,3,4. 
- ...


----------



## Hanzou

Ironbear24 said:


> I'm getting a mix bagged here. Lots of people saying it can help or it won't help, or it will help but not exactly in the way you wish it will.
> 
> I am going to take some of it for a month or so, see where it is going. There is nothing I can possibly lose here, it is free at my gym and its like if I do this I can't continue kenpo training and weight training.



Yeah, the problem is that it's pretty hard to find a legit Tai Chi school in America. Unlike say boxing or Judo where BS is fairly uncommon, internal Chinese Martial arts have a history of being taught poorly by frauds or by people who didn't know what they were doing. There's some good ICMA out there, but you gotta dig deep to find it. Even if you do find it, it's honestly doubtful that training in those particular styles will make you a better fighter, or really compliment your Kenpo training.

Try it for a month, and let us know what you think.


----------



## Goku2

Flying Crane said:


> Which forms?
> Which tui shou?
> Which qigong?
> 
> There are many.  How much is needs for a "complete" curriculum?  The definition can vary widely.


It really depends on the style - not being flippant, here, but knowing one form really well rather than a multitude. Developing internal strength through qigong exercises as well as understanding rooting. Understanding the taiji principles and applying them. These are the components that should be addressed. Which form, which qigong exercises are up to each school or branch. The only constant are the principles.


----------



## Goku2

ChenAn said:


> In this commercialized world nearly any school/studio/club can sell you anything. Yoga for stretching, tai chi for stress relieve you name it.
> 
> It worth to mention that traditionally taiji was byproduct of several preexisting martial methods. So by definition at it birth it was designed as self sufficient system on its own. Not supplemental exercise as many try to sell it today. Unfortunately, contemporary taiji only can offer "form" training and go as far as "push hands". There are a lot of things have been left off, washed out, lost..So since there are no sparring it will be pretty much useless because there is no exposure to develop actual usage and understanding of its principles.
> 
> So the bottom line the valye of tai chi  today is similar for adding to your training yoga, swimming, running, playing tennis and etc . Yes it can help, and no in it's original purpose it's useless


Sorry your experiences have not been useful. From personal experience, I agree with you up to a point. There are people who do share more than a typical school would. I went through three schools before I found what I was looking for. And his shingle is not hanging out for the masses.


----------



## Goku2

Hanzou said:


> Yeah, the problem is that it's pretty hard to find a legit Tai Chi school in America. Unlike say boxing or Judo where BS is fairly uncommon, internal Chinese Martial arts have a history of being taught poorly by frauds or by people who didn't know what they were doing. There's some good ICMA out there, but you gotta dig deep to find it. Even if you do find it, it's honestly doubtful that training in those particular styles will make you a better fighter, or really compliment your Kenpo training.
> 
> Try it for a month, and let us know what you think.


 And do some other taijiquan research before you make a decision. My experience with a gym class was a 'follow only' situation.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Since you are doing Taiji in slow speed, the "6 harmonies" principle can be learned through the Taiji movement quite easily. When you are doing Taiji "brush knee". you can concentrate on the coordination of your
> 
> - shoulder with your hip,
> - elbow with your knee,
> - hand with your foot,
> - ...
> 
> After you have developed that "full body unification", if you go back to your original style, you will find out that you can do your original style much better than before. When you make a move, you will start to pay attention on which hand should coordinate with which leg that you may not have paid enough attention in the past. You will find out that your ability to learn a new move, your learning is much faster because you can always think about arm and leg as one item instead of 2 different items.


I agree with this from first hand experience and how it has helped me.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Ironbear24 said:


> I'm getting a mix bagged here. Lots of people saying it can help or it won't help, or it will help but not exactly in the way you wish it will.
> 
> I am going to take some of it for a month or so, see where it is going. There is nothing I can possibly lose here, it is free at my gym and its like if I do this I can't continue kenpo training and weight training.


you have to take the tai chi that's used for fighting. The tai chi that is afighting system and not the tai chi for stress relief classes. I'm saying this because the training is different.


----------



## Flying Crane

Goku2 said:


> It really depends on the style - not being flippant, here, but knowing one form really well rather than a multitude. Developing internal strength through qigong exercises as well as understanding rooting. Understanding the taiji principles and applying them. These are the components that should be addressed. Which form, which qigong exercises are up to each school or branch. The only constant are the principles.


That is exactly what I was saying too.


----------



## ChenAn

JowGaWolf said:


> you have to take the tai chi that's used for fighting. The tai chi that is afighting system and not the tai chi for stress relief classes. I'm saying this because the training is different.



Traditional taiji is about maintaining health and self-defense skill. If taiji wasn't  a fighting system it would be impossible for Chen village to resist yellow turban rebellion that swept true the country and forced government troop to retreat ..






Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Ironbear24

Hanzou said:


> Yeah, the problem is that it's pretty hard to find a legit Tai Chi school in America. Unlike say boxing or Judo where BS is fairly uncommon, internal Chinese Martial arts have a history of being taught poorly by frauds or by people who didn't know what they were doing. There's some good ICMA out there, but you gotta dig deep to find it. Even if you do find it, it's honestly doubtful that training in those particular styles will make you a better fighter, or really compliment your Kenpo training.
> 
> Try it for a month, and let us know what you think.



There are plenty of fraud phony boxing classes out there and plenty pathetic Judo schools. I seen a couple where they don't even train against live people and just jump rope as fast as possible and practice on the heavy bags. I rarely ever saw people spar, and the judo school, practice on people standing still.

Both are great arts of course but sadly everything has it's possibility of bs. I will give this class the benefit of the doubt and see how it plays out.


----------



## Zeny

There are many styles of taichi, which style / forms is your gym offering?


----------



## Hanzou

Ironbear24 said:


> There are plenty of fraud phony boxing classes out there and plenty pathetic Judo schools. I seen a couple where they don't even train against live people and just jump rope as fast as possible and practice on the heavy bags. I rarely ever saw people spar, and the judo school, practice on people standing still.
> 
> Both are great arts of course but sadly everything has it's possibility of bs. I will give this class the benefit of the doubt and see how it plays out.



True, but you have a far higher chance of finding a legit boxing or Judo school than you do a Tai Chi school that's going to teach you the real deal.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Hanzou said:


> Honestly, if your goal is to be a better fighter you should probably seek out styles that fighters tend to gravitate towards; Boxing, Muay Thai, Bjj, Wrestling, etc.
> 
> If you're looking to center yourself, or find some form of relaxation, Yoga would be a better option than Tai Chi.


  You are thinking of the wrong Tai Chi.  Tai Chi as a fighting system is brutal.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Hanzou said:


> True, but you have a far higher chance of finding a legit boxing or Judo school than you do a Tai Chi school that's going to teach you the real deal.


I've found that most martial art Tai Chi classes are often taught in the same school as kung fu schools mainly because the Tai Chi helps improve the main martial art being taught.  For example, I don't know of a Jow Ga kung fu school that doesn't offer Tai Chi in the same school.  The problem with Tai Chi is that there are many people who only teach it as a fitness class and not as a fighting system.   This usually results in people learning movement without purpose and then that's when the term mediation starts to be used.  A traditional Tai Chi class will make you sweat and you'll learn how to drive power as well as move your body as one.  The push hands will develop sensitivity.  I recently posted a link to a video showing me use what I learned in push hands to toss my opponent around without big movements, which were small in comparison to the person I was moving.  Things like that can't be learned in a Tai Chi fitness class.


----------



## Ironbear24

Hanzou said:


> Honestly, if your goal is to be a better fighter you should probably seek out styles that fighters tend to gravitate towards; Boxing, Muay Thai, Bjj, Wrestling, etc.



Something tells me you really love watching ufc.


----------



## Hanzou

Ironbear24 said:


> Something tells me you really love watching ufc.



Not really. I've simply accepted the fact that some styles are better for teaching someone how to fight than other styles.


----------



## Hanzou

JowGaWolf said:


> You are thinking of the wrong Tai Chi.  Tai Chi as a fighting system is brutal.



Well the "wrong" Tai Chi is fairly common outside of China.


----------



## Xue Sheng

Hanzou said:


> Not really. I've simply accepted the fact that some styles are better for teaching someone how to fight than other styles.



Prejudice does not equal fact 



Hanzou said:


> Well the "wrong" Tai Chi is fairly common outside of China.



Sadly it is also true inside China. It is not hard to find a taiji teacher in China, but it is hard to find one who will actually teach you the martial art bits. And then there are those that know the martial arts bits but will not teach it because it is not what many students want. If you are going to China to learn taijiquan with the Martial arts intact I suggest learning the language, developing a great deal of patience, and planning on spending a few years in a search for a teacher who takes you serious enough to decide to teach you.


----------



## mograph

Xue Sheng said:


> If you are going to China to learn taijiquan with the Martial arts intact I suggest learning the language, developing a great deal of patience, and planning on spending a few years in a search for a teacher who takes you serious enough to decide to teach you.


... and in addition to learning the language, one might want to learn the nuances of the social culture and the use of metaphor and layered communication ... and be ready to understand concepts implicitly through repetition rather than through overt explanation.


----------



## Ironbear24

Hanzou said:


> Not really. I've simply accepted the fact that some styles are better for teaching someone how to fight than other styles.



If by teaching someone how to sit on or cuddle with another person for several minutes sure. I'm not interested in that, kenpo is already a solid style and is an eclectic martial art that focuses on many areas.

I'm not taking this tai chi class to learn to fight, I already know how to do that, I'm seeking to improve my abilities.


----------



## mograph

Ironbear24 said:


> I'm not taking this tai chi class to learn to fight, I already know how to do that, I'm seeking to improve my abilities.


Where do you think your abilities are lacking?


----------



## Ironbear24

mograph said:


> Where do you think your abilities are lacking?



I am curious about chi and its application in fighting.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Ironbear24 said:


> If by teaching someone how to sit on or cuddle with another person for several minutes sure. I'm not interested in that, kenpo is already a solid style and is an eclectic martial art that focuses on many areas.
> 
> I'm not taking this tai chi class to learn to fight, I already know how to do that, I'm seeking to improve my abilities.


you'll get benefits from it way before you'll be able to fit with it.You won't turn into a tai chi fighter


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Ironbear24 said:


> I am curious about chi and its application in fighting.


Not everybody can see ghost. Not everybody can feel Chi.


----------



## Xue Sheng

The biggest problem I see with people coming from styles like TKD, Karate, and Kenpo is relaxation.


----------



## Hanzou

Xue Sheng said:


> Prejudice does not equal fact



Well here's a fact;



> "When the Chinese army was researching and developing their hand-to-hand combat, (which later evolved into the modern San Shou/San Da tournament fighting popular today) they researched all the popular forms of martial arts, including their own. The conclusion was that Western boxing hand techniques, when it came to developing practical striking and defensive abilities in a reasonable amount of time, were superior to all others, including their own".



-Tom Cantrell


> Sadly it is also true inside China. It is not hard to find a taiji teacher in China, but it is hard to find one who will actually teach you the martial art bits. And then there are those that know the martial arts bits but will not teach it because it is not what many students want. If you are going to China to learn taijiquan with the Martial arts intact I suggest learning the language, developing a great deal of patience, and planning on spending a few years in a search for a teacher who takes you serious enough to decide to teach you.



That really doesn't surprise me. A long time ago I was interested in practicing Hsing-I/Xing Yiquan, and ran into similar obstacles. Those "obstacles" eventually led to a preference of Japanese and western styles over Chinese styles.


----------



## Flying Crane

Hanzou said:


> Well here's a fact;
> 
> 
> 
> -Tom Cantrell
> 
> 
> That really doesn't surprise me. A long time ago I was interested in practicing Hsing-I/Xing Yiquan, and ran into similar obstacles. Those "obstacles" eventually led to a preference of Japanese and western styles over Chinese styles.


I've never heard of Tom Cantrell, so I won't assume he knows anything about anything.

However, I would not be surprised that for military use, a decision to move away from many of the more sophisticated methods would be made.  Soldiers have limited time to learn this stuff, and it's being taught to large numbers of people at a time, the individuals ranging from intelligent and capable to downright stupid and useless.  They need to cater to the lowest common denominator likely to exist in the body of students so that everyone can get SOME level of benefit from it, with very limited training time.

Military use for this kind of thing does not imply top quality.  It actually implies the opposite.


----------



## JowGaWolf

I use this concept when I do Jow Ga.  




The real world application of this concept would be where I'm totally relaxed and non-threatening to almost instantly punching a hole through someone out of no where.
YMMA has some good videos on it. You rarely see Tai Chi performed like Yang Jwing Ming performs it.  And as you can see it's totally different from what most people are used to seeing.


----------



## Ironbear24

Xue Sheng said:


> The biggest problem I see with people coming from styles like TKD, Karate, and Kenpo is relaxation.



That's so boring though. I guess that is what I am trying to push past by taking up tai chi.


----------



## mograph

Hanzou said:


> Well here's a fact;
> (snip)
> -Tom Cantrell


FYI, you're not stating a fact: you're citing another writer's claim which may or may not be true.


----------



## Hanzou

Flying Crane said:


> I've never heard of Tom Cantrell, so I won't assume he knows anything about anything.



Should be Tim Cartmell, sorry about that;

Tim Cartmell - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia




> However, I would not be surprised that for military use, a decision to move away from many of the more sophisticated methods would be made.  Soldiers have limited time to learn this stuff, and it's being taught to large numbers of people at a time, the individuals ranging from intelligent and capable to downright stupid and useless.  They need to cater to the lowest common denominator likely to exist in the body of students so that everyone can get SOME level of benefit from it, with very limited training time.
> 
> Military use for this kind of thing does not imply top quality.  It actually implies the opposite.



Is there any evidence that the depth of Kung Fu practice edges out western boxing in terms of overall effectiveness? If not, then one can argue that western boxing achieves the same goal of Kung Fu practice in a far shorter amount of time.


----------



## mograph

Ironbear24 said:


> I am curious about chi and its application in fighting.


Oh, crap -- you said the "c" word. Or the "q" word.  Kidding aside, that can take this discussion in a whole new direction.

So ... what the hell. It's in the forum title.

That's what I was talking about when I mentioned metaphors and understanding Chinese communication. To me, westerners see qi in two ways: as non-existent because we can't measure it directly, or magical because we can't measure it directly and because, well, it's oriental. (orientalism) I think that (many) Easterners don't care that we can't measure it directly. Some researchers like Dr. Shin Lin at UC Irvine are looking into it, but that's another topic. Check out his work.

_*To me, *_when someone says they're using qi in a martial context (and if they're not full of BS), they mean that they are using their body in such a unified manner that they can't point to any one component as the primary component of the action. That is, they can't say that they're using _only_ the fist, the arm, the waist, the legs or whatever. 

Instead, they are using the _whatever_ that drives the body as a unit. This thing, which can be called qi, is the thing that lies between intention (yi) and muscles (li). It's a thing that is hard to describe, and that's okay, because we're not omniscient or of infinite perceptions: we can't describe _everything_. (yet) I think that qi is  extrapolated from a concept of a unified body-action; it's the _whatever_ that drives that action. 

Can we measure it? Well, can we measure energy? Before you say "yes" in terms of joules (for example), recall that energy is calculated from measurements of phenomena such as changes in temperature. Energy is never measured directly, is it? Similarly, do we _feel_ qi directly? Personally, I believe that at the beginning at least, we experience it through a sensation of warmth or increased blood circulation (a light tingling). Is this qi? No, it's blood circulation. But qi drove the electrochemical reactions that caused that increased circulation. We begin to feel it when we are so relaxed, alert and open as to be allowing our bodies to function as they should without our applied tension: _we get out of the way_.

Similarly, qi drives breathing, muscle movements, organ function ... all that stuff. Hey, something has to drive those reactions. Molecular reactions, atomic forces? What drives that? We could call it Fred or we could call it qi.

Back to martial: while qi (or Fred) drives everything that leads up to muscle contractions, I believe that the convention is to say "qi drives a martial act when the act cannot be traced back to a specific muscle group or groups."

Practically?
Relax. Be open, calm. Be sensitive to your opponent, to the context, to your relationship to the ground, to your own internal alignment and reactions. This will lead you to be sensitive to the grouping of your body components into larger and larger connected groups until when you act, you act as one ("As one!") unit against the ground. You may then experience the tingling because, basically, you will have gotten out of the way of your body's normal functioning. You will then have increased feelings of energy.

Thanks for reading. Take it as you will.


----------



## Flying Crane

Hanzou said:


> Should be Tim Cartmell, sorry about that;
> 
> Tim Cartmell - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is there any evidence that the depth of Kung Fu practice edges out western boxing in terms of overall effectiveness? If not, then one can argue that western boxing achieves the same goal of Kung Fu practice in a far shorter amount of time.


Never heard of Tim cartmell either.

I don't say boxing doesn't work.  Clearly it does, and some boxers develop to a high level of skill within their sport.

In my opinion there are other methods that have greater potential than western boxing.  However those methods take more study and time and training and instruction and include a lot more subtlety.  That isn't something that would work well for a military trying to give a large number of raw recruits some low level hand-to-hand skills in a very brief period of time.  That, and HTH skills are the last skillset a soldier in a modern army is likely to use on the battlefield so that determines the priority in how training time is spent.  Granted, I know there are always examples to the contrary.  But policy is not set based on exceptions.  A soldier today is much much more reliant on is weaponry and technology, than on HTH skills. 

So yeah, simple things that can be reasonably effective even if done poorly with an over-reliance on physical strength over good technique. It's not difficult to hurt another human being, even with poor technique or brief training.  Given what an army needs from its soldiers, that about as good as they can do.  So to your point, yes, western boxing apparently can accomplish more easily and quickly what the army wants from it.  But that isn't the same a being the cream of the crop of HTH methods.

As to your question do I have "evidence"?  Nothing you would accept.  Meaning:  no MMA competition style vs. style examples and such nonsense that you are so overly fond of.  But hey, not everything that happens in the world is filmed and put on YouTube for you to gawk at.


----------



## Hanzou

Flying Crane said:


> Never heard of Tim caramel either.



He's a pretty good martial artist and writer. You should look him up. 



> I don't say boxing doesn't work.  Clearly it does, and some boxers develop to a high level of skill within their sport.
> 
> In my opinion there are other methods that have greater potential than western boxing.  However those methods take more study and time and training and instruction and include a lot more subtlety.  That isn't something that would work well for a military trying to give a large number of raw recruits some low level hand-to-hand skills in a very brief period of time.  That, and HTH skills are the last skillset a soldier in a modern army is likely to use on the battlefield so that determines the priority in how training time is spent.  Granted, I know there are always examples to the contrary.  But policy is not set based on exceptions.  A soldier today is much much more reliant on is weaponry and technology, than on HTH skills.
> 
> So yeah, simple things that can be reasonably effective even if done poorly with an over-reliance on physical strength over good technique. It's not difficult to hurt another human being, even with poor technique or brief training.  Given what an army needs from its soldiers, that about as good as they can do.  So to your point, yes, western boxing apparently can accomplish more easily and quickly what the army wants from it.  But that isn't the same a being the cream of the crop of HTH methods.
> 
> As to your question do I have "evidence"?  Nothing you would accept.  Meaning:  no MMA competition style vs. style examples and such nonsense that you are so overly fond of.  But hey, not everything that happens in the world is filmed and put on YouTube for you to gawk at.



Well to be fair, western Boxing ALSO relies on technique over physical strength. The best boxers are those with the better technique, not necessarily those with the greatest physical attributes (though that doesn't hurt either).

As for the lack of evidence, if we don't have objectionable evidence to look over, what do we really have? Old wive's tales of the lone Kung Fu master defeating a Manchu army? I think we can do better than that.


----------



## Flying Crane

Hanzou said:


> He's a pretty good martial artist and writer. You should look him up.
> 
> 
> 
> Well to be fair, western Boxing ALSO relies on technique over physical strength. The best boxers are those with the better technique, not necessarily those with the greatest physical attributes (though that doesn't hurt either).
> 
> As for the lack of evidence, if we don't have objectionable evidence to look over, what do we really have? Old wive's tales of the lone Kung Fu master defeating a Manchu army? I think we can do better than that.


Of course GOOD boxers have better technique.  Do you believe a young soldier who just graduated from Basic and might be shipped off somewhere has that kind of boxing skill?  No way.  However, if the physical conditioning has done its job and he is fit and reasonably strong, he can still punch with some degree of effectiveness, but his overall HTH is still very rudimentary.

As to the wives tale comment, I'll repeat for the hard of hearing (or for those who apparently cannot read): not everything in the world is filmed and put on YouTube for you to gawk at.


----------



## Xue Sheng

Hanzou said:


> Well here's a fact;
> 
> -Tom Cantrell



I have not idea who Tom Cantrell is and a web search gave me nothing, care to point me in a direction to find out who he is, then we'll see how factual he is.

And here is a fact, I trained Police/Military Sanda (sanshou) and it looks very little like the sports version and there is not a whole lot of western boxing in it. It does have a lot of Qinna and Shuaijiao in it with kicks and some hard palm strikes with a little western boxing. However you will find a lot of Western boxing in the sports version. This leads me to feel I am not sure Tom Cantrell knows what he is talking about.



Hanzou said:


> That really doesn't surprise me. A long time ago I was interested in practicing Hsing-I/Xing Yiquan, and ran into similar obstacles. Those "obstacles" eventually led to a preference of Japanese and western styles over Chinese styles.



Personally I prefer XIngyiquan over Japanese and western styles, but then I had a couple good teachers.... but I also had a couple not so good ones too.


----------



## Xue Sheng

Tim Cartmell I know, and rereading the article he is not saying Western boxing is superior



> Western boxing hand techniques, when it came to developing practical striking and defensive abilities in a reasonable amount of time, were superior to all others, including their own".



He is talking about developing their skill in a reasonable amout of time. This is not saying their strikes are better but their training methodology is better. That, for military usage, make sense and in that I agree. Military wants to train fast, this by the way is also why Xingyiquan was used by the Chinese military as well in WW II. They stripped out some of the traditional training methods and got their soldiers to a level of competence (not mastery) quicker.

There was very little western boxing methods (meaning boxing stance and boxing strikes) in the sanda I trained, but there were a lot of western training methods, as well as some Chinese methods


----------



## mograph

Tim Cartmell has a good reputation, if I recall. Didn't he contribute a chapter to the book _Nei Jia Quan_? 

But it's likely that nobody has heard of my old teacher, William Chau, though he studied at Jingwoo and is the lineage holder for Mizongyi. (shrug) My point? Citing him as an ethos appeal (for credibility) would have limited value. 

Really, couldn't we go on all day citing sources? Instead, how can we help the OP?


----------



## Hanzou

Flying Crane said:


> Of course GOOD boxers have better technique.  Do you believe a young soldier who just graduated from Basic and might be shipped off somewhere has that kind of boxing skill?  No way.  However, if the physical conditioning has done its job and he is fit and reasonably strong, he can still punch with some degree of effectiveness, but his overall HTH is still very rudimentary.



That really depends on the individual right? Some people are naturally gifted, others have had previous training BEFORE entering the military. Regardless, the overall point is that fighting effectiveness is quicker to achieve in western boxing than it is in the internal styles, and there's no evidence that the more sophisticated internal styles ever exceed the effectiveness of western boxing.



> As to the wives tale comment, I'll repeat for the hard of hearing (or for those who apparently cannot read): not everything in the world is filmed and put on YouTube for you to gawk at.



Well they are filmed and are on YT for us to gawk at. The problem is that they're either shown in demonstration form, or in a not so flattering light.


----------



## Xue Sheng

Hanzou said:


> That really depends on the individual right? Some people are naturally gifted, others have had previous training BEFORE entering the military. Regardless, the overall point is that fighting effectiveness is quicker to achieve in western boxing than it is in the internal styles, and there's no evidence that the more sophisticated internal styles ever exceed the effectiveness of western boxing.



You are talking about 2 different things there.

Your last statement...



> there's no evidence that the more sophisticated internal styles ever exceed the effectiveness of western boxing.



is not proven by your first



> that fighting effectiveness is quicker to achieve in western boxing than it is in the internal styles



Since they are not the same thing. Was a western training methodology more expedient for purposes of the military? Well yes it was.

Does that say, or prove that western boxing is is more effective than internal styles? No, it doesn't.

All it says is that it takes longer to learn a traditional internal system, with its complete curriculum. Something else you are not even taking into account is the relationship between teacher in student in the culture you are discussing in a traditional system.

So if in fact your goal is to prove Western MA is better than CMA IMA, you have not done it with this post. The modern military could, and I believe has, trained some of its soldiers grappling, and they are rather effective at using it for their purposes. Does that prove the BJJ of the Gracie's or any other group out there is ineffective by comparison? Nope, it just shows that it can be stripped down to meet the militaries needs, and parts of it can be trained quickly to help a solider on the battlefield...that is all.

like I said awhile back.... prejudice does not equal fact



Hanzou said:


> Well they are filmed and are on YT for us to gawk at. The problem is that they're either shown in demonstration form, or in a not so flattering light.



Where on YouTube are you finding films of Internal Arts practitioners of the 40s and 50s to prove your point? 

Also, again you are running into a cultural issue that tends towards not doing a lot publicly because as the old Chinese saying goes "the nail that stands up, gets hammered down"

But bottomline, you don't want to believe ICMA or CMA or any other martial art is good compared to BJJ or an western art of your choosing... that is ok with me.... I completely disagree with you and I doubt that is going to change anytime soon. But you are entitled to your opinion...


----------



## Ironbear24

Xue Sheng said:


> You are talking about 2 different things there.
> 
> Your last statement...
> 
> 
> 
> is not proven by your first
> 
> 
> 
> Since they are not the same thing. Was a western training methodology more expedient for purposes of the military? Well yes it was.
> 
> Does that say, or prove that western boxing is is more effective than internal styles? No, it doesn't.
> 
> All it says is that it takes longer to learn a traditional internal system, with its complete curriculum. Something else you are not even taking into account is the relationship between teacher in student in the culture you are discussing in a traditional system.
> 
> So if in fact your goal is to prove Western MA is better than CMA IMA, you have not done it with this post. The modern military could, and I believe has, trained some of its soldiers grappling, and they are rather effective at using it for their purposes. Does that prove the BJJ of the Gracie's or any other group out there is ineffective by comparison? Nope, it just shows that it can be stripped down to meet the militaries needs, and parts of it can be trained quickly to help a solider on the battlefield...that is all.
> 
> like I said awhile back.... prejudice does not equal fact
> 
> 
> 
> Where on YouTube are you finding films of Internal Arts practitioners of the 40s and 50s to prove your point?
> 
> Also, again you are running into a cultural issue that tends towards not doing a lot publicly because as the old Chinese saying goes "the nail that stands up, gets hammered down"
> 
> But bottomline, you don't want to believe ICMA or CMA or any other martial art is good compared to BJJ or an western art of your choosing... that is ok with me.... I completely disagree with you and I doubt that is going to change anytime soon. But you are entitled to your opinion...



This kind of attitude is very common amongst fans of ufc and bjj practitioners, they think anything that is not used in the octogon is crap and bjj is the best thing in the universe.

I learned to pretty much ignore it.


----------



## ChenAn

Wester boxing is indeed quicker way to achieve some basic level of fighting. Since when I was young I had a privellege to compete against all kind of sort folks including representatives of western boxing I have healthy respect for many martial arts. But in my opinion only authentic internal martial method can give depth in training that no popular contemporary system can't offer.

The reason why many internal martial art (again in my opinion) today are not getting in par with mma and other competitive sports is simple. Most practitioners had simply no need/pressure for actual fighting. By 20th century east  became greatly influenced by western civilizations. In fact, east wanted to be more like west. My guess is that western boxing made it's way to  China. So the orthodox system deteriorated as knowledge that was passed has never had chance to be tested and polished "under stress". Thus, most of contemporary orthodox method representatives became a "tradition carriers" (that include many taiji masters today btw).

China developed Wushu sport system which similar to olympic gymnastic where all traditional aspect get washed out and replaced by beauty and affection. Sanda is another adaptation similar to western boxing sport. As any other sport system it became pretty standardized, so no matter what representatives of traditional system are competing, they are all look the same. So again everything get washed out.


----------



## Hanzou

Xue Sheng said:


> You are talking about 2 different things there.
> 
> Your last statement...
> 
> 
> 
> is not proven by your first
> 
> 
> 
> Since they are not the same thing. Was a western training methodology more expedient for purposes of the military? Well yes it was.
> 
> Does that say, or prove that western boxing is is more effective than internal styles? No, it doesn't.



I never said that. What I said was that the evidence appears to show that western boxing achieves effectiveness more quickly than internal arts, and that there is no evidence to show that the extended amount of training required to reach competency in internal arts ever exceeds the level of competency in western boxing.



> All it says is that it takes longer to learn a traditional internal system, with its complete curriculum.



Which is what I was saying in the first place.



> So if in fact your goal is to prove Western MA is better than CMA IMA, you have not done it with this post. The modern military could, and I believe has, trained some of its soldiers grappling, and they are rather effective at using it for their purposes. Does that prove the BJJ of the Gracie's or any other group out there is ineffective by comparison? Nope, it just shows that it can be stripped down to meet the militaries needs, and parts of it can be trained quickly to help a solider on the battlefield...that is all.



Again, I never argued that western boxing was better than ICMAs. I was simply repeating Tim Cartmell's statements. He's the one who flat out said that the Chinese viewed western boxing as superior, not I.



> Where on YouTube are you finding films of Internal Arts practitioners of the 40s and 50s to prove your point?


----------



## ChenAn

OK the big difference between western contemporary martial arts and traditional internal  martial arts is very interesting.  Western martial art are designed for young physically capable conditioned  people. As those people aged  they got (sorry for my French) bitten **** out of them and left out with great memories of past glory or simply nothing. In contrast, Chinese internal systems offer a great long term body maintanance and martial capabilities that won't vanish after 50th. Most importantly internal system offers  unique body mechanic that despite long years of training capable of delivering power that is not relying on brute physical strength that many western system can't live without.

By the way Western medicine for many health reason recommend useless "tai chi" not super duper MMA  And this is exact reason why


----------



## ChenAn

Hanzou  you may want to see some western boxing example that you won't be fond of.






Can it really represent what is western boxing today?


----------



## Hanzou

ChenAn said:


> Hanzou  you may want to see some western boxing example that you won't be fond of.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can it really represent what is western boxing today?



To be fair we have countless examples of modern boxing to showcase its evolution over the last 120 years since that video was taken.

We don't have that for the Internal Martial Arts.

Cool video btw. Always interesting to see old vids like that, especially from so long ago.


----------



## ChenAn

Hanzou said:


> To be fair we have several examples of modern boxing to showcase its evolution over the last 120 years since that video was taken.
> 
> We don't have that for the Internal Martial Arts.
> 
> Cool video btw. Always interesting to see old vids like that, especially from so long ago.



You can say this, but for example BBJ employ 200 years old techniques that still efficient today without any evolution process of refinement . So generally speaking video cannot serve as benchmark of particular method (based on logical fallacy of hasty generalization) Perhaps there was someone as brutal and as efficient as today but never got a chance to captured by motion picture.


----------



## Hanzou

ChenAn said:


> You can say this, but for example BBJ employ 200 years old techniques that still efficient today without any evolution process of refinement . So generally speaking video cannot serve as benchmark of particular method (based on logical fallacy of hasty generalization)



Eh, can't really agree with that. Bjj is under pretty constant refinement and evolution. Closed Guard and Half Guard for example are fairly recent additions (I think Half Guard didn't emerge until the late 80s/early 90s), but both are mainstays of the art today. The major engine of that is the dual push of MMA and competitive Bjj which causes pretty rapid changes in the art.



> Perhaps there was someone as brutal and as efficient as today but never got a chance to captured by motion picture.



Perhaps, but in Bjj (like Boxing) we have modern examples of brutal and efficient practitioners who easily rival (or surpass) the masters of the past. It's bizarre that we don't see that with internal MAs.


----------



## mograph

Boy, those guys look silly in that video. Part of it looks like a different fight, but even when they cut back to the original angle they look pretty bad.


----------



## Flying Crane

Hanzou said:


> That really depends on the individual right? Some people are naturally gifted, others have had previous training BEFORE entering the military. Regardless, the overall point is that fighting effectiveness is quicker to achieve in western boxing than it is in the internal styles, and there's no evidence that the more sophisticated internal styles ever exceed the effectiveness of western boxing.
> 
> 
> 
> Well they are filmed and are on YT for us to gawk at. The problem is that they're either shown in demonstration form, or in a not so flattering light.


Doh!  You suckered me in again.  Here I am speaking to a brick. You may as well have caught me monologueing.


----------



## mograph

mograph said:


> Boy, those guys look silly in that video. Part of it looks like a different fight, but even when they cut back to the original angle they look pretty bad.


But then again, as we rush to use western boxing to discredit CMA, we may want to look at some assumptions:

Western boxing is a real fight? No it isn't. Boxers are not trying to inflict grievous harm on each other or trying to kill each other. Boxing is more like improvisation within a script: there are rules, and a specific way of holding oneself, moving, delivering blows, executing feints and defending oneself. There's a specific pacing to it in order to make it a specific contest. Think of how crowds react when someone deviates from the script and slows down the match by holding off and studying the opponent, for example. They can't deviate too much from the script.

These two men would be trained in western boxing? Not likely. In 1953, it's not likely they would have even seen many matches on television. According to Wikipedia, the first Hong Kong television station was launched in 1957 and I don't think that Macau was much farther ahead. 

These men were fighting according to their art? Not entirely. *They did not use joint locks, throws or kicks*: limitations imposed by the organizers, according to the web's accounting of the event. Also, note the distance: it doesn't make sense for CMA to use punches from such a distance, so naturally, they look bad. IMO, these men were attempting to _imitate_ a western boxing match. If they were to fight their own way, they would probably both stand there, stock-still, maybe twitching slightly, until one jumped in and landed a blow. That would not have been a western-style boxing match.

These men were trying to keep the other from losing face? This is quite likely, as any student of Chinese social culture could tell you. They were both respected martial artists, and face is a big deal over there. The web accounts also state that the match ended after two rounds, with a banquet being held afterward. Again, students of Chinese social culture would not be surprised. 

Western boxing is the best way to tell if two men can fight? Really? We should be careful of our assumptions and check to see if what we think is the norm, the center, really is that, or simply _one_ way of doing things.


----------



## Xue Sheng

Hanzou said:


> I never said that. What I said was that the evidence appears to show that western boxing achieves effectiveness more quickly than internal arts, and that there is no evidence to show that the extended amount of training required to reach competency in internal arts ever exceeds the level of competency in western boxing.



Then you deny you wrote the things I quoted from your post then, because that is exactly what you said, they were direct quotes. Now it may not be what you meant, that I cannot argue, I do not know what you are thinking, but it is exactly what you said.




Hanzou said:


> Which is what I was saying in the first place.



Actually it is not what you said at all.



Hanzou said:


> Again, I never argued that western boxing was better than ICMAs. I was simply repeating Tim Cartmell's statements. He's the one who flat out said that the Chinese viewed western boxing as superior, not I.



No he did not say that, you are either misinterpreting what he said, don't understand what he said, or trying to hide behind him when you say it. Reread my above post. They said the training method was better for their purposes, not that it western boxing was better than Chinese martial arts. If they actually thought that them why is there so little Western Boxing in the Sanshou that came out of that realization. Like I said there is a lot of Qinna, Shuaijiao, kicking and striking, but no boxing stance, punching or any other similarity. It is the training methodology they saw a better, and quicker, for their purposes, which was to train men fast in hand to had combat. Which I might add was considered a last resort for the military at that time. Again, I think this is your prejudice talking and grasping for support from a CMA person us CMA guys know....... but it is not what Tim Cartmell "flat out said". Again, prejudice does not equal fact.





Hanzou said:


>



I cannot tell you how happy I am you used that video as an example. The thing is the guy you see in the very beginning doing a bit of Taijiquan is my Shigong (he was not one of the fighters). He was there as was my Shifu. Now these days the Wu family touts that as a great example of taijiquan, but they were not there, my shifu was. That was billed much like an Ali/Forman fight. But yet no one in the martial arts community at that time could figure out why the older Wu got into the ring. They all believed the younger Wu should have fought. Also no one in the martial arts community at that time, thought it was a good fight, they all thought it was rather pathetic. The crowd thought so as well; they paid big money for the tickets to see the fight, but by the end they were asking for their money back. What you have shown was seen as a bad example at the time the film was made.


----------



## Hanzou

mograph said:


> But then again, as we rush to use western boxing to discredit CMA, we may want to look at some assumptions:




No one is using western boxing to discredit CMA.



> Western boxing is a real fight? No it isn't. Boxers are not trying to inflict grievous harm on each other or trying to kill each other. Boxing is more like improvisation within a script: there are rules, and a specific way of holding oneself, moving, delivering blows, executing feints and defending oneself. There's a specific pacing to it in order to make it a specific contest. Think of how crowds react when someone deviates from the script and slows down the match by holding off and studying the opponent, for example. They can't deviate too much from the script.




I would argue that there are examples of street fights where people aren't trying to kill each other and are obeying rules (laws).



> These two men would be trained in western boxing? Not likely. In 1953, it's not likely they would have even seen many matches on television. According to Wikipedia, the first Hong Kong television station was launched in 1957 and I don't think that Macau was much farther ahead.



Well no, and that's the point. Here you have two native practicioners utilizing traditional CMA against each other. It doesn't look good.



> These men were fighting according to their art? Not entirely. *They did not use joint locks, throws or kicks*: limitations imposed by the organizers, according to the web's accounting of the event. Also, note the distance: it doesn't make sense for CMA to use punches from such a distance, so naturally, they look bad. IMO, these men were attempting to _imitate_ a western boxing match. If they were to fight their own way, they would probably both stand there, stock-still, maybe twitching slightly, until one jumped in and landed a blow. That would not have been a western-style boxing match.



There were a few kicks thrown in that fight. I disagree with the notion that having rules automatically degrades your abilities. If I was in a fight where I couldn't grapple, I could still punch and kick with a solid level of technique from my background in Shotokan and boxing. I wouldn't automatically revert to an elementary level of striking ability.



> Western boxing is the best way to tell if two men can fight? Really? We should be careful of our assumptions and check to see if what we think is the norm, the center, really is that, or simply _one_ way of doing things.



No one is saying that. What I'm saying is that if we compare a boxing match from the same period, I think we would all agree that the technical level of the boxers would be much higher. 

"Why" is a valid question that should be asked.


----------



## ChenAn

Hanzou said:


> Perhaps, but in Bjj (like Boxing) we have modern examples of brutal and efficient practitioners who easily rival (or surpass) the masters of the past. It's bizarre that we don't see that with internal MAs.



I also thought of notion that modern is always superior until stumble upon European renaissance fencing manuals. Something that West lost and something you won't see in any movies.

Renaissance folks appear were very practical dudes. When stakes are high everything goes. Pretty much in par with Eastern fighting at the same era.

Despite its reputation It's not uncommon for MMA fighter gets beat down on the street 




Most of modern systems tailored on one on one fight ; hence , all the enhancement . I have started with sambo at my 14s so I have some experience with modern system 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Hanzou

Xue Sheng said:


> No he did not say that, you are either misinterpreting what he said, don't understand what he said, or trying to hide behind him when you say it. Reread my above post. They said the training method was better for their purposes, not that it western boxing was better than Chinese martial arts. If they actually thought that them why is there so little Western Boxing in the Sanshou that came out of that realization. Like I said there is a lot of Qinna, Shuaijiao, kicking and striking, but no boxing stance, punching or any other similarity. It is the training methodology they saw a better, and quicker, for their purposes, which was to train men fast in hand to had combat. Which I might add was considered a last resort for the military at that time. Again, I think this is your prejudice talking and grasping for support from a CMA person us CMA guys know....... but it is not what Tim Cartmell "flat out said". Again, prejudice does not equal fact.



This is what he said;



> _ The conclusion was that Western boxing hand techniques, when it came to developing practical striking and defensive abilities in a reasonable amount of time, *were superior to all others, including their own*_


_
_
"*Superior* in developing practical striking and defensive abilities in a reasonable amount of time".

Typically the word "superior" means better.



> I cannot tell you how happy I am you used that video as an example. The thing is the guy you see in the very beginning doing a bit of Taijiquan is my Shigong (he was not one of the fighters). He was there as was my Shifu. Now these days the Wu family touts that as a great example of taijiquan, but they were not there, my shifu was. That was billed much like an Ali/Forman fight. But yet no one in the martial arts community at that time could figure out why the older Wu got into the ring. They all believed the younger Wu should have fought. Also no one in the martial arts community at that time, thought it was a good fight, they all thought it was rather pathetic. The crowd thought so as well; they paid big money for the tickets to see the fight, but by the end they were asking for their money back. What you have shown was seen as a bad example at the time the film was made.



Would there be any counter examples that can show an Internal CMA practitioner fighting in a better light?


----------



## Hanzou

ChenAn said:


> I also thought of notion that modern is always superior until stumble upon European renaissance fencing manuals. Something that West lost and something you won't see in any movies.
> 
> Renaissance folks appear were very practical dudes. When stakes are high everything goes. Pretty much in par with Eastern fighting at the same era.



I'm sure they were, for their time. Nowadays walking down the street carrying a rapier isn't very practical which is why it fell into obscurity with the rise of personal firearms. The point is things should evolve and change over time. If it doesn't change it wanes and tends to die off.



> Despite its reputation It's not uncommon for MMA fighter gets beat down on the street
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most of modern systems tailored on one on one fight ; hence , all the enhancement . I have started with sambo at my 14s so I have some experience with modern system



No one is saying that MMA or sport fighting makes you invincible. Regardless of training you're still a human, and can still catch a beating if you're not careful.


----------



## Xue Sheng

Hanzou said:


> This is what he said;
> 
> 
> _
> _
> "*Superior* in developing practical striking and defensive abilities in a reasonable amount of time".
> 
> Typically the word "superior" means better.
> 
> 
> 
> Would there be any counter examples that can show an Internal CMA practitioner fighting in a better light?



Nope, not at all what he said, unless you take it out of context like you are by picking and choosing one word in the entire statement to focus on



> _The conclusion was that Western boxing hand techniques, when it came to _*developing practical striking and defensive abilities* *in a reasonable amount of time, were superior to all others, including their own*


_
_
It is based on time, saying it is superior given the time allotted. It is not saying western boxing is superior to Chinese martial arts, sorry, it is just not saying that at all. And when you are talking military, they don't have years, they have weeks, so traditional training methods don't work for them and western methods do because they are quicker. If you choose to focus on only the one word in the statement "superior" you are misrepresenting what was said to support your prejudicial argument.

_As for showing in a better light, you want video proof form a time with video was not prevalent, in a culture that tended towards secrecy....but you are the one that provided your "Video Proof"...feel free to find more to support your argument if you like... you can believe what you like...your wrong....but I doubt you care or even believe that is possible.... but misrepresenting what Tim Cartmell is saying is not helping your argument..it is just making you look like you do not comprehend what is being said...or simply picking and choosing words to support your flawed argument. in hopes that no one else notices and actually reads the entire statement.....but are free to have your own opinion..._


----------



## Zeny

I find this discussion rather pointless.

I’m a CMA practitioner but I have respect for western arts, particularly boxing. If mike tyson can hit as hard as he did, obviously western boxing got something right.

I have also done some push hands with someone who has practised taichi for over 50 years. One light touch makes me feel like I was hit by a truck. It is seriously no joke.

Honestly I wouldn’t be able to tell who would win in a fight between this taichi master and mike tyson. My best guess is this taichi master probably has the edge, but he’s old, over 70.

What we need more in this forum is the sharing of personal anecdotes or experience. What is the use of discussing CMA vs western boxing from a theoretical perspective?


----------



## Flying Crane

Hanzou said:


> No one is using western boxing to discredit CMA.


Oh of course you are, you silly little brick.  That is what you do, that is your M.O.


----------



## Flying Crane

Zeny said:


> I find this discussion rather pointless.
> 
> I’m a CMA practitioner but I have respect for western arts, particularly boxing. If mike tyson can hit as hard as he did, obviously western boxing got something right.
> 
> I have also done some push hands with someone who has practised taichi for over 50 years. One light touch makes me feel like I was hit by a truck. It is seriously no joke.
> 
> Honestly I wouldn’t be able to tell who would win in a fight between this taichi master and mike tyson. My best guess is this taichi master probably has the edge, but he’s old, over 70.
> 
> What we need more in this forum is the sharing of personal anecdotes or experience. What is the use of discussing CMA vs western boxing from a theoretical perspective?


Many of us here agree with you.  Unfortunately some people have an agenda, and they try to impose it everywhere.


----------



## Flying Crane

Xue Sheng said:


> I cannot tell you how happy I am you used that video as an example. The thing is the guy you see in the very beginning doing a bit of Taijiquan is my Shigong (he was not one of the fighters). He was there as was my Shifu. Now these days the Wu family touts that as a great example of taijiquan, but they were not there, my shifu was. That was billed much like an Ali/Forman fight. But yet no one in the martial arts community at that time could figure out why the older Wu got into the ring. They all believed the younger Wu should have fought. Also no one in the martial arts community at that time, thought it was a good fight, they all thought it was rather pathetic. The crowd thought so as well; they paid big money for the tickets to see the fight, but by the end they were asking for their money back. What you have shown was seen as a bad example at the time the film was made.


One of those guys trained in the method that I train.  Yes, it was pathetic.  Does he "represent" my system, or myself or my sifu? Not in the least.  Do I feel embarrassed by it?  Not at all.  Does it shake my faith in what I practice?  Not at all.

But perhaps some people who have a simplistic view of the world might not be able to understand that.


----------



## mograph

Yes, much of this discussion is pointless and doesn't help the OP at all.


----------



## Goku2

Xue Sheng said:


> The biggest problem I see with people coming from styles like TKD, Karate, and Kenpo is relaxation.


I agree if you mean there is a lack of it!


----------



## mograph

mograph said:


> Yes, much of this discussion is pointless and doesn't help the OP at all.


And OP, that "much" is contributed by Hanzou, who does not study Chinese Martial Arts, yet feels compelled to comment on their efficacy. Please take Hanzou's comments with a grain of salt.


----------



## Xue Sheng

Goku2 said:


> I agree if you mean there is a lack of it!



They tend to be to tense


----------



## JowGaWolf

Zeny said:


> What we need more in this forum is the sharing of personal anecdotes or experience. What is the use of discussing CMA vs western boxing from a theoretical perspective?


 Totally agree so I'll add my 2 cents.  Boxers are limited on the the number of attacks that they can do.  Their entire training is based on punching so they are good at punching.  What they aren't good at is defending against kicks and grappling.  I sparred against a boxer before and I was at a disadvantage as long as the rules were "punch only."  However I had the advantage when kicks were allowed.  Even if I didn't use a kick, I would move my leg in a way that made my opponent think I was going to kick, so that I could land a punch.  Both boxers were good with moving out of the way with a punch, I was better at parrying a punch.  The jabs weren't necessary more powerful than mine, they just had a better experience in reading what a punch looks like.

I think in a real fight I would do well even if punches were the only thing thrown.  I say this because I'm good at a technique that is used to break the punching hand, so for me I don't have to hit the boxer's head or body to win.  The same can't be said for the boxer since their training only includes punching the face and the body.  If I "Play the boxing game" then I'll lose.  I have a larger range of attack and defense options so I'm not only stuck with the jab, hook, cross, and upper cup options.

A few months ago I actually posted a video of a boxer jabbing me from the outside with no problem.  I also posted a video a few months before that, showing me going against the same person but using my feet this time.   It was a huge difference.


----------



## JowGaWolf

mograph said:


> Yes, much of this discussion is pointless and doesn't help the OP at all.


It's a good think that the OP got his answer on the first couple of pages.


----------



## ChenAn

JoeGaWolf did you spar with amateur boxer? 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## JowGaWolf

ChenAn said:


> JoeGaWolf did you spar with amateur boxer?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Yes.  He used to do amateur boxing competitively before he did Kung Fu.  It was hard for him to not rely on his boxing skills, which was good for the other students because it was like fighting someone who didn't do kung fu.  It was bad for him because it made it more difficult for him to learn how to fight using kung fu.


----------



## ChenAn

Try with semi-pro there will be different picture


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## JowGaWolf

ChenAn said:


> Try with semi-pro there will be different picture
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I think it will still be the same.  The only difference is that the punches will come in faster and harder.  Also the movement will be faster.  If a person doesn't train to deal with kicks and sweeps then there's no way he can be effective in defending against them.  Professional boxers even understand this.  Are boxing skills valuable definitely, the moment a boxer starts training outside of the limitations of boxing is the exact moment he is no longer a boxer.  yes he has boxing skills, but he's no longer fighting as a boxer. Physically and mentally.  Here's your boxer vs kicker video.




I understand that the skill of a fighter's ability determines the outcome. But having a wider range of options for attacks and defense goes a long way. 


Main Options of attack that a boxer has and will go for:
1. Punch body
2. Punch head

Main Options of attack that I have in my skill set as a martial artist.
1. Punch body
2. Attack joints (elbow, knee, fingers)
3. Punch head
4. Attack feet (sweeps)
5. Attack calves
6. Attack thigh
7. Kick body
8. Kick head
9. Kick legs
7. Kick feet (it's more of a chop with my heel into the inside of the foot)
8. Grappling (legs, and arms, including joint locks)

Types of attacks boxers have
1. Jab
2. Cross
3. Hook
4. Upper Cut

Types of attacks that I have
1. Jab
2. Cross
3. Hook 
4. Upper Cut
5. Palm strikes
6. Front kick
7. Side kick
8. Sweep
9. Luk Choi
10. Pow Choi
11. Kup Choi
12. Elbows
13. Knee

What a boxer targets
1. Head
2. Body

What a martial artist targets
1. Everything that is in reach including attacking the punches and kicks that are thrown at him.


----------



## ChenAn

I've been practicing martial arts since 1984. One thing I learnt when I started competing was that out of the whole arsenal of my kicks and punches and throws really worked only about 10 % of it. As much as delusional I was that learning experience came with heavy tag of disappointment and reevaluation.

Western boxers who are seriously practicing realize that much sooner; therefore, even their assets lack verity the know how really stick it and achieve good result.

Considering really stressful life scenario of self-defense one can expect that a lot of thing will just condensed in very simple set of techniques. Unless sure practitioner is experienced  fighter 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## JowGaWolf

ChenAn said:


> I've been practicing martial arts since 1984. One thing I learnt when I started competing was that out of the whole arsenal of my kicks and punches and throws really worked only about 10 % of it. As much as delusional I was that learning experience came with heavy tag of disappointment and reevaluation.
> 
> Western boxers who are seriously practicing realize that much sooner; therefore, even their assets lack verity the know how really stick it and achieve good result.
> 
> Considering really stressful life scenario of self-defense one can expect that a lot of thing will just condensed in very simple set of techniques. Unless sure practitioner is experienced  fighter
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


The same 10% of techniques that I would use for one fighter may not be the same 10% techniques on another fighter.

My training is probably different from most:
I first take the things that are easy for me to do and I learn how to be efficient in applying those things.  These are my basics (which you call very simple set of techniques).  Once I have my basics down, then I'll pick a slightly difficult technique and I practice that technique and learn to apply it until it becomes as strong as my basics. Now a technique that was slightly difficult is now a simple technique.    I keep training like this and what happens is that my advanced techniques are slowly becoming my simple techniques.  The 13 types of attacks that I listed I can do effectively on the most basic level.  Some are probably advance things that I now consider basic  To give you an example, some would consider sweeps to be an advanced technique, but for me those things are easy for me, but only because of the way that I train.

Considering a really stressful life scenario of self-defense all of the options I stated would still be available to me.  The only thing I need to make sure it that I apply the correct technique to the correct situation.  No matter how badly I want to throw someone, they may never get into a position that will allow me to use my throwing technique.  When that happens I don't need to force a throwing technique.  I need to use a technique that fits the situation.

The boxer in the video didn't have an option for defending or attacking the kick, because there are not options for a kick in boxing.  His opponent understood that.  Count how many kicks where thrown at the boxer. Out of all the techniques that could have been thrown it only took one technique to exploit the hole in boxing.

I used to teach teens self defense class and when ever we sparred I would kick them, knowing that they didn't have an option for attacking or defending a kick.  The first thing that came out of their mouths was "That's not fair" and "Most people don't kick in a fight."  My reply to them was, "That's why I'm kicking you."   If I spar against a boxer and try to play by his rules, then I'll lose.  If I spar against a boxer and force him to deal with my rules then my chances for winning greatly increase.   If you look at all of the street fights on Youtube you can see that most are about punching and not kicking.  My goal is always to fight where my opponent isn't.  In other words if my opponent isn't thinking about his root or protecting his legs then that's what I'm going to go for. 

 Boxing doesn't train for kicks or takedowns, which is fine because that's what boxing is.  Punching


----------



## Touch Of Death

JowGaWolf said:


> The same 10% of techniques that I would use for one fighter may not be the same 10% techniques on another fighter.
> 
> My training is probably different from most:
> I first take the things that are easy for me to do and I learn how to be efficient in applying those things.  These are my basics (which you call very simple set of techniques).  Once I have my basics down, then I'll pick a slightly difficult technique and I practice that technique and learn to apply it until it becomes as strong as my basics. Now a technique that was slightly difficult is now a simple technique.    I keep training like this and what happens is that my advanced techniques are slowly becoming my simple techniques.  The 13 types of attacks that I listed I can do effectively on the most basic level.  Some are probably advance things that I now consider basic  To give you an example, some would consider sweeps to be an advanced technique, but for me those things are easy for me, but only because of the way that I train.
> 
> Considering a really stressful life scenario of self-defense all of the options I stated would still be available to me.  The only thing I need to make sure it that I apply the correct technique to the correct situation.  No matter how badly I want to throw someone, they may never get into a position that will allow me to use my throwing technique.  When that happens I don't need to force a throwing technique.  I need to use a technique that fits the situation.
> 
> The boxer in the video didn't have an option for defending or attacking the kick, because there are not options for a kick in boxing.  His opponent understood that.  Count how many kicks where thrown at the boxer. Out of all the techniques that could have been thrown it only took one technique to exploit the hole in boxing.
> 
> I used to teach teens self defense class and when ever we sparred I would kick them, knowing that they didn't have an option for attacking or defending a kick.  The first thing that came out of their mouths was "That's not fair" and "Most people don't kick in a fight."  My reply to them was, "That's why I'm kicking you."   If I spar against a boxer and try to play by his rules, then I'll lose.  If I spar against a boxer and force him to deal with my rules then my chances for winning greatly increase.   If you look at all of the street fights on Youtube you can see that most are about punching and not kicking.  My goal is always to fight where my opponent isn't.  In other words if my opponent isn't thinking about his root or protecting his legs then that's what I'm going to go for.
> 
> Boxing doesn't train for kicks or takedowns, which is fine because that's what boxing is.  Punching


Boxing is fighting in a box.


----------



## ChenAn

JowGaWold what taiji method do you practice ?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## JowGaWolf

ChenAn said:


> JowGaWold what taiji method do you practice ?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Yang Tai Chi


----------



## ChenAn

JowGaWolf said:


> Yang Tai Chi



Seems like you are very confident in your abilities. Other than fighting with your students have you tried any full contact competitions?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## JowGaWolf

ChenAn said:


> Seems like you are very confident in your abilities. Other than fighting with your students have you tried any full contact competitions?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I'm only confident in the stuff that I train to fight with and actually had a chance to use in sparring.

I've done full contact competitions before but that was a long time ago I'm 43 now.  I'm hoping to get some more play time with full contact in the future once I have surgery on my finger.

By the way my fight experience is with Karate and Jow Ga.


----------



## ChenAn

JowGaWolf said:


> I'm only confident in the stuff that I train to fight with and actually had a chance to use in sparring.
> 
> I've done full contact competitions before but that was a long time ago I'm 43 now.  I'm hoping to get some more play time with full contact in the future once I have surgery on my finger.



If you have done it before it's good enough . Competing after 40 is killing your health (in my opinion)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Ironbear24

The form of Tai chi the instructor teaches is Sun form. It was a lot of circular motions and slow movements. I was bored, but I did feel calm after 5 minutes of failing to move slowly . I don't get why this stuff is so hard for me, if I can move quickly and aggressively I should be able to move slowly pretty easily?


----------



## JowGaWolf

ChenAn said:


> If you have done it before it's good enough . Competing after 40 is killing your health (in my opinion)
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Only I get hit with too many solid punches.  In the past I didn't mind as much because my body would heal quickly.  Now it's a different story and I've adjusted my training to take less of an impact as possible. I already know that the longer a fight goes the worse it will be for me.


----------



## Zeny

Ironbear, being able to move fast doesn't guarantee you'll be good at moving slow. By the same token, being able to apply a lot of force doesn't mean that you'll be able to apply a small amount of force. That's taichi for you.

I've never heard of the sun form. Does it originate from any one of the big families (chen, yang, wu etc)?


----------



## Zeny

Jowgawolf, thanks for sharing your training method. It believe it is an effective way to train.

Let me share mine. I practise huang taichi, and we practise a lot of push hands, and no sparring. The push hands are done free style, with no set patterns, mostly slowly, sometimes at normal (natural) movement speed and fast speed. This is when we practise the taichi principles, such as relaxation, upright body, sticking, don't fight force with force, etc. Very little emphasis is placed on individual techniques.

The idea is that as we become more and more relaxed, our breathing and movements become 'natural'. If one day i were to get into a street fight, i am not constrained to move in a certain way, my body goes completely relaxed, everything goes (hitting / breaking the arm, palm / reverse palm strikes, elbow / knee strikes etc). I tried some light fighting with a friend who practises decent muay thai and completely dominated him, mostly because i am very heavy (rooted) from all the relaxation training and because my arms are relaxed my movements are very fast, strong and snappy. My friend also has no idea how i move as i don't have any fixed techniques.

It remains to be seen how i would fare in a ring or a real street fight, but i don't train for that. I have never been involved in a real fight my whole life and i don't foresee myself being involved in one the rest of my life. If i ever do, it will probably be a self defence or life and death situation, and at that time, everything goes.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Ironbear24 said:


> I don't get why this stuff is so hard for me, if I can move quickly and aggressively I should be able to move slowly pretty easily?


Moving slowly forces you to work different muscles and you are working your muscles longer than you would if you were going fast.  A movement that is normally done in less than a second is now taking 3 - 5 seconds to complete and now you are paying attention to how every muscle in your body is moving and you are trying to get these muscles to work as one. 

Being bored is normal. It goes away after you learn to slow your mind down and you begin to focus on your movement and your body more than focusing on completing the movement.  It forces you to pay attention to things that are normally lost to your attention when doing things quickly.


----------



## Ironbear24

Zeny said:


> Ironbear, being able to move fast doesn't guarantee you'll be good at moving slow. By the same token, being able to apply a lot of force doesn't mean that you'll be able to apply a small amount of force. That's taichi for you.
> 
> I've never heard of the sun form. Does it originate from any one of the big families (chen, yang, wu etc)?



It's father art is the Wu form.


----------



## JowGaWolf

This is a video of me using what I learned in Tai Chi to set up a sweep.
*Background:* Friendly sparring-  I'm the guy in the long pants
*Part of Tai Chi that I used:* The sensitivity and awareness of body movement that comes from moving slow and doing push hand exercises.  I didn't plan this it just happened, but the sweep was intentional. I knew the sweep would work,  I just didn't know it would be that effective when I launched it. The part of Tai Chi that I used was internal so you aren't going to see any Tai Chi moves.

*Short story:* My opponent pressured me with a series of combo punches and I swept him.

*What I was able to sense as he was advancing and pushing me:*  When he came in I could feel that he was light on his feet and that he wasn't punching while he was rooted. To me if felt like he was lighter on one side as if his body was wobbling left and right. This instantly made me want to sweep when he was off balance and not rooted. 
One of the things I learned really quick with push hands is that the slightest movement gives away your intent and the stability of a stance.  It looks really boring but there is a chess match of sensory information going on at the point of contact.  In my case the point of contact was him punching me.  Tai Chi also teaches like Zeny has mention, "don't fight force with force"  The best non tai chi example of this would be to tell your friend to push your shoulder while you resist.  Then to tell him to do the same thing, but this time let your shoulder give with the push. Allowing your shoulder to give will allow the force to pass by you and not into you. You will also cause your friend to lose balance in which presents an opportunity for you to strike.

Having Tai Chi used on you will be like losing balance in one direction only to be pushed in a totally different direction while trying to regain balance.  So when you feel you are moving forward and your body is preparing to deal with forward movement, Tai Chi steps in and sends your body in a totally different direction. The only thing that makes this possible is a strong root which is what you'll definitely got from Tai Chi.

*Things to take note in the video.:* Take note of my foot movement vs my opponents foot movement.  You can see me rooting vs how his feet are sliding around (which was the light feeling that I was sensing).  I didn't know until now but it looks like I had a little repulse monkey foot work going on too.  If that is the case then it wasn't intentional. Tai Chi just blends really well even if the strikes aren't tai chi.


----------



## zzj

JowGaWolf said:


> This is a video of me using what I learned in Tai Chi to set up a sweep.
> *Background:* Friendly sparring-  I'm the guy in the long pants
> *Part of Tai Chi that I used:* The sensitivity and awareness of body movement that comes from moving slow and doing push hand exercises.  I didn't plan this it just happened, but the sweep was intentional. I knew the sweep would work,  I just didn't know it would be that effective when I launched it. The part of Tai Chi that I used was internal so you aren't going to see any Tai Chi moves.
> 
> *Short story:* My opponent pressured me with a series of combo punches and I swept him.
> 
> *What I was able to sense as he was advancing and pushing me:*  When he came in I could feel that he was light on his feet and that he wasn't punching while he was rooted. To me if felt like he was lighter on one side as if his body was wobbling left and right. This instantly made me want to sweep when he was off balance and not rooted.
> One of the things I learned really quick with push hands is that the slightest movement gives away your intent and the stability of a stance.  It looks really boring but there is a chess match of sensory information going on at the point of contact.  In my case the point of contact was him punching me.  Tai Chi also teaches like Zeny has mention, "don't fight force with force"  The best non tai chi example of this would be to tell your friend to push your shoulder while you resist.  Then to tell him to do the same thing, but this time let your shoulder give with the push. Allowing your shoulder to give will allow the force to pass by you and not into you. You will also cause your friend to lose balance in which presents an opportunity for you to strike.
> 
> Having Tai Chi used on you will be like losing balance in one direction only to be pushed in a totally different direction while trying to regain balance.  So when you feel you are moving forward and your body is preparing to deal with forward movement, Tai Chi steps in and sends your body in a totally different direction. The only thing that makes this possible is a strong root which is what you'll definitely got from Tai Chi.
> 
> *Things to take note in the video.:* Take note of my foot movement vs my opponents foot movement.  You can see me rooting vs how his feet are sliding around (which was the light feeling that I was sensing).  I didn't know until now but it looks like I had a little repulse monkey foot work going on too.  If that is the case then it wasn't intentional. Tai Chi just blends really well even if the strikes aren't tai chi.



Nice clip you have there, would've liked to see more though.


----------



## JowGaWolf

zzj said:


> Nice clip you have there, would've liked to see more though.


Well you saw the important parts as related to the post lol.  The rest was him just hitting me with combos up top and me moving so the punches didn't land solid.  To be honest in the full video it looks like I'm in trouble. The full clip will be online in the near future just as soon as I get some more footage of the students sweeping and using their foot work.


----------



## zzj

Zeny said:


> Jowgawolf, thanks for sharing your training method. It believe it is an effective way to train.
> 
> Let me share mine. I practise huang taichi, and we practise a lot of push hands, and no sparring. The push hands are done free style, with no set patterns, mostly slowly, sometimes at normal (natural) movement speed and fast speed. This is when we practise the taichi principles, such as relaxation, upright body, sticking, don't fight force with force, etc. Very little emphasis is placed on individual techniques.
> 
> The idea is that as we become more and more relaxed, our breathing and movements become 'natural'. If one day i were to get into a street fight, i am not constrained to move in a certain way, my body goes completely relaxed, everything goes (hitting / breaking the arm, palm / reverse palm strikes, elbow / knee strikes etc). I tried some light fighting with a friend who practises decent muay thai and completely dominated him, mostly because i am very heavy (rooted) from all the relaxation training and because my arms are relaxed my movements are very fast, strong and snappy. My friend also has no idea how i move as i don't have any fixed techniques.
> 
> It remains to be seen how i would fare in a ring or a real street fight, but i don't train for that. I have never been involved in a real fight my whole life and i don't foresee myself being involved in one the rest of my life. If i ever do, it will probably be a self defence or life and death situation, and at that time, everything goes.



Might be a bit off topic, but I'm curious whether practitioners of Huang style consider themselves to be of a distinct style or an offshoot of CMC or Yang style? What sets Huang style apart from CMC or Yang? Although I'm a student of mainstream Chen but I've always been interested in Huang Sheng Shyan's style for personal reasons.


----------



## Zeny

Good question. From my point of view:

1) huang style is cmc style but with a distinct flavour. Basically we do the same 37 form with fair lady's hand, but some postures have been modified slightly (for eg, when we commence, the manner of parting the feet is different and the press posture is also different, looks like hugging the body)

2) we also practise the yang 108 form, but with similar modifications. I believe this form was added merely to complete the curriculum, as we mostly do the 37 form

3) huang added the '5 body relaxation methods' and the 'hun yan gong' (which is a stationary up down movement), both of which are not found in the cmc style. In my limited experience, i find that this 'hun yang gong' is the only way that allows me to practise 'extreme' relaxation, i have not found any other method (if you have a good one, please let me know)

4) one of huang's senior students added a further '6 body loosening methods', which is not found in the cmc style, or the mainstream huang style, which i also practise

5) most push hands are done free style (though fixed step push hands are also taught and practised by beginners)

6) if i look at cmc style forms on youtube, i recognize the movements, but it looks weird

7) if i look at yang style push hands, it looks very weird (especially the circling arms)

8) we don't practise chen style 'peng jin' or anything like that. What we strive for is 100 percent relaxation (no tension whatsoever). By my estimation it takes 15 years of consistent and correct practice to achieve this state.

Anything else you want to know?


----------



## Zeny

Good example of a 37 form performed by a huang stylist. It looks recognisably huang.






Contrast the above with this 37 form performed cmc style.






These forms don't look very 'martial' and make one wonder 'how do we learn to fight with that form?' That's the best thing that i love about the 37 form. The form looks so tame and harmless but every single movement in the form has a martial purpose. If you want i can 'decrypt' it for you.


----------



## Tony Dismukes

Ironbear24 said:


> If by teaching someone how to sit on or cuddle with another person for several minutes sure.



What's the point of putting on the pajamas if I don't get to cuddle with someone?


----------



## mograph

Tony Dismukes said:


> What's the point of putting on the pajamas if I don't get to cuddle with someone?


Silk pajamas -- too slippery!


----------



## zzj

Zeny said:


> Good example of a 37 form performed by a huang stylist. It looks recognisably huang.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contrast the above with this 37 form performed cmc style.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> These forms don't look very 'martial' and make one wonder 'how do we learn to fight with that form?' That's the best thing that i love about the 37 form. The form looks so tame and harmless but every single movement in the form has a martial purpose. If you want i can 'decrypt' it for you.



The martial purpose of the moves are quite apparent, and they are very similar, at least externally, to what we train in Chen style, with more of a small frame flavor. With regards to your comment about peng jin equating tension (to whatever extent), I would have to disagree, I'm not sure if any style of tai chi would advocate training tension.


----------



## zzj

Zeny said:


> Good question. From my point of view:
> 
> 1) huang style is cmc style but with a distinct flavour. Basically we do the same 37 form with fair lady's hand, but some postures have been modified slightly (for eg, when we commence, the manner of parting the feet is different and the press posture is also different, looks like hugging the body)
> 
> 2) we also practise the yang 108 form, but with similar modifications. I believe this form was added merely to complete the curriculum, as we mostly do the 37 form
> 
> 3) huang added the '5 body relaxation methods' and the 'hun yan gong' (which is a stationary up down movement), both of which are not found in the cmc style. In my limited experience, i find that this 'hun yang gong' is the only way that allows me to practise 'extreme' relaxation, i have not found any other method (if you have a good one, please let me know)
> 
> 4) one of huang's senior students added a further '6 body loosening methods', which is not found in the cmc style, or the mainstream huang style, which i also practise
> 
> 5) most push hands are done free style (though fixed step push hands are also taught and practised by beginners)
> 
> 6) if i look at cmc style forms on youtube, i recognize the movements, but it looks weird
> 
> 7) if i look at yang style push hands, it looks very weird (especially the circling arms)
> 
> 8) we don't practise chen style 'peng jin' or anything like that. What we strive for is 100 percent relaxation (no tension whatsoever). By my estimation it takes 15 years of consistent and correct practice to achieve this state.
> 
> Anything else you want to know?



I do have 1 question, is the Yang 108 form integral to Huang style? or is it, as you seem to suggest, more for the purpose of completing the curriculum. I'm asking this because I may want to learn the 37 form and relaxation exercises as a counterpoint to my Chen experience.

Apparently the local Huang Style association is very close to where I live, so tempting.


----------



## Zeny

No, it is not. The core of the huang style is the 37 form. Where do you live and what does your local huang association teach?


----------



## zzj

Zeny said:


> No, it is not. The core of the huang style is the 37 form. Where do you live and what does your local huang association teach?



I'm from Singapore, i believe that the local association was one of the first to be established by Huang Sheng Shyan outside Taiwan where he studied under CMC, and it is at most a 5 minute drive from my home. From their website it seems they teach the full curriculum, but the basic course covers the only relaxation methods and the 37 form.


----------



## Zeny

Oh so near, i'm from kuching


----------



## zzj

Zeny said:


> Oh so near, i'm from kuching


 
In the context of this forum we are practically neighbours


----------



## Xue Sheng

In the context of the forum I have family that would also be your neighbors


----------



## Zeny

Zzj, i read up some more on 'peng jin'. I realised that i may have misunderstood it.

If i'm not mistaken 'peng jin' refers to the springy quality (like a rubber ball) that is achieved by the body after practising taichi for some time.

In my experience with the huang style, we are training for the same thing but we don't call it 'peng jin'. We call it 'tang xin' (springy or elastic) instead.


----------



## zzj

Zeny said:


> Zzj, i read up some more on 'peng jin'. I realised that i may have misunderstood it.
> 
> If i'm not mistaken 'peng jin' refers to the springy quality (like a rubber ball) that is achieved by the body after practising taichi for some time.
> 
> In my experience with the huang style, we are training for the same thing but we don't call it 'peng jin'. We call it 'tang xin' (springy or elastic) instead.



Yep, I think that's correct. At the core we are all striving for the same thing, just that our approach differs; I do like the emphasis on training relaxation through drills and exercises in your style, whether or not I do end up learning the form, I think I will incorporate the relaxation methods into my practice. It can't be bad.


----------



## Pittsburgh Arnis

Ironbear24 said:


> By better martial artist I mean better fighter, I want to be a better fighter. I am mostly a kenpo practitioner and I also do a lot of weight lifting, I have heard many things about tai chi and I am wondering if I should take the tai chi classes hosted at the gym I often go to.



Maybe you would be interested in these books:

http://www.amazon.com/The-Power-Internal-Martial-Arts/dp/1556432534

http://www.amazon.com/Combat-Techniques-Taiji-Xingyi-Bagua/dp/1583941452


----------



## BillK

Not having read through this whole thread, but, you might check out ymaa.com. Dr. Yang has several videos that teach the Yang style taijiquan, including the martial applications. He also teaches Taiji Shuai Jiao, Taiji ChinNa, Qigong, Taiji sword, and others.


----------

