Y
yilisifu
Guest
I THINK I understand what Doc is trying to say insofar as Taijichuan and Kenpo being the same - very quick and powerful and so on.
But
Their methods of application are entirely different. I have studied Taiji for many, many years now and I am also very familiar with Kenpo and have seen Mr. Parker in action in days of yore. Mr. Parker was an incredible man; a genius. But what he did was not Taiji at all. The end result might have been the same (the opponent is defeated very quickly and struck with enormous force), but the method(s) are entirely different.
To compare one to the other is like comparing baseball to hockey.
Also, Doc is incorrect about Taiji being the "mother" of all Chinese martial arts. The earliest records regarding Taijichuan only go back about 300 years or so. Many, many Chinese systems were in existance long before that. By Chinese standards, Taijichuan is a relative newcomer.
But
Their methods of application are entirely different. I have studied Taiji for many, many years now and I am also very familiar with Kenpo and have seen Mr. Parker in action in days of yore. Mr. Parker was an incredible man; a genius. But what he did was not Taiji at all. The end result might have been the same (the opponent is defeated very quickly and struck with enormous force), but the method(s) are entirely different.
To compare one to the other is like comparing baseball to hockey.
Also, Doc is incorrect about Taiji being the "mother" of all Chinese martial arts. The earliest records regarding Taijichuan only go back about 300 years or so. Many, many Chinese systems were in existance long before that. By Chinese standards, Taijichuan is a relative newcomer.