Tai Chi and Self Defense

[arnisador]

ifirst off, arnisador: on what experience or who's word are you basing your advice?

Mine.

when you say 'kung fu', should i assume you to mean a shaolin or 'external' style?

No. See Post #12 in this thread.

have you considered that perhaps YOU just haven't developed the proper understanding of the martial components of tai chi, either by YOUR investment into training, or YOUR INSTRUCTOR'S level of proficiency?

Well, this is always the argument, isn't it? First, I no longer study Tai Chi. Second, I find this argument--which I have seen applied to every art under the sun--vacuous. It can't be refuted; if you see a situation to which your art doesn't seem to apply, keep studying, for surely the answer is in there! This prevents one from truly looking at the art in a fair light. I don't see great responses to a boxer, for example--things like staying light on one's feet, or covering the head with the forearm for protection. I don't see great responses to a long-range low kicker, like a Thai round-kick. Obviously, while there are defenses against takedowns, there's no actual groundwork. I don't see much variety in the strikes--lots of locks, but fewer distinct types of strikes than is usual.

Tai Chi styles vary. Some are nearly Kung Fu, others are nearly Qi Gong. It's hard to generalize. But, this is my experience.

I have always stood up for the martial value of Tai Chi here. That hasn't changed. But supplement it? Sure. I'd give that advice for any art, and I think it's even more applicable here, given the length of time it takes to develop proficiency in Tai Chi and the other reasons I have mentioned.

The style of tai chi that i practice is not one of the five major family forms, technically it is a 3rd generation derivative of Chen. There is significant Bagua influence and subtle hints of Hsing-I

In other words, someone in your lineage agreed with my advice and did that work for you. Good deal. As I have indicated, I think they made the right decision to augment their Tai Chi with some (internal) Kung Fu.

 

[mantis]

i gotta step in here and say, whoa....



first off, arnisador: on what experience or who's word are you basing your advice?

when you say 'kung fu', should i assume you to mean a shaolin or 'external' style? please, i only wish to use the word external for clarity and not to get into the internal vs external debate. if i assume correctly, i'd have to say its a bad idea, and its proliference to 'toughen up' tai chi is the 'yang' excess to the proverbial new-ager non-violent 'yin' deficiency. not a good idea in my opinion. good tai chi, as taught by a knowledgeable and skilled teacher is a complete martial art. complete meaning, it contains punching, kicking, wrestling and chin na, as well as defenses against each.

have you considered that perhaps YOU just haven't developed the proper understanding of the martial components of tai chi, either by YOUR investment into training, or YOUR INSTRUCTOR'S level of proficiency?




East Winds, i respect your perspectives on this and other related discussions here on Martial Talk, but must ask you to clarify this statement. The style of tai chi that i practice is not one of the five major family forms, technically it is a 3rd generation derivative of Chen. There is significant Bagua influence and subtle hints of Hsing-I, with much of the hard-stepping and explicit "fa li" removed in place of a more fluid continuity stressing coiling "chan-si". This practice is far from being 'severely limited' as you may be suggesting a hybrid style may be, or anything aside from the Traditional Yang Family form.

pete.

so angry man!
haha
i really do not want to be in a debate with you right now, u look too angry
but if you have time read Adam Hsu's book (Sword Polisher's Record)
it is very interesting how it talks about the balance of the HARD and the SOFT (int vs. ext)
it kinda validates anisador's point..

 

[pete]

mantis, please do not misunderstand my intent... there is no anger here.

arnisador, thanks for pointing me towards post #12. bagua and hsing-i are good arts to cross-reference with tai chi, as they are based on somewhat similar principles. my teacher encourages learning bagua to improve one's tai chi. but the point is not that one art or the other is lacking, but that through another perspecitve one may develop that particular skill to a higher level in their primary art. This is how the influences of Bagua and Hsing-I are evident in our style, and to the extent those skills are understood, they will become more or less significant.

my opposition is to the allusion that tai chi (generically or not) as an art is lacking in any way, and needs training in another 'harder' style to 'toughen it up'. you don't have to look far to find a master who has infused shaolin technique to make it appear more martial, when all that is actually being done is replacing the tai chi with slow shaolin.

that one's changes things they do not fully understand, or have the patience, dedication or fortitude to seek the answers is not just a 'standard reply' from the 'traditionalist'... its a fact and a growing trend in all martial arts today as it is 'easier' to change things to make one's self look good, than to accept one's own short comings and work (erally work) toward improving them.

the beauty of tai chi as a martial art is that its applications are not so obvious and its qualities are so subtle. unlike a karate kata (i speak from experience as a kenpo black belt), the applications are not exposed in the forms, but exist within the opportunity. it is the potential for universal self defense which is practiced, not the explicit if-then-else logic (ie, if he punches here, i block and kick him there). there is just as much, if not more, that is NOT seen in the form, than is.

it does take a long time to develop proficiency in tai chi, but it takes a long time to develop proficiency (real proficiency) in any martial style. but length of time is a fool's measurement, for example, i've been playing the guitar for 30 years and still suck!

its practice, dedication, and a good teacher than matter more than time.

blessed holidays to you and yours...

pete

 

[East Winds]

Pete,

Good post. I agree with almost all that you say. If you want to learn a martial art quickly, don't take up Taiji. However if you really want to learn the full potential of a martial art and don't want it tomorrow, learn Taiji, but as you rightly say, with a knowledgeable teacher. (And they are not easy to find). Too many people think that when they have by learned the form, they are doing taiji. That is only the end of the beginning! Too many teachers only teach form and claim to be teaching taiji. I have expereince in both Chen style and Bagua but do not teach them. If I am doing Chen style then that is what I am doing. If I do Bagua then that is what I'm doing. If I do Yang, then that is what I am doing. I do not allow them to mix. I also practise Liu Ho Ba Fa which as you know is a synthesis of all the internal arts and a very beautiful form, however I am not proficient enough to use it in a conflict situation. Incidetally, do you practice Yiliquan??

Arnisador.
In the long form there are actually 14 punches, 7 kicks and 18 open palm strikes!! If you need more than that to cope with an agressor, boy, are you in real trouble!!!! However I agree with some of what you say, except for the suggestion that you want to involve some Kung Fu in your Taiji. Two completely opposite concepts I'm afraid. Won't work.

Good posts guys, keep them comiing.

Very best wishes for Christmas and New Year.

 

[arnisador]

Are those 14 distinct types of punches?

I think we're more in agreement than disagreement. Tai Chi makes for excellent self-defense--just try to get your hands on a Tai Chi expert--but it takes a while to develop it. I've always said that Tai Chi (like Aikido) makes excellent self-defense in the long run, some of the very best, but is not nearly as good in the short run.

 

[arnisador]

but if you have time read Adam Hsu's book (Sword Polisher's Record)

I was at the bookstore tonight buying Christmas presents. I needed another $20 worth of stuff for a certain discount to kick in. Based on your recommendation, I bought this (and a pack of trading cards for my son) to get that extra $20. But it'll be a while before I get a chance to read it!

 

[7starmantis]

However I agree with some of what you say, except for the suggestion that you want to involve some Kung Fu in your Taiji. Two completely opposite concepts I'm afraid. Won't work.

Thats the first time I've heard that. I actually use alot of Tai Chi principles in my kung fu....the serious fighting principles are so inline with each other there is really no difference at all. In fact, Tai Chi is Kung Fu. I would be interested in hearing your reasoning for this statement.

I was at the bookstore tonight buying Christmas presents. I needed another $20 worth of stuff for a certain discount to kick in. Based on your recommendation, I bought this (and a pack of trading cards for my son) to get that extra $20. But it'll be a while before I get a chance to read it!

I have recommended it many time, its one of my favorites. Great book breaking down what is and is not kung fu and explaining why we do certain things in kung fu....great book!

7sm

 

[mantis]

Thats the first time I've heard that. I actually use alot of Tai Chi principles in my kung fu....the serious fighting principles are so inline with each other there is really no difference at all. In fact, Tai Chi is Kung Fu. I would be interested in hearing your reasoning for this statement.

I have recommended it many time, its one of my favorites. Great book breaking down what is and is not kung fu and explaining why we do certain things in kung fu....great book!

7sm

yes
u have recommended that many times
but i guess you dont have the magic that i have
jk
what i liked in that book, other than elaborating on kung fu, is the talk about balancing things, the soft and the hard, yin and yang.. and that's what i wanted Pete to read coz he wasnt happy by someone recommending tai chi should go with kung fu

 

[arnisador]

In fact, Tai Chi is Kung Fu.

I go back and forth on this...it certainly started as that, but seems to have developed its own identity. I could probably be convinced either way on this point!

 

[mantis]

I go back and forth on this...it certainly started as that, but seems to have developed its own identity. I could probably be convinced either way on this point!

it is obvious that you guys look at kung fu as a different art than tai chi
something like judo and karate in the japanese case (example)
well, it is and it's not.
kung fu without the tai chi part is missing half of it
it becomes rigid rigid fighting art with no real use of energy
and becomes less healthy too
when you talk about kung fu you should assume there's some kind of "chi" in it.
even if tai chi develops on its own it still should be a part of kung fu or a part of your kung fu training.
you will understand more what i am saying when you read the first one or two chapters of that book

 

[East Winds]

7starmantis,

Sorry. I was very loose with my grammar and should have known better. Of course the literal transalation of Kung fu is "good at", "skillful in execution" and in this resepct of course Taiji is loaded with Kung fu. However, my fault was in using Kung Fu in its general martial arts aspect where many of the hard arts (Shaolin, Lau Gar etc. etc.) are often referred to as Chinese Kung Fu. What I meant to imply, was that there is no place in Taiji for hard or external aspects. Thanks for pulling me up on that point.

Very best wishes

 

[7starmantis]

7starmantis,

Sorry. I was very loose with my grammar and should have known better. Of course the literal transalation of Kung fu is "good at", "skillful in execution" and in this resepct of course Taiji is loaded with Kung fu. However, my fault was in using Kung Fu in its general martial arts aspect where many of the hard arts (Shaolin, Lau Gar etc. etc.) are often referred to as Chinese Kung Fu. What I meant to imply, was that there is no place in Taiji for hard or external aspects. Thanks for pulling me up on that point.

Very best wishes

Actually I wasn't using "kung fu" in its literal sense, but in the sense of CMA hard or not. Any true kung fu system should contain both hard and soft. I disagree that there is no place in TC for those "hard" or "external" aspects. I think that notion is from a misunderstanding of "hard" or "External" concepts. So called "internal" styles do not lack "external" or "hard" aspects at all. In fact, in tai chi alone one can see both hard and soft concepts in one technique. Many of the throws for example require you to "fill up" your arms with yi, pong, or "chi" whichever term you want to use. This is required to move the center of the other person (even if it is only 4oz) while the rest of your body stays soft. This disconnect is the important part. The idea of "soft" and "hard"; "internal" or "external" is misunderstood. Since we're on the subject of Adam Hsu's book we can use his own words to explain it:

"I believe that all these internal/external theories are in fact quite incorrect. The distinction is really very simple to understand. Internal and external do not represent different styles or kinds of kung fu, but rather different levels."
"Therefore in real kung fu training, regardless of style, one must begin from the external and patiently and systematically progress inward to the internal."

Tai Chi requires the exertion of energy and force (external) to learn and progresses towards internal where you learn to use much less force or energy....same as kung fu. As far as hard vs soft, that is another mis-understood distinction. Kung Fu styles (including Tai Chi) are not either hard or soft, but both at the same time. Its the disconnect I spoke of earlier, allowing part of your body to be "hard" while the rest of your body "soft". Being able to switch immediately from hard to soft back to back. Think of a tai chi throw....if your entire body is completely void of energy or "hardness" you will simply collapse into the person you are attempting to throw. You must use both soft and hard concepts in order to actually throw the person.

Ok, off my soap box, all that to say, hard and soft must exist together at some point to have complete techniques. So, I honestly believe that kung fu and tai chi are completely compatable and should exist together. The problem comes from what Adam Hsu calls "incomplete styles that never go beyond the external". These styles have lost the internal aspects and thus I could see where they would not appear to be in line with tai chi. However with an honest and skilled instructor one should learn these external skills and move "step by step from the outside, through the door, climb upstairs to the top level, and then reach the internal-the highest level of kung fu".

7sm

 

[arnisador]

Pretty good entry here on the meaning of the term 'Kung Fu':
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kung_fu_(term)

 

[vincehardy3]

This is another good topic. Taijiquan’s literal translation means “Grand Terminus Boxing”. Whenever you see “quan” at the end it indicates that it is a boxing system. Taiji is a very deadly system and every move has martial application—it is a fighting system first and health exercise last. Also, Baguaquan, Taijiquan, and Xingyiquan incorporate the same postures, but it is the principles that make them different and similar at the same time. If there are any of you that study all three systems I would suggest looking for the postures that exist in all three (some are indigenous to the individual systems) and explore their application in order to understand their similarities and differences. These are just some late thoughts and ramblings.

Another two cents,


Vincent
(Yiliquan Association)

 

[East Winds]

7starmantis

Where to start??? (Your quote) "Tai Chi requires the exertion of energy and force...." Sorry, no it dosen't. I think you confuse energy and force. They are not the same. "Throwing" or more properly uprooting, requires no force whatever. If you think it does, you have misunderstood the application or the use of the appropriate energy. I agree that most people when they start Taiji have no concept of internal and yes they use force. If they continue to use force then the fault lies with the Instructor. Unfortunately we have too many people "teaching Tai Cheese" and some even claiming lineage in 16 different disciplines, any one of which would take a lifetime to master!!!! I have not read Adam Hsu's book, nor do I think I will.
We will clearly not agree on our interpretations of energy/force/strength, however I respect your views.

Very best wishes

 

[7starmantis]

7starmantis

Where to start??? (Your quote) "Tai Chi requires the exertion of energy and force...." Sorry, no it dosen't. I think you confuse energy and force. They are not the same. "Throwing" or more properly uprooting, requires no force whatever. If you think it does, you have misunderstood the application or the use of the appropriate energy. I agree that most people when they start Taiji have no concept of internal and yes they use force. If they continue to use force then the fault lies with the Instructor. Unfortunately we have too many people "teaching Tai Cheese" and some even claiming lineage in 16 different disciplines, any one of which would take a lifetime to master!!!! I have not read Adam Hsu's book, nor do I think I will.
We will clearly not agree on our interpretations of energy/force/strength, however I respect your views.

Very best wishes

Ok, think on a very elementary and physical level here. Must you exert energy in order to lift you knee or "part the horses main"? Do your muscles require energy to move your limbs? The answer is yes. this is the energy I'm talking about. As your skill grows, the amount of energy you need to use will diminish.

The difference between energy and force are understood. What I'm saying is the need for both exists. Its simply not true that uprooting doesn't involve either. I understnad the use of "energy" here but energy must be used, thus the exertion of it, thus not void of energy or force. See, internal doesn't mean devoid of energy as your implying, quite the opposite actually. I'm not talking about pure muscular force, but it must exist. Take an uprooting technique...imagin that technique if every part of your body is devoid of any force or energy....basically you lying on the floor....would that technique still work? No. The idea is the correct amount of force and energy in the right places at the right time, not the abandonment of it all. I would advise reading books you think contradict your own belief, its really a great exercise in openmindedness.

OK, lets get back to the original issue, Kung Fu in Tai Chi. What is so different in kung fu that you see shouldn't be involved in tai chi? It may be a misunderstanding of kung fu principles that causes this thinking. I would love to get specific on what you think is so different between the two, you can choose any style of kung fu even mantis if you like...wont offend me at all

7sm

 

[7starmantis]

I go back and forth on this...it certainly started as that, but seems to have developed its own identity. I could probably be convinced either way on this point!

What identity is this? What makes Tai Chi different from Kung Fu in its identity now?

7sm

 

[arnisador]

That, unlike most styles of Kung Fu, it's widely practiced by those seeking health benefits principally and martial applications secondarily (both here and in China); that it's so commonly a second art for Kung Fu students; that it's so much softer than so many other styles.

 

[pete]

east winds, as someone with an active tai chi practice under the guidance of a knowlegeable master, i whole-heartedly agree. you asked a few posts up if i practice yiliquan... no, i am not even familiar with that term.

i practice wuji tai chi, which i described a few posts up. since my teacher is about 120 miles from me, i see him only once or twice per month for group practice and private lesson. in between, i teach my students and practice push hands and applications with training partners who practice other forms, and of course practice my solo forms and qigong each morning. over the past year, i've also been taking bagua classes a little closer to home, which as i've said before, shares similar principles and adds a different perspective that can be used as a cross reference with tai chi.

i think what we have here is a few fellas who may have seen some tai chi demos or taken some classes, but have not immersed themselves into the art to the degree necessary to appreciate the fundamental differences. from what i can tell, there is a confusion of what may be soft and internal components with commonalities with the 'internal arts'. yes, shaolin styles have hard and soft... and yes, they have internal and external components. but they are based on different principles and fighting strategies from tai chi and, for that matter, bagua. for an extreme, take iron wire or the okinawan sanchin. both are tools to develop 'internals', but they are not tai chi.

from the quote of mr hsu's book, i can see where he is alluding to this as internal and external components, and not suggesting blending the principles of two or more non-complimentary styles. no, i have not read it in full, and frankly have a long list of reading materials to get through before seriously thinking about this one. but, hey... thanks for the tip.

being christmas, may i suggest a short article in the current issue of tai chi magazine. it is based on giving and receiving. the author does a good job of describing the process by which one cannot give without another receiving and vice versa, thereby being complimentary opposites. taken physically, it goes to show how internally, one must have both giving and receiving throughout one's posture at all times... and that harmony provides the strength in structure without the use of muscular force.

back to the figgy pudding, peace to all and to all a good night...

pete

 

[7starmantis]

That, unlike most styles of Kung Fu, it's widely practiced by those seeking health benefits principally and martial applications secondarily (both here and in China); that it's so commonly a second art for Kung Fu students; that it's so much softer than so many other styles.

The reason it is studied doesn't really have much to do with it but that reason can also be said of kung fu in the past. It does seem to attract those not interested in martial applications, but there are still those who practice it for its core fighting. It is commonly a second art but usually not practiced or developed to the level it should be to even understand the principles behind it. I completely disagree with your last statement, er...well...I think you are using the word "softer" inappropriately in this instance. Its "soft" aspects are very intertwined with true kung fu in its upper levels or higher skills....if not I would be concerned with the quality of kung fu being taught.

i think what we have here is a few fellas who may have seen some tai chi demos or taken some classes, but have not immersed themselves into the art to the degree necessary to appreciate the fundamental differences. from what i can tell, there is a confusion of what may be soft and internal components with commonalities with the 'internal arts'. yes, shaolin styles have hard and soft... and yes, they have internal and external components. but they are based on different principles and fighting strategies from tai chi and, for that matter, bagua. for an extreme, take iron wire or the okinawan sanchin. both are tools to develop 'internals', but they are not tai chi.

Pete, be very carefull about accepting your knee jerk assumptions of poeple as truth. I appreciated the fundamental differences until I learned enough of both to see the line or seperation (differences) begin to disapear. I have emersed myself in CMA since I was a kid (I'm not a kid anymore ) I am in no way a master or understand it all, I dont really believe anyone has, but from my own experience, my sifu's teachings, and his sifu's teachings, I see the "differences" are fewer and farther between than most think.

I would love to see you outline what different principles 7 Star Mantis is based on in contrast to Tai Chi (Any style). Lest make that broader, any style of kung fu in contrast with tai chi. The problem is people taking these "styles" as confinements and boxing in a system that is principle driven and trying to make it technique driven. Please share the different fighting strategies that exist between the two as well. Those not "emersed" enough in any CMA style often see these fighting strategies and core principels as firmly absolute, but upon further skill we can see them begin to loosen and mix together.

I'm very interested to see the different principles and fighting strategies you are speaking of. This is a great discussion, lets keep it going :asian:

7sm