Tai Chi and Self Defense

[East Winds]

7starmantis,

You have neither upset nor offended me. Exasperated might be closer!!

I took issue with one of your earlier comments and I quoter "I disagree that there is no place in TC for those "hard" or "extrnal" aspects". I tried to point out to you that Yang Cheng-fu himself took issue with that. Unforunately you read my posts but you do not hear what I say. I explained my training programme which you thought were goals. Let me try and make it crystal clear for you. Of the 5 levels of Taiji attainment, on the 1st level my students learn the long form, they learn posures as applications, they learn push hands, they learn weapons. Underpinning all this training is Zhan Zhuang and Yi Chuan. Overarching the whole process is strict adherence to Yang Chen-fu's principles. When students have assimiliated all of this in their training they will have reached the start of level 2. Now go back and read what I said about level 2, 3, and 4 training. Don't bother about level 5, few people ever attain that level. Unfortunatley few teachers even reach the end of level 1!!!!

You accuse me of not expalining why I think there are differences between "external" and "internal" . Please read again the last sentence of my last post. A clear example of reading but not hearing what I say.

And now if it helps (or hinders) I think Mantis is "external" in aspect. Now does calling your art "external" make it any less effective? Would calling it "internal" make it any better. I think not. In any case who cares what its called. Certainly not me. We are in an unfortunate circular argument here where the outcome will not be resolved.

I am always happy to to offer this board, discussion on the principles of training Traditional Yang Family Taijiquan. You are of course at liberty to accept or reject them. If you wish to discuss the development and utilisation of Jing energies in relation to Taijiquan training then I am more than happy to oblige.

Very best wishes

 

[East Winds]

I'm sorry I made a typing error in one of my sentences. What I meant to say at the end of paragraph 2 was "Unfortunatey, many teachers never even reach the end of level 1" That has quite a different connotation.
Sorry
And very best wishes

 

[7starmantis]

what does 'get in better shape' mean? and what does it have to do with developing internals?

Ok, I'll try to be clearer if I can. When a person starts an exercise routine whatever it may be there is a time of adjustment. In Tai Chi the movements you learn are not neccessarily naturally occuring movements, and you must train your body to move in that way. You must make the movements become part of your muscle memory. That is the physical part, the "getting in shape" if you will. Without these movements being part of your muscle memory you cannot perform effectively. Thats the external part of tai chi, however small it may be, a person can only start where their body is at. Thats why we do stretching and balance work in Tai Chi, you must get your body to where it can actually perform the physical movements before your body will really start to perform the "internal" aspects. You asked about developing internals, your body must be in good physical shape to effectively develop these internals. Look at any writing on the subject of chi cultivation and you will see the common prerequesit to good chi flow is good health. If you can't physically move your body in the "split the horses main" posture, how can you expect to perform the internal aspects of the posture?

see, this is where i understand your point precisely. sure there is a physical construct to learn, but again i disagree with your sequencing of starting on a physical level... that seems 'external' to me.

from day one, the student must begin to understand the internal qualities and how to use them in simple postures, in motion and stationary. learning a bunch of forms on the physical level is not tai chi, not even for a beginner.

Ok, here I can see the problem. You misunderstand my point and I dont mean to insult you its simply that I haven't made it clear enough what I'm talking about. Let me try again. Your looking at my point from a teaching perspectve, while I'm writing from a student perspective. See, I'm saying that as a student practicing Tai Chi your body can only do things in a certain order. First and foremost in that sequence is the physical "conditioning" if you will. I'm not saying the teaching should ignore insternal aspects until later, but that the student will only be able to perform these internal aspects after their body has properly learned the actual movements and become "conditioned" enough to perform the internal aspects. They should be taught, but I think we can agree that true understanding of them and thus true application of them comes much later with increased skill and body conditioning. This conditioning may be simply becoming in tune with your energy enough to perform the internal aspects, but the body must be taught as well as the mind or "spirit". Ignoring the body is but an incomplete learning of tai chi or any martial arts for that matter. As far as teaching goes, I'll use an example from kung fu. We use lots of circles and circular movements. One of our techniques is called Ou Lou Choi which is basically...grab grab punch. Its a circular movement where the first hand grabs the opponents arm around the wrist, the second hand garbs their arm further up and then the first hand releases and punches straight. There is much more to it, many intricacies and internals if you will, but thats the general movement. Its a circular movement of the hands. When we teach it first, the circle is big and wide so students can see what they are actually doing. We initially begin teaching that the circles will tighten and teach the internal aspects, but the movements are big. As the movement becomes natural to the student and they begin to understand the internals aspects associated with the technique they can begin to "tighten" the circle or make it smaller. A greatly skilled player could possibly make the circle as small as the diameter of a toothpick, but teaching it at that level to a beginner would only hinder their understanding of the technique. Thats where I'm coming from with the teaching model. The truth is our methods shouldn't matter so much as long as we reach the same end result. I agree that the methods of training differ from tai chi to many other CMA systems, but the principles and fighting strategies do not. Also, many of the methods of training exist in other systems.

no, nobody would benefit from that discussion. its not about lectures and chinese words, its about sharing an experience, developing a feeling.

personally i refrain from chinese terminology as much as possible, since i do not speak the language and neither do my students. in fact, my teacher who is from shanghai has an excellent command of the english language and uses it rather than the chinese terms.

Heh, I agree with you, I use very little chinese termonology, but my point wasn't the semantics of the discussion but that the discussion would be over the head of the new student and wouldn't yield much learning for them. People learn from a state of "not knowing" or lack of knowledge or skill towards a state of "knowing" or great knowledge and skill. Thats all I'm saying. Its amazing to look back and remember what I "knew" about kung fu 5, 10, 20 years ago and what I "know" now.

so how is it that i misunderstood your point? what are the 'basics' and how does the 'internals' come later? how can the internals be separated from the basics and still be tai chi? how much later, in your experience, do they come?

Certainly we agree that with gained knoweldge and skill you begin to understand and be able to perform the internals better, yes? A new person could learn a posture and go home, practice it, and come back in a week and do the posture perfect, but would they truly understand and be able to apply the intricacies and internal aspects of the posture? Certainly not, that takes time and practice, as well as experience applying the posture. Thats what I mean about the internals coming later, it takes longer to build them.

again, i do not question your kung fu, nor do i question the internal components within your art. but, they are obviously different from tai chi. the methodology you describe is characteristic of training in 'external' or shaolin arts.

I didn't think you questioned my kung fu or my art. I just would like someone to stop making the claim they are "obviously different from tai chi" without explaining how they are different. From everything I read here, I see no differences. I think its frustrating that everyone holds these hard seperations of "internal" and "external" systems while true kung fu contains both. Having all the internal power in the world is worth nothing if your body can't handle applying it. Internal and external are simply descriptions people have made to try and label kung fu but years past these seperations did not exist.

i believe the quote 'there are no secrets' is attributed to cheng man ching. i've heard the rest of the statement to be 'but, if there was one, it would be that the hands don't move'.

Yes, but there is no secret, so thats irrelevent
That is actually a great book about tai chi (There Are No Secrets), and quite fitting for kung fu as well. Its recommended reading for all of our advanced Tai Chi and Kung Fu students.

7sm

 

[7starmantis]

7starmantis,

You have neither upset nor offended me. Exasperated might be closer!!

Good, I'm glad I have not offended, I am sorry I have exasperated though. I think if you would see that we actually agree quite a bit you wouldn't get so exasperated. :asian:

I took issue with one of your earlier comments and I quoter "I disagree that there is no place in TC for those "hard" or "extrnal" aspects". I tried to point out to you that Yang Cheng-fu himself took issue with that. Unforunately you read my posts but you do not hear what I say.

No I heard you, I just dont agree. Read my above post about the training of the body in Tai Chi. I just simply take that principle and his statements to mean something a bit different. To be completely devoid of "hard" or "external" is to be unconscious. How can you "close the door" on your opponent without having the physical conditioning to do damage? I think we disagree on the term "hard" as well. In my opinion the term hard could be used to describe pung as well. I think "hard" outside of CMA is muscle tension, but inside CMA the term would describe something much different. I agree that muscle tension and force is not to be used in Tai Chi, but I also believe it is not to be used in Kung Fu.

I explained my training programme which you thought were goals. Let me try and make it crystal clear for you. Of the 5 levels of Taiji attainment, on the 1st level my students learn the long form, they learn posures as applications, they learn push hands, they learn weapons. Underpinning all this training is Zhan Zhuang and Yi Chuan. Overarching the whole process is strict adherence to Yang Chen-fu's principles. When students have assimiliated all of this in their training they will have reached the start of level 2. Now go back and read what I said about level 2, 3, and 4 training. Don't bother about level 5, few people ever attain that level. Unfortunatley few teachers even reach the end of level 1!!!!

This is precisely my point. You must start at "levels" and go "upward". I got torn into because I proposed this type of training, when in reality we agree here. Your level 1 would be what I consider "external" training. I agree that few teachers reach past beginner levels, but dont let that overshadow your willingness to "hear out" others, you may just miss something beneficial by doing so.

You accuse me of not expalining why I think there are differences between "external" and "internal" . Please read again the last sentence of my last post. A clear example of reading but not hearing what I say.

No, I "accused" you of not explaining why you think there are differences between tai chi and other kung fu "styles". You simply offer that tai chi is internal while these "others" are external. Why do you believe that? Why is tai chi internal while mantis is external?

And now if it helps (or hinders) I think Mantis is "external" in aspect. Now does calling your art "external" make it any less effective? Would calling it "internal" make it any better. I think not. In any case who cares what its called. Certainly not me. We are in an unfortunate circular argument here where the outcome will not be resolved.

Ok, we are getting somewhere, why exactly do you feel mantis is "external"? I dont think labels affect at all anythings effectiveness, but it does affect our understanding of things. I dont think we are in an unresolvable argument, I think we are actually getting somewhere. I would just like to see you layout why you feel tai chi and kung fu are different. You have said because of "internal" vs" external" but I dont see support of those labels. I would disagree that mantis is "external" so we need to define our termonology in order to progress. What makes something internal vs external to you? We work heavily on developing internal skills and aspects. Specifically what principles or fighting strategies are different from tai chi to other kung fu systems?


7sm

 

[pete]

7sm, you just continue to confuse disagreement with misunderstanding. i have nothing more to contribute to this discussion. my final advise to you is to reread the posts in this thread, note all the specifics that have been provided by myself and other posters, and try not to rationalize it all as nobody understands you. our views differ, accept it.

your description of the grab, grab, pull is further evidence of your style's 'external' perspective. again, i do not deny the internal components within your art, just as i would not deny the internal components of iron wire within hung gar or san-chin within okinowan karate... but simply presenting your technique from what your hands are doing, even if moving in circular manner, it remains different from how a tai chi student would learn a self defense application. you mention nothing of listening, following, adhering, nor leading into emptiness, control of center, and disrupting balance. grab-grab-punch... even if there are a multitude of things of the internal nature going on and developed as one improves technique, the emphasis is on the 'external' ... the hands, the grabs, the punch.

please accept this a difference, not an indictment. you just may want to reexamine your "frustrating that everyone holds these hard seperations of "internal" and "external" systems". find out why 4 out of 5 dentists agree.

best wishes on your oddessey...

pete

 

[arnisador]

What's 'iron wire'?

 

[East Winds]

7starmantis,

I agree with Pete and I withdraw from this discussion. How can we talk about "external" and "internal" , "hard" and "soft" when you consider (your quote) "In my opinion the term hard could be used to describe pung as well". I am sorry, if this is what you believe about the most basic of the Taiji energies then there is nothing more to be said.

I also note that the book "There are no secrets" is recommended reading for your Taiji students. I assume from that then, that you practice Cheng Man-ching style. Nothing wrong with that, except it is not Yang style!!!

Very best wishes with your further researches

 

[7starmantis]

7sm, you just continue to confuse disagreement with misunderstanding. i have nothing more to contribute to this discussion. my final advise to you is to reread the posts in this thread, note all the specifics that have been provided by myself and other posters, and try not to rationalize it all as nobody understands you. our views differ, accept it.

I accept it, your mind has allready been made up about me so you refuse to listen at all. I didn't say no one understood me, but that you misunderstood the point I was making. I even claimed responsibility for that misunderstanding by saying I didn't make myself clear. You have listed no specifics answering the question I asked directly from your own post:

Specifically what principles or fighting strategies are different from tai chi to other kung fu systems?

If you are unable to answer that question your very smart to withdraw from the discussion. As of yet no one has offered anything towards that question, especially not specifics. You can spin this discussion anyway you want to, but the sad thing is your unwilling to discuss your training with someone else (one who even studies your own system). In my opinion that is a sad thing, we should be more than willing to put our biases aside, remove our assumptions and have serious discussion.

your description of the grab, grab, pull is further evidence of your style's 'external' perspective. again, i do not deny the internal components within your art, just as i would not deny the internal components of iron wire within hung gar or san-chin within okinowan karate... but simply presenting your technique from what your hands are doing, even if moving in circular manner, it remains different from how a tai chi student would learn a self defense application. you mention nothing of listening, following, adhering, nor leading into emptiness, control of center, and disrupting balance. grab-grab-punch... even if there are a multitude of things of the internal nature going on and developed as one improves technique, the emphasis is on the 'external' ... the hands, the grabs, the punch.

If semantical arguements are all the evidence you can provide, your decision to remove yourself from the discussion is again, a smart one. First, lets not misquote each other, I described a "grab grab punch" not "grab grab pull" and I only offered it in those terms because of your own addmission of not understanding the chinese terms. I mentioned nothing of listening or these other concepts because of space constraints. I did say there were a multitude of internal and intricacies to that one technique. The fact that you are trying to fault me for simply not explaining something to its fullest is only proof of your unwillingness to coperate in a serious discussion. You dont have enough data to determine what my "emphasis" is on, this again is simply showing your willingness to accept your own biased assumptions of someone over actually discussing or asking questions. You should seriously consider your narrow point of view, and be willing to discuss things with those you disagree with. You claim skill and understanding of tai chi and yet are unable to even discuss or enlighten me about your knoweldge. Stop with the ambiguous semantical arguements and lay down some specifics, like the differing principles or fighting strategies you claimed. The emphasis is of 'listening" finding their center, disrupting their center, controling their center, emtying their attack, yielding, "sticking" softening, etc. You are just too blinded by your assumptions to wait and see if that emphasis exists.

You say things like" thats different from the way a tai chi student would learn" yet offer no specifics of exactly how a tai chi student would learn. Your argument hinges on everyone accepting your own "say so" as truth, you offer no evidence or proof. Frustrating how people especially in CMA choose to either withhold their knowledge or understanding because they dont feel others are "worth" sharing it...or they hide behind that guise, one or the other.

please accept this a difference, not an indictment. you just may want to reexamine your "frustrating that everyone holds these hard seperations of "internal" and "external" systems". find out why 4 out of 5 dentists agree.

I've accepted and stated it as a difference from the beginning, I simply wanted to discuss the difference. Maybe you should "pass the sour grapes" and check and see exactly what those 4 out of 5 dentists are agreeing to. 4 out of 5 improperly trained dentist can all agree but that doesn't make them correct or even dentist really.

I dont mean to sound harsh, but I'm disapointed in your willingness to turn your back on an opportunity to discuss your training and teach someone else about what you do. Thats the reason for this whole section, I wish we could see more honest debate going on here instead of these types of interactions. These are perfect examples of one makig an assumption about a person from the beginning and refusing to listen to anything past that. I have no need to change your mind about kung fu, but its a shame your going to miss the knowledge about those internal aspects of the mantis system.

Good luck in your training,
7sm

 

[7starmantis]

7starmantis,

I agree with Pete and I withdraw from this discussion. How can we talk about "external" and "internal" , "hard" and "soft" when you consider (your quote) "In my opinion the term hard could be used to describe pung as well". I am sorry, if this is what you believe about the most basic of the Taiji energies then there is nothing more to be said.

My above post also applies here. This is an example of you not likign the term "hard" and so your just applying your own biases to what I said. We could discuss by defining what we mean by the term "hard" and then following through on claims of differing principles and fighting strategies. Your willingness to abandond discussion because of semantical biases is sad. You should be ashamed of yourself, you have a great opportunity to share your understanding and knowledge with someone while gaining from their own knowledge and understanding. Again, you just made up your mind about before discussion began and have been unwilling to listen past that.
Your unwillingness to continue discussion becasue of one word I used to describe a type of energy...is...well...disappointing.

I also note that the book "There are no secrets" is recommended reading for your Taiji students. I assume from that then, that you practice Cheng Man-ching style. Nothing wrong with that, except it is not Yang style!!!

Haha, wow....just wow. Another huge assumption made and accepted as fact by you. We do not practice Cheng Man-ching style. However we are not so narrow minded as to refuse good material based on it not being the same "style" we practice. That book has great information about understanding tai chi and chi energy...its sad that you write thigns like that off simply because of your personal bias against a character in the book. Your so blindly trying to prove me to be some unknowledgeable person you have showed your own bias. We do practice Yang style, but are you only referig to Yang style Tai Chi when you use the term "Tai Chi"?

Again, I'm very disapointed in those here in the MartialTalk CMA community who claim such great knowledge and understanding but are too caught up in blinding personal biases or ego that they refuse to have serious and honest discussions. We should really take these opportunities to share.

7sm

 

[7starmantis]

I guess tthread has run its course. Thanks to all who participated. I think we have shown that many people study Tai Chi for its martial applications. I think its one of the best for that. I think we have also shown that its principles and fighting strategies are so intertwined in CMA that its almost indistinguishable from other kung fu systems, while there are some that place emphasis on less "internal" principles.

Good thread.

7sm

 

[vincehardy3]

Arnisador,

"Iron Wire" is an iron body technique that is utilized by the Hung Gar practitioners. The training that a practitioner endures allows them to take the "hard blows" from an opponent. Other systems utilize "iron body" techniques as well--for example there is the "golden bell", "shield", "iron skin", etc. There is nothing mystical about it. With some systems the training is strictly brutal, and with others they utilize Qigong/ki within their regiment.


Vincent
(Yiliquan Association)

 

[arnisador]

Ah, OK! Thanks.

 

[lhommedieu]

For what it's worth: I saw a fight in Flushing's Chinatown area last year wherein after some words one guy (the angry screaming one) rushed the other (the quiet one) and received a perfect shoulder stroke for his trouble and got sent back flying and slammed into a stone wall (actually a railroad bridge wall) with his back and head. He kept screaming at the Tai Qi fighter but didn't move an inch closer. After a while the Tai Qi fighter just shrugged his shoulders and walked away.

Nice.

Best,

Steve Lamade

 

[Makalakumu]

I'm chiming in late, however, I've been lurking for quite a while on this thread. I think that Tai Chi is a great art for self defense...if one actually practices the applications against another person. Tai Chi is like any other art. There are ways of safely practicing certain applications with some intent to actually put someone down...and unless one does this, its going to be hard to get a real feel on how to use tai chi to defend oneself.

I've practiced Yang Style as taught by TT Liang for six years on and off. One of the ways that this style teaches the self defense applications of Tai Chi is through two person dance. See this thread on the subject. Many arts of lost this practice or they confuse it with push hands and have become ineffective for self defense...according to TT Liang.

 

[7starmantis]

Good post, I agree. Without the training of applications and working the techniques and principles against an uncooperative opponent, one will not truly gain the skill to apply what they are learning. I also believe that the complete abandonment of any physical conditioning or training is going to lead to the inability to perform the techniques and principles effectively. You could call this "external" but I believe very strongly it is needed even in tai chi. Thats why they stretch, perform the form so much and spend so much time practicing. Without that "external" or physical component its only a small portion of actual tai chi. The ability to use internal aspects is not negated by the ability to perform physical aspects.

Just my own experiences and understandings,
7sm

 

[Xue Sheng]

I know I am very late to this discussion, but Tai Chi is a martial art. There are direct applications to the forms and in all styles, some more than others, there is Qin Na.

As for the 13 postures, per my teacher, if you understand the 13 postures, you understand tai chi martial arts. However unlike Xingyi, tai chi is mainly for self defense, Xingyi can be used for attack.

However it is very hard to find a Tai Chi teacher today that knows anything about the martial side of Tai Chi.

I recently read an article from a Chen practitioner in China that said he believes of all of the people in the world, including China, that approximately 5% know anything about tai chi martial arts

 

[TheBattousai]

I know I am very late to this discussion, but Tai Chi is a martial art. There are direct applications to the forms and in all styles, some more than others, there is Qin Na.

As for the 13 postures, per my teacher, if you understand the 13 postures, you understand tai chi martial arts. However unlike Xingyi, tai chi is mainly for self defense, Xingyi can be used for attack.

However it is very hard to find a Tai Chi teacher today that knows anything about the martial side of Tai Chi.

I recently read an article from a Chen practitioner in China that said he believes of all of the people in the world, including China, that approximately 5% know anything about tai chi martial arts

I don't totally agree with the Hsing I part, but I have heard simular things about the whole 5% know about Tai Chi forms being used for self defense or martial arts. I've heard that its the worst problem in china. It almost seems that you need someone that trains in other martial arts to make the connection.

 

[Xue Sheng]

It is difficult if you want to study Tai Chi with the martial arts still intact. And if you start applying other martial arts to it, particularly those that are not internal, you change it to something other than Tai Chi. I use to train Jujitsu and Teakwondo and I have trained tai chi with friends that do Aikido and the principals are not all that similar to Tai Chi.

I have had 3 different Tai Chi Teachers, all Chinese. The first knew only knew form, the second I was only able to train with briefly but he did know the applications, the third I am currently with, although his lineage and is very good (his teacher learned from Yang Cheng-fu), and his skill is very high, he is now only teaching basic stuff. He now focuses on beginner and intermediate students and has left his advance students to help train the beginner and intermediate, we don't mind, but it has been this way now for 2 years.

Let's face it in America it is more popular to teach Tai Chi as moving meditation without the martial arts. And apparently that thinking is now global.

I briefly taught Tai Chi and I lost students when I said it was originally was, and still is a martial art. I will never forget one of my students looking at me and saying "WELL!!..I didn't want karate" leaving never returning.

I am currently looking for another teacher, and I think I have found one, but it will be a four-hour drive.

As for Xingyi, It is also a defensive art, but from my understanding it is one of the few (Chinese) martial arts that were originally trained with attack in mind. I was once able to talk briefly with Yang Jwing Ming about it and his statement was, it was made for war.

Now that I have typed way to much

 

[Tony]

One of the guys in my class was showing us what he had learnt from his 4 months in China, some very coll weapons forms and he was showing me some Tai Chi self defence applications and i was so impressed. People often see Tai Chi as a slow moving form of meditation dismiss it. I ahve a friend who studies Taekwondo and cannot grasp that Tai Chi is infact a Martial Art but people in the west know it better as a form of exercise!
I woudl love to syudy Tai Chi, not only to improve my health, but as well as aiding my kung fu training!

 

[Xue Sheng]

With luck, I will be training in China this summer.

I use to train with Aikido people, Kung Fu people, Karate people and once a Tae kwondo guy. The only ones that seemed to be able to get the idea that it was a martial art were the Aikido people and the Chinese Kung Fu people. By the way, that type of training helps improve martial tai chi immensely. Either do it right or get thrown to the ground or punched/kicked in the head.

And you are right most people only see the slow moving forms of Yang Style, But there are fast forms in Yang style that very few Tai Chi people ever see or even know exist, both empty hand and weapon.

This view of Tai Chi being only exercise can be found in China too. I know a Tai Chi teacher in Beijing that only teaches in the park and he has said none of his students want to know martial arts; they just want to know the exercise.

However if you ever get a chance to watch a Tai Chi person from the Chen family do Tai Chi (Cheng Zhengli for example) the martial arts and power become more obvious.