Wing Chun vs. Aikido

[blindsage]

Tai chi is not a fighting art, and people who say that it is are just wannabes. Saying that tai chi is a fighting art at its core is worse than a chunner saying wing chun is too deadly for the cage. Its a cardinal sin

Tai chi is not a fighting art. In some situations the movements can be adapted to form a weak fighting art. I can't get into the videos you've posted but I've probably seen them before (some guy floating around doing big movements to block a small attack)

Actually no. It might helped to actually watch the videos first before claiming knowledge.

Like I said, it doesn't make tai chi a bad art (I've done it myself fairly extensively), but what I am trying to say is don't make your art try and fit a criteria just for the sake of it

I come from a Kyokushin Karate background and take seriously the effectiveness of technique. The fact is Tai Chi is a fighting art and those who say it isn't don't know much about Tai Chi. If all you've learned is some Yang style slow movements without the proper teaching of applications, then no you wouldn't know this. It's like learning a Wing Chun form or a Karate kata with no explanation whatsoever of the application or the principles behind it. Your statements undermine your claims of 'extensive' practice. You can call it a cardinal sin or you can take your own advice.

I think you need to look deeper into the history of your arts - you might be surprised

 

[geezer]

...It's like learning a Wing Chun form or a Karate kata with no explanation whatsoever of the application or the principles behind it...

Interesting analogy. The first time I saw Wing Chun forms done, I thought they looked very odd and impractical. In fact, I still feel that way... so much so that I prefer not to demonstrate them outside of class. Karate is far more appealing to the untrained eye.

 

[K-man]

Just to clarify, I have been working on the martial arts for 25 years and yeah of course I don't know everything, but I certainly know enough to see what works and what doesn't. Tai chi is not a fighting art, and people who say that it is are just wannabes. Saying that tai chi is a fighting art at its core is worse than a chunner saying wing chun is too deadly for the cage. Its a cardinal sin

Tai chi is not a fighting art. In some situations the movements can be adapted to form a weak fighting art. I can't get into the videos you've posted but I've probably seen them before (some guy floating around doing big movements to block a small attack)

Like I said, it doesn't make tai chi a bad art (I've done it myself fairly extensively), but what I am trying to say is don't make your art try and fit a criteria just for the sake of it

If someone said to me, you have to get in the cage in 5 months time, I'm not going to start training wing chun. I'll go to a boxing academy and work my *** off

If someone says you are entering a point scoring competition, I'll go and train TKD

If someone says that I have to defend myself in a street scenario I'lll learn wing chun or karate.

I won't do one art and then try to make it fit everything. People like that make me angry. Of course they are passionate about their art and think of it as 'the best', but at the end of the day different arts do different jobs

Traditional MA's have no sport technique? Are you joking? Karate has been doing competitions for hundreds of years. The same with TKD and Judo and many others

A thigh kick is not a street technique. When I do knockdowns (sport tournaments), thigh kicks bounce off and they are only there to weaken your opponent over time
Whereas a kingeri kick would pretty much put me down if a person gets it right

I think you need to look deeper into the history of your arts - you might be surprised

Just to clarify, I have been working on the martial arts for 25 years and yeah of course I don't know everything, but I certainly know enough to see what works and what doesn't.

Perhaps we could start with a description of a technique which does not work.

Traditional MA's have no sport technique? Are you joking? Karate has been doing competitions for hundreds of years. The same with TKD and Judo and many others.

Taekwondo only began in 1955, an amalgamation of the five major martial art academies or Kwans.
Judo was started in 1982 by Jigoro Kano. It really began to develop after 1900 and went down the sports road. Prior to that it did have kicks and strikes.
Karate was introduced into schools and universities in Japan in the 1930s and competitions only became common after WWII, with rules. Prior to that most of the training was done in secret.
Please give me some references where I can see some of these competitions that took place over hundreds of years. I have no doubt that, in ancient times men fought to the death, mainly with weapons, and over centuries they have competed at wrestling, archery, fencing, sabre etc. Undoubtedly men training in the martial arts in China, Okinawa, Korea, Thailand etc would have tested their martial skills against each other but in most cases it would hardly be classified as sport or competition as we understand those terms.

A thigh kick is not a street technique. When I do knockdowns (sport tournaments), thigh kicks bounce off and they are only there to weaken your opponent over time.

A thigh kick is not part of my training. I teach that one about 10 inches lower against a well padded knee (mine). BTW Muay Thai as a sport with rules etc also only began in the 1920's.

Whereas a kingeri kick would pretty much put me down if a person gets it right.

Me too.

Just means you need to keep the groin protected.

I think you need to look deeper into the history of your arts - you might be surprised.

You could be right, my wife reckons I spend more than enough time doing that now. :asian:

 

[KamonGuy2]

It's like learning a Wing Chun form or a Karate kata with no explanation whatsoever of the application or the principles behind it. Your statements undermine your claims of 'extensive' practice. You can call it a cardinal sin or you can take your own advice.

If you truly think a wing chun form or karate kata is practical, we have nothing more to talk about

I have no claims - only fact. People on here know I don't BS. I do what I do, and as I said before I am an okay fighter but still have a lot to learn

However, some things are just obvious, even to beginners. And to claim that tai chi is a fighting art is just wishful thinking

As for Judo starting in 1982.... K-Man I think you have got that slightly wrong dude...

TKD is a contentious subject as five different TKD 'masters' told me 5 different stories about the origins. Some claim it 'officially' started in the 50s, whilst others claim it has existed for centuries Not that I trust wikipedia, but there is a little bit of discussion on it here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taekwondo

I think people get carried away with the idea of sport karate (thinking of it as padding up blah blah blah). Sport karate is merely a term for competitive training. Almost like a harder version of sparring. Most of the techniques used for this are not practical by todays standards
As discussed, training a thigh kick (as was done in the early karate) is not good enough for street defence
Certainly you can lower the kick to take the knee but in the old days this wasn't done
I train karate because it does have realistic technique but people have to move with the times
I've mentioned before that we had two Ip Chun guys come over who ad trained for decades. They basically said very bluntly to many of the enthusiastic people at the seminar that they were putting too much faith in traditional techniques that don't work. Many of these techniques coem from formwork and are only there to build structure, posture and base. They aren't there to teach you how to pull off some fantastic technique, because in forms you are 'fighting against nothing'

 

[CuongNhuka]

If you truly think a wing chun form or karate kata is practical, we have nothing more to talk about

Is that because you disagree, or agree?

 

[blindsage]

If you truly think a wing chun form or karate kata is practical, we have nothing more to talk about

You obviously didn't understand the point.

I have no claims - only fact. People on here know I don't BS. I do what I do, and as I said before I am an okay fighter but still have a lot to learn

So, you're always correct and if anyone disputes any of your statements they must be BSing? You have a lot of 'claims', your facts are relative to your experience, and in this case it's lacking.

However, some things are just obvious, even to beginners. And to claim that tai chi is a fighting art is just wishful thinking

Again, you evidently don't know enough about Tai Chi, do some more research.

I think people get carried away with the idea of sport karate (thinking of it as padding up blah blah blah). Sport karate is merely a term for competitive training. Almost like a harder version of sparring. Most of the techniques used for this are not practical by todays standards
As discussed, training a thigh kick (as was done in the early karate) is not good enough for street defence
Certainly you can lower the kick to take the knee but in the old days this wasn't done
I train karate because it does have realistic technique but people have to move with the times

I concur people do get carried away with the idea of sports karate. Fortunately most karate was not originally done for sport. As for thigh kicks, they weren't done in early karate, they were added when full contact karate fighters started competing against Muay Thai fighters in the late 60's early 70's and discovered it was a powerful technique in competition.

I've mentioned before that we had two Ip Chun guys come over who ad trained for decades. They basically said very bluntly to many of the enthusiastic people at the seminar that they were putting too much faith in traditional techniques that don't work. Many of these techniques coem from formwork and are only there to build structure, posture and base. They aren't there to teach you how to pull off some fantastic technique, because in forms you are 'fighting against nothing'

So what do you train when you do Wing Chun? It's mostly traditional moves in terms of striking, blocking, trapping, chin na, stepping, etc. So, how do remedy that with your ideas of practicality? Are you even doing Wing Chun anymore?

You spout a lot of definitive statements saying 'such and such is fact' as if you're the only person who knows what's real and what's not, but show no humility that there could even be the off chance that you might be able to learn something new. I never believed there was jack **** to Tai Chi until I met someone who actually knew the proper applications of technique and I would have agreed with you before no doubt. I know better now and don't assume that what I believe is 100% fact, but maintain skepticism until I experience proof otherwise. I'm not a big fan of Aikido and don't see a lot of practical use for what I've seen, but at the same time I don't assume that I will never be proven wrong, and remain open to a different experience.

 

[blindsage]

Is that because you disagree, or agree?

I think it's pretty clear he thinks they're useless.

 

[kaizasosei]

Very few things are completely useless. Why should kata be useless? I think that is to strong of a statement. Useless for what? It depends what you are trying to achieve.

j

 

[CuongNhuka]

I think it's pretty clear he thinks they're useless.

Agreed. But, the the foundation of Cuong Nhu, the very bedrock of my style which I love, is based around Kata/Forms. I just want to make sure that he is in fact insulting the very core of Cuong Nhu, before I decide that I hate him.

 

[K-man]

If you truly think a wing chun form or karate kata is practical, we have nothing more to talk about

I have no claims - only fact. People on here know I don't BS. I do what I do, and as I said before I am an okay fighter but still have a lot to learn

However, some things are just obvious, even to beginners. And to claim that tai chi is a fighting art is just wishful thinking

As for Judo starting in 1982.... K-Man I think you have got that slightly wrong dude...

TKD is a contentious subject as five different TKD 'masters' told me 5 different stories about the origins. Some claim it 'officially' started in the 50s, whilst others claim it has existed for centuries Not that I trust wikipedia, but there is a little bit of discussion on it here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taekwondo

I think people get carried away with the idea of sport karate (thinking of it as padding up blah blah blah). Sport karate is merely a term for competitive training. Almost like a harder version of sparring. Most of the techniques used for this are not practical by todays standards
As discussed, training a thigh kick (as was done in the early karate) is not good enough for street defence
Certainly you can lower the kick to take the knee but in the old days this wasn't done
I train karate because it does have realistic technique but people have to move with the times
I've mentioned before that we had two Ip Chun guys come over who ad trained for decades. They basically said very bluntly to many of the enthusiastic people at the seminar that they were putting too much faith in traditional techniques that don't work. Many of these techniques coem from formwork and are only there to build structure, posture and base. They aren't there to teach you how to pull off some fantastic technique, because in forms you are 'fighting against nothing'

If you truly think a wing chun form or karate kata is practical, we have nothing more to talk about

I cannot believe you have been training for 25 years and you don't think kata is practical. I would love you to give an example of a kata that is not practical (from Goju if possible) that we could discuss further.

I have no claims - only fact.

If your fact is simply that karate kata is not practical, then we will have to agree to disagree. I must confess I held similar belief until relatively recent times.

However, some things are just obvious, even to beginners. And to claim that tai chi is a fighting art is just wishful thinking.

This thread basically was Wing Chun vs Aikido. I have no practical experience of Tai Chi however I have an open mind. I think there would be many Tai Chi people who might disagree with you, and I'm not refering to 'Mums in the Park'.

As for Judo starting in 1982.... K-Man I think you have got that slightly wrong dude...

Sorry, my mis-typing and lack of proofing. 1882 would set the record right.

Sport karate is merely a term for competitive training. Almost like a harder version of sparring. Most of the techniques used for this are not practical by todays standards
As discussed, training a thigh kick (as was done in the early karate) is not good enough for street defence
Certainly you can lower the kick to take the knee but in the old days this wasn't done.

I haven't seen any reference to a thigh kick in early karate (modern either for that matter). However sune geri existed from early times. That is not a modern innovation. Kicking does not seem to have been a big part of early karate. For example the Bubishi, regarded as a serious reference by many, only shows one kick and that is the losing technique. I don't believe sport karate IS merely a term for competitive sparring as it is mostly 'point sparring'. Try your point sparring against the MMA guys and your finished.

I've mentioned before that we had two Ip Chun guys come over who ad trained for decades. They basically said very bluntly to many of the enthusiastic people at the seminar that they were putting too much faith in traditional techniques that don't work. Many of these techniques coem from formwork and are only there to build structure, posture and base. They aren't there to teach you how to pull off some fantastic technique, because in forms you are 'fighting against nothing'

I don't practice Wing Chun, however karate is believed to have developed from the Chinese MAs. Our Goju katas were very similar to the Chinese forms. Please point out to me, video if possible, even one of these forms that isn't practical and a couple of traditional techniques that don't work. Karate kata is not, IMO, fighting against nothing. It is rehersing a practical technique against an imaginary target. Please show me a fantastic technique in one of the original kata as I am yet to see one. :asian:

 

[futsaowingchun]

I don't practice Wing Chun, however karate is believed to have developed from the Chinese MAs. Our Goju katas were very similar to the Chinese forms. Please point out to me, video if possible, even one of these forms that isn't practical and a couple of traditional techniques that don't work. Karate kata is not, IMO, fighting against nothing. It is rehersing a practical technique against an imaginary target. Please show me a fantastic technique in one of the original kata as I am yet to see one. :asian:

Wing Chun is very different when it comes to Kata. Kata in Wing Chun is not base on he does this I do that or using imaginary opponent. The Katas are based around theories and concepts.

 

[K-man]

Wing Chun is very different when it comes to Kata. Kata in Wing Chun is not base on he does this I do that or using imaginary opponent. The Katas are based around theories and concepts.

Please forgive my ignorance, I know very little about Wing Chun. I looked on YouTube for some 'forms' and found this clip. It may be totally inappropriate so you might like to comment further.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JD7CQEhvCzU&feature=related
Now, I may be completely wrong, he appears to be performing a number of deflections, strikes and locks or holds. In this example the guy is stationary and mostly uses one hand at a time.

Compare this with an advanced goju kata.

Similar softness and speed but set within a moving framework. To my eye both are working to the same end. If each practitioner understands the meaning of the technique he is performing, he is practising strikes, deflections, holds, etc against the opponent in his mind's eye.

Aikido in my understanding, only has weapon kata such as the 31 Jo kata that I perform in my training.

Same principle applies. You are practising against an imaginary foe.

The problem with karate is, for decades we performed actions, in kata, until they became second nature, without having the faintest clue as to the meaning of the action we were performing. Our teachers, who had very little more idea than us, in those days, gave the most illogical answers to our queries which made us all think that kata was anachronistic. It is really only the last decade that we have begun to understand what we had been taught. :asian:

 

[oxy]

Tai chi is not a fighting art. In some situations the movements can be adapted to form a weak fighting art. I can't get into the videos you've posted but I've probably seen them before (some guy floating around doing big movements to block a small attack)

Actually, those videos don't show that at all.

The Chen Bing videos have a big guy trying to throw a much smaller Chen Bing. They struggle for a 1 or 2 seconds then the big guy is thrown a few metres away.

The Taiji forum also shows a push hands competition where guys are, with little movement, thrown to the ground.

But either way, I think your misunderstanding is that the applications must necessarily resemble how they're taught. It might be the case with Wing Chun, but in internal arts, that's not the point in the first place.

 

[mook jong man]

Wing Chun is very different when it comes to Kata. Kata in Wing Chun is not base on he does this I do that or using imaginary opponent. The Katas are based around theories and concepts.

You are absolutely correct Futsaowingchun , when practicing the forms , the thought of fighting should be the furthest thing from your mind.
You should be trying to cultivate energy flow , relaxation , correct structure , precision of movement and projection of force to your centreline.

As you point out each of the three forms indeed have their own concepts and theories and when these functions of the different forms are merged together along with practice of the wooden dummy then it is thought that what results will be a very efficient way of attack and defence.

 

[CuongNhuka]

Wing Chun Forms are about ingraining principles in the students mind about how to move at varying levels of experience. Sui Nim Tao is mostly about immovable elbow and maintaining center line (there are more, but this is all I can think of), and so on up to the weapons. However, Karate Kata are about this also. The Shotokan equivent to Sui Nim Tao is Taekyoku, which is a set of different katas. Again, those katas are mostly about ingraining principles and basic posture training. Even the name shows that they have a similar intent. Sui Nim Tao means 'little idea', a refernce to the fact that you are getting small parts of the form (or, little ideas of it). Taekyoku is 'first challenge' (I think), again, your first challenge is basic posture, etc.

However, this is not to say that those katas are impratical. There is a move in Sui Nim Tao were you place both your hands on your lower back, and push down and slightly back. This movement is a defense a rear bear hug. In Taekyoku Shodan (the first of the set) the first move is to step forward into a lunge-like stance, use a low block. If you add the load (left hand at your ear, right hand in a low level punch), the movement becomes it's own technique. Moving to the load becomes a deflection, the load is a guarded position, and then you step forward (invading your opponents space), then as you bring your lower hand (the right) back to your hips you grab your opponents sleave, and use the actual blocking moving to sweep your opponent over your leg. By the way, that sweep is an Aikido Technique called 'over the neck takedown'

When doing Forms (no matter the style) you should not be thinking about fighting, doing Kata and nothing else will not make you a fighter in any regard. However, when you are at home, or waiting for class to begin, you should be sitting off to the side thinking "mmm.... why do we do this technique/combination of techniques?" If you do, you will notice that you have a more complete style then you thought you did, or that the style you train in teaches defenses to things you hadn't expected. To train kata and not think about applications is like having a class, with no water.

The problem with karate is, for decades we performed actions, in kata, until they became second nature, without having the faintest clue as to the meaning of the action we were performing. Our teachers, who had very little more idea than us, in those days, gave the most illogical answers to our queries which made us all think that kata was anachronistic. It is really only the last decade that we have begun to understand what we had been taught. :asian:

I think that depends on your Sensei. In most Asian Cultures, it is expected that the student will figure out the intent of the kata on there own, so a Western Trained Sensei probably wouldn't know too much about applications, unless he was lucky or clever. Or, if you had an Eastern Trained Sensei, he might expect you to figure out applications on your own. However, Cuong Nhu is based around Kata (we teach 17 before Black Belt, along with various other training). Our Founder (Late O'Sensei Ngo Dong) believed that Kata is the foundation of Martial Arts, therefor, everyone in Cuong Nhu who has been in for more then a year has to come up with applications to there forms.

 

[KamonGuy2]

Oh dear lord.....

For the record, karate kata and forms are NOT useless
They help build structure and positioning as well as many other things within your training. The point was that you aren't going to go up to someone and fight them the same way that you do the kata
Yes you will take elements of such training into a real fight, but you aren't going to do a jodan uki the same way that you do in the kata for example
If you do you will fail. Truly

A great example of all this is one of my favourite MMA guys Neil Stone
He took karate into the cage and blew everyone away

He talks very specifically of the difference between sport karate and traditional karate

Blindsage - I was never saying that 'I am right and everyone else is wrong'. But there are some certainties in the martial arts world
It is like me arguing that boxers don't use kicks and then someone videotaping a boxer kicking and claiming that I'm wrong. Everyone knows that boxers don't use kicking in their training, yet one or two individuals 'trying to kick' doesn't mean that boxers can kick

Similarly, claiming that tai chi is a fighting art is ridiculous. Just because one or two practitioners have filmed themselves trying to look like fighters does not mean that the art is a combat art
Tai chi is a good art. It has its uses. There are many hobbies in this world that assist with your martial arts training without being martial arts themselves - pilates, yoga and qi gong for example, and tai chi is a little more advanced in these. Yet they serve the body in different ways, developing either breath, core muscles or flexibility
Tai chi is an art that serves to train the body in certain structures. It does not involve smashing pads or sparring or conditioning which are fundamental for ANY art to do in order to be taken seriously as a combat art. Sure, if you get someone who has done tai chi for say 20 years, they will show you some amazing feats. But if you put them up against say a cage fighter, do you truly believe they stand any chance?


Blindsage -"So what do you train when you do Wing Chun? It's mostly traditional moves in terms of striking, blocking, trapping, chin na, stepping, etc. So, how do remedy that with your ideas of practicality? Are you even doing Wing Chun anymore?"
Kamon is very good at doing traditional wing chun, but once we have dug in the core concepts, we only revisit them for training purposes (ie we don't fight people using a bil ma stance etc). Rigid positions and footwork is exactly what hinders many good wing chun schools because they are fixated on the idea of making wing chun look like wing chun
One of my favourite chun stories is of a Dutch wing chun master who had trained traditional wing chun for 30 years. A mugger attacked him by throwing a punch. Do you know what the first thing he did was after 30 years of traditional wing chun? He ducked.
It wasn't the wrong thing to do, but the point is that sometimes you have to use other things as well as your chun. A single punch can sometimes end fights instead of twenty complicated wing chun techniques done just for traditions sake


Blindsage - "You spout a lot of definitive statements saying 'such and such is fact' as if you're the only person who knows what's real and what's not, but show no humility that there could even be the off chance that you might be able to learn something new. I never believed there was jack **** to Tai Chi until I met someone who actually knew the proper applications of technique and I would have agreed with you before no doubt. I know better now and don't assume that what I believe is 100% fact, but maintain skepticism until I experience proof otherwise. I'm not a big fan of Aikido and don't see a lot of practical use for what I've seen, but at the same time I don't assume that I will never be proven wrong, and remain open to a different experience. "
And I have never said this either. I am always open to being proved wrong. Unlike some people on here who insist that they will never get taken to the floor, I know that there are always things I won't have seen (its a big world out there), but when people 'stretch' an art just to make it fit every criteria, its sad. Wing chun has very poor groundwork. Again, people try to make wing chun work on the floor and it is another case of people trying to stretch an art just so that wing chun doesn't lose face
Use your art for what it is strongest at. If you see a hole, plug it, with whatever works. If a boat is sinking, you dont try and plug the hole with exactly the same material the boat is made out of. You plug the hole with whatever fits!

Anyway, I think people are getting too fired up on here (including me) for silly reasons. No art is crap. but arts can be crap at certain things. Wing chun is crap in the cage. Who cares? It works for what I want it for (street defence). People shouldn't worry if their art doesn't fit a certain criteria

 

[oxy]

Similarly, claiming that tai chi is a fighting art is ridiculous. Just because one or two practitioners have filmed themselves trying to look like fighters does not mean that the art is a combat art
Tai chi is a good art. It has its uses. There are many hobbies in this world that assist with your martial arts training without being martial arts themselves - pilates, yoga and qi gong for example, and tai chi is a little more advanced in these. Yet they serve the body in different ways, developing either breath, core muscles or flexibility
Tai chi is an art that serves to train the body in certain structures. It does not involve smashing pads or sparring or conditioning which are fundamental for ANY art to do in order to be taken seriously as a combat art. Sure, if you get someone who has done tai chi for say 20 years, they will show you some amazing feats. But if you put them up against say a cage fighter, do you truly believe they stand any chance?

Those Chen Bing videos and the push hands competition videos that Formosa Neijia posted in the Taiji forum show lots of grappling and throws much like you see in a real fight.

You claim not to BS but to use facts, but you certainly don't seem to want to take in new (or in the case of the videos, existing) evidence... You seem to base your opinion on Taiji based on a few demonstration videos (as evidenced by your dismissal of the Chen Bing videos without looking at them). Sorry, but that does not count as "facts", they way you go about it, and it's dishonest to portray yourself otherwise.

 

[K-man]

For the record, karate kata and forms are NOT useless. They help build structure and positioning as well as many other things within your training. The point was that you aren't going to go up to someone and fight them the same way that you do the kata.
Yes you will take elements of such training into a real fight, but you aren't going to do a jodan uki the same way that you do in the kata for example
If you do you will fail. Truly

I'm not a big fan of Aikido and don't see a lot of practical use for what I've seen, but at the same time I don't assume that I will never be proven wrong, and remain open to a different experience. "

The point was that you aren't going to go up to someone and fight them the same way that you do the kata.

I think this is the major problem. A lot of people see kata as a total entity rather than a combination of many parts, each part capable of being used in several different ways. Some of those parts can be linked to another depending on the situation you find yourself in but in the main each part is an application in its own right. We were taught turns with an explanation that was totally implausible. We now know that the application is a throw or takedown.

you aren't going to do a jodan uki the same way that you do in the kata

Jodan Uke is an excellent example of what I am trying to say. I think many people would agree that as it is shown it is a technique that would have few applications. We were taught that jodan uke was a block. Almost since day one we all said it was something that you would never use in a fight. Jodan uke was always taught as a two arm movement but the use of the other hand was never explained. The first arm or hand may deflect, but not stop, an attack. I believe the second arm which performs the Jodan 'block' is a forearm strike and although it may not be used in the same position as depicted in the kata, depending on the opponent's position can be delivered to the side of neck, into a muscle on the arm or any other available target. So I agree totally with you when you said "you aren't going to do a jodan uke the same way that you do in the kata" but given the opportunity in an altercation Jodan Uke is a gross motor skill, better described, in my thinking, as Jodan Ude Ate, which you could use in an adrenaline dump scenario.

I'm not a big fan of Aikido and don't see a lot of practical use for what I've seen, but at the same time I don't assume that I will never be proven wrong, and remain open to a different experience.

With almost all aikido I have seen and aikidoka I have trained with I agree. The techniques seem unduly complicated and they mostly fail when tested with resistance. The aikido I train is conducted almost entirely against a non-compliant partner. What I have found is that aikido then becomes like karate, boxing, wrestling, ju-jutsu or any other art. You don't necessarily use a pre-meditated action to a particular attack, but you take advantage of any opening or weakness, to apply whatever technique comes to hand, be it strike, kick, takedown, throw or lock. The beauty of aikido, and by the same reasoning Ju-jutsu, is that many of the grappling techniques are openly on display in all our goju kata, just not recognised or taught (by most schools). Thus, I have found a new relevance to the kata and with that understanding I now have a fundamental difference of opinion with those who don't regard kata as practical. :asian:

 

[KamonGuy2]

Those Chen Bing videos and the push hands competition videos that Formosa Neijia posted in the Taiji forum show lots of grappling and throws much like you see in a real fight.

You claim not to BS but to use facts, but you certainly don't seem to want to take in new (or in the case of the videos, existing) evidence... You seem to base your opinion on Taiji based on a few demonstration videos (as evidenced by your dismissal of the Chen Bing videos without looking at them). Sorry, but that does not count as "facts", they way you go about it, and it's dishonest to portray yourself otherwise.

I did actually meant that I had trained tai chi extensively for several years, starting when I was at school in the 80s and 90s

The point is that I haven't doen one type of tai chi and watched a couple of demo vids, I have been out there, talking to masters, training the styles

If I haven't done an art or trained only a few years in it, then I will never make comments
I speak from fact and personal experience. Vids never show the true nature of things, especially in this day and age of photoshopping and video editing

I have seen Chen Bing stuff before and only validated my argument. Certainly it is one of the closest that tai chi gets to combat, but compared to other martial arts it still is unrealistic in its 'applicable' applications

Sorry if that offends, but that is my two cents

As for evidence, people have been claiming that they can work wing chun on the floor for years without a single shred of 'evidence' yet are given a lot of back up on here

 

[CuongNhuka]

I like that he ignored me. I did prove him wrong, what, 3 times.