Looking at some of the previous threads I noticed a brief discussion concerning the benefits of training in other martial arts alongside Tai Chi. Looking at it from the opposing viewpoint, is this an indication that there is something missing in (your) Tai Chi that the other arts can provide? When asking a practitioner of a particular art whether he did any others (this was when MMA was taking off) he said there was an old Chinese saying about it being useless having a hundred knives if they were all blunt. Does anyone study Tai-Chi by itself and feel it provides all their requirements? I would generally assume that this would be health and a complete self-defence system, but perhaps views on this vary. (I would assume that solely training in Tai Chi could include training with people from other disciplines, but not actively pursuing their syllabus.)
Hi Kurt I train in traditional aikido and have cross trained in other arts. My main reason was not to learn the other arts but to understand my core art from a different perspective.I also found that they showed interest in aikido principles. In the end the principles are the same.What I mean is it allowed me to "study" my own art see my (not it's) weekenesses and work on them. Basically I feel that your chosen art must be your main and constant drive but SOME cross training is of value.This works for me. Then again there is the saying that the fox has a hundred tricks and the porquipine ONE GOOD ONE regards koyo
But but but, if you only have one knifes and its still blunt you really have a problem. To continue your analogy, I feel that most people training in tai chi aren’t sharpening there knife, they are just grinding them away and making them shorter.
My first Bagua teacher also taught Taiji and said it was all the same thing. I've done training in other styles that has helped me to understand Taiji better martially, but ultimately I absorb everything into my Taiji methodology. I don't think this means the Taiji is adulterated - just deepened, if you know what I mean. It has been hard to find Taiji teachers who put much emphasis on the martial aspect. I think Adam Hsu recently described Taijiquan as "underdeveloped" martially speaking. Whether this is true, or whether some of the combat knowledge has been lost, I think we need to be prepared to work a bit harder to make it work, as so much of the orthodox training is not geared towards developing good combative skills. Sometimes people say "Taiji is more about grappling" or "more about yielding and sensitivity" but I think the Taiji symbol and the original purpose of the art is big enough to encompass the whole spectrum of combat methods. This is probably most apparent when you watch a Chen stylist like George Xu. There are quite a lot of brutal striking methods in his work.
Objective isn't it. Depends what you want from your Tai Chi. If you want to cripple the next teenage hoodlum that attacks you then tai chi is plenty. I do Judo because I love judo. I do bjj because I love bjj. I do boxing/kick boxing because I love them. I train in an MMA class because I love training in an MMA class. I do Tai Chi because I love Tai Chi. I get something from all of them. For me, does Tai Chi provide everything? No it doesn't. For other people does it provide everything? Yes, and more. I suspect that if I live to my 70's, I will still be doing Tai Chi. Not sure about the others though.
analogies eh? gotta luv em personally I reckon if you know about knives you can pick up any one, even a blunt one and do someone an injury with it... ie a good MAist can make any art work for them and a bad one can learn one or a thousand styles and still be a loser. :yeleyes:
If by "work" you mean fight, and if by "MAist" you mean fighter, then a fighter who can make any MA work for him, no matter how bad would be a good fighter with no MA involved anyway. If you mean by "work" have a nice looking form and a social evening, then yes, you are correct. In the end there is only the MAist and the training. Over and above style, training is just training. You have good training and bad training, bad training will not sharpen your knife.
Taiji Butterfly analogies eh? gotta luv em personally I reckon if you know about knives you can pick up any one, even a blunt one and do someone an injury with it... Analogies are like scissors. Some people really shouldn't be allowed to run with them.
Who needs a blade when you got a pen and a small log http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/6301575.stm My favourite bit:
Did you ever consider that some people train Tai Chi, because there is something missing in the other arts or to suppliment their art. For example Master Kanazawa Kancho of Shotokan Karate International Federation (highest master in SKIF) has studied Tai Chi for a fair length of time says it suppliments his karate beautifully.
Very sharp. I use my katana to swathe through the ten thousand things and return to the sauce that is stillness. *similieface* But yea, I'm really enjoying JSA at the mo, amongst other things.
OK. But I though it might be rude to post constructive comments regarding the defficiencies of martial arts that I haven't studied.
Maybe if you call them percieved deficiencies and are genuinely constructive and interested, otheres won't find it rude but actualy interesting, and it won't become an argument.
I've met a lot of different martial artists who consider Tai Chi to be a very good supplemental art. As this includes people from Karate (primarily striking) and Judo (primarily grappling), I find it very hard to evaluate what they would both consider Tai Chi provides that their own systems do not. (This doesn't include those seeking a more spiritual side to fighting arts). I think there should be a concern that an art that wishes to present itself as complete, is often treated as a warm down exercise for "proper" martial arts.
