I've just started doing tai chi and was wondering do the tai chi practitioners out there just do it solely on its own or do you try and use it while doing other arts?
I might be able to incorporate it, as I notice a lot of similarity between some of the Tai Chi moves and Budo Taijutsu techniques. Sometimes, when our teacher is demonstrating martial applications (not slowed up), I could swear he's doing Budo Taijutsu. Of course, that could just be my inexperience talking.
I feel the body movement and power genreation of TJQ is easyily intergrated into most forms of fighting.If you use it as your base format for movement.Sensivtivity drills have helped me alot when practiseing wrestling or grappling. Most importantly the Qigong gives me focus/ attention/relaxation that I can apply to lots of things in my life.
I don't have any formal ma training apart from tai chi and ba gua so it's not a question of if I incorporate it into anything else. But I find it's not only helped me with my confidence and fitness, but also relaxation and peace of mind. Also, it is a point of entry for many of us typical westerners to understanding the concepts behind chinese philosophy, medicine, culture and history. If you don't research all these as well as the martial art, I feel you can only reach a certain level in the internal arts (can't understand qi flows without knowing the basics of acupuncture, can't understand balance of body force without knowing principles of yin/yang, which leads to the ba gua (and feng shui!) trigrams, then the I Ching hexagrams). As it's basically a science of body mechanics, you can use many of the principles in other arts, although some of the principles don't fit well (or at all) with an external style. You can incorporate some of the ideas (like rooting, yielding and whole body force) in your general training but other ideas oppose each other (like internal power/muscle power, direct/peripheral concentration or sticking/'range' fighting) and you will need to choose to focus more on one or the other at some point. If you are fighting and want to choose whether to use a technique with an 'internal' or 'external' focus, that is forgetting one of the fundamental rules of internal art, of 'wu wei' ("no effort"). Internal arts are supposed to be form-less - one of the main distinctions is it comes from the subconscious and there are no strict 'techniques' that an opponent can learn to counter. You need to choose which principles (external or internal) you are most comfortable with and make these your unconscious style. If you don't, you won't reach the 'no form/no technique' stage of the art where fighting is instinctual instead of a long repertoire of "moves".
so do you think the use of the internal arts can become instinctivly mingled with the external arts after a time then so that you don't know you are using them but you actually are extracting the principles into some of your techniques.
so do you think the use of the internal arts can become instinctivly mingled with the external arts after a time then so that you don't know you are using them but you actually are extracting the principles into some of your techniques. ----------------------------------------------------------------- that's one way of putting it... to me, the differentiation as Internal n External is unnecessary...they are part of the whole... -TkdWarrior-
I have to agree with TKDWarrior,I think the terminology of External and Internal has been vastly misunderstood and inappropriatly interpreted into a very simplistic division.Most styles of GungFu have a Nei Jia component.Most GF stylest will learn styles that are defined as external and internal.The definitions are mainly influenced by published writings rather then experience. The goal of spontanous reaction is common for all styles.So that many would argue that once the individual has reached a level to incoporate principles(flow)they have in a sense moved on from there teachers style and into there own expression of power and body dynamics. This is how more then one mainlander(one was Taiwanese) expressed Nei Jin, Internal expression,to me.Quite regularly,westerners seem to interpete chinese words in the most mystical way possible,often without the original context.
There's a guy in my class who has done full contact karate for years but is now into tai chi. His form is very 'external' but he has gained a lot of power and coordination from the tai chi. However, when I push hands or san sao with him, his body can't understand the concept of yielding and flow - he has a lot of trouble letting go of old habits and, e.g. letting someone get within his guard, not thinking about what 'moves' he will do and just reacting, etc. Everyone has their own level and no-one will be completely external or internal, but these words are only descriptions of types of movement. Take a punch (I know I always talk about it, Kat, but it's one of the easiest ways to describe the differences between the two). An external, karate-style punch can't get it's power without the use of the arm (and shoulder) muscles. Internal training can increase that power by teaching the use of the hips and legs in the action. But a full internal strike can't have a great effect if you use your arm muscles, as the force comes from the whipping action and the looseness in the arm. Or what about the torsion/spiralling of ba gua compared to the centrifugal power of tkd? I'm not saying one is better than the other, it's just that although they are similar, the movement techniques differ a lot and at some point you need to make a choice about what you're more comfortable with. Like I said, as with everything the best thing to do is to try to incorporate everything and see what works. Sometimes you will have to make a choice about whether to throw something away that doesn't fit your style, depending on your own body size/strength, fitness, speed, agility etc. The bottom line is it's always useful to look around, cross-train and experiment to create your own blend but if you want to have it all you're bound to fail.
Nzric My post mainly refers to the difficulity of culture clash in lingustic areas. But I am going to comment on your well troden defininations of External vs Internal.(yeah this is a "Thing" for me)Generally I find people use these labels to promote difference rather then see the simularities and overlaps.This is not to have a go at you,just that I have found more simularites in sincere practioners of MA then they are differences.Within China the 3 big Northern Internal MA(TJQ BGZ XYQ) are only the tip of whats out there. Karate Punchs :while I have never taken any form of Karate,and I understand what you want to say(re:tension) but I feel you are not giving Karate the justice it deserves. Your definition of an Internal Punch could easily apply to most punches found within Boxing. Comment such as, arm muscle shouldn't be used....,don't make much Physiological sense. TKD:is larglely Linear,I am guessing you are interperting turning kicks and back kicks as Centrifical Power Generation.(this is another arguement in its own right)but(as you say) in no way has simularites to PG of BGZ. Agreed,its about fomulating Body dynamics that you are comfortable with.(suit your structure,mindset etc) Agreed noone is ethier one or the other(in fact I think they have to co exist) Agreed what you propose is external is out there but I don't feel it is the true representation of those arts,I think its often a reflection of instuctors own personalities. In a Big Ball I find most MA have : full body connected PG : Body control excerises/drills : overall goal of spontaneous reaction to incoming stimulas : cultural components : probally some sort of comp format(modern day) And yeah I am in the minority among "internalists." Hope that makes Sense.
i'll say TKD don't hav much coiling like ba gua but it's not linear art those who hav learnt their styles as External, they made the differentiation themselves... like for ur example as Kareteka's/TKdka's, their punch might be really ppowerfull but they mostly use forarm in their punches but Tkd gets most of it's power from rooting(u cna found that in Sine Wave, one concept widely misunderstood) anyways we r just taking this thread away from it's goal... as always said "cross training doesn't hurt much " -TkdWarrior-
TKD Warrior I am not sure that many Karate people could agree with this idea that all there power comes from the forearm.Considering the diversity of styles,and the evidence that very few arts utilize one part of the body for PG,I think that you are generalizing to a large degree. TKD :the arguement about Centrifigal PG goes like this :if you think hip twist/turning kicks spinning kicks = CPG then thats probally the term you would use : CPG seen in the format of coiling/ spirling /compression and torsion of the body expressed in movement. which= :Circular movement towards targets(often understood to mean spinning in circles??) focus on sutle angles of attack and defense. This I think is again interpretational as to your experiences and instructors. Personal Experience : ITF TKD when a kid(yeah I know crap,but it got me flexible,1st kup)all attacks and stategies where linear,straight forward straight back,sure we could jump to the side,but this wasn't emphasisized.Rooting was there (but as I said PG from the ground is in a llot of MA)but once in a comp every one jumped aound like on speed.I was never shown subtle angels etc.This is ofcause just what I experienced not in any way a description of TKD world wide.
Well, the arm muscle is always used at least just to guide the hand, but in a fajing punch it is just the end of the 'whip', as it were, there's more to it than just a loose boxing punch. I'm comparing that to the typical standing punch that karate is known for (as an example). I know a lot of arts also use hip rotation and looseness in their punching so you can't say anything is completely external or internal, the thing is that the movements are completely different at each end of the scale. I always like a good debate, it would be boring if everyone totally agreed with each other, but I know we're getting off the main topic. Back to the original discussion, I think that it's possible to use tai chi on it's own, and I've found that since I don't come from a 'hard' martial art background, I don't have to unlearn old habits like a solid stance, tense attitude or forceful blocking (like I've seen in some of my training partners). I think tai chi/BGZ with as little external element as possible has a lot going for it, as you get the full benefit of the coiling/yielding/sticking of the art. It's a good idea to learn the foundation principles of tai chi and you can use them in any MA - things like heightening peripheral vision, using angles and spirals instead of direct attacks, and rooting to deliver force, but many methods in the internal arts (like compression/twisting, 'sticking' sensitivity, fa-jing release of power, yielding and flowing through an attack) don't mix well with typical hard MA techniques. It's a balance. Bottom line is try everything, if it works you shouldn't worry about naming exactly what it is.
I am thinking I have 2 main points One is linguistic:Fajin is not a type of punch unique to TJQ.The word itself simply means to use an explosive power method. I understand that you may be taught that it refers to a particular tech that is utilizing a relaxed whipping motion.This is also not unique to IMA (if not MA). In fact I think you could find many a boxer who could demostrate "fajin"without any knowledge of a TJQ system.I think you would find his movement totally within your princples for PG. "there's more to it then just a loose boxing Punch" And there's more to a loose boxing Punch then you think.By being so dismissive indicates that you think this is an inferior tech. which is my second point,being a finite no. of ways to move the body it is highly likely that many MA overlap in many areas.By highlighting generalized differences rather then understanding simularites,individuals encourage the age old climate of "my style is better then Yours", an attitude which I feel has no relevence in training of any style. Always here to simulate debate
Well you have to make distinctions in order to explain what you're talking about. It doesn't mean I think any one is better than the other. Like I said, when you're practicing movements and learning the techniques of the arts, it's better to focus on the textbook descriptions because then you will learn which muscles to use and the kind of power generation that the teacher wants you to discover. Once you can confidently show you know these you can make it your own, adapt it and blend things together but there's no use trying to run before you can walk. It know it's a huge generalisation, but for the sake of elaboration... many so-called 'external' schools start with the simple, isolating muscles way of punching (punching is just an easy, clear idea to talk about so I keep going back to it). That's the usual dojo system that most of us had when we were kids, standing and doing ki-ai's in a horse-riding stance. Many internal schools start instead with showing the student about power generation through whole-body coordination, like the beginner's long, simple steps and wide arm movements. After a while, students from both styles will learn more and after a while their style may start to look similar, the only difference is one starts from A, one starts from Z and they meet up in the middle. There's benefits with any art, but it is important to take the time and learn what the system is trying to show you. If you learn tai chi (or karate, or any art for that matter) for six months then move on to integrate what you've learned once you think you've 'got it', you're missing out on a rich source of systems for the future.
Can you mix oil with water? I had once pondered mixing arts and soon came to realize that one learn't well was enough. My bottom line is I don't have enough lifetime left as it is to really master Taijiquan and Qigong (Do you ever?) so why would I want to waste anymore time training in anything else? (Rhetorical) Besides which, I can't see what else besides Fajinquan I'd ever need; thats me though. Erle does not recommend mixing Internal arts with External and infact suggests Bagua as the only other art that fits well with Taiji. Erle does not consider things like Wing Chun as internal and infact nor does he see Chen Style as Taiji either. This is controversial as usual but he see's Chen style as a Northern long fist. I would agree with his analysis, and decided only to train in Taiji. By the way, the assertian that Chen isn't Taiji isn't mean't as an insult but rather to differentiate between the art of Yang Luchan as he defined it and what remained as the style within the Chen Village and those who practise it's various forms today. Yang Luchan was the only one known for his rag doll like soft boxing or Hao Chuan and it was his development mixed with the initial 13 Wudan forms and 12 Qi disruptives, fajin and dim mak striking that defines Yang Taijiquan... (not to be confused with the watered down short forms of Cheng Fu's 3rd variation and Cheng Man Ching proponents which are diseminated as the relaxation and health dance of the late 20th and early 21st centuries.) There comes a point when each person must decide for themselves whether they need more than one art. I would suggest that if you do, then either your art is not serving you well or you are not training in your art well enough to feel confident sticking with it. Some people collect styles like they might collect stamps and the question remains; why should they? Best, Syd
I've Muay Thai for ages and since the beginning of this year, have started Taiji. Because of my external foundation, I find it difficult to keep my shoulders down (I've been warned that it may do myself injury during my fajin), loose phoenix punches, to sink into my tan-tien, becoming sung, etc. etc. etc. The list goes on and on. However, having the MT training has also been highly helpful. I can pick up moves far quicker than any of the other students. My body is used to being hit - so I don't instinctive flinch when being hit. Cos of my pain threshold is higher - so I can hold static poses for longer, etc. etc. The best thing - I can ask questions from a MT perspective that make the teachers think! The two styles certainly are very different - in many ways MT has hindered my progression through TJQ - however, in many ways it has also helped. Ultimately when you reach the pinnacle of MT, it also becomes very loose - similar in nature to TJQ. The one major difference between TJQ and all the external styles I've researched/practised so far - centripetal force. Almost all external styles, use centrifugal force (rotational body movement - eg. from the hips, shoulders, legs) to generate extra power into the strike. TJQ also uses centripetal power - rotational power away from the strike to generate extra power from close ranges. This is one of the fundamental differences between TJQ (and internal MAs?) versuses external arts. This is totally unnatural however very effective. I'm glad I do MT and will be returning to it any day now
As I said it is totally up to each individual to decide what they need and what they require but as stated before, I have spoken to my teachers at length about this and there are very good reasons not to mix styles; particularly with Taijiquan. Allot of this has to do with learning the unique patterns of body movement in Taiji which are totally different to other styles... bad habits creep in. Having previously learned another style is no bad thing and ofcourse having done any MA will assist you when arriving in a new style but once having arrived within Taiji it is recommended to dedicate the body to learning it 's movement until it becomes subconcious to move *only* in a Taiji fashion. This again all depends how far you want to go long term with your Taiji. Essentially you want your body to become Taiji automatically if a situation arises, it has to be totally instinctive. If there is muscle memory of another style and the body isn't totally used to moving the right way your Taiji won't be as instinctive or as effective. With regards to MT and Taiji being similar when being loose? I don't think you'd find a single instructor within the WTBA or even Erle himself who would agree with that. The looseness of Taijiquan with regards to opening the joints, being sung, lowering the yang energies and using internal power is an entirely different kind of looseness to the concept of MT as an external MA being loose. You can say a straight boxer is loose but he's not loose in the Taijiquan sense of the word. When you say that MT has helped you because you are used to getting hit and have a higher pain threshold, thats an interesting way of looking at things, though I think at the end of the day if you are learning what Erle teaches then you would know that you shouldn't be hit if your doing it right. What Erle teaches is to hit them before they ever get a chance to lay a finger on you... overkill. However there is nothing wrong with conditioning and infact we do this naturally when training in Taiji particularly when using Small and Large San Sau, Long Har Chuan and power push hands etc. Each individual must decide what works for them. I've made an informed choice which has taken into account the wisdom of my teachers.
You're correct they are not exactly the same. The power generated by a boxer is external. However, because top-flight boxers' has low centre of weight, the relaxed almost nonchalant posture, movement of the hips - I find at a pinnacle level the movements are similar. This is probably the reason why I was able to pick the fajin movement quickly, and some of the senior students are still struggling with it. Oh, btw, the observation that the styles are similar is originally an observation my instructor made. It's something I've researched and now agree with. We haven't done any full contact sparring. Occasionally my instructor has shown a particular move - he can follow his move through without fear of hurting me (much). He has to treat some of the other students with kid gloves, because they've been boxed on the ear or the accidently, and it's hurt/stunned them. Yup. Everyone's taiji is different. Both my instructors were taught by Paul Breecher, who learnt the style directly from Erle. Yet both instructors have completely different taiji styles - and this is highly evident in their form and their way of teaching.
G'day Zun, It's an interesting discussion so I'll respond in like kind. I must insist again and this time emphasize that not only are they "not exactly the same", but they might as well be on different planets they are so not the same. With all due respect I know who Paul Brecher is though I don't know his students who have intructed you, but at the end of the day if they think that MT is like Taiji then thats down to a personal interprutation, but I maintain that Erle would disagree vehemently with this and so would my instructor Keith Brown. Neither Erle or Keith see Wing Chun as an internal art that has similarities with Yang Taiji and nor do they see Chen Style as a Taiji but rather a kind of Long Fist. Both Chen and Wing Chun would be closer to Taiji than MT so this illustrates yet again just how not like Taiji MT is. I have seen MT and had a friend who was heavily into competition full contact and I couldn't think of anything further removed from Taiji than MT actually. Fajin is an internal event not an external event, if one is doing it based on external catalysts then it is not Taiji Fajin but still a physical external movement... the movement must come from the centre. Boxing, MT and any number of external styles including some styles which claim to be internal still move from muscle and not from the centre or from the dan tien. This takes years to internalize and perfect, though many people are very good at external Fajin, but still this is not Taiji. Taiji isn't something you do but rather something you constantly try to become. I am not meaning to preach to the converted here but I think the differences are chasm-like, and ought to be correctly laid out and discussed. I respect that people have different opinions and without perhaps knowing the full context of the discussion in which those comments were made I would reserve judgement. I would say again that if they took those thoughts to Erle though, they might reconsider this view. However if thats what they think and they see things from that angle then so be it. I'm just saying that I know what Erle thinks and I personally agree with the assessment. Well in the end everyones Taiji becomes their own, I can't disagree with that. But as to whether it is actually Taiji or not as Yang Lu Chan would define it is a whole other story. I am personally trying to shoot for as authentic a Taijiquan (Old Yang Style) as I can, and in that sense I see a very clear path which defines it. [/QUOTE]Both my instructors were taught by Paul Breecher, who learnt the style directly from Erle. Yet both instructors have completely different taiji styles - and this is highly evident in their form and their way of teaching. [/QUOTE] This happened within the Yang family also and you had different branches of the family sticking to Yang Lu Chans style of Taijiquan while others softened the style like Yang Cheng Fu. Interpretation is always going to be a key factor in anything and perceptions and perspectives will drive a persons style and contribute to making it individual. I stick with Erle's system very closely because I clearly see a line back to Yang Lu Chan there. With regard to the teachings and the content It's very much like a system of thought and a Martial attitude and I guess I have a particular attitude because the path I travel shows me the clear way to my destination. At the end of the day I don't see anything similar to Yang Style Taiji, apart from Bagua. Best, Syd
